J. Michael Luttig

J. Michael Luttig is an American attorney best known for his period as an appellate court judge. J. Michael Luttig served in this capacity in the fourth circuit court from 1991 to 2006, writing opinions on many major cases during this period. Prior to this period, he worked in private practice from 1985 to 1989. In 1989, he entered the Department of Justice.

In 1994, J. Michael Luttig's father was killed during a carjacking. The defendant twice filed an appeal with the Supreme Court. However, many of the Supreme Court justices recused themselves from hearing the case because of their personal familiarity with J. Michael Luttig. The defendant was later executed.

One of his most prominent opinions was written in 2003 when hearing the case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. The case concerned Yaser Esam Hamdi, who had been captured in Afghanistan and detained as an enemy combatant despite being an American citizen. Hamdi appealed his custody and was rejected by the majority court, which deferred to the powers of the executive branch in deciding not to hear his case. However, in a dissenting opinion, J. Michael Luttig stated that Hamdi was entitled to a rehearing of his case, since he had not been granted due process. J. Michael Luttig also stated that the reasoning given in favor of the executive branch was insufficiently strong. The case was later heard by the US Supreme Court.

Another prominent case concerned the detention of another enemy combatant. The case concerned Jose Padilla, who was arrested in 2002 on suspicion of planning to detonate an large bomb. Padilla had been detained as an enemy combatant, a legal procedure which was validated by a Fourth Circuit Court decision. The majority opinion was written in September of 2005 by J. Michael Lutting. However, in December of that year a decision was made by the Bush administration to transfer Jose Padilla to a civilian prison. J. Michael Lutting refused to authorize this request, arguing that the government's request seemed to be motivated by a desire to avoid a Supreme Court hearing about the earlier opinion. The Supreme Court eventually approved this request.

Another prominent case occurred in 1999, when J. Michael Lutting wrote the opinion of the majority regarding the Violence Against Women Act. This was legislation permitting victims of gender-motivated crimes to file suit specifically regarding such actions in federal court. In his opinion, J. Michael Lutting argued that this act was unconstitutional, since Congress is not permitted to regulate interstate commerce by permitting citizens to file such damage claims against the states. The Supreme Court later concurred in its hearing of the case.

During his time as a judge, J. Michael Luttig was often compared to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, for whom he had formerly acted as a clerk. In 2006, J. Michael Luttig left the Fourth District Court and took an executive position with Boeing Motors. 

Lee A. Johnson

Lee A. Johnson is an American judge. After graduating from law school in 1980, he entered private practice. He served as the city attorney of Caldwell, Kansas from 1987 to 1997. In 2001, Lee A. Johnson was appointed to the Kansas Court Appeals system. From 2001 to 2007, Lee A. Johnson served in this capacity until appointed to the state Supreme Court in 2007.

 One notable case Lee A. Johnson has ruled upon recently concerned placing caps on settlement payments related to medical malpractice. The case was filed by a woman who, during surgery to remove her right ovary, instead had her left ovary removed. The woman filed suit and was awarded $759,679.74 in damages. Of this sum, $575,000 was concerned with pain and suffering and related side effects of the surgery rather than pure economic loss. State law stipulates that this type of non-economic compensation should be limited to $250,000. Therefore, the amount of the settlement was modified by the judge.

The plaintiff then filed an appeal challenging the constitutionality of this restriction and the settlement adjustment made by the judge. The doctor also filed an appeal, alleging that the plaintiff had failed to conclusively demonstrate evidence of malpractice and that expert witness testimony had been improperly restricted.

The court heard this case in October 2012. Lee A. Johnson contributed to the majority opinion issued by five members of the Supreme Court. In their opinion, the court noted that placing caps on malpractice compensation is a controversial issue which the state Supreme Court has previously issued conflicting rulings about. The majority opinion went on to state that this restriction did not violate the right to trial by jury, the right to the due course of law and the right to equal legal protection. The majority opinion also stated that this legislation did not constitute  violation of the separation of powers between state and federal governments.

While Lee A. Johnson concurred in part with the majority opinion, he filed a partial dissent alongside fellow justice Carol A. Beier. In their dissent, they noted that they believed the plaintiff's right to trial by jury and due process of law had been violated and did not issue a judgment as to whether the plaintiff's right to equal protection had been violated. However, Lee A. Johnson concurred by the majority concerning the separation of powers.

Lee A. Johnson also concurred with the majority in restoring $100,000 to the plaintiff awarded to cover future medical expenses, which had been granted by a jury but removed by a post-trial judge. The majority opinion concurred that the jury had had sufficient evidence to justify such an award. In total the plaintiff was awarded that amount, $250,000 for noneconomic damages, and roughly $84,000 in medical expenses already incurred. All arguments presented by the doctor concerning her lack of malpractice were rejected.

