Among Lamont’s list of nominees are three Yale College graduates: Nicole Anker ’94, Tamar Birckhead ’87, and Alayna Stone ’04. The nominees will sit for hearings before the legislature’s Judiciary Committee, with their nominations subject to a vote in both chambers of the Connecticut General Assembly. Lamont’s selection of candidates was confined to a pool of individuals who had been interviewed and approved by the Judicial Selection Commission. 

The Connecticut Superior Court is a unified court system, comprising multiple sessions across the state’s 13 judicial districts, offering specialized courts for diverse cases such as major criminal, civil, family and juvenile matters, with each session having its own set of judges. 

“One of the most notable honors of my responsibilities as governor is to fill vacancies in our court system with capable jurists whose qualifications meet the high standards that the people of Connecticut deserve on the bench,” Lamont said. “This group of nominees I am forwarding to the legislature today continues this administration’s effort to ensure that the people who are serving as judges in our state reflect the diversity, experience and understanding of the people who live here.”

Nicole Anker ’94

Anker, who received her bachelor’s degree in psychology from Yale College, currently serves as the legal director for the Connecticut Department of Correction. With seventeen years of legal practice, she has specialized in both constitutional and employment law within the department. 

Before joining state service, Anker worked as a litigation and employment law associate at two prominent multinational law firms, namely Bingham McCutchen, LLP, and Brown, Raysman, Millstein, Felder, and Steiner, LLP.

Among the nominees to the Superior Court, Anker is one of 13 women and also one of two candidates from Glastonbury.

Anker received her law degree from the University of Connecticut School of Law in 1998.

Tamar Birckhead ’87

With 32 years of experience in law, Birckhead began her legal career as a public defender in Massachusetts before transitioning to academia at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Law. She served as a faculty member there, teaching law and directing clinical programs. Now operating as a solo practitioner at Birckhead Law LLC, she primarily represents indigent individuals in criminal and juvenile courts as appointed counsel. 

In the 2016-17 academic year, Birckhead served as a visiting clinical professor of law at Yale Law School where she supervised students in delinquency defense in the juvenile court in New Haven and taught a companion course. 

Like Anker, she is one of 13 women nominated to the Superior Court, and also stands as one of two nominees from Hartford.

Birckhead received her law degree from Harvard Law School in 1992.

Alayna Stone ’04

Stone holds a master’s degree from the Georgetown McCourt School of Public Policy and received her bachelor’s degree in psychology from Yale College. Currently serving as associate attorney general and chief of the Division of Civil Litigation at the Connecticut Office of the Attorney General, she oversees various sections including Employment, Workers’ Compensation and Labor, Health and Education, Public Safety and General Litigation. Before this role, she spent eight years as an assistant attorney general in the Special Litigation section, representing all branches of state government. 

Prior to joining the Attorney General’s Office, she clerked for two years at the Connecticut Superior Court, followed by one year each at the Connecticut Appellate Court under now-Chief Justice Richard A. Robinson and at the Connecticut Supreme Court under former Associate Justice Carmen E. Espinosa.

Similar to Anker and Birckhead, Stone is also one of the 13 women nominated and is one of two Black women among the nominees to the Superior Court. At 41, she also stands as one of the youngest nominees and is the only candidate from New Haven.

Stone received her law degree from the Georgetown University Law Center in 2010.

The significance of the court and its judges 

According to New Haven civil rights attorney Alex Taubes LAW ’15, the Superior Court is a court of general jurisdiction, meaning that it hears almost every type of case in the state, highlighting the relevance of the court in Connecticut’s legal disputes.

“All cases pretty much first get heard in the Superior Court,” Taubes told the News. “Other cases, either get appealed to the Superior Court or can be appealed from the Superior Court.”

Grace Brunner, a student at the University of Connecticut School of Law and leader of its chapter of the legal advocacy group People’s Parity Project, emphasized to the News the importance of diversity in backgrounds among Lamont’s judicial nominations.

She told the News that she thinks such selections bring “precisely the kind of experience” needed to positively impact Connecticut residents’ lives as the experiences of the judges can shape their decisions on the bench.

“I’m absolutely thrilled to hear that Governor Lamont has embraced the advocacy efforts of the CT Pro-People Judiciary Coalition, a group our chapter proudly stands behind,” Brunner wrote in a statement to the News. “The current makeup of the Connecticut bench favors former prosecutors and corporate lawyers, which overlooks the valuable perspectives of those with backgrounds in public defense, civil rights, and legal aid.”

The Superior Court bench currently has 35 vacancies.

The post Lamont nominates 22 jurists to CT Superior Court, includes three Yale grads appeared first on Yale Daily News.

The event was co-hosted by the Yale Law Democrats, the Law School’s chapter of the progressive legal organization the American Constitution Society and OutLaws — an organization for LGBTQ+ members of the Law School community. According to YLD president Sage Mason LAW ’24, the event aimed to provide the Law School community with an opportunity to hear from a dedicated public servant and alumnus who has spent his career “fighting for justice at the highest levels of government.” 

Mason told the News that the event, which was held off the record, covered a wide range of topics from Delery’s career path and journey from law school, his outlook on leadership to his experience as White House Counsel. 

“As a law student, I’m inspired by Stuart’s commitment to public service and his work ethic, his respect for the rule of law and his faith that law can and should be a tool to improve the lives of all Americans,” Mason said. “It gives me hope for the future, that he’s been able to achieve so much without sacrificing or hiding his identity.”

After graduating from Yale Law School, where he served as an articles editor of the Yale Law Journal, Delery clerked for Judge Gerard Bard Tjoflat of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Byron White LAW ’46 of the United States Supreme Court. In 2009, Delery joined the Department of Justice initially as chief of staff and counselor to the U.S. Deputy Attorney General, followed by a role as senior counselor to the Attorney General.

