Donald Gaines Murray

Donald Gaines Murray was the plaintiff in the 1936 case of Murray v. Pearson, an important case in the history of legal desegregation. The case began in January of 1935, when Donald Gaines Murray filed an application to be admitted to the University of Maryland School of Law, which was the only law school in the state. At the time, the institution was segregated and attendantly rejected the application of Donald Gaines Murray. The letter explaining this rejection went on to offer assistance in obtaining admission to a law school in another state, citing the "separate but equal" doctrine established in the 1896 Supreme Court case of Plessy v. Ferguson, which found that segregation of blacks and whites was legal provided both were provided with access to substantively equal institutions.

Donald Gaines Murray declined this offer and appealed his rejection to the school's Board of Regents, which did not reconsider the school's decision. Donald Gaines Murray was then approached by the African-American fraternity Alpha Phi Alpha, which retained lawyers to represent him at no cost in Baltimore City Court. The legal strategy prepared by attorneys Thurgood Marshall and Charles Hamilton Houston began by pointing out that there was no law school for African-Americans in Maryland. Furthermore, they pointed out that the law in every state is different, and that training in another state would not aid Donald Gaines Murray in obtaining legal employment in the state of Maryland.

The legal strategy was also designed to question the legality of "separate but equal." By arguing that Donald Gaines Murray was being denied access to education that would allow him to practice in Maryland, the attorneys charged that the "equal protection clause" of the 14th Amendment had been violated. The attorneys of Donald Gaines Murray therefore filed for a writ of mandamus which would compel the University of Maryland to admit him into the law school. The court agreed with the argument and issued this writ.

Their decision was subsequently appealed by the University of Maryland. The state Court of Appeals then heard the case and concurred with the ruling issued by the lower court in 1936. As a result, Donald Gaines Murray was admitted to the educational facility.

The significance of the case was limited to the state of Maryland, since the ruling was only valid on a state rather than federal level. However, the case was one of several desegregation efforts which laid the foundations for the 1954 Supreme Court case of Brown v. Board of Education, which put an end to legal segregation.

Following his admission to and graduation from law school, Donald Gaines Murray became a practicing lawyer. Many of his cases were concerned with winning similar desegregation rulings related to graduate schools operated by the University of Maryland. In addition to his work as a private practitioner, Donald Gaines Murray also served on Maryland state boards regulating liquor and movie censorship.

Carl Levin

Carl Levin has been a senator representing Michigan since 1979. In legal circles, Carl Levin is best known for his role in the authorship of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA), which includes a controversial clause authorizing the indefinite detention of those suspected in aiding and abetting terrorist activities.

Carl Levin was one of several senators to work on the bill, which was passed in December 2011. Its critics charged that section 1021(b)(2) and is too vague in establishing the criteria for indefinite detention. In January of 2012, a coalition of interested parties filed suit over this bill against both the administration of President Barack Obama and members of Congress involved in its creation and passage.

The case was initially heard by the federal district court located in the southern district of New York. After hearing the case, the presiding judge issued an injunction nullifying this part of the NDAA bill. In her opinion, the judge noted that this part of the legislation could lead to violations of both the First Amendment right to free speech and the Fifth Amendment right to due process. The ruling went on to note that the government did not present a convincing case that the language on which Carl Levin had worked could not lead to abuses of authority and improper detention of journalists and others involved in investigations.

The Obama administration requested that this legislation by Carl Levin and others have the injunction against it lifted, claiming that this injunction would severely impeded the executive branch and the efficaciousness of the prosecution of the war on terror. However, the judge declined to lift the injunction. An appeal was then filed by the Manhattan US Attorney in federal appeals court.

Subsequently, an appeal hearing was held and a ruling issued against the Obama administration. In her opinion, the presiding judge wrote that the powers of the executive branch did not supercede the protection of citizens' constitutional rights, compelling her to find this part of the legislation authored by Carl Levin unconstitutional. The judge further wrote that no detentions could be made using this section of the law as justification and urged Congress to consider alternative legislation for the same purposes which would not violate constitutional rights.

