Faculty in the News: June 1 - June 15, 2017
Columbia Law School Clip Report, June 1-15, 2017
Columbia Law School Clip Report, June 1-15, 2017
WNYC—June 1, 2017
Nathaniel Frank, Director of the What We Know Project at Columbia Law School, traces the history of the fight for marriage equality in the U.S.
Note: Frank is a visiting scholar with the Center for Gender and Sexuality Law
The Guardian—June 2, 2017
Author Tim Wu on how the early utopian potential of the internet gave way to naked capitalism.
New York Review of Books—June 3, 2017 (published online); June 22, 2017(magazine)
Two excellent books, Women Against Abortion: Inside the Largest Moral Reform Movement of the Twentieth Century, by Karissa Haugeberg, and About Abortion: Terminating Pregnancy in Twenty-First-Century America, by Carol Sanger, tell the story. Both authors support abortion rights, but they also present the opposition to abortion fairly and, in the case of Haugeberg, sometimes sympathetically.
The Hill—June 4, 2017
“I'm confident that Comey and Mueller have agreed on some strict parameters so that Comey doesn't compromise the investigation, though Comey would have been unlikely to discuss details of the investigation anyway,” said Matthew Waxman, a Columbia Law professor and adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Bloomberg—June 5, 2017
John Coffee, a professor at Columbia Law School, discusses the case of a trader who conspired to manipulate futures contracts in precious metals, who is now cooperating with the authorities and is revealing a connection to Deutsche Bank.
NBC News—June 5, 2017
“These students have absolutely no free speech rights that were violated in this context," said Katherine Franke, a professor at Columbia University Law School. “The First Amendment’s Free Speech protections apply only to violations by public entities, and since Harvard is a private university the First Amendment does not apply,” she said.
The Washington Post—June 5, 2017
“A subsequent president would thus be able to submit a document stating the United States’ intention to become a party to the Agreement as soon as she or he wanted to,” Michael Burger, executive director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School, said in an email to The Washington Post — although he added that such an action is certainly outside the norm.
Politico—June 6, 2017
[R]egarding revenue, Michael Graetz of Columbia Law School warned against relying too much on what he called “funny money,” such as shifting revenue collections by taxing retirement contributions now rather than in the future under current deferral options.
Bloomberg—June 7, 2017
Peter Henning, a professor at Wayne State University, and John Coffee, a professor at Columbia Law School, discuss a Supreme Court decision to limit the SEC in its use of disgorgement as a way to recoup money from people who have violated federal laws.
CNBC—June 7, 2017
At issue is whether Trump's comments to Comey represent obstruction of justice. Any such charge would rest heavily on the exact wording of Trump's comment, according to Columbia University law professor John Coffee … “It's generally believed that you cannot indict a sitting president, because that would paralyze the government,” said Coffee. “And because impeachment is the constitutional procedure created to remove a president.”
CNBC—June 7, 2017
If so, it would be a difficult charge to bring against Trump, according to Columbia University law professor John Coffee.
“It’s generally believed that you cannot indict a sitting president because that would paralyze the government,” said Coffee. “And because impeachment is the constitutional procedure created to remove a president.”
WNYC—June 8, 2017
Jennifer Rodgers, a former federal prosecutor who worked with Comey when he was U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, discusses Comey’s prepared remarks. Rodgers, the executive director of the Center for the Advancement of Public Integrity at Columbia Law School, spoke with Takeaway Washington Correspondent Todd Zwillich before James Comey testified.
The Washington Post—June 8, 2017
In a startling moment, Comey described how he asked a close friend, a professor at Columbia Law School (later identified as Daniel Richman) to leak his detailed notes about a meeting between himself and President Trump to the New York Times.
[Note: For brevity sake, this report does not include the hundreds of news stories that appeared after a.) James Comey testified that he showed copies of his memos to “A good friend of mine who’s a professor at Columbia Law School,” b.) Dan Richman confirmed his role in the release of the memo to the press.]
The Washington Post—June 8, 2017
“Obama was furious over leaks, but his fury was directed internally,” said David Pozen, a constitutional law professor at Columbia University who specializes in national security law.
“What distinguishes Trump is that he is directing his [anger] to the public. What is the point of complaining about leaks in a public tweet? He can call up the attorney general at any moment of the day or night. … He’s the chief executive and he has powerful investigative tools at his disposal. Twitter is not one of the tools.”
The Daily Beast—June 9, 2017
Alex Moorehead, a project director at Columbia Law School’s Human Rights Institute, said that if the allegations of abuse in UAE-supervised prisons are true, it begs the question of whether intelligence extracted under torture is being shared with the U.S. and used in the U.S.’ own counterterrorism operations.
“Given these allegations, the U.S. should be very concerned about where the UAE is getting its intelligence from. There are also serious questions to be answered about the extent of U.S. involvement in UAE detention operations in Yemen,” he said.
Fox Business—June 9, 2017
John Coffee, professor at Columbia Law School, concurred. “For the inspector general, I would like to know if this is an improper leak,” Coffee said. “These were not governmental records. This was just the personal property of Mr. Comey. If it’s his personal property, it’s not a leak,” Coffee said.
The New York Times—June 9, 2017
In a 2013 law review article, David Pozen, a Columbia University law professor, coined the term “pleak” to describe a practice in which high-level officials talk to reporters without getting clearance but in a way that the White House tolerates.
If we define authorization as coming from the White House, Comey looks more like a leak than a plant,” Mr. Pozen said.
