“One of the many policies in California that would be ripe for a legal challenge, without the Chevron doctrine in play, is the state’s zero-emission vehicle and tailpipe standards,” said Ted Lamm, associate director at UC Berkeley School of Law’s Center for Law, Energy & the Environment.
“The Supreme Court just ripped away the biggest incentive that cities had to build more shelters and supportive housing for the homeless,” write Berkeley Law Professor Jeffrey Selbin and Jamie Suki Chang, associate professor of Social Welfare at UC Berkeley.
“Two Supreme Court rulings on Friday that dramatically change the law are profound reminders that presidential elections matter enormously for all of us,” writes Dean Erwin Chemerinsky.
“My hope is that the Supreme Court won’t overrule Stone v. Graham and that it will instead apply it to declare the Louisiana law unconstitutional,” writes Dean Erwin Chemerinsky.
Steve Castleman, a supervising attorney in the Environmental Law Clinic at UC Berkeley Law, which is representing Greenaction, said the Navy and EPA have a legal responsibility to retest the entire site because they found contamination in three parcels.
“The Supreme Court’s decision will have an immediate and devastating effect on those who would have benefited from the $6 billion fund,” writes Dean Erwin Chemerinsky. “It would have provided compensation to over 100,000 victims of the opioid crisis, and the plan also would have provided significant funding for thousands of state and local governments to prevent and treat opioid addiction.”
“What’s so crazy is when we teach election law, a case like this would never come up because we almost never litigate claims over whether or not to have an election,” said Emily Rong Zhang, an assistant professor at Berkeley Law, explaining election disputes are usually over more specific legal debates.
“So far, the term has been less ideologically defined than the last two,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California Berkeley Law School. “But I really think it is (this) week’s decisions that will determine how we think of the term.”
Generative AI companies have plausible fair use defenses for using works as training data, said Pamela Samuelson, a digital copyright expert and law professor at the University of California, Berkeley. But she said courts might look at music differently than they would other works such as computer code, text or images.
“The Supreme Court’s ruling on Friday finally brought common sense to analyzing gun rights under the 2nd Amendment,” writes Dean Erwin Chemerinsky. “It will save lives.”
Joshua Spivak, a senior research fellow at the California Constitution Center at Berkeley Law who closely tracks recalls nationwide, comments on the recall of a Southern California school board president.
Professor Colleen Chien talks to NPR about Maryland’s mass marijuana pardons, drawing attention to not just the proclamation, but the implementation of relief.
“There is a very ongoing, current debate raging among the justices about how to interpret the Constitution across a range of cases and whether they need to adopt the same approach in all cases,” said University of California Berkeley law professor Amanda Tyler.
“Whatever you might think of the outcomes of any particular case, the role of the jury in assigning blame or protecting the innocent is fundamental to the American understanding of justice,” write Berkeley Law professor Andrea Roth and Rutgers University professor of law J.D. King.
“Donald Trump will decry the verdict as being nothing but a political vendetta,” writes Dean Erwin Chemerinsky. “But nothing he says can erase the fact that a jury heard all the evidence and found him guilty on all counts.”
“Of course, the law of the First Amendment must be the starting point and must be adhered to, for public universities and for private schools that choose to follow it,” writes Dean Erwin Chemerinsky. “But we also must realize that it is often just the starting point and do a better job of thinking through how to apply it and what to do in these enormously difficult circumstances.”
“AB 886 would create an arbitration process with newsrooms to establish a fee that the companies would pay to carry news articles,” writes Dean Erwin Chemerinsky. “The experience of other countries shows that this type of legislation works.”
“Displaying those particular flags creates the appearance at least that the justice is signifying agreement with those viewpoints at a time when there are cases before the court where those viewpoints are relevant,” said Jeremy Fogel, executive director of the Berkeley Judicial Institute at the University of California, Berkeley Law School.
“We are talking about incarcerating people and taking away the most fundamental of liberties—one’s freedom, one’s liberty in the truest, purest sense,” said Professor Amanda Tyler. “At its core, habeas reflects the idea … that we want to get it right.”
“You always want to be proactive about the appearance of impartiality,” Jeremy Fogel, a former federal judge and the director of the Berkeley Judicial Institute, said in an interview. “The best practice would be to make sure that nothing like that is in front of your house.”
Ethan Elkind, director of the Climate Program at the Center for Law, Energy and the Environment, UC Berkeley School of Law joins a discussion about the future of Amtrak in California.
Pocket-lint speaks with Tejas N. Narechania, Berkeley Law professor, faculty director of the Berkeley Center for Law & Technology, and former Special Counsel to the FCC to get a refresher on net neutrality, learn what the FCC’s decision means, and what could happen next.
“I believe we’re marching toward an uninsurable future” in many places, said Dave Jones, the former insurance commissioner of California and now director of the Climate Risk Initiative at the University of California Berkeley law school.
Jeremy Fogel, the executive director of the Berkeley Judicial Institute, said it’s “unfortunate” that Supreme Court ethics have become such a partisan issue, which has prevented the country from having a real discussion about how to handle the behavior of the justices.
“The legal precedent set by the Weinstein appeal should not have any direct bearing on Donald Trump’s case,” said Chesa Boudin, executive director of the Criminal Law & Justice Center at Berkeley Law.
“The promise of AI is that it can create a level playing field for everybody. But we can already see that, organically, legal aid attorneys aren’t going to necessarily have access to the most cutting-edge technologies,” Professor Colleen Chien told Law360. “There’s a risk that this community in particular will be underserved by AI.”
“The issue in Trump v. United States is whether Donald Trump can be prosecuted for his conduct in attempting to undermine the results of the 2020 presidential elections,” writes Dean Erwin Chemerinksy. “The case should be easy and decided upon the most basic principle of the rule of law: no one, not even the president, is above the law.”
University of California, Berkeley, law and bioethics professor Osagie Obasogie, who has studied excited delirium and sedation, said officers should be banned from influencing medical care. “We need to be sure that folks are treated in a way that meets their medical needs and not simply given a chemical restraint because it’s convenient for law enforcement.”
“If the Ninth Circuit panel’s ruling in favor of Uber is allowed to stand despite AB 5’s reasonable distinctions, it would open the door to countless challenges to laws regulating the workplace and endanger the ability of legislatures to pass laws protecting workers,” write Christina Chung, executive director of the Center for Law and Work at Berkeley Law and Erwin Chemerinksy, dean of Berkeley Law.
“Rather than making a clear choice between the charter or the state rules, the county clerk used both,” write Joshua Spivak and David A. Carrillo of the California Constitution Center at Berkeley Law.
