Jesse Choper

Cowboy Neil: How western is Gorsuch and does it matter?

Jesse Choper quoted by California Magazine, March 30, 2017

“The court is by no means representative of the country,” says Berkeley Law’s Jesse Choper, “not geographically, not religiously, not educationally. The fact is that every one of them was from either Harvard or Yale. It used to be more diverse [in that sense], and it used to be that where you were from mattered. I think it still does, but I think where they were educated matters more.”

UC Berkeley School of Law professors hold panel on Trump’s U.S. Supreme Court nominee

John Yoo, Jesse Choper and Dan Farber quoted by The Daily Californian, Feb. 8. 2017

Yoo said Gorsuch’s past stances on religious liberty, such as in the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. case in 2014, are most likely the reason he was considered for the nomination.

“Yes, (Gorsuch) is qualified, perhaps better than any other nomination (Trump) has made to cabinet seats,” Choper said.

Gorsuch is someone who is open-minded and does not have a knee-jerk response, Farber said. He added he believes Gorsuch’s past opinions on the 10th Circuit have had a more “humane” tone than Scalia’s.

Do Milo’s intentions matter?

Jesse Choper quoted by California Magazine, Feb. 7, 2017

“I think they did what they could,” Choper said of administrators. “They let Yiannopoulos speak, because they had no real legal justification for stopping the event. They allowed the demonstrators to demonstrate, and dealt with the black bloc when they started destroying property. I don’t come down on the side of the university all the time, but I think they did the right thing in this case. They balanced values and costs.”

Milo’s college tour and the First Amendment: An explainer

Ian Haney López, Jesse Choper, Daniel Farber, and Robert Cole quoted by California Magazine, Jan. 26, 2017

López: “When universities invite someone to speak, they communicate that that person’s ideas are within the broad range of important public [discourse],” Haney-Lopez states. “Disinviting someone from speaking likewise communicates something—in this case, that the universities have come to realize that this speaker intentionally degrades people to draw attention, while offering little of any real intellectual substance. His poisonous invective is being drowned out by more and louder speech affirming humane values and inclusion. That’s precisely the ideal of free speech in action.”

Choper: “On the one hand, you have to have a content-neutral basis for [any] regulation [that might impinge on free speech],” says Jesse Choper, a professor emeritus at Berkeley Law, “and on the other, your assessment must be based on the perceived danger of such speech. So in a way, you’re forbidden to make a judgment, and you’re also required to make a judgment.”

Farber: “The Supreme Court has emphasized that the First Amendment is intended to protect ‘uninhibited, robust, and wide-open,’ public debate,” Farber stated in an email, “so in terms of general principles, it seems to me that universities should be very hesitant to exclude a speaker or viewpoint simply because it is offensive or disruptive.”

Cole: In the case of Cal, says Cole, “Berkeley College Republicans is a university-sanctioned organization, and if, as it seems, it issued an invitation and arranged an engagement in accordance with university rules, then the university must allow the event. The university’s role is to remain a neutral marketplace. It can’t cancel a speaking event simply because a speaker is considered controversial, or officials are worried that it could result in bad publicity, or things could get raucous.”

Trump U highlights a slew of lawsuits facing president-elect

Jesse Choper quoted by San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 10, 2016

Despite the 1994 ruling, Jesse Choper, a constitutional law professor at UC Berkeley and a former Supreme Court law clerk, said he would like to see the court allow Trump or any other president to put all pending private lawsuits on hold while in office. “It would help him proceed with the job at hand,” Choper said.

Election crucial to US Supreme Court’s makeup, future

Jesse Choper quoted by San Francisco Chronicle, Oct. 29, 2016

“Maybe I’m a Pollyanna, but I believe the Republicans would not stop the confirmation of a reasonable sort” of Clinton nominee, he said. Choper said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would be reminded of his rationale for blocking Garland — that the choice should be left up to the voters who elected the next president.

Alabama Chief Justice faces ouster

Jesse Choper interviewed by Bloomberg Law, Sept. 29, 2016

“This judge is sort of a poor judicial version of George Wallace in Alabama. But he’s never awakened this to reality. This is not his first encounter with the federal judiciary. … And my guess is, that they’re going to put him down. But he keeps getting elected in Alabama by the people.”

How could the next president reshape the Supreme Court?

Jesse Choper interviewed by CBS News, Jan. 5, 2016

“If you were to replace one of the conservatives, Kennedy or any of them, with a liberal, then you would have a radical change going forward and you may even have some changes going backwards,” said Choper, who pointed out that a court with a liberal majority could reverse earlier cases.