The Obama administration again filed an appeal against this permanent injunction. The case was then transferred to the Second District Court of Appeals. In October of 2012, the Court made the decision that this law would remain in effect until the appeal had been investigated and a ruling issued. In its preliminary findings justifying this stay of the suspension of the injunction against the clause, the Court noted that it did not seem to affect the rights of domestic American citizens. The appeals court also noted that it believed the District Court had exceeded its authority in its previous injunction.

Charles Nesson

Charles Nesson is an American attorney who has been associated with many prominent legal cases. He is known for his specialized focus on issues of intellectual property law. One of the most famous of his cases was his successful 1971 defense of Daniel Ellsberg.

The roots of the case date back to 1967, when then US Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara convened a task force composed of 36 analysts to create a history of the Vietnam War up to that point. The study was completed in 1969 and totaled 7,000 pages. Of these, 3,000 were original analysis, while the remainder contained government documents related to the Vietnam War. 15 copies of this report were made, two of which were sent to the RAND Corp., which employed Daniel Ellsberg as a military analyst. With assistance from others, Daniel Ellsberg made copies of the report, which came to be known as the "Pentagon Papers."

Two years later, excerpts from these papers were made public for the first time in a series of articles published by the newspaper "The New York Times." A court order requested by the White House temporarily restricted publication, but this order was quickly reversed by the Supreme Court. The publication of this information embarrassed the Nixon White House.

On June 28, 1971, Daniel Ellsberg voluntarily turned himself in to the authorities, stating that he felt it was his responsibility to make the information public and that he was willing to accept any legal consequences. In August of that year, while his case was making its way through the legal system, a group of individuals acting at the behest of the White House burgled the offices of Ellsberg's psychiatrist in a failed attempt to gather information discrediting him. However, they were unable to locate his file.

Charles Nesson acted as co-counsel for the defense in the trial, which began in January of 1973. In April of that year, the attempted burglary of Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office was made known to the judge in a memo. Shortly thereafter, the presiding judge, William Byrne, disclosed that he had been approached by the White House about being appointed director of the FBI. Shortly thereafter, more evidence emerged of legal misconduct against Ellsberg. Specifically, it was learned that the FBI had illegally wire-tapped conversations Ellsberg had conducted, information which the prosecution was aware of and had failed to share with Charles Nesson and his co-counsel as required by the law.

In response to the increasing evidence of government impropriety, Charles Nesson and his co-counsel were successful in obtaining a mistrial ruling from William Byrne, thereby exonerating Ellsberg.

Another prominent case in which Charles Nesson was involved was Anderson v. Cryovac, a prominent trial concerning six children who developed leukemia as the result of contamination of water wells by two companies. Charles Nesson served as one of the counselors working on behalf of the families of the children.

Froilan Tenorio

Froilan Tenorio is the former president of the Northern Mariana Islands. During and after his presidency, which lasted from 1994 to 1998, Froilan Tenorio was associated with several legal controversies. In legal history, the most notable is the case of Sonoda v. Cabrera, in which litigation continued past the end of his presidency.

Sonoda v. Cabrera had its roots in an executive order drafted by Froilan Tenorio in 1994, numbered Executive Order 94-3. This proposed law stated that anyone working for the government capacity at a level of authority greater than that of division director would work "at the pleasure of" the Governor. This meant that any such government workers could be hired and fired at the discretion of Froilan Tenorio. The legislature did not object to or alter the wording of Executive Order 94-3, allowing it to take effect.

