RCLL October 2023 CLE

Formal group photograph of the Supreme Court as it was been comprised on June 30, 2022 after Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined the Court.  The Justices are posed in front of red velvet drapes and arranged by seniority, with five seated and four standing...Seated from left are Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justices Samuel A. Alito and Elena Kagan. Standing from left are Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Credit: Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States.

The Ramsey County Law Library currently hosts one virtual continuing legal education (CLE) course each month. The presentation scheduled for October 11, 2023 is titled: Nine for Nine Supreme Court Review, 2022-23. Please note that this month’s CLE will be hosted via Zoom starting at 1:00pm.

CLE Details & Registration info:

Sign up for this CLE (one standard credit pending) using the registration link below.

Register for Ramsey County CLE: October 11, 2023 1-2 pm

10/11/2023, 1:00 PM – 10/11/2023, 2:00 PM
Time zone: (UTC-06:00) Central Time (US & Canada)

Please register and join this event. After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar.

Presentation title: Nine for Nine Supreme Court Review, 2022-23

Presentation description:

As a new term gets underway at the U.S. Supreme Court, please join us for a review of some significant decisions from the last term including: Delaware v. Pennsylvania, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, Biden v. Nebraska, Andy Warhol Foundation for Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, Tyler v. Hennepin County, and 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. We will also preview some of the upcoming cases in the current term.

Speaker Bios:

Presented by David Schultz, Distinguished University Professor of Political Science and Legal Studies at Hamline University and a Visiting Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota Law School, and Constitutional law attorney Marshall Tanick of the Twin Cities law firm of MEYER NJUS TANICK.

Schultz, David | University of Minnesota Law School (umn.edu)

David Schultz | Faculty & Staff | Hamline University

Marshall Tanick – Meyer Njus Tanick

If you have questions about the session, please contact the law library at 651-266-8391.

See you there!

 

Minnesota Legalizes Recreational Cannabis

Governor Tim Walz signs House File 100 into law to legalize recreational cannabis in Minnesota.
He is joined at the ceremony by Jesse Ventura, Minnesota governor from 1999 to 2003.

On May 30th, Governor Walz signed the cannabis finance and policy bill (HF 100) into law, which made Minnesota the 23rd state in the country to legalize adult use of recreational cannabis. Starting on Tuesday, August 1st people in Minnesota aged 21 and over will be permitted to possess, consume, and grow their own cannabis for personal use. The bill also establishes a new state agency, called the Office of Cannabis Management (OCM) to oversee the new recreational market, including business licenses; the OCM will also oversee the existing medical cannabis and hemp-derived markets.

Notable provisions include:

  • Legalizing the possession of up to 2 oz. of cannabis in public and 2 lbs. at home
  • Legalizing the use, possession, and transportation of cannabis paraphernalia
  • Legalizing the home cultivation of up to 8 cannabis plants (only 4 may be mature)
  • Automatic expungement of non-felony cannabis offenses
  • Creation of Cannabis Expungement Board tasked with possible expungement of felony offenses
  • Creation of the Office of Cannabis Management tasked with overseeing cannabis marketplace

The Ramsey County Law Library will be offering a CLE on the topic of Cannabis Law and Policy in Minnesota on Wednesday, August 9th from noon-1pm. Jason Tarasek, a long-time cannabis attorney with Vicente LLP, will discuss the evolution of cannabis law and policy throughout Minnesota and the United States. Jason will address the history of cannabis prohibition and the new legality of hemp, hemp derivatives, medical cannabis and adult-use cannabis. Please sign up here if you are interested in learning more about the legalization of recreational cannabis in Minnesota.

 

Intimate Lies and the Law

Okay, big surprise
People love you and tell you lies
Bricks can fall out of clear blue skies
— “Now You Know” from Merrily We Roll Along by Stephen Sondheim

In her recent book, author and law professor Jill Hasday examines the law available when people in intimate relationships deceive each other, and she finds it wanting.  She has meticulously documented hundreds, if not thousands, of examples of intimate deception and researched the kinds of laws implemented to try to make the deceived party whole.  Unfortunately, it didn’t always work out well for the deceived party.