Reuters—June 9, 2017
Congressional apathy “doesn't mean the vote’s not worth doing, because this kind of vote is the only way out of a colonial situation,” said Columbia Law School Professor Christina Duffy Ponsa, an expert on Puerto Rico territory issues who supports statehood.
The Wall Street Journal—June 9, 2017
By John Tierney
Government by unelected experts isn’t all that different from the ‘royal prerogative’ of 17th-century England, argues constitutional scholar Philip Hamburger.
Business Insider—June 10, 2017
“We certainly have no idea whether anybody behind the scenes is telling him not to do anything, we just don't know,” Richard Briffault, a professor at Columbia law school, told Business Insider. “We have to trust in his [willingness] to resign and or go public should he feel that he is not being given adequate independence.”
Politifact—June 11, 2017
If information is classified, it might be covered by the Espionage Act or another federal law and therefore illegal for Comey to disclose it, added Jamal Greene, a constitutional law professor at Columbia University. (He’s also a colleague of the professor with whom Comey shared the memo.)
“But I know of no reason why sharing the content of a private conversation with the president with the press would be illegal,” Greene said. “In addition, and significantly, the disclosure is protected by the First Amendment.”
The Wall Street Journal—June 11, 2017
With a low turnout, political foes to statehood likely will say the vote isn’t credible, which could further hurt Puerto Rico’s already daunting chances of getting Congress to grant the island full admission to the U.S., said Christina Duffy Ponsa, an expert on constitutional law and Puerto Rican statehood at Columbia Law School. “I think politically speaking, their argument could have traction,” she said.
Reuters—June 12, 2017
Reuters analyzed the FINRA data after receiving it from researchers at Columbia University Law School DataLab, who wrote computer code to extract it from the regulator’s website.
SCOTUSblog—June 12, 2017
By Ronald Mann
Obviously one unanimous majority opinion in a straightforward statutory case is a small and unrepresentative sample, but at the risk of over-reading today’s offering, I would suggest that the two most salient features of this particular opinion are an effort to craft memorable prose – some may regard it as purple – and a commitment to taking seriously all of the arguments of the losing party.
Slate—June 12, 2017
By Aaron A. Dhir
As the Financial CHOICE Act makes its way to the Senate, Democrats should move to save the shareholder proposal process. If enacted, the amendments would have a chilling effect on efforts to promote a more humane, sustainable form of American capitalism.
Note: Aaron A. Dhir is a visiting professor at Columbia Law School.
USA Today—June 12, 2017
That’s the thesis of Columbia Law Professor Philip Hamburger’s new book, The Administrative Threat, a short, punchy followup to his magisterial Is Administrative Law Unlawful? … Hamburger explains that the prerogative powers once exercised by English kings, until they were circumscribed after a resulting civil war, have now been reinvented and lodged in administrative agencies, even though the United States Constitution was drafted specifically to prevent just such abuses.
The Wall Street Journal—June 12, 2017
And any CFO engaged with an activist faces an additional job hazard. “It’s much easier to fire the CFO,” said John Coffee, a professor at Columbia Law School.
“One of the ways you show you’re having an impact is to take one of several executives to the guillotine.”
Bloomberg—June 13, 2017
An investigation suggested that “Time Warner Cable has earned the miserable reputation it enjoys among consumers,” Tim Wu, senior enforcement counsel and special adviser to the New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, told Charter CEO Tom Rutledge. “Overcoming this history will require more than a name change; it will require a fundamental revolution in how Time Warner Cable does business and treats its customers.”
The Intercept—June 13, 2017
“For years, the only way we knew anything about individual strikes was from mediareports or individual statements about strikes from government officials,” said Alex Moorehead, of the Columbia Law School’s Human Rights Institute, highlighting the failure of the government to provide details about cases in which drones have been used for targeted killings.
Foreign Affairs—June 14, 2017 (published online); July/August 2017 (magazine)
By Alex Raskolnikov
The congressional “Better Way” plan, championed by Paul Ryan, the Speaker of the House, and Kevin Brady, chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, would create a business tax system that has never existed anywhere in the world. The White House plan would enact a massive tax cut, mostly for the wealthy.
Mashable—June 14, 2017
"The financial incentives to bend the rules are too great. Without Net Neutrality, there wouldn't be overt blocking, but a million and one tricks and tactics that have the end result of making both consumers and app companies pay more," said Tim Wu, a professor law at the University of Columbia and the person who coined the term "net neutrality."
WNYC—June 14, 2017
Alex Moorehead, director of the counterterrorism, armed conflict and human rights project at Columbia Law School’s Human Rights Institute, led the study and shares his findings today on The Takeaway.
CBS News—June 15, 2017
Matthew C. Waxman, faculty chair of the program on Law and National Security at Columbia Law School, told CBS News that President Trump “has signaled that he wants to work more closely with Russia on counterterrorism.”
The Nation—June 15, 2017
By Patricia J. Williams
Consider how Trump frames coal production only in terms of wealth production rather than disease production. Or how drought and flood and species extinction and food-chain collapse are framed less as holes in the planetary boat in which we’re all sinking, and more as winnable wars over unlimited resources. But that kind of wealth—whether Trump Inc.’s or Pittsburgh’s or Paris’s or China’s—is not what’s at stake in this battle.
# # #
This report shares mentions of Law School faculty cited in print, broadcast, and online news outlets. It is not intended to be inclusive of every media mention. Faculty members who are featured in the media are encouraged to send their clips to press@law.
______________________________
______________________________