Despite decades of work to educate more Black lawyers, the percentage of Black associates and partners in firms across the U.S. remain very low, and well below those of other professional careers. Big Law firms across the board are ramping up social justice efforts as the nation engages in a renewed dialogue on race and equality. But some have accused firms of using minorities as “diversity props” to impress clients and misrepresent their inclusiveness to potential employees. So what are law firms doing to fix their lack of diversity? Hosts Adam Allington and Lisa Helem, along with reporters Ayanna Alexander, Ruiqi Chen, and Meghan Tribe, interviewed lawyers across the industry, from corporate general counsels to top Am Law 200 lawyers to current law students, each sharing their experience navigating the legal space as a person of color. We try to answer what law firms are doing to recruit more diverse classes of lawyers, and how they are addressing barriers to entry for Black lawyers.
The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on a range of issues the week of Nov. 30, starting with a dispute over President Donald Trump’s attempt to keep non-citizens off the Census. The week will end with the latest appeal over non-unanimous jury verdicts. In between, the justices will hear an array of arguments over the scope of an anti-hacking law, the ability to sue the IRS to prevent enforcement, and corporate immunity from suits involving overseas atrocities. Bloomberg Law breaks down these cases in the latest episode of Cases and Controversies podcast.
The Supreme Court still has high-profile cases involving President Donald Trump on its docket as his tenure comes to a close, including disputes involving the Mueller Report and the Census. On the latest Cases and Controversies episode, Bloomberg Law reporters Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin talk about how that Mueller case could be wiped from the docket. They also discuss the latest Census case, Trump v. New York, which deals with the administration’s attempt not to count non-citizens. The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund’s Mahogane Reed joins the hosts to break down the case and explain LDF’s support for New York’s position. Kimberly and Jordan also discuss the latest religion cases at the court involving challenges to Covid-prompted gathering restrictions, and how the justices may choose to avoid issuing sweeping rulings in both this and the Census case.
The justices wrapped up their remote November sitting with one of the most anticipated cases before the justices this term—the challenge to the Affordable Care Act. Akin Gump’s Pratik A. Shah joined “Cases and Controversies” podcast hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin to game out the likely outcomes that include the justices leaving most of the law intact. The case, California v. Texas, derives from a 2017 amendment to the landmark law known as Obamacare that zeroed out the penalty for failing to purchase health insurance, known as the individual mandate. GOP-led states and the federal government say the mandate was so integral to Obamacare that the rest of the law can’t stand without it. Shah, who filed an amicus brief in the case, explains why that’s unlikely to happen and why eyes should be on Chief Justice John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments over the fate of the Affordable Care Act—also known as Obamacare—on Nov. 10. It's a short argument week that also includes disputes over immigration and barriers to suing law enforcement. All ears will be on Justice Amy Coney Barrett in her second phone argument week as the justices remotely hear a Republican challenge to the healthcare law that dominated discussion during her confirmation hearings. On Nov. 9, the court will hear arguments on time rules surrounding immigration removal proceedings and whether federal law blocks a man’s suit against federal task force officers who beat him up.
In the latest episode of Cases and Controversies, Bloomberg Law reporters Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin bring listeners up to speed on one of the next cases to be heard remotely by phone, Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. This will be one of the first cases new Supreme Court justice Amy Coney Barrett will hear. Also this week, the court will likely continue fielding emergency requests ahead of and after Election Day to sort out mail-in ballot and other disputes in the states over voting security and pandemic safety.
The Supreme Court is gearing up to hear a heated dispute pitting religious rights against LGBTQ rights the day after the election, in what could be an early test for Amy Coney Barrett. William Haun with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty joins Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin on this deep dive episode to break down Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. Haun’s group represents Sharonell Fulton, Toni Lynn Simms-Busch, and Catholic Social Services, which says the city is wrongly barring them from working in its foster care system because CSS won’t place children with same-sex couples. The hosts also catch up on Barrett’s almost certain confirmation, as well as the contentious voting cases that continue to divide the justices on their “shadow docket,” and some new appeals they agreed to hear argued later this term.
The Supreme Court’s first argument session of the October 2020 term is in the books and two of the lawyers who argued in it join the latest episode of Cases and Controversies to share their virtual experiences. Ramzi Kassem of CUNY law school and Sean Marotta of Hogan Lovells recount everything ranging from missing Justice Ginsburg to technical issues to what to eat for breakfast ahead of a pandemic-era remote argument. And Bloomberg Law judiciary reporter Madison Alder joins hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin to break down the latest in the high court confirmation process for Amy Coney Barrett, which appears secure for Republicans before the Nov. 3 elections are decided.
The Supreme Court continues to hear remote arguments in the second week of the term as confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett are set to begin. Barrett’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearings kick off Monday, a federal holiday. But in the second and final week of the October argument session, the justices will hear disputes in cases involving military justice, bankruptcy, Fourth Amendment civil suits against law enforcement, and immigration.
The Supreme Court term kicks off Monday after a shorter-than-usual summer break with only eight justices set to hear 10 cases this month. As in May, all arguments for the sitting will be conducted by phone due to social distancing demands of the coronavirus. A live audio feed will be provided by C-Span and other news outlets. This will be the first term in nearly three decades that the court will be without Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died Sept. 18, and the second time in the past three terms the court starts work with a prospective colleague in the confirmation process.