What are intimate relationships?  It isn’t just jilted romantic partners and ugly divorces.  Intimate relationships occur between people in different kinds of relationships – married couples as well as parents and their children.  Intimate deceptions range from minor lies (smokers claiming to be non-smokers on dating sites), to lies and deception made in fear (wife in abusive relationship hiding her pregnancy because she thinks her husband would hurt the baby), or made to avoid harm or embarrassment (mother who told her children that they were Native American, not Mexican because of perceived discrimination against Latin immigrants).  However, she does take time to address deception that was done purposefully to hurt the other person in the intimate relationship. 

Hasday points out that one of the difficult parts of putting intimate deception into a legal context is that this kind of deception is considered to be common and ordinary in relationships between people and thus out of scope for judicial satisfaction.  One commentator describes deception as occurring since the first caveman invited the first cavewoman back to his cave to view his etchings.   In this vein, the author describes a case where a married man’s ex-girlfriend falsely told him that she was pregnant with his child, and consequently his wife killed herself when she believed the lie to be true[1].  The man sued his ex for negligent misrepresentation as well as intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.  Even in these horrible circumstances, the court found that angry behavior is not unusual between intimate partners, so even the egregious behavior in this case was not outrageous enough to warrant judicial redress.  Professor Hasday concludes that one of the roadblocks for the victim is that when the court sees that the parties are intimately involved, the case will be treated differently than if the parties were not so involved.

However, what keeps this book from becoming a depressing morass describing people being horrible to each other is the last portion of her book, where Professor Hasday offers suggestions on how to hold intimate deceivers accountable for their harmful lies when it is appropriate to do so.  As with many solutions to complicated problems, the change isn’t easy and involves all levels of legislation, regulation, and adjudication.  However, the changes she suggests are reasonable and achievable.  The author asserts, “The law of intimate deception is too important and needs too much reform to remain hidden in plain sight.”

Professor Hasday will discuss her book at an upcoming CLE sponsored by the Minnesota State Bar Association.  This session, titled How the Law Handles Deception in Intimate Relationships, is scheduled for January 13, 2022 from noon to 1:00.  1.0 Standard CLE credit, event code TBD. 

Jill Hasday, Intimate Lies and the Law.  New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2021.


[1] Starr v. Woolf, 2005 W.L. 1532369 (Cal. Ct. App. June 30, 2005).

 

Law Day 2021: Advancing the Rule of Law Now

In 1961, Congress proclaimed May 1 as the official date for celebrating Law Day.  It is a chance to celebrate the role of law in our society and to cultivate a deeper understanding of the legal profession.  Each year there is a theme which is chosen to call attention to the law and its impact on our lives.  On Law Day, bar associations, law libraries, professional associations, courts, and many other organizations celebrate by sponsoring educational programs, holding legal clinics, organizing courthouse tours, and more! 

This year’s theme is “Advancing the Rule of Law Now,” to remind all of us that we the people share the responsibility to promote the rule of law, defend liberty, and pursue justice.  President Biden issued a proclamation which can be read here.  Considering this year’s theme, President Biden wrote,

The theme of this year’s Law Day, “Advancing the Rule of Law Now,” is particularly fitting at this moment in our Nation’s history. Recently, we were again called to recognize that democracy is precious and fragile.  We have witnessed grave threats to our democratic institutions and to the rule of law itself. These tragic events have taught us once again that when we are united, we can overcome the greatest challenges and move our country forward — but it takes a commitment to law over demagoguery, and the enforcement of law free from political interference, to do so.

A Proclamation on Law Day, U.S.A, 2021
APRIL 30, 2021

Ramsey County celebrated this year with a program that was sponsored by both the Ramsey County Law Library and the Ramsey County Bar Association.  The featured speaker was Mark Osler, whose presentation was titled Reconsidering Criminal Justice After the Death of George FloydProfessor Mark Osler is a former federal prosecutor and reform advocate who teaches at the University of St. Thomas.  He was joined by Erikka Ryan, Director of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion at the Minnesota State Bar Association, who facilitated the discussion after Professor’s Osler’s presentation. 