From 2021 to 2022, Delery served as Deputy Counsel to President Biden. The following year, he ascended to the role of White House Counsel to the President, marking a historic milestone as the first openly gay person to hold this position. In his role as counsel to the President, Delery advised Biden on a wide range of constitutional, statutory and regulatory legal matters, encompassing presidential authority, domestic policy, as well as national security and foreign affairs. 

His responsibilities included managing responses to prominent congressional and other investigations, along with assisting the President in the nomination and confirmation processes of federal judges. Delery stepped down from the position last year.

At the Law School, Delery currently teaches “The Department of Justice” seminar and previously instructed the “Constitutional Practice: Structure and Norms” seminar in 2020.

Matt Post LAW ’25, co-president of the ACS, wrote that Delery’s involvement in vaccine rollout, student debt relief and the confirmation of a diverse set of judges is “incredibly inspiring.” 

“The initiatives he oversaw represent the potential of progressive lawyering,” Post said. “We hope that speaker events like these will inspire students to use their education here to advance policies that improve people’s lives.”

According to Mariko Lewis LAW ’26, a member of the YLD who attended the event, Delery shared insights on leadership in response to a question from an attendee. She said that Delery explained that while leaders are often perceived as possessing extroverted and outgoing personalities, true leadership success comes from authenticity. 

Lewis added that Delery emphasized that attempting to emulate someone else is counterproductive and advised attendees to embrace their unique personalities and abilities to become effective leaders.

“As a Black woman interested in politics and policy, this resonated with me,” Lewis wrote. “It emphasized that rather than following a mold of a specific type of leadership (most often portrayed through a straight, white, confident, male), I should continue to lean into my unique personality and strengths to become a valued and effective leader.”

Gevin Reynolds LAW ’26, who moderated the event, said the event felt like a “full circle moment,” as both he and Delery served together in the White House, and he is also currently enrolled in Delery’s seminar this semester.

Reynolds told the News that throughout the conversation, Delery shared “powerful lessons” from throughout his legal career, particularly his service at the highest levels of government. He highlighted Delery’s leadership in implementing the Supreme Court’s 2013 United States v. Windsor decision, wherein the Court deemed Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. This ruling established that the federal government could not discriminate against married lesbian and gay couples regarding federal benefits and protections. Reynolds underscored the pivotal role this decision played in advancing one of the most significant expansions of LGBTQ+ rights in the nation’s history.

In an email to the News, Scott Lowder LAW ’24, a member of OutLaws who attended the event, agreed with this sentiment saying that as a gay man, it was “powerful” for him to hear Delery describe the implementation of this Supreme Court decision and the logistics of extending federal benefits to same-sex couples.

Overall, Reynolds described the event as one of their “most successful of the year.”

“As a YLS student, I am most inspired by how Stuart has used the law as a tool to defend and strengthen civil rights, both at the Department of Justice and at the White House,” Reynolds told the News.  “Despite the significant influence he has wielded throughout his career, Stuart remains one of the humblest people you’ll ever meet.”

Delery received his undergraduate degree from the University of Virginia. 

The post Former Biden White House Counsel Stuart Delery talks career path, leadership at Law School event appeared first on Yale Daily News.

In 2022, the ICJ, the United Nations international court tasked with resolving legal disputes between nations, heard several cases on the legal legitimacy of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The cases urged the ICJ to adjudicate claims of Russia being labeled a “terrorist state” and accusations of Russia violating the 1948 Genocide Convention, in which 32 countries sided with Ukraine’s genocide accusations against Russia, the largest number of countries to join another nation’s complaint at the ICJ.

Since then, the ICJ has announced major decisions on the war, the most recent of which was released on Feb. 2. 

On Feb. 24, 2022, Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, further intensifying the ongoing war, which began in 2014 with Russia’s occupation of Crimea and parts of Donbas. Russia, through its 2022 invasion, has killed over 10,500 Ukrainian civilians and injured over 18,500 Ukrainian civilians. Despite calls for peace talks from the United Nations Security Council, the war in Ukraine persists and continues to cause a stream of casualties and the displacement of countless civilians in Ukraine.

“Russia is much more powerful, has many more troops and much more economic power than Ukraine and what’s been really going on is a battle between the rule of law and a commitment to democracy against the hard power of autocracy,” Koh told the News. “And what these are suggesting is that international law and the world are on Ukraine’s side.”

Koh told the News that the ICJ has rendered several “important” decisions since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022. The first decision, he said, was issued in March 2022, just a month following the invasion, and declared that Russian troops and paramilitary forces should not occupy Ukrainian territory. 

Koh emphasized that this decision “sent a message” illustrating the illegality of Russia’s actions.

On Jan. 31, the ICJ dismissed much of Ukraine’s terrorism accusations against Russia. Ukraine had alleged that Moscow, the capital of Russia, was a “terrorist state,” as they claimed its support for pro-Russian separatists in Eastern Ukraine ultimately led to the 2022 invasion. Among the allegations, Ukraine had also argued that Russia supplied the missile system that shot down the aircraft Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over eastern Ukraine in 2014, however the ICJ ruled that violations of funding terrorism only apply to monetary and financial support, not supplying weapons or training.

Two days later, on Feb. 2, the ICJ delivered a verdict on the “genocide” allegations in the war. While the ICJ clarified that it lacked jurisdiction to determine whether Russia violated the 1948 Genocide Convention through its invasion of Ukraine, Koh noted that this ruling allowed for the case to proceed regarding whether Russia falsely accused Ukraine of genocide and whether it continued to violate the provisional measures order with Russian troops in Ukraine. 

“I think this is really a battle between the past and the future,” Koh told the News. “Russia lost its empire and is trying to return Ukraine to its empire and Ukraine is looking to the future and wants to be an independent democracy more closely associated with Europe.”

When asked about his next course of action, Koh said that he is looking to provide additional leverage for Ukraine in the situation. 

