San Francisco fashionistas vs. Ivanka Trump

Prasad Krishnamurthy quoted by Mother Jones, March 27, 2017

The MAC lawsuit could hinge its argument on the premise that Ivanka Trump’s agents in the White House broke the law in promoting her products. Krishnamurthy adds that the remedy for the MAC lawsuit is fairly limited, which might mean a judge could interpret “unfair” pretty broadly in this case. Whatever the outcome, the suit is “symbolic in a way,” Krishnamurthy says.

Dem opposition poses little threat to high court nominee Gorsuch

John Yoo quoted by San Francisco Chronicle, March 27, 2017

“The more a nominee says, the more ammunition she applies to her opponents,” Yoo and Saikrishna Prakash … said Friday in an article for Fox News. They said Democrats “have tried to ‘Bork’ Gorsuch” — referring to the Senate’s rejection in 1987 of Supreme Court candidate Robert Bork, who expressed some of his conservative views at his confirmation hearing — but Gorsuch outsmarted them.

The threat to academic freedom

Mark Yudof quoted by US Daily Review, March 26, 2017

“The ACTA analysis of the BDS movement and academic freedom on university campuses is superb. The essay provides trustees and regents with the knowledge they need to understand the challenges to free speech and the troublesome underpinnings of the BDS movement. The authors also illuminate the legal context in which campus speech issues arise.”

New York mulls use of DNA familial matching to solve cold cases

Franklin Zimring quoted by Newsday, March 26, 2017

“One thing you can be certain of is the next step the state takes will not be the last,” said UC Berkeley School of Law professor Franklin Zimring about New York. “There will be inevitable pressure to making the system a standard part of a citizen’s profile.”

Behind the congressional stage, a legal drama unfolds

Steven Davidoff Solomon cited by Berkeley Daily Planet, March 26, 2017

“The economy is much bigger and more complex than it was 200 years ago. A large and diverse economy needs regulation. And while the Trump administration has promised to reduce the bureaucracy as many presidents have before, it is hard to see the modern economy running without some degree of regulation, whether it concerns the security of banks or the safety of food and drugs.”

“Elections have consequences”: What we can expect from a Justice Neil Gorsuch

Melissa Murray quoted by Salon, March 25, 2017

The Golden State, Murray said, should above all be worried by what she and other legal scholars believe is Gorsuch’s most radical and far-reaching judicial prejudice — his extreme skepticism and hostility to the agency authority enshrined in a doctrine called the “Chevron deference,” after the 1984 Supreme Court case Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council.

Schumer’s filibuster promise means GOP won, Gorsuch headed to Supreme Court

John Yoo co-writes for Fox News, March 24, 2017

If Democratic Senators had made any progress in attacking Gorsuch’s qualifications, record, or judicial philosophy, they could persuade their Republican colleagues to reject Gorsuch. With 48 Senators in their caucus, Democrats would only need persuade three Republicans to join them. But they cannot.

Supreme Court limits presidential appointment power

Anne Joseph O’Connell quoted by Fox News, March 23, 2017

Anne Joseph O’Connell … told Fox News that the White House could avoid nominating people for jobs covered by the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, which allows acting officials to serve for “relatively long” periods of time. “The administration can go from one acting official to another acting official,” O’Connell said. “When the Senate and White House are controlled by different parties, I worry this might become the default track.”

Berkeley’s border wall blacklists ‘illegal’: Berkeley law professor

John Yoo quoted by Fox Business, March 22, 2017

“The city of Berkeley should not be discriminating based on political views…I think then you’re going to start getting the courts involved and it’s going to look very skeptically at what this city is doing,” advised John Yoo. … Political disagreements are “not a valid reason to break a contract,” which, warns Yoo, may violate the Dormant Commerce Clause, which prevents cities from discriminating against outside companies, and there’s no legal exception for political disagreements.