In his presentation, Professor Osler described the continuum of changes regarding how the judicial system acted in response to deaths caused by police officers in Minneapolis and St. Paul.  In 2015, Jamar Clark was shot by two police officers, and the Hennepin County Attorney declined to prosecute them, believing that there was not enough evidence to convict.  Contrast that to last month, when a jury convicted Derek Chauvin of second-degree murder in the death of George Floyd. 

Professor Osler also pointed out a bold change in the Chauvin trial that had not happened in the past:  the entire trial, from picking the jury, the witness testimony, and finally the reading of the verdict was televised so that everyone could see the process.  The transparency of the proceedings allowed the community to believe that the process and verdict ended in a fair result.  

And so, even as we have evolved as a community, so must we examine and amend the laws that govern us so that the rule of law can be implemented and applied fairly.  The Conviction Review Unit Advisory Board, the investigation of the Minneapolis Police Department by the Department of Justice, and the various bills going through the state and federal legislatures – these are just some of the steps we are taking to evaluate our laws and make plans to move forward and effect change.  We share the responsibility to see that the law is created, implemented, and respected so that all Americans are treated with fairness and dignity under the rule of law.

 

What to Know about the Derek Chauvin Trial

Gavel

This informational post contains links to resources relating to the Derek Chauvin Trial.

Links to all the Court documents relating to the Derek Chauvin trial.  This page will link to trial information for the other defendants (see section for related cases). 

Links to a live feed of the trial can be found on Court TV, as well as on various news pages, such as MSBNC, CBS Minnesota, YouTube, and many other sites.

The City of Minneapolis has a page that lists street closures, trial updates, and a link to report suspicious activity. 

Links to the statutes for the charges:

Link to Court’s profile of the judge for this case, Judge Peter A. Cahill.

Brief description of the judge, defendants, and attorneys involved with the case, article from Minnesota Public Radio.

The Court created a Media Guidance document that provides information for working reporters and court personnel to address and/or resolve logistical questions regarding media coverage of the trial.

You can find updates about other cases occurring in Hennepin County during the trial. 

During the trial, the Hennepin County Law Library will continue to provide reference services to patrons by phone (612-348-2903) and email (law.library@hennepin.us).  You are also welcome to visit, call, or email, the Ramsey County Law Library for help.

 

This photo of the U.S. Supreme Court was taken by Thomas Hawk in 2014.

The U.S. Supreme Court.

In the recent landmark decision, Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that existing civil rights law protects gay and transgender people from workplace discrimination.  In short, an employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII.

Bostock, along with Altitude Express, Inc., et al. v. Zarda et al., as Co-Independent Executors of the Estate of Zarda, and R. G. & G. R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission et al., was brought before the Supreme Court because of a split in the Courts of Appeal.  The Seventh and Second Circuits held that Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on sexual orientation.  Moreover, the Sixth Circuit agreed with the EEOC that Title VII protections also applied to transgender persons, too.  On the other hand, the Appellate Court in Bostock followed precedent set by an earlier case in the Eleventh Circuit that held that discrimination based on sexual orientation is not protected under Title VII.  The three cases were consolidated and heard before the U.S. Supreme Court in the fall of 2019.  The opinion, which was delivered on Monday, June 15, 2020, was authored by Justice Gorsuch, and joined with Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.  Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, filed a dissenting opinion, as did Justice Kavanaugh.

The opinion, though quite long, states the conclusion concisely at the start:

Today, we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender.  The answer is clear.  An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex.  Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.

If you want to read more about Title VII actions, the Ramsey County Law Library has a substantive employment law collection with several treatises focusing discrimination.  Representing Plaintiffs in Title VII Actions, Fifth Edition, by Robert E. McKnight, is a one-volume loose-leaf title that covers all aspects of litigating a Title VII case.  This title covers prohibited practices, such as disparate treatments, harassment, retaliation, failure to provide reasonable accommodations, and more.  It proceeds to explain pre-litigation charge filing, the litigation process, and remedies.

