For more information, please contact:
Gwen Osborne, director of public affairs, (312) 906-5251
ADVISORY TO PRODUCERS, COLUMNISTS AND ASSIGNMENT, LEGAL, PLANNING, BUSINESS, AND DAYBOOK EDITORS
CHICAGO--January 9, 2006--Chicago-Kent College of Law, the Stuart Graduate School
of Business and the Center for Financial Markets have experts available to discuss current issues.
To reach any of our experts, call Gwen Osborne, director
of public affairs, at (312) 906-5251. Copies of press releases and earlier advisories are available
on our Web site: http://www.kentlaw.edu/news/advisory.
The Senate Judiciary Committee has begun confirmation hearings for U.S. Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito Jr. If confirmed, Judge Alito would replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. The Senate Judiciary Committee will consider Judge Alito’s legal views as well as his work as a jurist and government attorney. Chicago-Kent experts are available for interviews on key legal issues and cases decided during Judge Alito’s 15-year career on the appellate bench.
What is unitary executive theory and does it undermine congressional policymaking? In recent days, questions have been raised regarding Judge Alito’s views on executive privilege. Dean Harold J. Krent, the author of Presidential Powers, is available to discuss unitary executive theory and other issues related to separation of powers.
Family and Medical Leave. In Chittister v. Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development (2000), Judge Alito ruled that a state employee could not sue the state for denying him sick leave guaranteed by the federal Family and Medical Leave Act. Professor Martin H. Malin, director of Chicago-Kent’s Institute for Law and the Workplace, is available for interviews.
Employment discrimination. Sheridan v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co. (1996) and Bray v. Marriott Hotels (1997). In the first case, a hotel employee filed suit alleging that she was denied a promotion because of her sex. Judge Alito was the lone dissenter in a 10-1 ruling making it easier for the plaintiff to have her allegations brought to trial. In the second case, an African-American hotel employee cited internal hiring policies in her claim that she was passed over for a promotion in favor of a white employee. The three-judge panel agreed 2-1 in favor of the employee’s allegation of racial discrimination. In his dissent, Judge Alito said the ruling would lead to “an unwarranted extension of the anti-discrimination laws” merely because employers often fail to follow their internal procedures “to the letter.” Professor Laurie E. Leader is available for interviews.
Search and seizure. In Doe v. Groody (2004), damages were awarded to a 10-year-old girl and her mother who were strip-searched by police during a drug raid. Although the mother and daughter were at the scene at the time of the raid, the search warrant did not include them. In his dissent, Judge Alito said the police were entitled to immunity from being sued because supporting documents for the warrant led them reasonably to believe they could search all residents of the house. Dean Harold J. Krent is available for interviews about this case.
Jury selection. At issue in Riley v. Taylor (2001) was whether a prosecutor improperly used his peremptory challenges to exclude African-American jurors from the murder trial of an African-American defendant. Judge Alito wrote the majority opinion in a 2-1 ruling against the plaintiff, indicating that the prosecutor used race-neutral grounds to disqualify potential African-American jurors. However, the full Third Circuit reheard the case and later reversed the ruling and criticized Alito’s analysis of why blacks had been excluded from juries in death penalty cases. Professor Nancy S. Marder can discuss this case.
Firearms bans. In United States v. Rybar (1996), Judge Alito dissented from a 2-1 ruling upholding the constitutionality of a federal law making it a crime to possess or transfer a machine gun. Judge Alito's critics claim his opinion indicates that he would unfairly restrict Congress' authority under the Constitution's Commerce Clause to deal with problems that are national in scope. Professor Steven J. Heyman is available for interviews.
Religious displays on public property. In ACLU v. Schundler (1999), Judge Alito upheld the constitutionality of a holiday display in front of the Jersey City, N.J., city hall after the display was modified to include Frosty the Snowman and Kwanzaa symbols with a Christmas tree, nativity scene and menorah. Professor Sheldon H. Nahmod is available for interviews.
Death penalty. In Rompilla v. Horn (2004), the appeal of Ronald Rompilla, who was sentenced to death for the 1988 murder of an Allentown tavern owner, was denied. In the majority opinion, Judge Alito rejected the defendant’s claim that his defense had been inadequate because his lawyer didn't look at prosecution files that including mitigating circumstances. Professor Daniel T. Coyne is available to discuss the case.
–DTC–
|
