Contact: Andrea Lampros
Human Rights Center communications manager
510.847.4469 or 510.643.7215, alampros@berkeley.edu

Camp Claudine St. Fleur in Port au Prince, one of
dozens of camps for Haitians rendered homeless
after the 2010 earthquake.

In a seminal series of new reports for the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the Human Rights Center at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, offers the first in-depth look at safe shelter options for survivors of sexual violence in refugee camps and displacement settings worldwide.  

“Where do you hide a safe house in a refugee camp—where everyone is out in the open under the same sun? It’s a complex and urgent task to keep survivors of sexual and gender-based violence safe in the temporary camps erected during crises, but we must do it and do it well,” said Kim Thuy Seelinger, director of the Sexual Violence Program at the Human Rights Center (HRC) and lead author of the reports. Seelinger will present the center’s global findings at the UNHCR’s annual NGO consultation in Geneva on June 11, 2013.

Four reports examine shelters in Haiti, Kenya, Colombia, and the Thailand/Burma border. A fifth comparative report summarizes the unique challenges that shelter-providers face, as well as strategies for protecting and serving refugees and internally displaced persons in camps and urban areas. The reports, which were requested by the UNHCR, also include recommendations for improved security and call attention to protection gaps that leave many male and LGBT survivors especially vulnerable.

Seelinger and her team will return to the case study countries throughout June to share information and recommendations with local shelter providers and government representatives.

Across the globe, rape and sexual torture are committed during periods of armed conflict or natural disaster. However, the risk of sexual and gender-based violence continues for many even once they have fled to a refugee or internal displacement camp. Providing protection in these insecure settings, where resources are scarce, can be tremendously challenging.

In meeting with survivors, service providers, local officials, and aid agencies on four continents, researchers found that steps can be taken worldwide to increase the physical and psychosocial safety of survivors. Researchers also found that every community has particular needs, making a one-size-fits-all model impossible.

“We hope that this research will inform policy shifts on the global level as well as increase collaboration among service providers within the countries studied,” said Julie Freccero, Sexual Violence Program Officer at the Human Rights Center.

All country reports, the comparative report, and one-page summaries can be found online here.

BERKELEY, CALIF.

Thank you, Dean Edley, for those kind words – and thank you all for such a warm welcome. It’s a privilege to join you; Professor Murray; distinguished members of the faculty, staff, and administration; and so many proud parents, family members, friends, and alumni – in congratulating the Class of 2013, and celebrating the achievements that have defined your time here at Berkeley Law School.

I’d particularly like to thank Javier, Kate, and Aaron for their thoughtful remarks, and for all that they and their fellow student leaders have done to make today’s ceremony so special. It’s an honor to share the stage with you this morning – and a pleasure to be among the first to welcome you and your classmates into the legal profession. I’d also like to thank the musicians who are here with us – especially, as a person with West Indian roots, those talented steel drum players – for helping to set an appropriately formal tone for this important ceremony. Most of all, I’d like to thank the Class of 2013 for inviting me to share in this moment – as we mark the end of your formal legal training, and the beginning of your stewardship of our nation’s justice system.

This is an occasion you’ve been working toward – and waiting for – for three long years. In just a few moments, each of you will accept a diploma signifying your graduation from one of the most prestigious law schools in the country. You’ll take your leave of the campus, and the remarkable community of learning, that you’ve come to call home. You’ll say goodbye to friends you’ve made, and professors you’ll never forget. And you’ll fan out – around the state of California, throughout the country, and across the world – seeking to make a living, striving to make your mark, and aspiring – in every industry and field of endeavor – to improve our country; to make more peaceful a world that’s riven by misgiving and despair; to build the brighter future that all people deserve; and to advance the great and enduring promise that’s been woven throughout your legal education, and must now become your common cause: the promise of equal justice under law.

Of course, I realize that these challenges may seem distant, or even abstract, as we gather on this beautiful morning to celebrate your commencement. After all, your memories of final exams are still fresh, and you may have good reason to focus on more immediate concerns – about job opportunities, looming life decisions, and studying for the bar exam. Today’s ceremony marks an important milestone and I understand that, as we reflect on the achievements that have led you to this point, the last thing you may want to think about is accepting a new mantle of responsibility.

But – today of all days – that’s precisely what you must do. Your journey of service to the law – and to all whom it protects and empowers – is just beginning. Although the future you face is far from certain, each of you has been given a rare chance to make a meaningful difference. Uncertain times give birth to unique opportunities to effect positive change. And, as I look around this crowd of bright young faces, I can’t help but feel confident that you are ready, and superbly prepared, to do just that.

The Class of 2013 has come a long way since you arrived at Berkeley in 2010 – from 27 countries, 113 undergraduate institutions, 77 different majors, and a wide array of religious and ethnic backgrounds. Your diversity set you apart and, as diversity always does, provided the opportunity for tremendous individual interaction and enhanced institutional strength. Your previous achievements – as scientists, journalists, athletes, parents, military veterans, public servants, musicians, and artists – were impressive. And your potential is now truly without limit.

You’ve come together – and forged lasting bonds of friendship and fellowship. You’ve taken part in the same rituals and rites of passage – from AmJur Day, to Thursday night “bar review” – that have been familiar to Berkeley Law students for years. Whether you’ve earned a JD, an LLM, or a PhD, you’ve helped to strengthen and extend the tradition of collegiality and collaboration that has always made this institution such a remarkable place. And you’ve already begun to make a difference – and have a positive impact – far beyond this beautiful campus.

From protesting tuition increases across the state, to rallying support for same-sex marriage – you’ve raised your voices on some of the most pressing issues facing your peers and fellow citizens. From human trafficking to domestic violence, you’ve gained hands-on experience combating heinous crimes, providing assistance to victims, and navigating the complexities of our legal system. You’ve proven your commitment to the cause of justice – and the highest ideals of public service – by logging more than 18,000 hours of pro bono work and changing the lives of the clients of one of Berkeley’s nationally-recognized clinics. And you’ve done it all while coping with the academic rigors that come with a world-class legal education – and taking some time to relax and enjoy student life, during “wine bus” trips to Napa Valley and weekly gatherings of the “Wednesday Warriors.” After all, as the old saying goes – “You Only 3L Once.”

Today, this chapter draws to a close. But these experiences will stay with you. They will continue to guide your actions, inform your choices, and shape your path forward. Whether you envision a future prosecuting dangerous criminals, defending the accused, ruling from the bench, campaigning for elected office, leading a corporation, running a nonprofit, or charting some other course altogether your own – before you know it, you’ll find yourselves in positions of responsibility in all sectors of society. You’ll be entrusted with honoring and preserving the values you learned here – and building on the rich tradition of service and advocacy that your predecessors have established.

From Annette Adams – who, in 1920, became the first woman ever to serve in the United States Department of Justice as an Assistant Attorney General – to Chief Justice Earl Warren; from the great civil rights champion John Doar, to former Solicitor General Ted Olsen – over the last century, Berkeley Law alumni have done nothing less than shape, and re-shape, the world we live in. As we speak, Berkeley graduates are continuing this work at every level of our government, and across today’s Department of Justice – including in my office, where Margaret Richardson, Class of 2003, serves as my Chief of Staff and trusted advisor.

Thanks to these dedicated leaders, and countless others who have spoken out, sacrificed, and organized in order to advance the singular promise that unites us this morning – today, we live in an America that our forebears could only dream about. Before these talented women and men were providing critical leadership to our nation’s legal community, every one of them sat where you do today. Each, in their own way, was called upon to address the threats, and confront the novel legal questions, of their time. And, starting this moment graduates, it’s your turn.

It’s your chance to help realize your vision of a better world. It’s your obligation to move our nation confidently into the future – no matter what it might bring. And it’s your solemn responsibility – and humbling opportunity – to act with optimism; with fidelity to our most treasured principles; and with abiding faith in yourselves and one another – not merely to serve clients or win cases, but to ensure – in every case, in every community, and in every circumstance – that justice is done.

Since our country’s earliest days, the American legal community has risen to this challenge. But you are about to embark on your legal careers in an hour of particular consequence, at a crossroads in history – as our nation confronts grave obstacles and national security threats that demand our constant vigilance and steadfast commitment.

How we respond to such adversity – as leaders, as lawyers, and as Americans – represents a defining issue of our time. And as we reflect upon these threats this morning, each of you must consider some important questions: How can we uphold the values, and remain true to the highest ideals, of our legal system – while keeping pace with 21st-century threats? In what ways could we, or should we, adapt and adjust this system consistent with our finest legal traditions? Above all, how can we be nimble in our pursuit of justice without sacrificing our dedication to our values and the rule of law?

None of these questions are rhetorical. Their answers are being debated every day – not only in seminars at world-class institutions like this one, but in the Executive Branch and the halls of Congress as well. Especially since last month’s horrific attacks at the Boston Marathon, the urgency of this discussion has come – once again – into sharp focus. Complicated and emotionally-charged issues of principle and procedure have been thrust back into the national spotlight. And the importance of finding the right answers would be difficult to overstate.

It is in such moments of difficulty and crisis – when cases are most shocking, emotions are running high, and fear is at a fever pitch – that our legal system, and all who serve it, are truly put to the test. At times of maximum danger we must always restrain the impulse to implement that which we might think to be effective but, indeed, is surely inconsistent with our treasured values. It is also important to remember, in these trying times, that nothing can be taken for granted. Positive outcomes are not preordained. As history teaches us, our great country doesn’t always get it right.

In 1942, just months after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, more than 110,000 Japanese Americans were removed from their homes here in California and throughout the Pacific coast. Many were transported to War Relocation Camps in isolated areas. More than 60 percent of those interned were American citizens. And, in a deeply misguided ruling, the United States Supreme Court held that this exclusion process passed constitutional muster.

More recently – in the aftermath of 9/11, as our nation struggled to cope with an unprecedented tragedy, and to respond to a new kind of stateless threat – fear and uncertainty drove us, in certain cases, to abandon our values in pursuit of information about those who would do us harm. We used techniques that were of questionable effectiveness, but were certainly inconsistent with who we say we are as a people. And in bringing suspected terrorists to justice, some questioned – and continue to question – the capacity and effectiveness of our federal civilian court system. Members of Congress placed unwise and unwarranted restrictions on where certain detainees could be housed, charged and prosecuted. In short, many lost faith with our founding documents and our time-tested, effective institutions.

In the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings, many of these tired and meritless political arguments – and renewed calls to abandon the use of civilian courts in dealing with terrorism-related activity – are being made once again. And once again, every legal professional, every aspiring leader, and every graduate in this crowd today must renew your commitment to standing firm – in the face of manufactured controversy and overheated partisan rhetoric – to uphold our most sacred values.

Let me be clear: those who claim that our federal courts are incapable of handling terrorism cases are not registering a dissenting opinion. They are simply wrong. Their assertions ignore reality. And attempting to limit the use of these courts would weaken our ability to incapacitate and to punish those who target our people and attempt to terrorize our communities.

Throughout history, our federal courts have proven to be an unparalleled instrument for bringing terrorists to justice. They have enabled us to convict scores of people of terrorism-related offenses since September 11. Hundreds are properly, safely and securely held in our federal prisons, not Guantanamo, today. Not one has ever escaped custody. No judicial district has suffered a retaliatory attack of any kind. And no other tool has demonstrated such a robust ability to stop terrorists – and collect intelligence – over a diverse range of circumstances. I defy anyone, on the merits, to challenge these assertions.

