The bootcamp centered on the federal Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, which grants the public the right to access government records. Under this act, federal agencies must disclose requested information unless it qualifies for specific exemptions, such as national security or personal privacy. Panelists included Nate Jones, the FOIA director for The Washington Post, and Nathan Tempey, a criminal defense investigator and journalist. Jones and Tempey shared insights into the request process and their personal experiences with FOIA. Attendees also received a paper featuring an illustrated step-by-step guide outlining the procedure of requesting documents using FOIA.

“We are thrilled to have had so many reporters, lawyers and residents of the greater New Haven community attend our annual FOIA bootcamp,” said Jennifer Borg, a senior research scholar at the MFIA clinic and an organizer of the event. “As part of our clinic’s mission, we aim to support investigative journalism and transparency. Nate Jones and Nathan Tempey did a fantastic job giving practical advice as to how FOIA can be used to hold our government accountable.”

Jones initiated the discussion by outlining the process for obtaining government documents through FOIA. The steps included identifying the relevant state or federal agency holding the desired record, specifying the particular document to request, drafting and submitting the email request, obtaining a tracking number to monitor the progress, and if approved, gaining access to the files.  

Tempey provided several suggestions for initiating searches when seeking files, including Google searches, library databases, government websites, legal documents and reaching out to knowledgeable individuals. Nonetheless, he acknowledged the difficulty of navigating larger agencies, which he explained are often reliant on impersonal communication methods such as portals. He emphasized the importance of identifying and contacting specific individuals within these agencies to streamline communication and avoid being overwhelmed by bureaucratic processes.

Jones mentioned that agencies may occasionally deny requests for documents. In such cases, he said that two additional steps include filing an appeal and providing a detailed explanation of why the agency’s use of FOIA exemptions was incorrect, followed by pursuing litigation against the agency in court. Jones emphasized the significance of this process, saying that FOIA enables journalists to uncover government information that might otherwise go unnoticed.

“With FOIA, we often get to see something behind the scenes that you don’t get to see every time,” Jones said.

Jones also emphasized the importance of crafting detailed and precise FOIA requests when interacting with records officers. He warned against the pitfalls of submitting overly broad requests, which could lead to rejection or prolonged processing times. Jones illustrated this point with an example of articles from a government agency on the war in Afghanistan. He said that these seemingly “bland” reports from the agency regarding the war actually contained vital information tucked away in footnotes sourced from high-ranking officials. When he made requests for these specific sources, agencies were unable to deny them, as the information had already been publicly disclosed.

Tempey emphasized that government agencies do not simplify their reports for public consumption. Therefore, he said, journalists need to understand how they organize information. For example, he said, police disciplinary records may be called something else in the agency’s system, meaning anyone looking to access them would need to understand how they manage the files. He said that asking for a new record may delay the process, as FOIA compels them to provide existing information, not create new records.

The event concluded with a question-and-answer session where attendees had the opportunity to speak with both Jones and Tempey directly and hear overall final thoughts on navigating the process of FOIA. 

“Figure out where to file and figure out what the law is that applies to your situation,” Tempey said.  “Make sure to stay on top of your FOIA requests.”

Yale Law School is located at 127 Wall St.

The post Law School hosts Freedom of Information Act bootcamp appeared first on Yale Daily News.

Now, after being incarcerated for 25 years, Braham will begin his law degree this fall.  

It was during his incarceration that Braham’s interest in the law began. In 1999, Braham suffered an attack by a fellow inmate, even though prison officials were aware of previous threats the inmate had made. Braham filed a civil rights lawsuit against the prison under the Eighth Amendment and represented himself in court. 

After this experience, Braham began to realize his skill in legal matters. Observing what he said were frequent violations of constitutional rights within prisons, he continued to not only teach himself the law but also aided fellow inmates in filing lawsuits for their rights violations.

“I knew the law and I understood the role of correctional officers,” Braham told the News. “It became clear after a while that upon my release, there were two paths I could pursue. I could either become a prison guard, which was out of the question, or I could pursue a career in the legal field.”

In his civil lawsuit against the prison, Braham initially represented himself due to limited attorney availability. This, he said, was the result of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 which caps an attorney’s fees at 150 percent of the dollar amount awarded to the plaintiff in civil rights cases. Braham said he was thus forced to prosecute his case while relying on a self-help litigation manual. Despite encountering setbacks, including an initial loss at the district court level, he persisted, eventually appealing to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and ultimately securing a settlement. 

Braham then worked toward earning an undergraduate degree. He told the News he believed that education would provide him with the necessary skills to secure employment and ensure a successful reintegration back into society.