Amy Klobuchar

Amy Klobuchar is an American attorney currently serving as a Senator for the state of Minnesota. Prior to her assuming this public office in 2007, Amy Klobuchar practiced both private and public law. In 1998, she became the first female county attorney to be elected in Hennepin County. Amy Klobuchar maintained this position from 1999 to 2007, when she assumed the office of Senator.

During her period as Hennepin County Attorney, Amy Klobuchar emphasized the prosecution of repeat offenders and violent criminals as a matter of particular importance to her office. As part of her efforts, Amy Klobuchar was instrumental in the creation of a community prosecution initiative. The first such program was established in Manhattan in 1985. The purpose of such a program is to establish stronger ties between citizens of the area in question and the prosecutors managing it.

Under the supervision of Amy Klobuchar, the community prosecution initiative established in Hennepin County consisted of three different divisions. One, located in the Third Police Precinct, provided a full-time prosecutor tasked with coordinating law enforcement with local police officials and consulting regularly with a community council on the needs and concerns of the area.

The second division of the community prosecution initiative established by Amy Klobuchar is located in the Fourth Police Precinct and is staffed by two full-time prosecutors concerned with juvenile crime. Another prosecutor in this office is concerned with adult crimes. Community initiatives allow community members to participate in the sentencing and rehabilitation process. The third division of the community prosecution initiative established by Amy Klobuchar is located in the city of Bloomington. Here, one full-time attorney is concerned with handling all juvenile crime cases which occur in the area.

In addition to her active work in prosecuting criminal offenses, Amy Klobuchar was a strong advocate for criminalizing driving while intoxicated as a felony level offense in the state of Minnesota. The appropriate litigation was passed, in large part thanks to her efforts.

Following her arrival to the Senate, Amy Klobuchar has been involved in a great deal of high-profile legislation. One bill which Amy Klobuchar co-authored along with two other Senators is known as the "Commercial Felony Streaming Act." This legislation, which is pending and has not yet been introduced to the Senate, concerns streaming copyrighted material on a computer from an unauthorized provider. Currently, this is only a misdemeanor offense.

However, under the terms of the legislation co-authored by Amy Klobuchar, would criminalize such activities at a felony level. In order to be charged with a felony violation, the defendant in question would have to have streamed material whose value was in excess of $2,500 or for which the licensing fees are in excess of $5,000. Furthermore, to be prosecuted the defendant in question would have to made use of this kind of illegal streaming video at least 10 times within the period of 180 days.

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.

Erwin Chemerinsky

Erwin Chemerinsky is a prominent legal scholar specializing in issues of constitutional law. Though he has acted as a lawyer in several capacities, Erwin Chemerinsky is better known for his public commentary on a number of prominent issues.

One of his prominent public moments came in 2000, when he was asked by the Los Angeles Police Department to analyze the results of a Board of Inquiry investigation into the so-called "Rampart Scandal." This refers to a series of incidents involving corrupt LAPD officers from 1997 to 2000. The first of these was the fatal March 1997 shooting of an off-duty LAPD officer, Kevin Gaines, by another undercover officer, Frank Lyga. Lyga claimed that Gaines had threatened him and he had acted in self-defense.

The next incident took place in November 1997, when a bank robbery was linked to police officer David Mack. In February 1998, officer Brian Hewitt allegedly beat a hand-cuffed gang member, resulting in internal injuries. Hewitt was a member of the CRASH (Community Resources Against Street Hoodlums) division, part of the Rampart department. In March 1998, another officer in this division, Rafael Perez, was linked with the disappearance of more than six pounds of cocaine confiscated as police evidence. In September 1999, Perez agreed to a plea bargain. Under the terms of this plea bargain, he spent nine months detailing his knowledge of corruption in the Rampart department, implicating approximately 70 of his fellow officers in misconduct.

In response to these revelations, police chief Bernard Parks convened a Board of Inquiry to investigate the Rampart unit. Their report was issued in March 2000 and blamed poor management practices. The CRASH unit was disbanded that same month.

In September 2000, Erwin Chemerinsky completed his independent analysis of the Board of Inquiry's report. This report concluded that their report had deliberately understated and underestimated problems of corruption within the LAPD force, failed to firmly state the problems of the police force's internal culture, did not adequately consider how to institute internal reforms, did not adequately address LAPD procedures for handling cases in which officers made use of excessive force, failed to adequately consider malfunctioning internal discipline procedures, and did acknowledge problems endemic to the entire criminal justice system of the city of Los Angeles. That same month, the United States Department of Justice was given the authority by the Los Angeles City Council to supervise reforms within the LAPD for the following five years.

Following the release of this analysis by Erwin Chemerinsky, another independent review panel issued their report in November 2000. This report supported his findings, noting that the LAPD compromised its own internal investigations of disciplinary violations and was viewed by the communities it patrolled as violent and unresponsive or actively hostile.

In 2009, Erwin Chemerinsky assumed the position of founding dean at the newly formed school of law at the University of California at Irvine.