Our heritage, and our legacy to future generations, clearly demand that we maintain full faith and confidence in a court system that has distinguished this nation for more than two centuries. Our security demands it, as well, because prosecuting terrorists in federal court is not just consistent with our values – it is extraordinarily effective. The Article III system is both strong and fair. And it has long been seen as legitimate around the world – setting this country apart, differentiating us from other nations, and serving as a model for others to envy – and to emulate.

Come what may, we must never cede our freedoms or curtail our dearest liberties, nor feel that there is a tension between them and our ability to keep safe. Especially in moments of crisis, when we are under attack or faced with difficulty and danger, our actions – your actions – must be grounded in the bedrock of the Constitution. And steps forward must be rooted not only in our proudest legal traditions – but also our highest ideals.

At the same time, we must never be afraid to engage in a robust, responsible dialogue about new strategies for dealing with new challenges – including the need to provide law enforcement with the tools and authorities necessary for gathering vital intelligence; keeping pace with rapidly-changing threats; and protecting public safety – all while safeguarding individuals’ rights to due process. Just as surely as we are today a nation at war – so, too we are, and must always remain, a nation of laws.

With all that you possess, and all you’ve been given, every member of the Class of 2013 has a special responsibility to help us meet these challenges – and keep advancing our uniquely American pursuit of a safer, more just, and more perfect Union. I’m encouraged to note that more than 50 of you are already planning to fulfill this obligation by pursuing positions in public interest law and public service. Others have been awarded post-graduate fellowships to perform public interest work. And two of you will soon be coming to the Justice Department – to work for me.

But, in the critical days ahead, no matter how you choose to put your legal training to work – in the public sector, in private industry, or in private practice – I urge you to keep up the habit of pro bono service you established here at Berkeley. Keep engaging with the difficult concepts and defining challenges you’ve grappled with on this campus. And never forget that every one of you is among the most qualified legal professionals in this country. You are among the best equipped to serve and to lead. And you are among the most prepared to help a new generation rise to the challenges of the moment, bring about the meaningful changes we need, and make this world – your world – a truly better place.

I know that each one of you has that ability – and that possibility – within you. I implore you to make the most of it. Use your unique skills, your idealism – and the power that your new law degree affords – to better yourselves, to improve your communities, and to solve the complex problems that undoubtedly lie ahead. Dare to question that which is accepted truth. Strive to change that which is unjust. And dedicate yourselves, above all else, to creating a world that reflects your aspirations for a brighter future; reaching for the principles that have always made our nation great; and fighting to secure and make real the promise of justice not only for your time, but for all time.

As you make your way forward, know that we have faith in you. We are proud of each one of you. And we are counting on this Class of 2013 to make more fair and just a world that now looks to you for the leadership that you are uniquely qualified to share.

Congratulations, Class of 2013 – and Godspeed.

WHAT: The University of California, Berkeley, School of Law’s Commencement Ceremony 2013, an annual event honoring graduating law students: J.D. (Juris Doctor), J.S.P. (Doctor of Laws), LL.M. (Master of Laws) and Ph.D. (Doctor of Philosophy). More than 400 graduates in caps and gowns are expected to process across the stage at the Hearst Greek Theatre. The ceremony will include speeches and awards, and students, faculty, and administrators in traditional regalia.  

WHEN: Saturday, May 11, 10 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.  

WHERE: Hearst Greek Theatre on the southeast side of campus. See campus map. The entrance for credentialed news media is on Gayley Road, near University Dr., at the North Gate.  

WHO: This year's keynote speaker is U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. Mr. Holder has held this position under the Obama administration since Feb. 2009. He has previously served as U.S. deputy attorney general during the Clinton administration, as a federal prosecutor, a D.C. Superior Court judge, and as a litigation partner in a private firm.  

Law Professor Melissa Murray will deliver the faculty speech and three graduates will also address the convocation: Javier Bravo on behalf of the LL.M. students, and Kate Nicole G. Blanco and Aaron J. Ver on behalf of the class of 2013.  

DETAILS: Credentialed news media wishing to cover commencement must R.S.V.P. by noon on Friday, May 10, to Susan Gluss, director of media relations, at sgluss@law.berkeley.edu or (510) 642-6936.  

On Saturday, media must bring news credentials with a government-issued photo I.D. and check in at the North Gate of the Greek Theatre entrance on Gayley Rd near University Dr. There is no reserved parking for news media, except in the case of TV trucks, which can receive a reserved parking space by making prior arrangements with Kim Natividad, director of student services at kim.natividad@law.berkeley.edu, or 510-642-4973.  

Videotapes of the speeches by Eric Holder and Melissa Murray will be available on the Berkeley Law Youtube channel within one week or so after the event.  

Click here for more information about Berkeley Law’s commencement ceremony.

Media Contact: Susan Gluss, sgluss@law.berkeley.edu, 510-642-6936    

Reforming Copyright for the Internet Age  

MEDIA ADVISORY    

ATTENTION: Assignment desks, high-tech, and legal reporters    

WHAT: An annual two-day conference on copyright law  

Creative works—in music, art, and literature—are available to the public on a larger scale than ever before. But copyright law is still murky, outdated by the swift advances in the Internet age. The need for legal certainty regarding copyright claims to ease rights clearances and to enhance the free flow of information has never been more critical.  

The registration of copyrights, (known as a copyright formality) and other neglected “formalities” may be able to overcome these challenges by clarifying which works are copyright-protected, the scope and term of protection, the identity of rights owners, and more. The same digital network that has enabled an interactive, simultaneous and decentralized use of creative material also permits the development of new flexible and efficient copyright formalities.  

This two-day conference will feature leading academics and practitioners discussing the critical role of formalities in addressing today’s copyright challenges and how to best serve the interests of authors and the public.  

The event is co-sponsored by the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology (BCLT) at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law and its Berkeley Technology Law Journal.  

WHEN:
Thurs.-Fri., April 18-19, 8:30 a.m. —5:00 p.m.  

WHERE:
Claremont Hotel, 41 Tunnel Road, Berkeley, CA  

WHO:
Keynote speaker: Maria Pallante, register of copyrights, U.S. Copyright Office  

Panelists include:
Patrick Sullivan, co-founder, RightsFlow by Google;
Jule Sigall, associate general counsel, Microsoft Corporation;
Naomi Jane Gray, member, Copyright Society; Harvey Siskind LLP
Fred von Lohmann, legal director of copyright, Google;
Pamela Samuelson, professor, UC Berkeley School of Law
Reto Hilty, director, Max Planck Institute for Intellecutal Property and Competition  

Go here for a full list of speakers and panelists  

DETAILS: Media are invited to attend free of charge. Register here or contact Susan Gluss, sgluss@law.berkeley.edu.

For more details, go here or contact Julia Tier, 510-642-4712, or jtier@law.berkeley.edu.

Contact: Susan Gluss, 510.642.6936, sgluss@law.berkeley.edu

Berkeley, CA-April 11, 2013... A new report on hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) in California warns of the risks of irreversible contamination of surface and groundwater near oil drilling sites, unless the technique is carefully monitored and controlled. The report Regulation of Hydraulic Fracturing in California: A Wastewater and Water Quality Perspective is an independent analysis produced by the UC Berkeley School of Law’s Center for Law, Energy & the Environment (CLEE) and its new initiative, the Wheeler Institute for Water Law & Policy (Wheeler Institute).

Fracking is a technique that injects highly pressurized chemical fluids into underground rock to create cracks that release tightly bound oil or gas. It’s become a financial boon to fossil fuel companies nationwide, but it comes with inherent dangers.

The risks of fracking include toxic chemicals and known carcinogens that can seep into ground and surface waters, posing a threat to human health, aquatic life, and ecosystems. If the fracking wells and wastewater are mishandled, according to the report, the results may be harmful, costly, and impossible to reverse.

The general practice of fracking is not new—oil and gas producers have employed it in California for many decades. What is new, and potentially alarming, are projections of dramatically increased activity in California driven by advanced technologies and a demand for oil.

“The rapid spread of fracking has outstripped the ability of state agencies to effectively monitor and regulate it. Our recommendations include a greater investment in industry oversight, stronger regulations, and heightened inter-agency cooperation,” said Jayni Foley Hein, a report co-author and executive director of CLEE. “Regulators need to protect the public interest by demanding greater transparency and increased accountability across all fracking operations.”

The report coincides with a request by the state’s Department of Conservation for comment on its “discussion draft” regulations. The agency’s draft addresses elements such as well construction, testing, and storage and handling of wastewater. But it fails to adequately address risks to California’s water resources, according to Hein.

“The draft regulations are an important first step, but the state must widen its scope to protect public health and avoid any contamination of surface and groundwater,” Hein said.

In an unusual twist that is contrary to its role as a leader in environmental protection law, California lags behind other states on hydraulic fracturing regulation. Wyoming, Ohio, and other states set stronger standards for transparency, safety, and environmental stewardship. But, even in those cases, gaps in agency oversight may have contributed to water contamination and greater seismic activity.

California needs to raise the bar even higher, said co-author Michael Kiparsky, associate director of the Wheeler Institute.

“Part of the challenge of fracking is that the technology is constantly evolving,” said Kiparsky, an environmental scientist. “It’s essential that regulators not only understand the impacts of new technologies, but also study the lessons learned elsewhere to prevent an increased risk of earthquakes, water pollution, and toxic air emissions.”

Kiparsky said scientific uncertainty, due to a lack of peer-reviewed studies, drives the need for more research on fracking’s potential risks.

The report’s key recommendations include:

Advance notice and disclosure

• Operators should provide at least 30 days public advance notice of any hydraulic fracturing event.

• State agencies should develop a formal process for concerned citizens to respond to proposed fracking events in their communities.

Tracking waste and disposal

• Agencies should require more extensive recordkeeping and reporting on disposal of wastewater.
• Agencies should consider using new techniques like tracers to identify and track potential contaminates.

Protecting underground sources of drinking water

 • The state should strengthen its definition of underground sources of drinking water to match or exceed that of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Well abandonment

• California should develop a well closure and monitoring program, following EPA guidelines.

Seismic risk

• Underground injection should be prohibited near risky faults based on a seismic analysis.

Reuse and recycle

• The state legislature should consider tax exemptions to encourage recycling of fracking wastewater.

Treatment

• Regulations should explicitly prohibit direct discharge of wastewater from oil and gas operations to publicly-owned treatment works until the EPA issues pretreatment guidelines.
• The state should fund a comprehensive scientific review of the risks to California water supplies from fracking wastewater.

Note: co-authors Hein and Kiparsky will lead a discussion with industry representatives and environmentalists on the regulation of fracking and its impact on California’s water supplies, on April 18 in Los Angeles. To register, go here or email rsvp@law.berkeley.edu

For more details about the report and the LA event, and to request interviews, contact co-authors directly:

Jayni Foley Hein jhein@law.berkeley.edu, 510-642-8803

Michael Kiparsky, kiparsky@law.berkeley.edu, 510-643-6044

Follow University of California, Berkeley, School of Law on Twitter.