He earned his associate’s degree from the Middlesex Community College Center via the Center for Prison Education, a partnership between Wesleyan University and Middlesex Community College. Later, he pursued his bachelor’s degree at Charter Oak State College, concentrating on philosophy, critical race theory and law courses. He transferred his community college credits to Charter Oak, culminating in the completion of a capstone project for his bachelor’s degree. Braham earned another bachelor’s degree in philosophy from Wesleyan University while incarcerated.

“I set out to do everything to earn a degree so that I could reenter society,” Braham said. “When certain opportunities came my way, I took advantage of them.”

Braham highlighted a course that he took during his undergraduate studies called “Thresholds,”  which he said left a significant impact on him. Thresholds was a decision-making course structured around five steps: seeing the situation clearly, knowing what you want, expanding possibilities, evaluating and deciding. This framework, he said, helped him navigate conflicts and assess situations so he could avoid trouble, prevent misunderstandings from escalating unnecessarily and potentially have his sentence shortened.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, while still incarcerated, Braham was introduced to Jeannia Fu, a New Haven activist. During the pandemic, Fu worked on securing the release of incarcerated individuals to reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission.  Through Fu’s connections, Braham was introduced to New Haven civil rights attorney Alex Taubes LAW ’15 who worked on Braham’s case free of charge. Taubes’ investigation revealed potential bias in Braham’s sentence, leading to a reduction of seven years from his initial 32-year sentence.

Following his release from prison, Braham relocated to New Haven and secured employment at Taubes’ law firm as a paralegal just a month after his release. Braham highlighted the importance of this opportunity, underscoring the rarity of attorneys hiring individuals with a history of incarceration, particularly those with lengthy sentences. But Taubes affirmed that Braham’s background made him a strong match for the law firm.

“He brought lawsuits, successfully won those lawsuits and those experiences in addition to all the other things that he had accomplished, such as getting two college degrees while incarcerated. Those are the reasons why he got such extraordinary relief from the court,” Taubes told the News. “And that’s also why he made a good fit to work with me.”

During his time at Taubes’ law firm, Braham applied to and was later accepted into the second cohort of Yale Law School’s Access to Law School Program. The program, headed by law professor James Forman Jr. LAW ’92, actively involves and guides New Haven-area students and adults aspiring to pursue a career in law.

Braham said that he discovered the program during the final days of his sentence through Dan McGloin, who served as the Academic Development and Planning Manager for the Wesleyan-Middlesex Center for Prison Education at the time. In the first year, Braham concentrated on LSAT prep, engaging in group tutoring sessions and receiving personalized coaching to address their specific needs. In the next year, he shifted his focus to the application process, ultimately submitting applications to nine different schools.

Michael Merli, another paralegal at Taubes’ law firm, told the News that Braham’s journey holds a significant impact, especially as he now assists individuals who are also seeking sentence reductions. Merli remarked that Braham serves as an inspiration to him.

He added that Braham puts his all into everything he does, whether it’s assisting the law firm on a case or studying for the LSAT. He said Braham dedicates himself wholeheartedly to every task he undertakes.

“I’m just really grateful and honored to know Mike Braham,” Merli told the News. “He really brings his full self to work every day and his journey inspires me so much.”

Braham told the News that he has already received acceptance letters from three law schools and is awaiting a decision from one more. He said that he hasn’t made a final decision on which law school to attend this fall, but he will be part of the class of 2027.

When asked about the area of law he hopes to practice post-law school, Braham said that he is contemplating either becoming a general practitioner or specializing in civil rights. But Braham said he remains open-minded and anticipates that his interests may change at the beginning of law school. 

Braham said that one of his long-standing goals since his time in incarceration has been to establish a full-service community center where “children can simply be children.” He said his experiences have taught him the importance of providing a safe space for kids to grow and learn, away from the influences that may lead them astray and make bad choices. By focusing on education and providing positive opportunities, he said he hopes to break the cycle that often plagues underserved communities. 

“I want to provide more education and create a center that fosters that for kids,” he said. “I hope to use my law degree to pursue that goal or help others accomplish a similar kind of mission.”

The Access to Law School Program is run by the Law and Racial Justice Center at Yale Law School.

The post PROFILE: Michael Braham’s journey from prison to law school appeared first on Yale Daily News.

The case, Trump v. United States, is scheduled for oral arguments on April 25. The case will address the extent to which a former president retains presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for “official acts,” or actions taken in a presidential capacity while in office. It will also clarify the circumstances under which a former president can be brought to trial in the courts. According to Linda Greenhouse LAW ’78, a former Supreme Court reporter for The New York Times, Trump’s legal team is advocating for a very broad understanding of what constitutes an official act.