In 1995, Jose A. Sonoda was chosen by Froilan Tenorio to a position within the government's Department of Finance. As part of his hiring, Sonoda signed a two-year contract, as well as an agreement stipulating the terms of his employment. These terms noted that the governor had hiring and firing authority. In March of 1996, Sonoda had testified before a legislative committee and expressed views of the political party opposing Froilan Tenorio. When he was fired shortly thereafter, Sonoda concluded that he had been fired in retaliation for his testimony and filed suit against Froilan Tenorio as well as the Secretary of Finance, Antonio R. Cabrera.

The district court in which Sonoda filed suit passed the case along to the Supreme Court of the Northern Mariana Islands. In April of 1997, the court ruled that the actions taken by Froilan Tenorio had exceeded his legal authority. The court also found that Executive Order 94-3 was itself in violation of the constitution of the Northern Mariana Islands, since it claimed the authority to deem government jobs as exempt from the regulations of the civil service system. Under the Constitution of the Northern Mariana Islands, such distinctions can only be made by the legislature. Therefore, Executive Order 94-3 was struck down.

This verdict was appealed by Froilan Tenorio and Antonio Cabrera. In 1999, the appeals court processing their request declined to issue a ruling on grounds that the court did not have the authority to consider issues which do not involve federal laws and rights. Sonoda then filed a motion seeking a summary judgment against Froilan Tenorio and Antonio Cabrera. This motion was dismissed in 2000 on grounds that Froilan Tenorio and Antonio Cabrera were immune from judgment against them because they had acted on the reasonable assumption that their actions were legal.

In 2001, an appeals court reversed this ruling, noting that even if Froilan Tenorio and Antonio Cabrera had acted on the assumption that Executive Order 94-3 was legal, they should have been aware that firing an employee in retaliation for his testimony was a violation of his free speech rights.

Robert Torricelli

Robert Torricelli is a former Senator from New Jersey who only served a single term. He withdrew from the election race after allegations that he had accepted bribes from a businessman were made public.

Robert Torricelli was an elected member of the US House of Representatives from 1983 to 1997, serving as the representative of the 9th district of New Jersey. In 1996, he ran for the United States Senate and was elected. He began his term in January 1997 and served until January of 2003.

In the weeks prior to the election, a businessman named David Chang publicly stated allegations about bribing Robert Torricelli. Chang stated that he had sought the cooperation of the office of Robert Torricelli in helping him obtain payment from North Korea which he had sold to that nation. To that end, David Chang alleged that he had bribed Robert Torricelli with gifts such as Italian suits, a new Rolex watch, and a 52-inch television set. Though Robert Torricelli denied all the allegations, he decided to drop out of the race regardless.

David Chang's statements were made following his agreement with federal prosecutors to receive a reduced sentence for illegal campaign contributions within the state in return for testimony about corruption in the state's political system. However, prosecutor decided not to prosecute Robert Torricelli because Chang's testimony as a convicted felon would lack credibility, making it difficult to obtain a guilty verdict.

However, the state's Democratic Party had difficulty replacing Robert Torricelli's name on the ballot. State law stipulates that the names of candidates in an election cannot be changed any closer than 51 days after the election. However, Robert Torricelli exited from the race 35 days before the election. Therefore, legally Democrats were prohibited from replacing his name on the ballot with that of his replacement candidate, Frank Lautenberg.

Democrats argued before the State Supreme Court that despite the law, they should be allowed to replace Robert Torricelli's name in the public interest of the voters. Republicans argued before the Supreme Court that because the language of the legislation in question is clear and unambiguous, the Democratic request for an exception to the rules should not be argued. In its unanimous ruling, the New Jersey Supreme Court stated that it had decided it was in the public interest to grant the Democratic status, allowing for the replacement of Robert Torricelli's name on all ballots.

Following the end of his political career, Robert Torricelli became a lobbyist. In 2010, he again attracted attention when it was reported that he had used funds which were raised in the course of his aborted Senate re-election race and donating them to the campaigns of other politicians. While these donations did not violate federal law, the contributions attracted media attention and were cited as evidence of the need to create new laws regarding the legal use of money raised during political campaigns.