Koh spoke about the importance of showcasing Ukraine as a representation of democratic values, the rule of law and a universal commitment to human rights while contrasting Russia as isolated and aggressive. 

“In this world, the right values win but that calls on people committed to those values to step up and to understand when those issues are at stake,” he said.

Charles Brower, a law professor at Wayne State University School of Law, told the News that legal observers have described the ICJ’s rulings as disappointing for Ukraine’s efforts to leverage the international judicial process in ways that could increase pressure on Russia. 

He said that the judgments themselves were unlikely to significantly impact the ongoing war between the two nations.

“Even if Ukraine had succeeded on all its arguments, no one expected Russia to comply with any judgments rendered against it,” he explained.

Olena Lennon, national security professor and expert on Ukraine at the University of New Haven, echoed this sentiment saying that she thinks the ICJ’s decisions will not have any effect on the war, given that Russia previously ignored legal orders from the ICJ in March 2022 to suspend all military activities on the territory of Ukraine.

Brower said that the international legal system allows this, given that it operates in a context where the establishment and maintenance of a minimum degree of order has to be the overriding priority and is often under threat. Members of the ICJ are elected by the Security Council and the General Assembly, and the ICJ itself lacks coercive powers to enforce their decisions, Brower explained. 

“Given that context, it should come as no surprise that the court’s jurisprudence skews towards the maintenance of order and, therefore, may not prioritize achievement of justice in the broader sense,” Brower said.

However, Lennon said Ukraine has not needed official court rulings to convince the world that Russia’s violations of international law are a threat not only to Ukraine’s survival but to regional and global security writ large.

Referencing countries that have officially condemned Russia’s aggression, imposed sanctions on Russia and provided aid to Ukraine, Lennon said that court rulings are not necessary to publicly condemn Russia. 

“Serving justice to the Russian perpetrators properly is still critical both to deter similar crimes in the future and to provide healing to the victims,” Lennon said. “However, at this stage, what matters more is other countries’ concrete collaborative actions to defend Ukraine and preserve Western institutions by any means possible, no matter how that support is codified.”

Koh has taught at Yale Law School since 1985.

The post International law experts discuss implications of World Court Russia-Ukraine rulings appeared first on Yale Daily News.

The case centers on claims that Douglass Mackey, a social media influencer on X, formerly known as Twitter, made during the 2016 presidential election campaign. Mackey, who was known to his 58,800 followers as Ricky Vaughn, repeatedly tweeted false claims to supporters of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton LAW ’73 that they could cast their ballots via text message in the weeks leading up to the election.

Mackey was convicted by a New York jury in March 2023, ordered to pay a $15,000 fine and charged with violating Section 241, which prohibits conspiring to “injure” individuals’ federal rights or privileges, including the right to vote. He was sentenced to seven months in prison and appealed his conviction to the Second Circuit.

The YLS Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic filed its amicus brief in collaboration with Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan anti-authoritarian organization, on behalf of election law expert and UCLA School of Law professor Richard Hasen. The brief argues that a Reconstruction-era civil rights law can be utilized to prosecute deliberate misinformation regarding voting procedures, while still upholding the First Amendment’s right to freedom of speech.

“Section 241 properly construed does punish purposeful lies about when, where, or how people vote and is not overbroad,” the brief reads. “It prohibits, among other things, conspiracies to ‘injure … any person … in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States.’”

According to Tobin Raju, Craig Newmark Clinical Fellow at the MFIA clinic, the issue of figuring out how laws can grapple with disinformation is something members of the clinic have been thinking about.

Raju told the News that Section 241, initially crafted to address resistance to Reconstruction in former Confederate states, presents a distinct application in this scenario due to the relatively recent emergence of X and other social media platforms. He said that despite the new technological landscape, historical precedents demonstrate that the use of this law to prosecute lies about election procedures is proper. Raju added that intentionally deceptive practices have previously been subject to criminalization under this statute.

 “It’s about applying prior precedent in similar situations, just to modern technology,” Raju said.

Raju explained that when Mackey appealed his conviction to the Second Circuit, the case was placed on an expedited track — meaning that briefing moved relatively quickly and that it will be heard for oral argument 0n April 5.

Raju said that students in the clinic took a hands-on approach to the work, being involved in tasks ranging from research assistance to drafting portions of the brief.

“I really appreciated the opportunity to work on this case because I think combating election disinformation is going to be key to preserving our democracy, this year and beyond,” Victoria Maras LAW ’25, an MFIA clinic member who worked on the brief, told the News. “As a former Field Organizer, I know how important it is to get the right information out to voters, and, by the same token, how harmful it can be when misinformation spreads.”

Maras said she was grateful that this brief can show how people who conspire to spread false election information can be held accountable without threatening First Amendment free speech rights.

Another MFIA clinic member, Ben Menke LAW ’25, told the News that delving into the history of Section 241, which was passed in 1870, led him to examine transcripts of debates in Congress during that time. Through this research, Menke said that he uncovered the motivations of the legislators who first enacted the law, as well as the legal opinions of the judges who applied Section 241 at the time.

“Our brief offers clarity on the proper way to construe Section 241, and we show that the law is consistent with the First Amendment,” Menke told the News. “Bad actors are finding it easier to spread knowingly false information to interfere with the right of the people to vote. Enforcing Section 241 is one way the federal government can respond to this threat.”

In a statement to the News, James Lawrence, Mackey’s attorney, said that their core argument in defense of Mackey is that he did not have fair notice, required by the Fifth Amendment, that his conduct violated “clearly established” law.

Lawrence claimed that the amicus brief uses a Supreme Court case about a different law to argue that a rarely used legal concept, not accepted in many state courts and never applied in New York, should be turned into a federal crime for misleading election information.

“If a team of federal prosecutors never came up with this convoluted argument after pursuing this case for more than three years … how could Douglass Mackey be expected to know his conduct violated Section 241 in 2016?” Lawrence wrote in the statement. 