Berkeley, CA—March 20, 2013 … University of California, Berkeley, School of Law experts are available to comment on next week’s two historic U.S. Supreme Court cases on same-sex marriage.  

On Tuesday, March 26, the justices will hear arguments on whether California’s Proposition 8 ballot initiative, which defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman, violates equal rights under the U.S. Constitution. The case Hollingsworth v. Perry is the culmination of nearly five years of legal battles surrounding the initiative.  

On Wednesday, March 27, the Court will hear a constitutional challenge to the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which prohibits the U.S. government from recognizing same-sex marriage. In that case, United States v. Windsor, the Court will determine whether the act wrongly denies married same-sex couples equal benefits under federal law.  

Berkeley Law scholars available to comment include:  

1) Joan Heifetz Hollinger is a lecturer-in-residence at Berkeley Law. She has co-authored four amicus briefs in as many Prop 8. cases in support of civil marriage for same-sex couples, including the brief on behalf of California family law professors filed in Hollingsworth v. Perry. Hollinger is also a co-author of briefs filed against DOMA, most recently on behalf of family and child welfare law professors in United States v. Windsor. The brief asks the Court to strike down section three of the act, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman under federal law.  

“DOMA hinders rather than furthers any federal interest in child welfare because its effect is to deny hundreds of important rights and protections to married same-sex parents and, by extension, their children. DOMA does not offer any inducements to heterosexuals to engage in ‘responsible’ procreation or childrearing; its sole effect is to harm and stigmatize married same-sex couples and their children, while leaving opposite-sex couples and their children untouched,” said Hollinger.  

Contact Joan Heifetz Hollinger: jhollinger@law.berkeley.edu or cell, (510) 435-9036.  

2) Melissa Murray is a professor of law and a scholar of family and criminal law who specializes in marriage and its alternatives. Her research has focused on the same-sex marriage debate and Proposition 8. Murray, along with Hollinger and Kay, signed amicus briefs filed by law professors supporting same-sex marriage in Hollingsworth v. Perry and in United States v. Windsor.  

“Hollingsworth v. Perry, now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, could be as significant to civil rights law as Brown v. Board of Education or Roe v. Wade,” said Murray. “It’s no accident that the landmark case evolved in California, the first state to invalidate laws prohibiting interracial marriages. It was also the first state to enact no-fault divorce, while Berkeley was the first city in the U.S. to establish domestic partnerships.”  

Contact Melissa Murray: (510) 643-6127 or mmurray@law.berkeley.edu  

3) Herma Hill Kay is a law professor and former Berkeley Law dean. Kay is a co-author with Hollinger of the amicus brief on behalf of California family law professors filed in Hollingsworth v. Perry, and is a signatory of the family and child welfare amicus brief in United States v. Windsor. In her analysis, California’s state legislature and courts had found that there was no meaningful difference between committed same-sex and opposite-sex couples before passage of Prop. 8—and had already extended full legal protections to same-sex partners.  

Kay, along with Hollinger, also joined an amicus brief arguing that the existing 18,000 marriages by same-sex couples in California would continue to be valid, even if Prop. 8 banned such marriages in the future.  

“The cases before the Supreme Court illustrate a very important milestone in our approach to marriage. As Judge Walker found in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, marriage for heterosexual and same-sex couples is a fundamental right, which is great progress,” said Kay.  

Direct contact: (510) 643-2671, hkay@law.berkeley.edu, or (415) 391-5158

4) Jesse Choper is a constitutional law professor and expert on the U.S. Supreme Court. He wrote a brief in favor of plaintiffs in the California Supreme Court re: Marriage Cases advising the Court to rule on the basis of constitutional interpretation. The state Court found Prop. 8 unconstitutional in May 2009.  

“There is absolutely no distinction in the law’s eyes between same-sex married couples and heterosexual married couples. They have exactly the same rights under California law,” said Choper.  

Direct contact: jchoper@law.berkeley.edu (Professor Choper will be traveling until March 29, but can arrange phone interviews by email.)  

Note: The Supreme Court will post the audiotapes and transcripts of the hearings on the two same-sex marriage cases on its website shortly after arguments are finished. The material should be available by 1 p.m. Tuesday for Prop. 8 and by 2 p.m. Wednesday for DOMA.   The Prop. 8 case is scheduled for one-hour of argument; DOMA is scheduled for one hour and fifty minutes.  

Background:  

    Prop 8 litigants share legal insights with Murray's family law class Berkeley Law 2/5/2013  

    Reveling in her Supreme Court Moment, New York Times on DOMA, 12/10/2012  

    Prop 8 on Trial blog: dispatches from Perry v. Schwarzenegger (1/11/2010―9/5/2011, by Sarah Ruby ’10 and Amanda Beck ’11)  

The San Francisco City Attorney’s Office has created a Prop 8 challenge and marriage equality timeline and a list of major Prop 8 amicus briefs.

WHEN:
Thursday, March 21, 8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

WHERE:
Four Seasons Silicon Valley
East Palo Alto, CA

WHO:
Keynote speaker: Travis LeBlanc, special assistant attorney general, CA Department of Justice; architect of the California mobile apps framework.

Panelists:

• Michael D. Hintze, associate general counsel, chief privacy officer, Microsoft;
• Harriet Pearson, partner, Hogan Lovells and former chief privacy officer, IBM;
• Chris Hoofnagle, director of information privacy programs, Berkeley Law;
• Paul Schwartz, professor, Berkeley Law, and international expert on privacy, copyright, telecommunications and information law;
• Jennifer M. Urban, director of the Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy at Berkeley Law.

Go here for a full list of speakers and panelists

DETAILS:
Media are invited to attend free of charge.

The conference is co-sponsored by Ropes & Gray and Hogan Lovells. For more details, go here or contact Julia Tier, 510-642-4712, or jtier@law.berkeley.edu.

WHAT:
A one-day symposium on the California Constitution’s impact on local governments. Experts will cover a range of ongoing issues, including privacy, free speech, and religious liberty. Conflicts between state and local officials over redevelopment, water rights, and budgets will be examined by government representatives, attorneys, and academics.

WHEN:
Friday, Feb. 8, 9:00 a.m.–4:00 p.m. Details are online here.

WHERE:
UC Berkeley School of Law, Room # 110. See campus map.

WHO:
Manuela Albuquerque: Partner, Burke, Williams & Sorensen; former Berkeley City Attorney 
Buck Delventhal: Deputy City Attorney, Office of the San Francisco City Attorney
David A. Carrillo: Executive Director, California Constitution Center, Berkeley Law
Joseph Grodin: Associate Justice, California Supreme Court (Retired)
Joseph Sax: Professor of Environmental Regulation, Berkeley Law
Tara Mueller: Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General

A complete list of speakers and panelists is here.

DETAILS: The symposium will include a series of five panels focusing on the California Constitution’s unique provisions on individual rights, and the relationship between state and local governments. Issues of governance will include revenue and finance, the trend to limit the constitutional power of charter cities, and more.

The event is co-sponsored by Berkeley Law and the League of California Cities. It is approved for 5.75 hours MCLE Credit.

SOURCES: For information about the event, or to register (free for news reporters), contact organizer David Grady at (510) 642-3702, or dgrady@law.berkeley.edu.

WHAT: “The Corrupting Influence of Money on Politics,” a lecture by Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig, followed by expert commentary.

WHEN: Tuesday, Jan. 29, 4:30-6:00 p.m. Details are online here.

WHERE: UC Berkeley School of Law, Room # 105. See campus map.

WHO:  Lawrence Lessig, director of Harvard’s Edmond J. Safra Foundation Center for Ethics and founder of the Stanford Center for Internet and Society. Lessig’s current scholarship is focused on the impact of “institutional corruption” on the economy and the public trust.

Commentators:

Professor Bruce Cain from Stanford Law School, former director of the Institute of Intergovernmental Studies at UC Berkeley and a political scientist with expertise in democratic theory, regulations, and state and federal elections;

Professor Guy Uriel-Charles from Duke University School of Law, founding director of the Duke Law Center on Law, Race and Politics and an expert in constitutional law, election law, campaign finance, redistricting, politics, and race.

DETAILS:  The event is co-sponsored by Berkeley Law and the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law. This lecture is part of the annual “Jorde Symposium,” which addresses issues of constitutional law, representative democracy, and governance.

The symposium proceedings will be published in a future issue of the California Law Review.

SOURCES: For information about the event, contact the organizers Nancy Donovan 510-643-1346, ndonovan@law.berkeley.edu or David Grady at (510) 642-3702 or dgrady@law.berkeley.edu.

Berkeley, CA.... On the eve of the 40-year anniversary of Roe v. Wade, UC Berkeley School of Law today announced the formal launch of its new Center on Reproductive Rights and Justice (CRRJ). Founded by Professor and Pulitzer Prize nominee Kristin Luker, it is one of the first research centers to study the legal, economic, and social impact of reproductive laws on women, families, and communities.

In the four decades since the Supreme Court decided Roe in 1973, a backlash has led to a constitutional right to abortion so laden with restrictions that it has been rendered out of reach for many, said Luker. In the past two years alone, lawmakers across the U.S. have passed a record-breaking 135 new laws restricting abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

“Because of these restrictions and other financial and societal barriers to access, the formal legal right is often not enough for poor, young, and rural women to get the abortion care they need,” said Luker, the author of five books, including Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood. With this in mind, CRRJ is supporting a bill to increase access to abortion care in California by expanding the number of healthcare professionals who can provide it.

“As the nation is mired in a politically-charged debate over abortion, larger issues of women’s and family health services have been obscured,” said Luker.

“We’re examining the courts, legislation, and regulations, as well as how the laws play out in everyday lives,” said the center’s Executive Director Jill E. Adams '06. “What is needed for all members of society to obtain access to resources necessary to determine their own destinies related to reproduction?”

The primary reproductive concern for many women and men is the ability to have—and raise—the children they want in safety and dignity. The struggle is particularly difficult for welfare participants in California who are denied aid for a newborn under the Maximum Family Grant (MFG) rule, according to Adams. CRRJ is supporting an effort to repeal the MFG rule, in collaboration with the East Bay Community Law Center and ACCESS Women’s Health Justice, among others. Adams says the rule often interferes with family planning decisions, punishes parents, and hurts children.

Welfare regulations aren’t commonly regarded as reproductive rights issues, but the center is trying to change that. “Part of our work is to impress upon people that these aren’t fringe issues experienced in a vacuum, but widespread experiences that are integral to individual wellbeing and to the realization of economic justice, racial justice, LGBTQ rights, and more,” Adams said.

Luker, Adams, and Berkeley Law Professor Melissa Murray are spearheading a high-profile center project: the first legal textbook on U.S. reproductive rights law—targeted for national publication within two years. “The legal analysis of reproductive rights and justice implicates a host of other issues: from employment discrimination and access to health care, to race and gender inequalities,” Murray said. “A comprehensive textbook will be an invaluable resource for law schools, scholars, and legal practitioners.”

Though many of its projects have an educational purpose, CRRJ is much more than an academic endeavor. “We won’t operate in an ivory tower,” said Luker, whose 1995 book Dubious Conceptions was selected as a New York Times Notable Book of the Year.