Another title that would be of interest is Employee Dismissal Law and Practice, Seventh Edition, by Hank Perritt, Jr.   This two-volume set covers these topics:  Employment at will, statutory protection against discrimination based on characteristic, discrimination based on conduct, procedural issues for statutory discrimination, downsizing, arbitration, contract theories, tort theories, special problems of public employment, proof and procedure, employer personnel problems, and wrongful dismissal legislation.  This title has an extensive look at the appellate decision in Zarda (mentioned above) as well Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998), which held that sexual harassment in the workplace between members of the same sex is prohibited under Title VII.  You can guarantee that both of titles will be updated soon to reflect the decision in Bostock!

In support of Pride Month, the Law Library is displaying a few titles that discuss and explain LGBT rights and the law.  We are expecting a few new books to come in soon, including a new book due in at the end of June titled Law and the Gay Rights Story: The Long Search for Equal Justice in a Divided Democracy.  We hope to see you in the Law Library soon.  Happy Pride Month!

 

Keeping Up with Immigration Law

immigration

 

Many attorneys are aware of the important immigration case Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (559 U.S. 356, 2010) which decided that a criminal defense attorney must advise a noncitizen client about deportation risks should the client negotiate a guilty plea.  The consequences of criminal activity are many and complex.  The book Immigration Consequences of Criminal Activity: A Guide to Representing Foreign-Born Defendants by Mary Kramer provides detailed analysis and resources for assisting noncitizens charged with crimes.  The book regularly references two legal sources: The Immigration and Nationality Act (8 USC Chapter 12) and the Code of Federal Regulations (Title 8).  Kramer details removal, detention, and deportability circumstances; she also discusses how to fashion a plea to avoid adverse consequences, including visa options for cooperating witnesses.  The section on immigration defense describes waivers and other available relief.

The Waivers Book: Advanced Issues in Immigration Law Practice provides attorneys with exceptions to the rules regarding inadmissibility and removability.  It introduces waivers—from A to Z—and includes waivers for refugees and asylees, and waivers related to unlawful presence.

These two books, as well as the following immigration titles Asylum Primer (2015), Business Immigration: Law & Practice (2017), and Litigating Immigration Cases in Federal Court (2017), were recently added to the law library collection.

 

Happy Fathers’ Day From the U.S. Supreme Court

father and childThe U.S. Supreme Court has struck down a federal immigration law that favors mothers over fathers in determining the citizenship of a child.  The law in question, 8 U.S.C.§ 1409, created an exception which automatically granted citizenship to the child of an unwed mother if said mother resided in the U.S. for at least a year. In contrast, 8 U.S.C. §1401 requires the unwed father of a child to live in the U.S. for 5 years for the child to be granted U.S. citizenship. As Justice Ginsburg wrote for the Court, this difference violates the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection of the law. (She was joined by justices Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Chief Justice Roberts, with Justices Thomas and Alito filing a separate concurring opinion.)

You can read the entire opinion in the case of Sessions v. Morales-Santana, wherein Luis Ramón Morales-Santana was born abroad to unwed parents. His mother was from the Dominican Republic and his father was a U.S. citizen who had previously worked on a construction project there.  Morales-Santana’s father fell 20 days short of the U.S. residency requirement for Morales-Santana to receive automatic citizenship at birth. Morales-Santana later came to the U.S. with his parents as a permanent resident, but the government sought to deport him in 2000 after he was convicted of several felonies. Morales-Santana challenged the citizenship law as unconstitutional sex discrimination, and Supreme Court agreed: The child of an unwed American mother cannot be granted automatic citizenship more quickly than the child of an unwed American father.