The MFIA clinic declined to comment on Lawrence’s statement.

Raju expressed curiosity about the Court’s ruling, especially since the case will be heard during an election year.

“I think it’s an interesting case because I imagine we’ll probably be seeing similar issues in the lead-up to this next election,” Raju said.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals oversees the states of Connecticut, New York and Vermont.

The post Law School clinic files brief to combat intentionally false statements about voting appeared first on Yale Daily News.

The issue is both critical and “intensely under-discussed,” per Abbe Gluck ’96 LAW ’00, founding faculty director of the Solomon Center for Health Law and Policy at Yale Law School. 

To discuss the mechanisms that cause and may help prevent abuse and fraud targeting elderly Americans, the YLS community and individuals from across Connecticut convened in the Sterling Law Building on Feb. 16 for panel discussions at an event hosted by the Solomon Center. 

The event, titled “Innovating Elder Justice: New Ways of Using Law, Medicine, and Technology to Address Abuse and Financial Exploitation in an Aging Society,” featured several panels led by lawyers and medical experts, with Sen. Richard Blumenthal LAW ’73 as the event’s keynote speaker.

“Today we heard about impactful inventions ranging from new screening tools in emergency departments to domestic violence initiatives, to apps that send alerts to family members when unusual bank account activity is detected,” Gluck wrote to the News. “There is so much work for us to do; today’s conversation was just the beginning.”

The event began with opening remarks from Law School Dean Heather Gerken, who underscored the importance of justice for elderly people within the legal landscape. She emphasized the increasing relevance of this area of law as life expectancy continues to rise, making it imperative to address the unique legal needs and challenges faced by elderly adults. 

Gerken also spotlighted journalist Adrienne Drell LAW ’92, who attended the event, and former attorney Franklin Nitikman LAW ’66. In the 2019-2020 academic year, the Solomon Center launched the Adrienne C. Drell and Franklin W. Nitikman Elder Law Project, inspired and supported by Drell and Nitikman, aimed at exploring aging and the law through academic, experiential and theoretical lenses. Since its establishment, the program has facilitated numerous workshops and discussions addressing elder law and ageism issues.

Following Gerken’s opening remarks, Gluck highlighted the significance of the event, adding that the Law School is the first law school among the top law schools in the nation to host a conference on elder justice which she called “remarkable.” 

Gluck then posed questions for Blumenthal on the role of government in protecting elderly people, first asking what the federal government can do. 

Blumenthal stressed the importance of bipartisanship in the federal government when it comes to elder law. He emphasized the importance of the government in addressing issues of improving standards in assisted living facilities and combating fraud targeting seniors, particularly by proposing a framework for AI regulation to safeguard elderly people against online financial exploitation.

To this point, Blumenthal highlighted the Elder Abuse Prevention and Protection Act, signed into law in 2017, aimed at preventing elder abuse and exploitation while enhancing the justice system’s response to victims in such cases through data collection on elder abuse. 

Blumenthal further emphasized the vulnerability of elders and advocated for updating laws to safeguard their rights, such as reforming conservatorship laws, wherein a court appoints someone to manage the affairs of a minor or incapacitated person. 

He then discussed the need for oversight in nursing homes and assisted living facilities, pointing out that such oversight is often left to states, leading to significant variations in the quality of services provided from state to state. He advocated for enhanced federal oversight, encompassing rigorous inspections, to mitigate discrepancies in state standards and ensure accountability across facilities.

 “I think transparency and oversight in the federal government can play great roles,” Blumenthal said. 

Blumenthal also addressed the intersection of elder abuse and domestic violence, particularly concerning gun violence. He outlined efforts to strengthen gun safety laws, including measures to remove firearms from individuals deemed dangerous, especially in cases involving protective orders. Blumenthal cited the need for temporary protective orders to effectively separate individuals from firearms during high-risk periods, emphasizing the importance of timely intervention in preventing domestic violence-related gun violence. 

“First of all, as Dean Gerken outlined, more people are becoming older, living longer. That’s a good thing. There are also more people who are older and living together as intimate partners, and that’s also a good thing,” he said. “But intimate partner violence is a major cause of death in America.” 

A case currently before the United States Supreme Court, United States v. Rahimi, holds significant implications for the government’s ability to restrict firearm ownership for individuals under domestic violence-related restraining orders. If the Court rules in favor of Rahimi, it could potentially limit states’ authority to prevent domestic abusers from possessing and using guns. 

Following Gluck and Blumenthal’s discussion, the event transitioned into two panels dedicated to exploring various aspects of elder justice. The first panel focused on the factors that often lead to elder abuse, highlighting how ageism can contribute to overlooking signs indicating such abuse. In the second panel, the conversation shifted to exploring approaches for addressing and preventing the exploitation of elderly people, particularly through the intersection of law and technology. The panelists in both sessions spanned a diverse set of backgrounds from lawyers and medical professors to elder fraud experts.

“Why are people stealing from older people, especially older vulnerable people? Because that’s where the money is,” said panelist Liz Loewy, co-founder of financial fraud prevention company EverSafe and former chief of the Elder Abuse Unit at the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office. 

The event concluded with closing remarks by David Owen, a staff writer at the New Yorker, who was introduced by Eugene Rusyn LAW ’17, an associate research scholar at the Solomon Center. Owen finished the discussion by sharing a personal account of his mother’s experience falling prey to a scam in 2018, which he also wrote an article about in the New Yorker. Despite her age and previous strokes, he said his mother was still diligent and suspicious when it came to potential scams. Yet, he said, she still ultimately was a victim of a scheme involving fake cash prize winnings from the Publishers Clearing House. Despite efforts to report the fraud, including filling out confusing online forms and contacting law enforcement agencies, the responses were largely ineffective, he said.