CRRJ seeks to partner with, learn from, and respond to lawmakers seeking effective policy solutions. “We’re aligning ourselves with advocates who grapple with these issues on the ground every day,” said Adams. “Together we will identify problems ripe for research and help policymakers advance real, lasting solutions.”

In October 2013, the center will co-host a national symposium with the Center for Reproductive Rights, a nonprofit New York litigation and advocacy group, to examine the impacts of abortion restrictions from multiple angles and explore innovative approaches to legal advocacy. Related programs include an annual seminar for law and graduate students and a writing workshop for scholars.

Postdoctoral fellow Zakiya Luna leads the center’s working group, a mix of faculty, students, and community members described by Unitarian Universalist Minister Darcy Baxter as “a space where we break down the ‘silo’ culture; an opportunity to collaboratively work through ideas and strategies with people coming from many different fields."

The center’s goal is to fill the gap between traditional policy research and advocacy by fostering dialogue among a diversity of academics, advocates, policy makers, and opinion shapers.

Berkeley, CA....The Human Rights Center (HRC) at UC Berkeley School of Law today announced that Alexa Koenig—a respected scholar in war crimes and international human rights law—will be its new executive director.

Koenig, who has served as the center's interim director for the past six months, has well over a decade of experience with nonprofit organizations, including work on behalf of Native American tribal governments. She earned a B.A. summa cum laude from U.C.L.A., a J.D. magna cum laude from the University of San Francisco School of Law, an M.A. from U.C. Berkeley, and is expecting a Ph.D. in Jurisprudence and Social Policy from Berkeley Law next year.

“Alexa Koenig has many arrows in her quiver,” said Eric Stover, HRC's faculty director, who conducted an international search for the position. “She has managed nonprofits, collaborated with foundations and donors, and applied the law and empirical research to fight for the rights of vulnerable groups in the United States and abroad. All of us at the Human Rights Center are delighted to have her on board."

Koenig was an assistant professor at the University of San Francisco School of Law for five years and has lectured at UC Berkeley on human rights and war crimes investigations. She worked on legal issues related to Guantanamo detainees, as a graduate student and fellow for the American Association of University Women.

“It’s an incredible honor to be part of an organization that is so dedicated to fighting injustice and that is so careful and has such impressive integrity in terms of the research it conducts,” said Koenig. “I’m delighted to become part of this amazing team.”

Koenig has written extensively about war crimes and human rights law in publications such as the Annual Review of Law and Social Science, the International Review of the Red Cross, the Essex Human Rights Review, the Santa Clara Law Review, and the University of San Francisco Law Review. Her most recent book chapter about state recognition of American Indian tribes will appear in the book Recognition, Sovereignty Struggles and Indigenous Rights in the United States this spring.

She is currently co-authoring a book with Stover and Victor Peskin called, Hiding in Plain Sight: The Politics of Pursuing War Criminals in the 21st Century, which is under contract with the University of California Press. The book identifies challenges to, and possibilities for, arresting individuals who have committed the world’s most egregious crimes, from the Nuremberg era to post-9/11, with an eye to providing recommendations for maximizing arrest rates.

Koenig is a California native. She grew up in Marin County and attended Tamalpais High School. She is the mother of two children and lives in Novato.

The Human Rights Center was founded at UC Berkeley in 1994 and established a home base in Berkeley Law in 2011. The center focuses on improving accountability for sexual violence during armed conflict, reuniting families torn apart by war, and making it easier for victims and witnesses to testify in international war crimes tribunals. As part of its educational mission, the center sends University of California students into the field to support human rights work around the world.

Since the center’s inception, more than 227 UC students have been selected to serve as human right fellows in 65 countries. In 2012, fellows worked with victims of the Mexican drug war, Laotians living with the legacy of landmines, undocumented immigrants near the U.S. border, and coal miners in Appalachia.

Follow the Human Rights Center and Berkeley Law on Twitter.

For a high-resolution photo of Alexa Koenig, please contact Andrea Lampros at alampros@berkeley.edu or 510.847.4469.

Berkeley, CA….A new Privacy and Advertising Mail survey by UC Berkeley School of Law finds that a very large majority of Americans, across all ideologies, age groups, and income levels support a Do Not Mail initiative. The national data, released today by the law school’s Berkeley Center for Law & Technology (BCLT), shows that an overwhelming 81 percent of respondents support the creation of a service similar to the popular Do Not Call registry.

“Our survey is in line with consumer polls conducted over the last four decades that reflect a frustration with advertising mail,” said co-author Chris Hoofnagle, a Berkeley Law lecturer and director of information privacy programs at BCLT.

Advertising material now comprises more than half of all mail delivered to private homes and businesses. Many Americans not only consider it a nuisance, but also a privacy violation. "Americans may view advertising mail as a privacy issue because of database activities underlying the targeting of mail. They also may dislike the sense of intrusion created when advertising material flows into the home," said co-author Jennifer M. Urban, assistant clinical professor of law.

Despite years of survey research showing broad objection to advertising mail, the United States Postal Service (USPS) has courted direct marketers. The researchers cite the agency’s dire financial needs as a possible impetus for this approach. The Postal Service has lost tens of billions of dollars the last few years, losing about $57 million per day in the last quarter alone.

Privacy concerns have captured the attention of U.S. regulators, leading to the passage of several laws regulating marketing practices, but advertising mail has remained untouched. Although the Direct Marketing Association has operated a self-regulatory opt-out system since 1971, the "Mail Preference Service," it only blocks only about 1 percent of advertising mail.

"The USPS' fiscal challenges have created incentives for the agency that directly contravene recipients’ desire to manage advertising mail," said Urban. "The Postal Service has created many innovations to help advertisers increase mail volume, but it’s done little to assist Americans manage unwanted advertising mail."

Congress did direct the Postal Service to implement a system to stop pandering, called “prohibitory orders.” This could, in theory, be used to address privacy concerns from unwanted mail, as well. But it is paper-based and labor-intensive, requiring the recipient to open and send each rejected mail piece to a specific postal office. It is considered an ineffective and outdated way to limit direct mail, according to the report.

The survey is the fourth in a series developed under the Berkeley Consumer Privacy Survey initiative. It involved telephone interviews (landline and wireless) with a nationally representative sample of 1,203 adult Internet users living in the continental United States. For more details, read the Privacy and Advertising Mail methodology section.

For more information about the survey, contact:
Chris Hoofnagle 510-643-0213, choofnagle@law.berkeley.edu
Jennifer Urban 510-642-7338, jurban@law.berkeley.edu

On November 15th, Berkeley Law is co-sponsoring a forum to explore the often acrimonious debate over whether or not journalists should have access to juvenile dependency court proceedings.  

On one side is a foster care system burdened with the almost impossible task of mitigating the worst effects of societal dysfunction: child abuse and neglect. On the other side, a cast of overwhelmingly well-intentioned journalists, who are met with a foster care system practically and – in more than half the states – legally cloaked in obscurity.  

As a result, child welfare professionals spend time deflecting journalists’ probing questions instead of discussing solutions to the difficult and fundamental problems they face. Myriad opportunities to reform a troubled system are missed, and children suffer as a result.   

When: Thursday, Nov. 15, 1 pm – 3 pm P.T.

Where: UC Berkeley School of Law, Room 105

Who:

    ·        Michael Nash, presiding judge, Los Angeles County Juvenile Court

    ·        Jim Newton, editor at large for the Los Angeles Times

    ·        Barry Krisberg, director of research and policy at Berkeley Law

    ·        John Diaz, editorial page editor for the San Francisco Chronicle

    ·        Lily Dorman Colby, former foster youth and Berkeley Law student

    ·        Leslie Heimov, executive director for the Children’s Law Center of California

    ·        Chantel Johnson, former foster youth and legislative and policy coordinator for California Youth Connection  

    Co-sponsored by Fostering Media Connections (FMC), in association with the Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute of Law and Social Policy at Berkeley Law.  

Details: Register here to attend or watch a live webcast.  For more information, contact Daniel Heimpel of Fostering Media Connections, awatchedsystem@ fosteringmediaconnections.org.  

 Berkeley, CA….On November 6, Berkeley voters will decide whether to enact Measure S, a “Sit-Lie” ordinance that would ban sitting on sidewalks during business hours in the city’s commercial districts. Proponents of Measure S argue that the law will increase economic activity (“saves jobs”) and improve services to homeless people (“helps people”). But a new research report by the UC Berkeley School of Law Policy Advocacy Clinic finds no evidence that either of these goals is likely to be achieved.

 At the request of a local coalition of community groups and individuals opposed to Measure S, the clinic conducted an independent analysis to test whether Sit-Lie laws deliver on their promises. Law students reviewed data on economic activity and homeless services in more than a dozen state and national Sit-Lie jurisdictions. They surveyed community organizations, municipal human services and economic development agencies, business groups and police departments; and they consulted local stakeholders about implementation challenges and opportunities. The clinic team said they were unable to find evidence of the purported benefits of Sit-Lie ordinances.

After examining California’s sales tax receipts from the State Board of Equalization, co-author Joe Cooter said, “we found no connection between enactment of these laws and increased economic activity. The city of Berkeley’s own data from the Office of Economic Development suggests that the presence of homeless people downtown and on Telegraph Avenue has not had a demonstrable impact on retail sales relative to other commercial zones. In fact, the law is likely to impose costs on the city in the form of implementation, enforcement and legal defense.”

Violation of Measure S constitutes a crime punishable by a fine of $75 dollars or community service, and subsequent violations can be charged as misdemeanors. Failure to pay the citation or attend a court hearing can result in an arrest warrant.

“Based on our research, many barriers to public benefits, housing, and employment are created by criminal penalties,” said law student and co-author Emily Soli. “In spite of proponents’ claims that Measure S will help people, the ordinance doesn’t describe how it will connect homeless people to services. In fact, the ordinance doesn’t mention services at all. Since the city’s affordable housing units are at capacity and there is insufficient shelter space, Measure S will likely make it harder, not easier, for at least some homeless people to access services.”

Co-author Ericka Meanor said that Measure S supporters may have good intentions, but the initiative itself is misguided. “Laws targeting specific groups that a community deems ‘undesirable’ have existed for centuries, especially during economic downturns,” said Meanor. “They raise serious constitutional concerns and have the potential to cause great harm. What cost are we willing to bear as a community to enact a law that is largely ineffective in meeting its economic and social goals?”

A 2010 report from the city’s Economic Development Manager recommends several strategies to improve Berkeley’s economic climate, but none of them includes a Sit-Lie ordinance. In fact, national and local data show that supportive housing is a more effective way to reduce homelessness and related costs. Berkeley’s own supportive housing program – Square One – has been identified by the city as being successful at keeping chronically homeless people off of the streets.

“Our research suggests that Measure S fails the most basic test of sound public policy, that is, whether it will deliver on its promised results,” said Clinical Professor of Law Jeffrey Selbin. “These findings should give Berkeley voters pause before adopting an unproven and unpromising strategy for addressing commercial and social service challenges in the City.”

The report’s key findings include:

• No evidence that retail sales have increased in California’s other Sit-Lie jurisdictions relative to their surrounding counties;
• No evidence that retail sales on Telegraph Avenue and downtown Berkeley have suffered relative to other commercial areas due to homeless people;
• No evidence that Sit-Lie ordinances have connected homeless people to social services in other cities;
• No evidence that Measure S will improve services to homeless people in Berkeley; 
• Evidence that implementing, enforcing and defending Measure S against legal challenges will likely be costly to the City of Berkeley; and
• Evidence of better approaches to increase economic activity and improve services to homeless people in Berkeley.

