Ramsey County Law Library Blog

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 Floyd.  Professor 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.

The 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.

It 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.