Overall, Owen reflected on the challenges in raising awareness about elder fraud. Despite increased efforts from companies and agencies to warn about scams, according to Owen, contradictory messages and the complexity of reporting mechanisms create barriers for victims like his mother to seek help. He emphasized the urgent need for improved accessibility in reporting mechanisms and underscored how elder fraud might be more common than the statistics say.

“I don’t think we have any idea [of the magnitude of scams against the elderly] because I know from emails that I received after I wrote this article that there are lots and lots and lots of people who fall for these things and relatively few of them are reporting,” Owen said.

The World Elder Abuse Awareness Day is commemorated every year on June 15.

The post Yale Law School hosts panels discussing elder fraud and abuse appeared first on Yale Daily News.

Roberts, who referred to such papers as an “unfortunate source,” used them to support his assertion at the oral argument to argue that Roe v. Wade could be revised without being completely overturned.

While scouring through private documents has usually been restricted to academic scholars, Roberts’ argument demonstrated their use in judicial decisions, per Nicholas Mignanelli, legal research lecturer at the Law School. 

Inspired by the use of these papers, Mignanelli and Michael VanderHeijden, another lecturer at Yale Law School, introduced a new course last semester designed to equip interested law students with an understanding of court documents and judicial history.

In the course, titled “Research Methods in Judicial History,” students had the opportunity to delve into the working papers of former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart ’37 LAW ’41, who served as chairman — a former title for the current position of editor in chief and president — at the News while a Yale student. By engaging with these archival materials, the course aimed to provide students with these research skills once primarily utilized by scholars, but now, increasingly essential for legal practitioners, according to Mignanelli and VanderHeijden. 

One student who took the course, Isaac May LAW ’24, told the News that he appreciated the class’ focus on research methods which often go overlooked. 

“I would highly recommend the course,” May told the News. “Research methods in judicial history were extremely useful in becoming acquainted with an often neglected source for both historians and lawyers.”

May added that the legal field is often unsure how to handle material beyond published opinions. But he said that the professional and personal papers of judges and Supreme Court justices “can shed considerable light on their reasoning.”

Held at Yale’s Beinecke Rare Book & Manuscript Library, the 679 boxes of Stewart’s materials and papers — the most extensive collection of any justice held at Beinecke — provided students a foundation for exploring how judges and legal scholars leverage historical court materials to inform judicial decisions. 

Mignanelli emphasized that a significant aspect of the course also centers on court documents, in addition to papers, spanning from the filing of complaints in federal or state courts to responses and exhibits. It also encompasses the opinions of judges across various levels of the judiciary, including trial courts, appellate courts and the Supreme Court, at both state and federal levels. Moreover, students delve into the private papers of former judges like Stewart to gain insight into the judicial process and decision-making.

“I think [this course] meets a need or an interest at Yale Law School,” Mignanelli said. “And I think it’s responsive to a lot of the discussions that we’re seeing in American law right now.”

Mignanelli also told the News that the course included several guest lectures. The first was delivered by Linda Greenhouse LAW ’78, who shared insights from her experiences as a journalist covering the Supreme Court and as a biographer of the Supreme Court. The class also featured lectures from Susan deMaine, an expert on Supreme Court papers and associated policies and Eric Sonnenberg, a Yale archivist who formerly specialized in legal documents. 

In an email to the News, Greenhouse said there is a “special thrill” in handling the original documents that form part of Supreme Court history. She said that it was a pleasure for her to share that experience with the students in the class. 

On the final day of the class, students visited the Beinecke. According to Mignanelli, they were given the freedom to select materials of their choice from the Stewart papers. He explained that these papers ranged from birthday cards received by Stewart to letters he wrote to his contacts at Yale, offering students a diverse and immersive glimpse into the personal and professional life of the former Supreme Court Justice.

“The students were able to choose whatever they wanted,” he explained. “Some of them chose early drafts of famous Supreme Court opinions to see what the process was through which the language came out the way it was, and we had some who chose birthday cards, as they were really interested to see the more biographical elements of his life.” 

When asked if he would be teaching this class in future semesters, Mignanelli said that it would “definitely” run again. 

“I think there is a lot of interest right now in historical research in American law,” Mignanelli told the News.

Stewart was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1958.

Correction, Feb. 22: This article has been updated to include a more accurate description of Robert’s use of private papers at oral argument.

The post Law School course explores Supreme Court history through working papers of former Justice Potter Stewart ’37 LAW ’41 appeared first on Yale Daily News.

In 2016, TAVA submitted a rulemaking petition urging the VA to include gender-affirming surgery in its medical coverage. In 2021, Secretary of Veteran Affairs Denis McDonough announced the rule would change to include gender-affirming surgery. But the VA never formally responded to TAVA’s petition. The lawsuit seeks to order the VA to respond to the 2016 rulemaking petition, alleging that the delay violates the Administrative Procedure Act, a law that mandates agencies to make decisions on presented matters within a reasonable timeframe. 

The Jerome N. Legal Services Organization, a program at the Law School that offers legal representation to those unable to afford private attorneys and also houses the Veterans Legal Services, or VLS, clinic, is representing the petitioners in this case.

“The VA has been in public to the media in press conferences, repeatedly saying, we recognize that gender confirmation surgery is lifesaving and necessary medical care, we plan to provide it, but they have not formally committed to do so and they have not formally responded to the petition,” Sonora Taffa LAW ’24, a VLS clinic member involved in the case, told the News. “We don’t know why they’re delaying so much … but we do know that they have a legal obligation to respond one way or the other.”

Taffa told the News that the main point of the lawsuit is to ensure accountability from the VA and the government. Though the lawsuit focuses on hearing a response from TAVA, Taffa said the VLS hopes the response is positive.

Taffa also highlighted the two members of TAVA who submitted declarations in the petition for writ of mandamus, which is a court order instructing a government official to either perform or refrain from a specific action. She noted that their testimonies in the lawsuit were “really powerful.”