Berkeley, CA—A new research group finds that at least 200 wrongful convictions have been thrown out since 1989 in California, costing those convicted more than 1,300 years of freedom and taxpayers $129 million. The California Wrongful Convictions Project, launched by the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law (Berkeley Law) and Hollway Advisory Services, a criminal justice research firm, announced these findings in preliminary data released today.

 The project’s long-term objective is to identify wrongful convictions in California and to quantify their economic impact. The project has defined wrongful convictions to include those where all counts are dismissed by the court or by the prosecutor after conviction, as well as those where the conviction was reversed and the individual was completely acquitted on retrial.

In addition to the costs to individuals and their families of life lost behind bars, the direct costs of incarceration and compensation calculated so far total $129 million ($144 million when prison costs are adjusted for inflation). This figure does not yet include the costs of legal representation and court proceedings necessary to overturn the convictions, an amount expected to be substantial given the multiple trials and years of appeals routinely undertaken by wrongfully convicted individuals.

A detailed report to be released in 2013 will include the full costs of legal representation, court proceedings, and appeals, as well as costs related to confirmed misconduct by prosecutors, government investigators or police. It will also track the reasons why convictions are overturned.

“The project’s final analysis will include the time, money and resources wasted on all cases that were overturned and dismissed due to misconduct and legal errors, including those where innocent people are wrongfully charged,” said Rebecca Silbert, a project director and senior associate at Berkeley Law’s Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Law and Social Policy. “We know that there are errors in the system; what has been missing until now is a precise analysis of the financial impact on California.”

Preliminary findings reveal that:

• California leads the nation in exonerations as defined by the National Registry of Exonerations with 120, surpassing Illinois (110), Texas (100), and New York (100). The National Registry requires a post-conviction showing of new evidence for inclusion;
• Since 1989, courts have exonerated or dismissed convictions against 214 Californians. Reasons include official misconduct, insufficient evidence, findings of innocence, ineffective defense, and legal error;
• The vast majority of these wrongfully convicted individuals served time in state or federal prison before their convictions were thrown out, collectively losing 1,313 years of their freedom;
• 40% of individuals in the dataset were initially sentenced to 20 years or more in prison, including many who received life, life without parole, or death sentences before their convictions were overturned;
• Individuals framed in the Los Angeles Rampart police scandal of the late 1990s account for 25% of the wrongful convictions in the dataset (53 people thus far; news reports estimate the total number of exonerated individuals at greater than 100), but only 10% of the 1,313 wasted years in prison were served by those individuals;
• Excluding the Rampart cases, all of which were due to official misconduct, major factors contributing to these wrongful convictions include:
  o perjury or false accusation (42% of the cases);
  o official misconduct by police or prosecutors (39% of cases);
  o mistaken eyewitness ID (26% of cases);
  o inadequate or ineffective defense counsel (19% of cases); and
  o DNA evidence (fewer than 6% of the cases).

“This data shows that both inadvertent mistakes and deliberate misconduct are more common in our criminal justice system than most people think,” said John Hollway, the founder of Hollway Advisory Services. “We are seeing prosecutors and defense attorneys work hand in hand to reduce these errors. A systemic review of the mistakes will allow us to measure the frequency and costs of justice system flaws, especially in this era of prison overcrowding and cost overruns. We want to prioritize reforms to reduce wrongful convictions and their significant cost to taxpayers.”

As researchers actively review court records and reach out to attorneys across the state, they expect the number of cases in the study to increase substantially.

“We owe it to everyone involved, including the victims, to identify problems and work towards a more fair and accountable justice system,” said Andrea Russi, a former federal prosecutor and managing director of Berkeley Law’s Warren Institute.

For more details about the research methodology and findings, contact the project directors or visit Berkeley Law’s Warren Institute website: http://www.law.berkeley.edu/cawrongfulconviction.htm.

To provide information about overturned criminal cases, go to the California Wrongful Convictions Project website: http://www.cawrongfulconvictions.com

Project directors: Rebecca Silbert, RSilbert@law.berkeley.edu or (510) 643-7321; John Hollway, john@hollwayservices.com or (484) 580-6098.

Democratic and Republican pundits will debate the impact of President Obama’s first four years in office at an event that is sure to generate verbal fireworks. Roundtable panelists will grade the president’s performance on issues including ‘Obamacare,’ the economy, education reform and the war in Afghanistan.

Panelists on both sides of the aisle will also weigh the impact of these issues on the presidential campaign as the election swings into high gear.­­

WHEN: 7:30 p.m. Friday, Sept. 21.

WHERE: Herbst Theatre, 401 Van Ness Ave., San Francisco.

WHO: The roundtable will be moderated by Christopher Edley, dean of Berkeley Law; former domestic policy adviser in former President Jimmy Carter's White House; special counsel to former President Bill Clinton and leading member of the 2008 Obama transition team. Panelists will be:

· Jennifer Granholm, distinguished practitioner of law and public policy at UC Berkeley, host of The War Room on Current TV and former Michigan governor

· Robert Reich, Chancellor's Professor of public policy at UC Berkeley and former U.S. secretary of labor

· Dan Schnur, political strategist and former director of communications for Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign

· Pete Wilson, former governor of California, Berkeley Law Class of ’62, distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution and former chairman of Meg Whitman’s gubernatorial campaign.

DETAILS: Reporters interested in covering the roundtable should RSVP to Susan Gluss, deputy director of communications at Berkeley Law, sgluss@law.berkeley.edu. The event is free for journalists. General admission tickets are available online. Tickets are $50 for adults and $35 for students.

The roundtable is co-sponsored by Current TV and is one in a series of fundraising events to celebrate Berkeley Law’s centennial. The School of Jurisprudence was founded 100 years ago with a goal of becoming one of the best law schools in the country. Today, Berkeley Law is a top 10 school with internationally renowned faculty, outstanding students and accomplished alumni.

*Report embargoed until Sept. 10, 8:00 AM E.T.

The environmental law centers at the UCLA and University of California, Berkeley, Schools of Law present a briefing on ways to boost development of electric vehicles and increase consumer demand on Sept 10 in Washington, D.C. A panel of technological experts, industry representatives, and research analysts will offer insights on key state and federal policies needed to grow this automotive market segment.
The briefing coincides with the release of a joint law school report “Electric Drive by '25” which is embargoed until Sept. 10, at 8 am E.T.

The new report outlines ways policy makers, industry leaders, and other stakeholders can ensure the mass adoption of electric vehicles by 2025. Panelists will discuss the current state of this market sector, including the latest on sales and consumer attitudes, the state of the charging infrastructure, and proposed government policies that support this growing industry. Complimentary lunch will be served.

Congressman Henry A. Waxman praised the new report and urged support of electric vehicle development:

"Electric vehicles are an important technology for cleaning our air and reducing our dependence on foreign oil.  This report provides important suggestions for policy makers and industry alike to spur the widespread adoption of these vehicles and increase the use of electricity for transportation."
Panelists include:

• Jay Friedland, legislative director, Plug In America;
• Colleen Quinn, vice president of Government Relations and Public Policy, Coulomb Technologies;
• Tracy Woodard, director of Government Affairs, Nissan; 
• Ethan Elkind, Berkeley Law / UCLA Law Climate Policy Associate; lead author of Electric Drive by ’25

When: Time:  12 noon to 1:30 p.m E.T.

Where: Hearing Room 2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C.
The event is free for journalists; RSVP for the luncheon briefing by Sept. 7, or watch the live webcast.

Background: Electric Vehicles, including a range of automotive technologies and models that allow drivers to “plug in” to the electric grid for power, are critical to the nation’s economic, environmental, and national security goals.  By relying on domestic electricity production, electric vehicles cut air pollution and boost our economy.  But major challenges remain, including the need to reduce consumer costs, invest in new charging stations, and raise awareness about the vehicles’ environmental and economic benefits.

For more information about the event and the report, contact Ethan Elkind at eelkind@law.berkeley.edu or elkind@law.ucla.edu.

 Contact: Susan Gluss, sgluss@law.berkeley.edu, 510-642-6936

Berkeley, CA—August 29, 2012…. Executive director and founder David A. Carrillo ’95 has ambitious plans for Berkeley Law’s new California Constitution Center. The nascent center’s fall program starts off with nothing less than a moot court for attorneys whose cases are pending before the Supreme Court of California. 

The moot court will give attorneys a chance to practice their arguments, while also providing superb training for law students. Second- and third-year students will prepare bench memoranda and act as law clerks to mock jurists on eight chosen cases. One side of each case will be presented, with a mix of scholars, experienced lawyers, and retired judges on the panel.  

Offered in both the fall and spring semesters, the course has drawn intense interest from students and has quickly become oversubscribed. Practitioners seem equally attracted to the program, as all of the argument slots for the current term were quickly snapped up, first-come, first-served. 

The program is open to most practitioners with cases before the state Supreme Court, with some special considerations. Cases involving compelling California constitutional issues such as same-sex marriage, for example, will be given priority; capital cases are ineligible due to their complexity. 

The moot court idea emerged four years ago at a Berkeley Law conference on the state’s highest court, but it took Carrillo to bring it to fruition.   

“The California Constitution Center is another example of Berkeley Law using its outstanding legal resources to make a meaningful impact beyond the school,” said Goodwin Liu, a Supreme Court of California justice and former Berkeley Law professor. “Lawyers who appear before the Court, judges, and Berkeley Law students all stand to benefit greatly from this endeavor.” 

Carrillo has even grander plans for the center: to develop scholarship on complex policy issues that arise under the state constitution.  

“Unlike the federal system, there’s no comprehensive body of legal work available on critical state constitutional issues facing our courts,” said Carrillo. “Be it the state budget, redistricting, or same-sex marriage, California’s state constitution has a dramatic impact on our daily lives. It’s important to understand how its provisions affect us.” 

The center will offer several academic programs, including a California Constitutional Law seminar, a yearly journal for articles on issues of state constitutional law and the state Supreme Court, and fellowships for law students. 

“The California Constitution Center will offer law students and practitioners alike a means to better understand legal trends that constantly and often uniquely emerge from the nation’s most populous, diverse, and innovative state,” San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said.  

At the 2008 Berkeley Law conference on the Court, then-Chief Justice Ronald George applauded the school’s focus on the state constitution.  He noted that state courts decide nearly 98 percent of legal disputes filed in the U.S. and that California comprises “the largest law-trained judicial system in the world.”

“It has been very gratifying to see one of the finest law schools in the nation conclude that state courts, and specifically the California Supreme Court, deserve closer study because of the significant position they occupy in the legal fabric of the United States,” said George.

Carrillo also intends to create a Supreme Court of California bar association for practitioners who have litigated cases in the court, scholars who study the court, and retired justices. “We want to become the clearinghouse for all things related to the state constitution and high court,” he said.  

Carlos Moreno, a former Supreme Court of California associate justice, said “it’s time we had a non-partisan academic research center devoted to the critical study of our state constitution and the important work of the California Supreme Court.” He praised the center for “bringing together academics, appellate practitioners, public officials, citizens, and law students to focus on the ever-evolving and unique role of our state constitution.”