This post might just as appropriately be named “[U]nhappy Mothers’ Day from the U.S. Supreme Court.” The Court’s recent decision is not a boost to fatherhood per se, but more specifically one to gender equality.  As this article explains, the Court’s temporary fix was to strike down the special exception law for mothers, since it was not at liberty to establish the “exception to the rule.”  Congress may opt to resolve this unconstitutionality in a way that is unfavorable for those in circumstances like Morales-Santana’s.  And since the Court is only requiring that the corrected law treat mothers and fathers equally, resolution might mean extending this citizen-residency requirement for mothers, shortening it for fathers, or doing away with it completely.  You might recall the old 1971 case of Palmer v. Thompson, wherein the Supreme Court held that closing public swimming pools altogether was a constitutionally-acceptable alternative to racially segregating them.  The result was a long, hot summer for all.

 

Legislative Chapter 184 from 1949You might have missed it, but county law libraries made a surprise appearance in the Minnesota legislative session this spring.  You can read the original Senate File 1113 here, which would have allowed for the diversion of county law library funds for construction of a courthouse.  This legislation passed both the Senate and the House, but was vetoed by Governor Dayton.  But bills  concerning county law libraries could always come up again at the capitol.

Without examining now-vetoed bill, this occurrence presents an opportunity to consider some history behind county law libraries in Minnesota. Their modern incarnation formally came into existence with what became Minnesota Statute §134A.  You can read in the 1949 Session Laws wherein the Legislature laid out the specifics for the establishment, operation, and function of county law libraries.  This original text reveals that amazingly little has changed to the county law library statute over the years, such as which sectors must be represented on governing boards, how funding is to be provided, and who must be allowed to use the libraries.  Keep in mind that this was all back in 1949, predating modern “access to justice” efforts.  Of course, what might have been casually called a “county law library” existed in Minnesota prior to this statute, often growing from local bar association libraries.  (This was how the Hennepin County Law Library got its start way back in 1883.)  But the original statute overwhelmingly set the standards for our modern county law libraries.

Today you can find county law libraries throughout the state, and this brochure from the Minnesota Coalition of County Law Libraries (MCCLL) lists those which offer professional staff to assist users.  But history-wise, its not easy to determine when Minnesota’s various county law libraries come to be.  Public law libraries existed in St. Paul, Minneapolis, and Duluth back in 1955, as evidenced in this article in the Law Library Journal about the founding of the Minnesota Association of Law Libraries (MALL).  Since this sort of historical information can be elusive, we would like to know more about the history of your county law library (including this library).  If you have any such  inside knowledge, please share it with us.  And- if you have found the services and resources of your county law library helpful, by all means tell your legislator!

 

PencilsIt was big news earlier this year when Harvard Law School announced that it would no longer require applicants to submit LSAT scores, but would also accept GRE scores as well. The Law School Admissions Test (LSAT) has long been a mainstay of law school applications alongside the undergraduate transcript. In acknowledging that many students already take the GRE (Graduate Record Exam), Harvard’s position is that accepting the GRE  scores reduces the financial burden on applicants who would otherwise be required to prepare and pay for an additional test would be alleviated.   It is too early to know whether or not other schools might follow this example, for the LSAT is still mandated by the bulk of US law schools.

An interesting history of the LSAT can be found here.  Obviously there was once a time when even law school itself unnecessary for a successful career in law. (See this prime example!)  Even after law school became standard, greater social stratifications before World War II managed to keep applicants to a minimum,  with less need to evaluate them against each other.  But the war and the GI bill made educational dreams much more achievable for many, so the selection process had to be sharpened. Schools also wanted a tool to address to the wide variation in college records of their applicants.  This led to administration of the first LSAT in 1948.

The Harvard move now begs the question of how useful is the LSAT is for modern purposes.  Does it serve to broaden the applicant pool or constrict it?   The underlying rationale for the use of the LSAT is to avoid the biases that come with more arbitrary methods of selection, and yet the biggest criticism against the LSAT is that it is likewise biased.  There is also assertion that LSAT scores do not accurately predict a law student’s grades.   And even though the test costs $180, preparatory classes to maximize one’s score can easily reach into the thousands.  Yet opponents of the Harvard decision assert that law school is already is seen as a default choice by undergraduates uncertain of their next career-building step.  Thus, the LSAT presents a purposeful obstacle, requiring the potential student to consider carefully if law school is a worthwhile investment of their time and money.