“Everyday that the VA delays its response, transgender veterans are just left in the dark, and they’re left in limbo,” Taffa told the News. “They’re starting to feel hopeless, understandably.”

In an email to the News, Jack Baisley LAW ’25, who is also a member of the VLS clinic, wrote that it is the VA’s job to serve all veterans, including transgender veterans. Baisley said that the VA’s silence on the matter “ignore[s] the cries of the transgender veterans they seek to serve.”

When reached by the News, Gary Kunich, a public affairs specialist for the VA, declined to comment on the lawsuit as he said that the VA “doesn’t comment on potential and pending litigation.”

In a June 2021 speech, Secretary McDonough said that the department was taking “the first necessary steps” to expand the VA’s care to include gender-confirmation surgery.

“There are several steps to take, which will take time,” McDonough said in his 2021 speech. “But we are moving ahead, methodically, because we want this important change in policy to be implemented in a manner that has been thoroughly considered to ensure that the services made available to veterans meet VA’s rigorous standards for quality health care.”

Taffa said that despite promises made by McDonough promising to provide these surgeries, the lack of a response to TAVA’s petition has left many veterans unable to access the surgery.

Alex Johnson LAW ’24, who is involved in the VLS clinic on this case, spoke with the News about the importance of bringing this case forward for all members of the veteran community.

“If you’re in the veteran community that should be concerning, because you should be able to rely on Secretary McDonough because, you know, you’re supposed to be able to rely on the VA,” Johnson said. “That’s the whole point of the VA is that they’re supposed to take care of you when you return from your service.”

Johnson also highlighted the importance of the lawsuit for the transgender veteran community specifically. She noted that gender confirmation surgery can often be lifesaving care for these veterans and that denying transgender veterans access to gender confirmation surgery can pose a significant risk to their mental health.

Johnson emphasized that veterans and transgender individuals are at a uniquely high risk of suicidal ideation and self-harm, and that the intersection of these identities further raises the danger of such mental health struggles. 

“Without access to this care, you are essentially consigning these veterans to you know, a higher risk of suicide and potentially death,” Johnson told the News.

Johnson also mentioned the financial burden such surgery can cause for veterans. Johnson noted that the VA provides full financial coverage for the procedures they cover. But, she said, if a veteran seeks gender confirmation surgery through a private doctor or an insurance plan, the insurance company may or may not cover it, ultimately leaving the financial burden on the patient.

She noted that even transgender veterans with private insurance may encounter prohibitive copays or limited coverage, especially if they reside in states where legislative restrictions limit access to gender-affirming care. Such issues can make the VA their sole option for essential procedures.

“You’re basically just cutting off opportunities for transgender veterans to receive essential care at all ends, which is just absolutely devastating,” said Johnson.

Yale Law School is located at 127 Wall St.

Update, Feb. 12: This article has been updated to more accurately reflect Baisley’s comments on the role of the VA.

The post Law School clinic sues Department of Veteran Affairs over gender-affirming surgery policy  appeared first on Yale Daily News.

While working at a local firm in New Haven alongside law professor Jay Pottenger LAW ’75, who passed away last year, he recalls being inspired by the work he did with Pottenger who he saw as a mentor.

The Law School’s Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization, the program that supported Taubes’ summer work, provides legal representation to individuals and organizations in need of legal services but unable to afford private attorneys, per the Law School’s website. This experience, he said, fueled his commitment to remain in Connecticut and pursue a career in civil rights law. 

He later founded the Alexander T. Taubes law firm in 2019.

“We have focused our efforts on helping the underdog in their battles against corporations, insurance companies, the government and advancing causes of justice and equality,” Taubes told the News.

Taubes, who received his undergraduate degree in philosophy from Boston University, told the News that a big focus of his law firm lies in assisting individuals who were wrongfully convicted. He added that his goal extends beyond merely securing freedom — he also fights for exoneration and compensation for the time individuals spent away from loved ones.

Additionally, Taubes highlighted his firm’s substantial involvement in police accountability, ensuring that victims of police brutality receive proper compensation and holding law enforcement accountable for their actions. Beyond this, he is actively engaged in diverse legal areas, including election law, criminal law and safeguarding consumer rights.

Taubes also said that his law firm is currently in the process of recruiting a new attorney. He underscored the inclusive nature of their hiring approach, emphasizing that a candidate’s legal background does not matter as long as they share the firm’s common goal of achieving sentence reductions, fighting mass incarceration and reuniting people with their families.

“We take people from anywhere,” Taubes said. “It doesn’t matter what their background is.”

Michael Merli, a paralegal at Taubes’ law firm who’s involved in harm reduction within Connecticut’s criminal justice system, told the News the story of how he landed his current job.

Merli recalled his initial encounter with Taubes, revealing that they crossed paths at several police brutality protests in Connecticut in 2019. At one protest, Merli, along with 10 other organizers, were arrested by Bridgeport police. Hours later, Taubes arrived late at night to provide them with legal support.

In 2020, Merli joined the Abolition Ummah, a Muslim female-led community organization that operates at the grassroots level. He highlighted Taubes’ enthusiastic collaboration with the organization, often providing legal assistance and representation to incarcerated individuals associated with Abolition Ummah.

“Alex has taught me what it means to truly be a movement lawyer,” Merli told the News. “His legal work involves co-strategizing in community with people challenging state violence, and questioning the premises that far too often go unquestioned here in Connecticut.”

He added that much of Taubes’ work centers the stories of clients and their families, and Taubes is inspired by many of his coworkers and their journey as their commitment to justice, people and community is personal and immense.

Another paralegal at the law firm, Michael Braham, told the News that he initially encountered Taubes during the COVID-19 pandemic through Jeannia Fu, a New Haven activist. At that time, Braham was serving a 25-year sentence in a Connecticut prison. Fu, engaged in an initiative to assist incarcerated individuals in obtaining release, enlisted Taubes to represent Braham in his case. Taubes worked on Braham’s case free of charge, resulting in a significant reduction of seven years from his sentence.