Carrillo formed invaluable campus connections while earning his undergraduate, J.D. ’95, LL.M. ’07, and J.S.D. ’11 degrees at UC Berkeley. He tapped his many campus friends and colleagues to empower the center’s efforts—soliciting scholarly contributions from other constitutional law experts and collaborating with the California Law Review.

Active in trial and appellate practice for 16 years, Carrillo has been a deputy attorney general with the California Department of Justice, a deputy city attorney in San Francisco, and a deputy district attorney in Contra Costa County. He also worked as a commercial litigation associate in private practice.

Contact: Susan Gluss, sgluss@law.berkeley.edu, 510-642-6936

Berkeley, CA—June 7, 2012…. A new report released today provides a blueprint for California to meet and surpass its ambitious local renewable energy goals. The report, California’s Transition to Local Renewable Energy: 12,000 Megawatts by 2020, is a project of the UC Berkeley School of Law’s Center for Law, Energy & the Environment.

California has a target goal of 33 percent renewable energy by 2020, one of the most far-reaching in the country. But Governor Jerry Brown has raised the bar even higher.He’s calling for a total of 12,000 megawatts of local renewable energy, or power that comes from sites close to our homes and businesses. It’s an aggressive target—nearly three times the amount generated by the state’s two nuclear power plants.

The goal may be ambitious, but it’s attainable, according to the report. It examines barriers to local renewable energy production—from grid planning and financing to fire safety and building permits—and provides a step-by-step guide to overcome them.

“The report is a blueprint for California, and it also offers a model for the rest of the country,” said report co-author Steven Weissman, director of the energy program at the law school’s Center for Law, Energy & the Environment (CLEE).

The report’s recommendations reflect conversations held among stakeholders at a 2011 conference convened by Gov. Brown, as well as extensive research and analysis by the report’s co-authors. The material was compiled at the request of the governor’s office, but its proposals represent the views of CLEE alone.

“This report informs the work of the governor and offers an important contribution to California’s clean energy future,” said Michael Picker, a senior energy advisor to Gov. Brown. “It captures ideas and comments from private businesses, utilities, trade groups, environmentalists, labor unions, and more.”

California is already on its way to generating local renewable power, as residents across the state are installing solar panels on roofs, wind turbines on farms, and bioenergy generators at landfills to harvest the state’s natural resources. But to aggressively develop small- and large-scale local energy projects, several barriers to planning, permitting, financing and construction must be overcome.

“The benefits of local renewable energy are countless,” said report co-author Jeffrey Russell, a senior research fellow at Berkeley Law. “Projects are sited on existing buildingsor degradedland, so they typically don’t harm sensitive habitats and species,” he said. “They help spur economic growth in local communities by generating installation, construction, and maintenance jobs. It’s a win-win for business and the environment.”

Gov. Brown is already implementing ideas discussed at the conference, including a new executive order targeting zero net energy consumption for new or renovated state buildings designed after 2025. The state is also working to streamline local permitting—and standardize requirements—for solar installations.

“Renewables are a safer, cleaner source of energy and a viable alternative to fossil fuels or nuclear power,” said Weissman. “But developing these smaller projects to meet our energy needs requires extensive involvement by residential customers, government officials at every level, and business executives from companies large and small.”

Action steps to local renewable energy growth

California’s leadership can expedite the state's transition to local renewable energy, according to the report, by taking recommended action steps. Some of these include:

State government

• Expand development of renewable energy on state lands and facilities.
• Strengthen and expand the net metering program.
• Improve the ways utilities buy local renewable power so they capture its economic and environmental benefits.

Local Government

• Amend land use plans to identify areas that are ripe for local renewable energy projects.
• Create efficient and uniform permitting processes.
• Construct renewable energy projects on public buildings.

Electric utilities

• Design a geographically smart electrical grid to balance energy supply with demand.
• Work with local governments to integrate grid and land use planning.
• Facilitate quick and smooth connections between the grid and new sources of renewable energy.

Industry:

• Develop ongoing training and certificate programs for installers.
• Keep public agencies and utilities up-to-date on alternative energy equipment and technology.

California’s Transition to Local Renewable Energy also recommends reforms within each stage of development, from early grid planning to final permitting. Some government action steps include:

Financing

• Allow renewable energy developers to form master limited partnerships (MLPs) so they can get federal tax breaks similar to those given to oil and other fossil fuel companies.

Permitting

• Promote local government initiatives (such as Community Choice Aggregation) to deliver power to residents if they can speed up the deployment of local renewables.
• Support a statewide permitting summit to address building and safety codes.

Grid Planning

• Clarify priorities for local energy development, such as job growth and cost savings, in addition to the 12,000 megawatt target.
• Develop regulatory reforms to encourage new technologies that enhance grid reliability.

A public webcast to review the report’s key findings will be held on Thursday, June 14, at 2:00 pm P.T. For more info, go to the webcast page.

Media Contact: Susan Gluss (510) 642-6936, sgluss@law.berkeley.edu

WHAT: Orphan Works & Mass Digitization Symposium

Prominent experts will tackle related copyright problems: “orphan works”—the millions of films, books, music, and art whose owners can’t be found; and barriers to “mass digitization”—the legal quagmire that blocks the conversion of the world’s printed literature to digital. These issues are inextricably linked and restrict access to our cultural heritage. They chill creativity and innovation and limit the scope of research and education.

Copyright law makes it risky to digitize works without permission from rights holders. Even a single mistake can lead to enormous financial damages. It affects filmmakers who want to include historic images in documentaries; museums that want to exhibit archival documents, photographs, and oral histories; and libraries that want to offer access to millions of volumes of digitized books—many of which are orphaned. This also forms the crux of the Google Books lawsuit and proposed settlement, as authors and publishers still battle over the proper rules for accessing more than 20 million works the company has scanned.

The head of the U.S. Copyright Office, Maria Pallante, and panelists will address the perils and promise of orphan works and mass digitization. They’ll also proposed solutions, including “fair use,” which permits limited access to orphaned material to benefit the public.

The symposium is co-sponsored by UC Berkeley School of Law’s Berkeley Center for Law & Technology; the Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic; and the Berkeley Technology Law Journal.

WHEN: Thurs., April 12, 8:30 am – 5:30 pm;
    Fri., April 13, 8:30 am-12:00 pm

WHERE: The Claremont Hotel, Berkeley, CA

WHO: Keynote: Maria Pallante, dir., U.S. Copyright Office

Panelists:

• Brewster Kahle, founder, Internet Archive
• Victor Perlman, general counsel, American Society of Media Photographers
• Hal Varian, UC Berkeley iSchool
• Pamela Samuelson, faculty dir., Berkeley Law Center for Law & Technology
• Jule Sigall, assoc gen counsel, copyright, Microsoft
• Jeremy Williams, sr. VP, Warner Brothers Entertainment

A full list of speakers is online here. 

RSVP: Media can register free for the conference here or go to: https://berkeleylaw.wufoo.com/forms/16th-annual-bclt-btlj-symposium-registration/

SOURCES: For information about the conference itself, contact Julia Tier, jtier@law.berkeley.edu, or 510-642-4712.

BACKGROUND: In 2006, the U.S. Copyright Office recommended legislation to allow the unlicensed use of copyrighted orphan works. This legislation passed the U.S. Senate in 2008, but stalled in the House due partly to the proposed Google Books settlement. That settlement would have entitled Google to commercialize all out of print books in its corpus, including orphans, as long as it provided a percentage of the revenues to a collecting society. Although a federal judge rejected the settlement, almost all agree that the benefits of access to orphan works and mass digitized collections are enormous. In fact, the question is not “should we do this,” but rather, “how should we do this?”

Papers presented at the symposium will be published in the next issue of the Berkeley Law Technology Journal.

A three-judge panel consisting of Circuit Judges M. Margaret McKeown of San Diego and Milan D. Smith, Jr., of El Segundo, California, and Senior Circuit Judge John T. Noonan, Jr., of San Francisco, will hear appeals of decisions by the U.S. district courts for the Eastern, Northern and Southern districts of California, and the District of Arizona. Among the cases on the docket are:

• Rogers v. Dickinson, in which Calvin P. Rogers, a California state prisoner appeals the Northern California district court’s denial of his habeas corpus petition challenging his bench conviction of two counts of robbery. He received a Three Strikes sentence of 75 years to life. He contends there was insufficient evidence identifying him as the robber for one of the bank robberies. Case 09-16152


• Garcia-Gomez v. Holder, in which Henry Jose Garcia-Gomez, native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ dismissal of his appeal of an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The immigration judge found that Garcia-Gomez was statutorily ineligible for asylum due to his conviction for possession for sale of a controlled substance, in violation of California Health & Safety Code. The BIA found that the immigration judge correctly concluded that Garcia-Gomez did not meet his burden of proof to establish the standards for withholding or CAT protection. Case 10-72740


• United States v. Bermudez-Chavez, in which Victor Bermudez-Chavez (11-10152) and Abelardo Grajeda-Encinas (11-10174) appeal their jury convictions and sentences for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 100 kilograms of cocaine, and possession with intent to distribute one kilogram of cocaine. Another defendant, David Alejo Martinez-Grijalva, appeals only his sentence for the same offenses. Case 11-10152, 11-10174, 11-10154


• United States v. Turner, in which Marc Turner appeals the Eastern California district court’s order denying his motion to terminate the 22-month term of supervised release, which followed an 8-month prison term imposed upon revocation of his prior supervised release. Turner contended that his term of supervised release began to run the day he completed the incarceration portion of his criminal sentence, and that it expired 22 months later. The government filed a certification of a sexually dangerous person the same day Turner’s supervised release began to run. He remains in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons awaiting a hearing to determine whether he should be civilly committed under the Adam Walsh Act. Case 11-10038


• United States v. Bolander, in which Mikel Bolander appeals the Southern California district court’s order denying his motion for an order terminating his term of supervised release. Case 11-50001

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals hears appeals of cases decided by executive branch agencies and federal trial courts in nine western states and two Pacific Island jurisdictions. The court normally meets monthly in Seattle, San Francisco and Pasadena, California; every other month in Portland, Oregon; three times per year in Honolulu, Hawaii; and twice a year in Anchorage, Alaska. A complete schedule of cases is available online at http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov.

The report, released by the Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Law & Social Policy at UC Berkeley School of Law, is a first-ever in-depth analysis of the costs of establishing a biometric employment identity card. The mandatory card, containing a worker’s fingerprints or a hand vein scan, would replace various forms of ID, such as a driver’s license, social security card and passport, during the hiring process.

Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich have supported a version of a biometric employment card as part of immigration reform during campaign debates. The idea was first raised in 2010 by Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Lindsay Graham (R-SC), among others, but it was never proposed as legislation. According to Schumer’s plan, job seekers and employees would apply for the government biometric card and then present it to an employer or third-party verifier.

“The idea of a biometric ID card failed to gain political traction on Capitol Hill and for good reason: It can’t deliver all that it promises to U.S. taxpayers who will be footing the bill,” said Aarti Kohli, director of immigration policy at the Berkeley Law Warren Institute.

