Author: Amber Bethune

Temple Law Faculty Reacts to the Trump v. Mazars USA and Trump v. Vance Decisions

Published by , and

On July 9, 2020, Chief Justice John Roberts delivered a 7-2 opinion in Trump v. Mazars USA, refusing to enforce congressional subpoenas that sought President Trump’s tax returns and other financial records about himself, his children, and affiliated businesses. On July 9, 2020, Chief Justice John Roberts delivered a 7-2 opinion in Trump v. Vance, allowing state prosecutors to subpoena financial records concerning President Trump and his businesses. Craig Green Professor of Law Trump v. Mazars USA: Just months before the presidential election, the Supreme Court declined to enforce subpoenas that could have publicly revealed President Trump’s tax returns and financial conduct. Congressional committees demanded various financial records using their “legislative power,” seeking to investigate the need for possible statutory reform about corruption, terrorism, money laundering, or election interference. One committee also claimed oversight power to investigate executive misconduct. Mazars is the first time that any Supreme Court examined a congressional subpoena for a President’s personal information. The majority created a new “balanced approach” that tried to respect the long history of congressional subpoenas without …

Temple Law Reacts to the June Medical Services, LLC v. Russo SCOTUS Decision

Published by , and

On June 29, 2020, Supreme Court Justice Breyer delivered the 5-4 opinion in June Medical Services, LLC v. Russo, holding that Louisiana’s Unsafe Abortion Protection Act, requiring doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, is unconstitutional. Rachel Rebouché Associate Dean for Research Professor of Law Generally, this is a win for abortion supporters, and a decision many did not expect. Justice Breyer relied heavily on the factual record developed by the District Court and ruled that the law was the same in its effect and purpose as the Texas law struck down in 2016. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote a concurrence, ruling on grounds of stare decisis and providing the 5th vote needed to strike down the restriction. His concurrence is quite narrow, though, and it suggests that the Chief Justice interprets prior caselaw as giving far more deference to states than the Court’s 2016 ruling did. Adrienne R. Ghorashi, Esq. Program Manager Center for Public Health Law Research This SCOTUS decision reaffirms what was already established 4 years ago …

Top Gun XI Trial Advocacy Competition | A Q&A with Eric Love LAW ’20 and Lauren Doig LAW ’21

Published by , , and

The below is excerpted from conversation held about a week after Eric Love competed in the Top Gun XI Trial Advocacy competition. Eric was supported by his second chair, Lauren Doig, and his coach, Professor Sara Jacobson. Top Gun is a unique tournament, giving only 24 hours to prepare before a lone advocate tries both the plaintiff and defense side of the case. This competition was also unique because it was the first full mock trial tournament conducted wholly online. It was conducted one week after George Floyd was killed by police in Minneapolis as a weekend of protests and unrest swept the country. Eric and Lauren won the professionalism award for the tournament for the issues they faced during the final round. Eric, Lauren, and Professor Jacobson were working out of a rented apartment suite on the 7th floor at 15th and Chestnut. Eric’s final round began about 4pm. He and Lauren were unaware that blocks away, civil protest had turned to civil unrest at Philadelphia’s City Hall and that looting, small fires, and …

Temple Law Faculty React to the Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of Univ. of California SCOTUS Decision

Published by and

On June 18, 2020, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr delivered the 5-4 opinion in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of Univ. of California,  holding that DHS’s decision to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA, was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. Jennifer J. Lee Associate Clinical Professor of Law For the over 600,000 DACA recipients across the country, the Supreme Court’s decision is essential in providing them with a temporary reprieve. While eventful, today’s decision solely ruled that the Trump administration’s rescission of the program was improper based on procedural grounds. The reality, therefore, is that any presidential administration in the future can wipe out the DACA program so long as it does so with proper procedure. For this reason, DACA recipients are continuing to fight for a more permanent pathway to citizenship. As DACA recipients have ample support, the challenge is not in getting such a law enacted. Rather, they want a “clean” law that does not otherwise include harsh enforcement provisions against the immigrants …

Sheller Center Students File Tort Claims for Families Separated at the Border

Published by , and

The Trump administration has engaged in a policy of family separation, which it ramped up in 2018. Under that policy, families apprehended for crossing the border outside of a port of entry were forcibly separated. Parents were placed in adult detention while their children were sent to shelters for unaccompanied minors. They were frequently subjected to cruel conditions of confinement, including overcrowding and the inability to obtain adequate nutrition, hygiene, medical care or mental health services. Notably, the administration expressly announced its family separation policy as a tactic to deter Central American migrants from seeking safety in the United States. In these facilities, parents and children endured weeks or even months without contact with one another. Parents and their children did not know when or if they would be reunited because immigration officials would not provide any information. The separation of parents from their children has predictably caused significant and long-lasting trauma to these families who had sought refuge in the United States. Through the Sheller Center for Social Justice, we represented eight families in …