“This is significant because very few attorneys were doing sentence modifications and the ones who were, wanted tens of thousands of dollars to do so,” Braham said.

After being released from prison, Braham moved to New Haven and was employed at Taubes’ law firm about a month after his release. Braham emphasized the significance of this opportunity, noting that it is rare for attorneys to hire individuals with a history of incarceration, especially those who have served a lengthy sentence.

Braham was also recently accepted to law school with the assistance of Yale Law School’s Access to Law School Program. This program, spearheaded by Law School professor James Forman Jr. LAW ’92, actively involves and guides New Haven-area students and adults aspiring to pursue a career in the legal profession.

Matthew Abraham, who handles incoming paperwork at the law firm and assists clients with understanding processes such as commutation and sentence modification, emphasized to the News the importance of diversity and inclusion at the law firm, particularly thanking Taubes for his support. 

“I find immense fulfillment in practicing civil rights law, especially as a person of color,” Abraham told the News. “It’s a profound honor to contribute to a field with such a rich history, especially considering my own experiences as a former prisoner within our criminal justice system. This work holds deep personal significance for me, as I never envisioned myself having the opportunity to work in law, let alone within civil rights.”

Abraham said that he was grateful for Taubes’ “inclusive approach” because he not only opened doors for people of color but also because he works with many formerly incarcerated people. 

He added that Taubes commitment to advocating for the rights of all individuals, regardless of their background, is evident in the firm’s culture.

“It’s truly inspiring to be a part of a team that prioritizes justice and equality for everyone,” he said.

The Alexander T. Taubes law firm is located at 59 Elm St.

The post ‘Helping the underdog’: YLS grad and civil rights lawyer Alex Taubes fights for legal justice appeared first on Yale Daily News.

The discussion, co-hosted by the Arthur Liman Center for Public Interest Law, the Black Law Students Association and several other organizations and student groups, featured panelists Evan Milligan, the lead plaintiff in the case; Deuel Ross, the attorney who argued for the Milligan plaintiffs at the Supreme Court; and Yale Law School professor Miriam Gohara, who moderated the discussion. Throughout the event, the panelists delved into the history of voter suppression in Alabama, the planning behind filing the brief for this case and the overall significance of the ruling in safeguarding voting rights.

On June 8, 2023, the United States Supreme Court issued a narrow 5-4 ruling in favor of Milligan, determining that Alabama’s congressional map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Court’s majority concluded that the map, with only one majority-Black district out of seven, disenfranchised Black voters, as they comprised over a quarter of the state’s population at that time.  The Court’s decision reaffirmed key protections established when the Voting Rights Act first was established.

“In a democracy, voting and elections are at the core of resolving disputes and negotiating power,” Jennifer Taylor LAW ’10, director of the Liman Center, wrote to the News. “The United States’ long struggle to reconcile the reality of racism with the ideal of democratic decision-making is an ongoing story, and last summer’s Milligan decision is an important chapter that has impact far beyond Alabama.”

Taylor also expressed hope that the event would inspire individuals to delve into the history of voting rights and think about ways they can actively support similar initiatives in their own communities.

The event began with opening remarks from Yale Law School Dean Heather Gerken, who explained that Alabama had historically failed to empower Black voters. Gerken, a specialist in election law, praised Milligan, Ross and all those involved in the case for their dedication, highlighting the courage it takes to be at the forefront of such cases. According to Gerken, most voting rights cases result in losses for the plaintiffs. 

“You should know that in voting rights generally that over the course of decades, literally decades, you could count the number of wins for voting rights on one hand,” Gerken explained.

She added that the plaintiffs “should all get praised for doing so much work to push forward our democracy.”

Following Gerken’s opening remarks, Gohara invited Ross to provide insights into the case’s background and explain why this particular case holds significance.

Ross first explained redistricting, which is the process of drawing electoral district boundaries that occurs every 10 years based on the US census data. The process is meant to ensure equal representation at all levels of government, accounting for any changes in population. He explained that Alabama only had one majority-Black district — created due to legislation in 1982 — and that Black voters often need to rely on these districts for representation in government, particularly in the South.

“Black voters can sort of only often depend on elected officials who are elected from districts in which Black voters control the election results,” Ross explained.  “And so what you see in a place like Alabama is unfortunately, the fact that the state has a lot of issues of poverty and issues of health care that are not being reflected in who is being elected to Congress in those places.”

Ross highlighted the Black Belt region in Alabama, Milligan’s hometown, as an example of this issue. He characterized it as more like the developing world compared to the rest of the United States, attributing this distinction to a history of racial discrimination and governmental neglect. Additionally, Ross noted that certain members of Alabama’s congressional delegation frequently refused to endorse bills in Congress that would be advantageous for majority-Black districts.

Ross further explained the demographic shifts in Alabama, noting that, in recent years, the Black population has expanded while the white population has decreased. According to Ross, the most recent redistricting resulted in white voters, constituting 45 percent of Alabama’s population, having an 86 percent control over congressional districts. In contrast, Black voters, comprising 27 percent of the state’s population, experienced limited representation.

“The history of racial discrimination made Alabama a really important place to bring this forward,” he said.

Gohara then directed the discussion toward Milligan, asking him to share his feelings as the lead plaintiff in this case.

Milligan first emphasized that he was one of six plaintiffs, underscoring the collaborative nature of their efforts on the case. With a family history six generations removed from plantation slavery in Alabama, Milligan brought attention to the profound importance of voting rights for Black individuals in America post-Civil War. He explained how post-war anti-reconstruction sentiments led to the enshrinement of white supremacy in Alabama’s state Constitution, influencing daily life and politics for decades. Milligan said that the case aimed to confront Alabama’s racist history and address its lasting impact on voting rights in the state.