“The question before the Court is whether a former president is entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts,” Greenhouse told the News.  “Whether the behavior for which he’s been indicted constitutes official acts in every particular case will be hashed out at trial … but obviously some of the crazier notions are off the table, such as murdering someone and claiming that it was an official act.”

In August 2023, Trump was first indicted on four charges stemming from Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into the events of Jan. 6, 2021. On that day, a mob of Trump supporters stormed the United States Capitol in an attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. The riot resulted in numerous deaths and injuries, as well as significant damage to the Capitol building.

Judge Tanya Chutkan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia initially scheduled a trial to address Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election results for March 4, 2024. However, she later withdrew that trial date, stating that she would set a new date once Trump’s claims of immunity were resolved. Chutkan had rejected Trump’s motion to dismiss the charges against himself, asserting that he could be sued for civil proceedings. In December of 2023, Smith petitioned the Supreme Court to review Chutkan’s decision immediately, bypassing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. However, the Supreme Court declined Smith’s requests. 

Two months later, on Feb. 6, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld Chutkan’s initial ruling, dismissing Trump’s argument that he was immune from prosecution for actions taken during his presidency. Subsequently, Trump’s legal team appealed once more to the Supreme Court. On Feb. 28, the Court agreed to hear the case.

“The case is unprecedented, and Trump’s legal arguments are audacious and unconvincing,” Duncan Hosie LAW ’21, an appellate lawyer and writer, told the News. “But despite this case’s novel posture and Trump’s brazen claims, the Supreme Court and the parties will grapple with the implications of past cases involving presidential immunity, like Nixon v. Fitzgerald in 1982 and Trump v. Vance in 2020. As always, the Court will not rule from an entirely blank slate.”

According to David Lat LAW ’99, author of the legal commentary Substack newsletter Original Jurisdiction, there are a small number of Supreme Court cases on the subject of presidential immunity, including two involving President Richard Nixon, one involving President Bill Clinton, and one other involving Trump. However, Lat said, the issue of a former president’s immunity from criminal prosecution is a first for the Court.

Lat also told the News that it remains unclear why the Court chose to take up the case at this time. However, he proposed several potential reasons for the Court’s decision.

“Maybe they wanted to give the D.C. Circuit the first crack at it. Maybe they’re taking it now, after letting Trump stay on the ballot in the big Colorado case, to show balance: one win for Trump, one loss for Trump,” Lat told the News. “I agree with most observers that Trump will lose in this immunity case, but the Supreme Court might have different reasoning than the D.C. Circuit. Of course, this is all speculation.”

Hosie told the News that the Supreme Court has “no choice” to hear the case given its national importance.  He said it is “urgently important” that the court reject Trump’s immunity claims clearly and quickly.  According to Hosie, Trump is counting on drawing out legal proceedings with dilatory tactics for intertwined personal and political reasons.

Greenhouse also commented on the timing of the Supreme Court’s scheduling of this case, noting that some people have criticized the perceived lateness of the scheduled argument. She believes these complaints are unfounded and suggested that there is no deliberate intention by the justices to delay the trial past the election.

“I just don’t see any basis for that serious charge of bad faith,” Greenhouse said. “The Court always hears arguments in the second half of April — nine other cases this April, in fact.  And it decides them all by the end of June. Could the Court have scheduled this argument a few weeks earlier? Sure, but I don’t see that it will make a difference. Had the Court not accelerated the argument, the case wouldn’t have been heard until next fall.” 

Greenhouse added that the Court took only a month to decide whether Colorado could keep Trump off the ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, and that there is no reason the Court should not be able to match that schedule for this case. 

“This isn’t a hard case and in some ways it’s easier than the Colorado case,” Greenhouse told the News. “The obvious answer is ‘no immunity.’”

The Supreme Court is located at 1 First St. in Washington, D.C.

The post Yale’s legal experts weigh in on Trump’s presidential immunity case appeared first on Yale Daily News.

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

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

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

Nicole Anker ’94

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

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

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

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

Tamar Birckhead ’87

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

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

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

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

Alayna Stone ’04

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

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

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

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

The significance of the court and its judges 

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

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

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

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

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

The Superior Court bench currently has 35 vacancies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delery received his undergraduate degree from the University of Virginia. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Koh has taught at Yale Law School since 1985.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yale Law School is located at 127 Wall St.

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

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