“A biometric employment verification system would require setting up a large new bureaucracy to create a master database with information relating to every worker in the country—an enormous and expensive project,” said Jonathan Weinberg, co-author of the report and professor of law at Wayne State University. “It would involve collecting biometric data from, verifying the identity of, and issuing secure ID cards to more than 150 million people—and that’s just the beginning.” The program would also require every company across the country, from mom and pop shops to global corporations, to verify each worker’s identity with a card–verification reader.

“The biometric worker ID would have to rely on current government databases that still have significant errors. Even a one percent error rate could cause 1.5 million citizens to be flagged as unemployable,” said Michael Froomkin, co-author and professor of law at the University of Miami. “Each of them would then have to go through an appeals process before they could legally work. Bottom line, this plan will disproportionately hurt people who most need work: the poor, short-term and temporary employees, the homeless, and the unemployed.” Froomkin said.

As part of the study, the authors analyzed the program’s costs to government agencies, employers, and workers, and calculated losses to U.S. economic production. To compute start-up and ongoing costs, they applied budget estimates from the Congressional Budget Office and the Government Accountability Office for various government programs. The data assumes 150 million US workers in the labor pool, based on Bureau of Labor Statistics 2010 numbers.

“We examined two core issues: the financial impact of the program and its potential effectiveness. In both cases, the program failed to deliver,” said Kohli. “Not only that, it opened up a Pandora’s box of civil liberty violations.”

Findings of Hard to BELIEVE: The High Cost of a Biometric Identity Card include:

• A comprehensive biometric ID for over 150 million workers could cost US taxpayers up to $45 billion, about four times higher than other estimates;
• Errors in current databases could delay the employment of at least 1.5 million people;
• The black market for fraudulent documents such as birth certificates and passports would increase;
• The biometric ID cards and national database would be vulnerable to a data breach resulting in large-scale identity theft; and
• The widespread collection of fingerprints or vein scans will face legal challenges as a violation of the 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The full report can be viewed here.

WHAT: Israel Through the High-Tech Lens

A two-day international conference about the economic, social, and legal aspects of Israel’s high-tech industry. The event will bring together more than 35 business leaders, entrepreneurs, scholars, and policy makers from Israel and the US. Twelve distinct sessions will address topics such as: models of tech-sector investment, clean-tech trends, legal challenges to US-Israelbusiness collaboration, global corporations' involvement in Israel, labor-market diversity, cross-border collaboration in the Middle East, and high-tech entrepreneurship.

The conference will focus on two key themes:
• Opportunities of local and global dynamics in the Israeli technology sector;
• Lessons from the past and challenges for the Israeli tech industry in the 21st century.

The event has been organized by the law school’s Berkeley Institute for Jewish Law and Israeli Law, Economy, and Society; and is hosted by the UC Berkeley School of Law and the Haas School of Business.

WHEN:
Wed.—Thurs., Feb. 1-2, 9:00-5:00 p.m.
A full schedule of the event is online here.

WHERE:
Feb. 1: Wells Fargo Room, Haas School of Business;
Feb. 2: Warren Room (295 Boalt Hall), UC Berkeley School of Law

See UC Berkeley campus map.

WHO:
A full list of participants is online here.

Keynotes:
· Dan Senor, co-author, Start-up Nation
· David (Dadi) Perlmutter, Executive VP & GM, Intel Architecture Group, Chief Product Officer

Panelists include:
· Isaac Applbaum, pres., California-Israel Chamber of Commerce, General Partner, Opus Capital
· Noam Bardin, CEO, Waze
· Michael Eisenberg, General Partner, Benchmark Capital
· Yoav Samet, sr. dir., Corporate Business Development, Cisco Systems
· Ronni Zehavi, CEO, Cotendo
· Leor Stern, Principal, New Business Development, Google
· Dror Berman, Managing Partner, Innovation Endeavors

RSVP: Register for the free conference here. The conference is approved for three MCLE credits.

SOURCES: For information about the conference itself, contact Daniella Beinisch (510) 643-3701, or dbeinisch@law.berkeley.edu.

Berkeley, CA—October 24, 2011…. California’s ambitious goal of 33 percent renewable energy by 2020 could receive a significant boost if the state built large-scale solar plants on degraded farmland, according to a new report. Harvesting Clean Energy: How California Can Deploy Large-Scale Renewable Energy Projects on Appropriate Farmland, outlines steps government leaders can take to expedite development of these projects. It explains how to identify appropriate sites, but emphasizes the need to preserve prime land for high-value crops and protect natural habitats.

Harvesting Clean Energy is a joint publication of the UCLA and University of California, Berkeley, Schools of Law; its content and recommendations were developed from a climate change workshop with business, environmental, academic and government leaders. The report’s primary author, Ethan Elkind, will be presenting the key findings Mon., Oct. 24, at 1pm (PT) in Fresno before the California State Assembly Select Committee on the Renewable Energy Economy in Rural California.

The report finds that developers of huge solar facilities may need as much as 100,000 acres of land across the state in order to produce the required energy in the next decade. While state and federal agencies have approved renewable energy projects on public lands, developers in California are increasingly looking to agricultural land to site their projects.

For some farmers, it’s an opportunity to develop renewable energy facilities on marginal cropland. But many of these agricultural acres have significant biological value, providing habitat for endangered species. The state also has policies in place to protect farmland from encroaching urban development. Consequently, some of these large-scale energy projects have faced permit delays and litigation, even if thefarmland is barren or contaminated.

“It’s important to strike a careful balance between demands for food and energy,” said report author Ethan Elkind, research fellow at UCLA Law and Berkeley Law. “The state needs to preserve its prime farmland yet actively develop these projects on appropriate sites to meet our state’s energy needs.”

A key obstacle, according to the report, is a lack of a statewide definition of 'marginal' or 'impaired' farmlands, which leaves developers without proper guidance. “State and local governments need to provide direction and incentives for developers to find the right agricultural land,” Elkind said.

Harvesting Clean Energy describes the major obstacles to building large-scale renewable energy facilities on farmland and makes key recommendations to overcome these barriers, including:

• define suitable farmland for large-scale solar plant development;
• streamline and coordinate the permit process across jurisdictions; and
• upgrade the electricity infrastructure to accommodate renewable energy generation.

“The state has an interest in ensuring that renewable energy development not only proceeds, but also that critical environmental resources will be protected,” Elkind said.

Harvesting Clean Energy is the ninth in a series of reports on how business leaders and policy makers can address climate change. The workshops and reports are sponsored by Bank of America and produced by the Emmett Center on Climate Change and the Environment and the Environmental Law Center at UCLA School of Law, and Berkeley Law’s Center for Law, Energy & the Environment (CLEE).

To read a full copy of Harvesting Clean Energy, visit the Berkeley Law or the UCLA Law website. To arrange interviews with Ethan Elkind, contact him directly at eelkind@law.berkeley.edu or 310-729-0902.

UCLA School of Law, founded in 1949, is the youngest major law school in the nation and has established a tradition of innovation in its approach to teaching, research and scholarship. For more information, visit www.law.ucla.edu.

University of California, Berkeley, School of Law: For over a century, Berkeley Law has prepared lawyers to be skilled and ethical problem-solvers. The law school’s curriculum—one of the most comprehensive and innovative in the nation—offers its J.D. and advanced degree candidates a broad array of nearly 200 courses. For more information, visit www.law.berkeley.edu and follow us on Twitter.

Berkeley, California, October 19, 2011 – The majority of people arrested in a fast-growing federal immigration enforcement program are jailed without bond, without access to a lawyer, and without a court hearing, according to a new report. Secure Communities by the Numbers: An Analysis of Demographics and Due Process finds that the Secure Communities program has led to thousands of wrongful arrests of U.S. citizens, while tens of thousands of families are split apart. The report, released by the Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Law and Social Policy at UC Berkeley School of Law, is a first-ever in-depth analysis of Secure Communities data obtained through the Freedom of Information Act.

Secure Communities relies on local law enforcement to target noncitizens for deportation. Fingerprints from individuals booked into local jails—many on minor infractions—are sent to the Department of Homeland Security for an immigration check, triggering arrests. This has transformed the enforcement landscape by allowing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to effectively run federal immigration checks on everyone booked into a local jail.

“The results are disturbing because they point to a system that is funneling people towards deportation without due process. Based on our findings, we recommend that the Department of Homeland Security suspend the program until the government addresses the issues we identify, particularly wrongful U.S. citizen arrests, potential racial profiling, and lack of discretion in detention,” said Aarti Kohli, director of immigration policy at the Warren Institute and lead author of the report.

Lisa Chavez, Senior Research Associate at the Warren Institute and a co-author adds, “We had unprecedented access to federal data on ICE arrests, detentions, and deportations of people who are pulled in through Secure Communities. By following the numbers, we were able to construct a picture of who is being arrested and what happens to them after their immigration arrest.”

Key findings include:

• Approximately 3,600 United States citizens have been arrested by ICE through the Secure Communities program even though citizens, by definition, should not be subject to immigration detention;
• Approximately 88,000 families containing U.S. citizens have been affected by Secure Communities through the immigration arrest of a family member;
• Latinos comprise 93% of individuals arrested through Secure Communities though they only comprise 77% of the undocumented population in the United States;
• Only 52% of individuals arrested through Secure Communities were slated to appear before an immigration judge;
• Only 24% of the individuals arrested through Secure Communities who did have an immigration hearing were represented by an attorney. By contrast, 40% of all immigration court respondents have counsel;
• Only 2% of non-citizens arrested through Secure Communities are granted relief from deportation by an immigration judge. By contrast, 14% of all immigration court respondents are granted relief;
• A large majority (83%) of people arrested through Secure Communities is held in ICE detention as compared with an overall DHS immigration detention rate of 62%. ICE does not appear to be exercising discretion when deciding whether or not to detain Secure Communities arrestees.

“The wrongful arrest of thousands of U.S. citizens demonstrates that, too often, ICE’s protocol is arrest first, investigate second. This flies in the face of the Constitution. With these numbers finally public, ICE must confront the deep flaws in the program that have led to these wrongful arrests and to the disproportionate targeting of young Latino men,” said professor Peter L. Markowitz, director of the Kathryn O. Greenberg Immigration Justice Clinic at Cardozo School of Law, a co-author of the report.

The data of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency’s Secure Communities program was obtained through partial settlement of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the Cardozo Immigration Justice Clinic and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) on behalf of the National Day Labor Organizing Network (NDLON).

“The government’s own data has consistently shown that most of the people impacted by this program have no criminal record or are low-level offenders. To lock these people up in detention centers without access to attorneys or an opportunity to see a judge is undemocratic,” said Kohli.

The report makes a number of recommendations, including:

• increasing transparency of the program;
• adding safeguards to prevent U.S. citizen arrests;
• investigating the evidence of racial profiling of Latinos;
• providing access to government-appointed legal counsel; and
• suspending the program until these recommendations are addressed.

The full report can be viewed here:

UC Berkeley School of Law’s Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Law and Social Policy (www.warreninstitute.org) is a research and policy-based institute that addresses the most challenging issues facing California and the Nation. Visit Berkeley Law here and on Twitter.

The Immigration Justice Clinic of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law was founded in 2008 to provide quality pro bono legal representation to indigent immigrants facing deportation. Under the supervision of experienced practitioners, law students in the Clinic represent individuals facing deportation and community-based organizations in public advocacy, media and litigation projects. Visit http://www.cardozo.yu.edu/immigrationjustice.