Initially, Milligan said he was “very suspicious” about having his name at the center of this case. However, one of the attorneys explained the importance of showcasing the story of his family’s history in Alabama and the distinctive experiences of Black culture in the state, he said. This approach aimed to expose Alabama’s racist history as a means to demonstrate how its congressional map violated the Voting Rights Act.

“That was the first time that I saw a unique value in somebody’s life experiences and things that I just shared,” Milligan said. “And so that was ultimately why I agreed to do it.”

During the event, Ross also presented maps illustrating the distribution of the Black population in Alabama alongside a map of congressional districts. The visual aid served to emphasize the concentration of the Black population in just one district, which he used to argue that Alabama’s maps were unconstitutional before the Supreme Court.

After both speakers discussed their work on the case, Gohara highlighted the importance of history in this ruling and explained how history can be used as a legal strategy in litigation.

“The one thing that really struck me when I read this opinion in preparation for this panel was the fact that this was really acknowledging history, which is not something that we see happen as often as maybe we would like,” Gohara said.

Alabama was granted statehood on Dec. 14, 1819.

The post “To empower Black voters in Alabama”: Law School event highlights significance of recent Supreme Court ruling on voting rights  appeared first on Yale Daily News.

The two began raising questions about his candidacy under the 14th Amendment which are now at the center of many cases before several courts across the country. 

On Jan. 11, 2021, Ackerman and Magliocca published a joint op-ed in The Washington Post, just five days after the Jan. 6 insurrection in which a mob of Trump’s supporters breached the United States Capitol, attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. The insurrection led to multiple deaths and injuries, as well as damage to the Capitol building.

In their op-ed, the duo asserted that, according to Section 3 of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, the insurrection called Trump’s eligibility to run into question. They contended that the Amendment, enacted in the aftermath of the Civil War, could be used to disqualify Trump from holding future federal office positions if he was found to have “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against” the Constitution of the United States. According to Magliocca, the pair was the first to publish the idea of using the 14th Amendment against Trump.

“I had written a paper at the end of 2020 on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and so it just so happened that I was also working on it when January sixth happened,” Magliocca told the News. “It was front and center in my mind.”

Magliocca, a specialist on the 14th Amendment, told the News that around one to two days after the insurrection, Ackerman contacted him. Magliocca said that Ackerman had come across his writings on the 14th Amendment, sparking conversation over their shared interest in the insurrection. These discussions ultimately led them to pen the Op-Ed.

Magliocca said that, at the time, he was reflecting on two key thoughts following the events of Jan 6. First, he observed the widespread use of the term “insurrection” to characterize the events that unfolded. Second, he acknowledged Trump played an “important role” in those events, prompting Magliocca to question whether this meant that the former president directly engaged in the insurrection and whether that could mean Section 3 of the 14th Amendment also applied to Trump.

“We didn’t know all the facts of what was going on the day when it happened, but we knew that he kind of played a role with the speech and so on,” he explained.

Magliocca emphasized that numerous questions persist around this legal issue including its applicability to a president. These unresolved aspects are currently the subject of legal scrutiny in various state courts, where lawsuits argue that Trump should be deemed ineligible under the 14th Amendment.

The first court to release a decision was the Colorado Supreme Court, where Magliocca played a pivotal role by testifying before the court in November.  The state court, in a narrow 4-3 decision, ruled in December that Trump was ineligible to run under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and therefore he was removed from the state’s 2024 ballot.

“President Trump did not merely incite the insurrection,” the Colorado Supreme Court’s majority opinion reads. “Even when the siege on the Capitol was fully underway, he continued to support it by repeatedly demanding that Vice President Pence refuse to perform his constitutional duty and by calling Senators to persuade them to stop the counting of electoral votes. These actions constituted overt, voluntary, and direct participation in the insurrection.”

As of Jan. 12, 2024, Maine is the only other state to rule that Trump is ineligible under the 14th Amendment. With formal challenges having been filed in at least 35 states, rulings in at least 16 other states, including Connecticut, have either favored keeping Trump on their state’s ballot or dismissed the case outright, according to the New York Times. 

On Friday, Jan. 5, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in Colorado, now titled Trump v. Anderson, addressing Trump’s eligibility for the state’s Republican primary. This Supreme Court decision could impact the 2024 election: if the justices rule Trump ineligible for public office, votes for him would not be counted in any state.

Yale Law experts remain divided 

Despite Yale Law graduates taking a leading role in pushing for the idea of using the 14th Amendment against Trump, the Yale Law School community remains divided on the issue.

“A nineteenth century legal solution is a bad fit for a twenty-first century political problem,” Yale Law School professor Samuel Moyn wrote in an email to the News. “Those lawyers who have tried to revive Section 3 from the grave have drastically underplayed how infirm the legal case is for applying the provision to Donald Trump.”

Moyn added that although he believes that many of the case’s lawyers have “the best of intentions,” this legal issue is another example of “avoiding the central task of presenting the American people with a political alternative worthy of their votes.”

David Lat LAW ’99, author of the legal commentary Substack newsletter Original Jurisdiction, told the News that Yale Law School alumni and professors “loom large” in the effort to bar Trump from the presidency under the 14th Amendment. He noted that the leading academic article on this subject was co-authored by two Yale Law graduates — Will Baude LAW ’07 and Michael Stokes Paulsen LAW ’85 DIV ’85.

Lat mentioned that some Yale Law School graduates fall on the other side of the legal debate, such as Harvard Law School professor Lawrence Lessig LAW ’89. Lessig called the approach “a terrible plan” to neutralize Trump. 

“I guess it just goes to show that whenever there’s a major legal debate in this country, you’ll find Yale Law alums chiming in,” Lat wrote to the News.

The Supreme Court is set to hear Trump v. Anderson on Thursday, Feb. 8.

The post Yale Law School alumni divided on Trump Supreme Court case appeared first on Yale Daily News.