William Fernholz writes for The Hill, May 17, 2017
Put aside the existing law, which could be read to favor either party. Put aside also, for a moment, the substance of President Trump’s comments, which have been well-reported. Both sides face a similar underlying problem: their positions, taken to an extreme, could lead to drastic problems for our nation.
William Fernholz writes for The Hill, March 8, 2017
The Trump administration issued its revised immigration executive order on Monday, and it fixed errors as small as split infinitives. But did it fix the most important problem, the probable unconstitutionality of the original executive order?
William Fernholz writes for The Hill, March 6, 2017
President Trump did not provide evidence to support these claims, and he may be making up facts about an application for a wiretap. But let’s take him at his word for three important reasons.
William Fernholz writes for The Hill, Feb. 9, 2017
The Ninth Circuit, the appeals court for the western United States, the temporary restraining order (TRO), which prevents the government from implementing President Trump’s immigration executive order. It was a short trip to the Ninth Circuit, and the lawyers for the government leave it bruised, though not beaten.
William Fernholz writes for The Hill, Feb. 6, 2017
The immigration order should be bone-chilling to those conservatives who care about federal government overreach. And principled liberals should be thanking the conservative justices on the United States Supreme Court for their defense of state independence.
-San Francisco Business Times, January 11, 2011
Christopher Edley, dean of Cal’s law school, said: “These are three extraordinary jurists.”
Melissa Murray, an assistant professor at the school who once clerked for Sotomayor, said: “She is a role model for any student engaged in the study and practice of law.”
-Bay City News, January 12, 2011
“I believe that over the next 20 years Justice Sotomayor will emerge as a truly central figure in American jurisprudence; she’s that good,” Edley said. “Our students will carry this memory with them for the rest of their lives.”
“Justice Sotomayor is extraordinarily charismatic and uniquely alive in her questioning during oral arguments at the Supreme Court,” said William Fernholz, a faculty member who directs the school’s appellate program.
California Supreme Court Historical Society Newsletter, Fall/Winter 2009 by Claire Cooper
http://www.cschs.org/ (requires registration; go to G:\Law School in the News\News Clips for article)
The questions asked by the law students reflect “the kinds of things lawyers care about: what kinds of judges are these, what are their values and what is the process that they use to make a decision,” Fernholz says. In responding, the justices were “as candid as they could be consistent with their ethical duties.”
-Contra Costa Times, April 2, 2009 by Matt Krupnick
“This is an all-star panel,” said William Fernholz, director of appellate programs for the UC Berkeley law school, in a written statement. “We would be lucky any year to have one of these judges preside over the final round. It’s like hitting the jackpot to have all three join us.”
-The Daily Californian, April 15, 2009 by Keena Batti
The case is centered on an actual lawsuit filed by the ACLU, which was never argued in the Supreme Court, according to Fernholz. “Justices that are sitting under the bench can’t talk about issues that might come before them,” he said. “This case is ideal in that it raises very complex and important issues, but thankfully, it’s moot.”