For information on the lawsuit through which the data was obtained contact: B. Loewe, NDLON (773) 791-4668, bloewe@onpointconsortium.org or Jen Nessel, CCR (212) 614-6449, jnessel@ccrjustice.org

Read more here.

The confirmation hearing was followed on Thursday by a swearing-in ceremony with Gov. Jerry Brown in Sacramento. Attorney General Kamala Harris, lawmakers, friends, and family attended the ceremony, which took place in the Rotunda of the State Capitol building.

UC Berkeley Law School Dean Christopher Edley, Jr., today called Gov. Brown’s nomination of law professor Goodwin Liu to the Supreme Court of California an “absolutely brilliant” move. Gov. Brown announced the appointment earlier today, calling Liu an “an extraordinary man and a distinguished legal scholar and teacher.”

Professor Liu had been nominated by President Obama to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit more than one year ago, but Senate Republicans blocked a cloture vote on his nomination. Liu withdrew his name from consideration this past May.

“Governor Brown’s nomination of Goodwin Liu to the state’s highest court is absolutely brilliant. Anyone who watched Professor Liu testify during the rigorous Senate hearings on Capitol Hill knows that he’s an exemplary scholar with enormous constitutional knowledge and intellectual rigor. Liu is widely admired for his decency, moderation, and admirable judicial temperament. Our students and faculty will miss his leadership and scholarship dearly, but it’s a higher calling and California’s gain.”

Liu’s appointment follows the great tradition of UC Berkeley Law faculty and alums that have been chosen to serve on the state’s highest court.  Previous appointments include Ira Thompson 1909, Chief Justice Roger Traynor ’27, Mathew Tobriner '32, Frank Newman ’41, Alan Broussard '53, Cruz Reynoso ’58, Chief Justice Rose Bird ’65, and Kathryn Werdegar.

“Goodwin Liu is an outstanding choice,” said Berkeley Law professor and former dean Jesse Choper. “His colleagues, both at Berkeley Law and in the profession, have exceptionally high regard for his integrity, judgment, and legal acumen. He has a deep respect for the judiciary’s limited but important role in our constitutional democracy and will serve with distinction.”

Background

Liu joined the Berkeley Law faculty in 2003 and earned tenure and promotion to Associate Dean in 2008. A nationally recognized expert on issues of educational equity, he won the Education Law Association’s Steven S. Goldberg Award for Distinguished Scholarship in 2007. Liu is also a popular and acclaimed teacher, winning UC Berkeley’s Distinguished Teaching Award in 2009, the university’s highest honor for teaching excellence.

Before coming to Berkeley Law, Liu practiced as a litigation attorney in the Washington, D.C., office of O’Melveny & Myers. He clerked for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg at the U.S. Supreme Court and for Judge David Tatel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. He also served as a special assistant to the Deputy Secretary at the U.S. Department of Education and as a senior program officer at the Corporation for National Service.

The son of Taiwanese immigrants, Liu grew up in Sacramento and attended public schools until he went to college at Stanford University. After graduating with honors, he won a Rhodes Scholarship and earned a masters degree at Oxford. He graduated from Yale Law School in 1998 and joined the California bar in 1999, making him the first person in his family to become a lawyer.

Berkeley, CA-July 12, 2011... A new report offers steps that California policy makers and businesses can take to improve the state’s chronically underfunded public transit system. Author Ethan Elkind, a climate change research fellow at the University of California, Berkeley and UCLA schools of law, outlines how a well-funded system could address unemployment, high fuel costs and the long commutes that many Californians face.

The report, All Aboard: How California Can Increase Investment in Public Transit, describes the ways in which buses, passenger rail cars, and shuttle vans provide vital benefits to the state. Residents in California’s major metropolitan areas waste as much as two full days per year in traffic, according to a study cited in the report. By contrast, bus and rail lines can reduce each household’s driving by as much as 4,400 miles per year.

Expanding public transit also benefits the environment. California vehicles account for nearly 40 percent of the state’s greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change; more than 90 percent of Californians breathe unhealthy levels of one or more air pollutants each year.

“A good public transit system can create jobs, reduce commute time and expenses, and encourage smarter development that gives people more mobility and housing options,” Elkind said. “This report offers policy makers innovative ways to finance better transit in their communities.”

The economic recession and California’s budget cuts have severely depleted transit funding. Since 2001, more than $4 billion in state transit funds have been diverted to non-transit services. To overcome those challenges, the report recommends that policy makers expand and capitalize on existing transit revenue schemes; explore measures to lower the voter approval threshold for transit-related taxes, assessments and bonds from two-thirds to 55 percent; and promote land use policies to spark greater use of neighborhood transit services.

The report highlights the significant barriers to public transit financing, including legal hurdles, a perception of public transit as inefficient, a lack of awareness of its economic benefits and land-use policies that fail to spur development near transit stations—development that would increase ridership and the value of transit investments.

As an example of a legal barrier, in 1978, Proposition 13 established a two-thirds voter requirement for all new taxes. “It’s a very high bar and now applies to all government entities when they try to raise revenue through taxes,” Elkind said. “But once in a while, an initiative is put in front of voters to carve out an exception and lower the two-thirds threshold, such as for school funding. Lowering the bar for public transit typically polls very well, so there could be some political movement there.”

Los Angeles has ambitious plans to bolster its transit network, thanks to voter approval of a 2008 sales tax measure to fund rail, bus and other transportation improvements. The metropolis is now seeking an arrangement with the federal government to obtain no- or low-interest loans on future sales tax revenue. The result, according to Elkind, is that the region could build transit projects in 10 years that were originally scheduled to take more than 30 years.

“We’re in a recession, and this type of program serves to stimulate local jobs and capitalize on a slow labor market for construction projects,” Elkind said. Federal legislation, entitled “America Fast Forward,” which would allow Los Angeles and other cities to implement this financing arrangement, is pending in Congress. According to Elkind, the idea is “getting bipartisan support because it would use the power of the federal government to bring down interest costs and allow local governments to make improvements as they see fit.”

Another idea examined in All Aboard: financing regional transit projects by borrowing against future increases in property tax revenue. As private property near public transit increases in value, a portion of the additional property tax revenue could be used to repay the loans.

All Aboard is the eighth in a series of reports on how business leaders and policy makers can address climate change. Each paper results from a workshop discussion that includes representatives from business, academic, legal and policy sectors of the targeted industries. The workshops and reports are sponsored by Bank of America and produced by Berkeley Law’s Center for Law, Energy & the Environment (CLEE); and UCLA Law’s Environmental Law Center and Emmett Center on Climate Change and the Environment. CLEE Associate Director Steven Weissman also contributed to the report.

To read a full copy of All Aboard, visit the Berkeley Law website or the UCLA Law website.

UCLA School of Law, founded in 1949, is the youngest major law school in the nation and has established a tradition of innovation in its approach to teaching, research and scholarship. With approximately 100 faculty and 970 students, the school pioneered clinical teaching, is a leader in interdisciplinary research and training, and is at the forefront of efforts to link research to its effects on society and the legal profession. For more information, visit www.law.ucla.edu.

University of California, Berkeley, School of Law: For over a century, Berkeley Law has prepared lawyers to be skilled and ethical problem-solvers. The law school's curriculum - one of the most comprehensive and innovative in the nation - offers its J.D. and advanced degree candidates a broad array of nearly 200 courses. Students collaborate with leading scholars and practitioners working on interdisciplinary issues at more than a dozen centers, institutes and clinical programs within its Boalt Hall complex. For more information, visit www.law.berkeley.edu and follow us on Twitter.

WHY: The temptation of the digital age is to fix everything—from crime and corruption to pollution and obesity—by digitally quantifying, tracking, or gamifiying behavior. But Morozov challenges us to question these solutions—are they adequate? Will technological approaches obscure the political agendas and incentives of the tech provider?

As Morozov writes: “…we must ensure that, in pursuing greater profits, our new algorithmic gatekeepers are forced to accept the idea that their culture-defining function comes with great responsibility” (New York Times 11/16/12). Morozov says technology can be a force for improvement only if we genuinely examine how and why we use it.

This event is one in a series of privacy lectures that examines the impact of technology on U.S. consumers, on government security, and on citizens’ constitutional rights.

WHEN: Monday, April 1, 4:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.

WHERE: UC Berkeley School of Law, Room 105; Bancroft Way at Piedmont, Berkeley. See campus map.

WHO: Evgeny Morozov is the author of To Save Everything, Click Here: The Folly of Technological Solutionism. His previous book, The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom, is a New York Times Notable Book of 2011. He is a contributing editor to The New Republic; his articles have appeared in The New York Times, Financial Times, Economist, Wall Street Journal, and more.

Commentators:

• Jenna Burrell is a UC Berkeley assistant professor at the School of Information and author of Invisible Users: Youth in the Internet Cafes of Urban Ghana (2012);
• Martin Jay is a UC Berkeley professor of history and author of The Virtues of Mendacity: On Lying in Politics (2010);
• Chris Jay Hoofnagle is a lecturer in residence at Berkeley Law.

This event is co-sponsored by the Berkeley Center for Law & Technology at Berkeley Law, the UC CITRIS Data and Democracy Initiative, and the student group Boalt.org.

DETAILS:
Media are invited to attend free of charge. For more info, go here or contact Julia Tier, 510-642-4712, jtier@law.berkeley.edu.

Media Contact: Susan Gluss, sgluss@law.berkeley.edu, 510-642-6936  

MEDIA ADVISORY  

ATTENTION: Assignment desks; higher education, international, and legal reporters  

WHAT:                                                                                                                                                                       An afternoon Berkeley Law forum, “The Future of the Rule of Law in China.”  

China has made unprecedented progress in developing the elements of a comprehensive legal system, yet some have argued that China’s rule of law has been in full retreat in recent years. One of the leading experts in the world will deliver a keynote address on Chinese law. How independent is China’s judiciary and legal system from the Chinese Communist Party?  What can we expect in the wake of China’s recent leadership transition?  What will developments in China mean for the United States?  Remarks will be followed by comments from a renowned panel of China experts.

WHEN:
Wednesday, March 20, 4:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.  

WHERE: UC Berkeley School of Law, Room 105; Bancroft Way at Piedmont, Berkeley. See campus map.  

WHO: Keynote address: Jerome Cohen, NYU law professor; senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations; author of several books, including The Criminal Process in the People’s Republic of China, and China Today.

Commentators: 

• Stanley Lubman, distinguished lecturer in residence, Berkeley Law, and Wall Street Journal China Real Time blogger; 
• Paul Pickowicz, distinguished professor of History and Chinese Studies, UC San Diego; 
• Rachel Stern, assistant professor of law, Berkeley Law; 
  Alex Wang, visiting assistant professor of law, Berkeley Law.  

DETAILS:
Media and the public invited to attend free of charge.  

Sponsored by the Institute for Legal Research, Berkeley Law; and the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations' Public Intellectuals Program, which is funded by the Henry Luce and C.V. Starr Foundation. Additional funding from the Center for Chinese Studies, UC Berkeley; co-sponsored by the Institute of East Asian Studies, UC Berkeley.  

For more information, go here. (http://www.law.berkeley.edu/1952.htm)