Jane Fonda to receive William O. Douglas Award for political work
The William O. Douglas Award is given to a person who represents Supreme Court Justice Douglas's principles of "equal access to justice, freedom of expression and equal rights." Fonda, 87, was chosen for her political advocacy.
Still politically active, Fonda attended a Climate Rally in D.C. in 2020 and launched Fire Drill Fridays in 2019 to fight climate change. She protested the Vietnam War in the '70s and continues to speak for women's rights, for example lobbying Congress for protections against sexual harassment in 2018.
Public Counsel is a nonprofit pro bono law firm. This year Public Counsel is awarding Molly Munger and Stephen R. English with the Audry Irmas Social Justice Impact Awards. Munger and English are married and retired attorneys who founded the civil rights advocacy group Advancement Project and continue to do philanthropic work.
Morrison & Foerster LLP is receiving the Law Firm Pro Bono Award for their pro bono work.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
a few seconds ago
- CNN
Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship faces skepticism from another appeals court
Donald Trump Supreme CourtFacebookTweetLink Follow A federal appeals court appeared ready on Friday to become the second such court in the country to rule that President Donald Trump's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship is unlawful. A three-judge panel of the Boston-based First US Circuit Court of Appeals spent two hours looking skeptically at Trump's Day One order in a series of cases in which lower courts said the policy violated the Constitution, decades-old Supreme Court precedent and federal law. 'We have an opinion of the Supreme Court that we aren't free to disregard,' Chief Judge David Barron said at one point, referring to an 1898 Supreme Court case known as United States v. Wong Kim Ark that affirmed the idea that most people born on American soil are entitled to citizenship. Other members of the panel similarly said they were required to stick with the holding in that case, including Judge Julie Rikelman, who said the Trump administration was essentially asking the court to adopt the dissenting opinion issued in the 19th century case. 'We have to apply the majority decision, not the dissenting opinion,' she told DOJ attorney Eric McArthur. A ruling against the administration would represent the second time this summer that an appeals court, after reviewing the merits of Trump's order, concluded that it was unlawful. Last month, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals sided against Trump in a separate case. The rulings could ultimately be appealed up to the Supreme Court. The First Circuit judges did not indicate on Friday when they would issue a decision. Signed by Trump on January 20, the executive order, titled 'PROTECTING THE MEANING AND VALUE OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP,' said that the federal government will not 'issue documents recognizing United States citizenship' to any children born on American soil to parents who were in the country unlawfully, or were in the US lawfully, but temporarily. In the set of cases before the Boston-based appeals court, three lower courts issued separate preliminary injunctions earlier this year that prevented Trump from implementing any part of his policy. (Other lower-court decisions similarly jammed up the policy). Among those rulings was a nationwide injunction, which barred Trump from enforcing his order anywhere in the country. The panel of judges had previously declined to lift those rulings while the cases unfolded and the case was appealed up to the Supreme Court on an emergency basis. The high court – without reviewing the merits of Trump's order – made it more difficult for litigants to win nationwide orders blocking executive branch policies. While the First Circuit judges – all of whom were appointed by Democratic presidents – asked a few questions on Friday that were somewhat critical of technical arguments being pushed by some of the challengers in the cases, they showed no support for Trump's attempt to rewrite how birthright citizenship works in the US. 'The rule is that everybody who is born here is a citizen or subject,' Rikelman said at one point.
NBC News
a few seconds ago
- NBC News
Supreme Court raises the stakes in a Louisiana redistricting case
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday expanded the scope of a Louisiana congressional redistricting dispute that has been pending for months by ordering new briefing on a legal question that could further weaken the landmark Voting Rights Act. The court issued an order asking the lawyers to address whether, in seeking to comply with the 1965 law that protects minority voting rights, Louisiana violated the Constitution's 14th and 15th Amendments enacted after the Civil War to ensure Black people were treated equally under the law. If the court rules that the state did violate the Constitution, it would mean states cannot cite the need to comply with the Voting Rights Act if they use race as a consideration during the map-drawing process, as they currently can. Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the UCLA School of Law. wrote on his Election Law Blog that the order "appears to put the constitutionality of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act into question." That provision bars voting practices or rules that discriminate against minority groups. The Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority is often receptive to arguments that the Constitution is 'colorblind,' meaning no consideration of race can ever be lawful even if it is aimed at remedying past discrimination. In 2013, the court struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act in a case from Alabama and further weakened it in a 2021 case from Arizona. The justices heard arguments in the Louisiana case on more technical, less contentious questions in March and was originally expected to issue a ruling by the end of June. Even then, the constitutional issue loomed large. The new order did not indicate whether the court will hear another round of arguments before it issues a ruling in the case. The Louisiana map in question, which is currently in effect, includes two majority Black districts for the first time in years. The complicated case arose from litigation over an earlier map drawn by the state legislature after the 2020 census that included just one Black majority district out of the state's six districts. About a third of the state's population is Black. Civil rights groups, including the Legal Defense Fund, won a legal challenge, arguing that the Voting Rights Act required two majority Black districts. But after the new map was drawn, a group of self-identified 'non-African American' voters led by Phillip Callais and 11 other plaintiffs filed another lawsuit, saying the latest map violated the 14th Amendment. As recently as 2023, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the Voting Rights Act in a congressional redistricting case arising from Alabama. But conservatives raised questions about whether key elements of the law should ultimately be struck down.
Bloomberg
33 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Supreme Court to Consider Ban on Race-Based Voting Districts
By Updated on Save The US Supreme Court indicated it will consider outlawing the use of race in drawing voting maps, setting up a blockbuster showdown with implications for dozens of congressional districts with predominantly minority populations. Expanding a Louisiana case already on their docket, the justices said they will consider arguments that the 1965 Voting Rights Act no longer provides a legitimate basis for map-drawers to intentionally create majority-Black or majority-Hispanic districts.
