Garrett Epps

  • February 8, 2012

    by Jeremy Leaming

    As noted here yesterday Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote in Perry v. Brown that the state of California had no reason to strip from lesbians and gay men the right to wed. It was a classification of a group of people for apparently hostile reasons that doomed the rabidly anti-gay ballot measure, Proposition 8.

    The writer and law professor Garrett Epps provides for The American Prospect, not surprisingly, a clearer understanding of Reinhardt’s opinion, which many pundits suggest could, if not likely, reach the Supreme Court.

    Epps notes that Reinhardt (pictured) is a “last great liberal lion of a once-numerous pride,” who has authored “dozens of decisions that embody old-style judicial liberalism (including one that terminally ill individuals have a right to seek medical assistance in suicide).”

    But in this case that lion, Epps says, has crafted an opinion that may have a longer “shelf-life” than many of his other decisions. For the opinion, did not sweepingly find that gays have a fundamental right to marry. As ACSblog noted, Reinhardt was focused on the targeting of a group of people for ill treatment, rather like the matter that resulted in the Supreme Court’s 1996 opinion in Romer v. Evans, where Justice Anthony Kennedy led a majority in finding unconstitutional Colorado’s noxious Amendment 2, a voter passed measure altering the state constitution to prohibit localities from enacting policy protecting lesbians and gay men from discrimination.

    Epps says in his latest opinion, Reinhardt may have been itching to roar – “to say something broader about human dignity and the essential worth of gays and lesbians.”

  • January 21, 2011
    Tea Partiers and so-called "constitutionalists" have, to a large extent, successfully convinced swaths of the nation that they are the great defenders of the Constitution, and that all who disagree are crazed, unpatriotic or traitors, likely all three, writes Garrett Epps for The Nation.

    In "Stealing the Constitution," Epps, a correspondent for the Atlantic and a law professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law, notes the "toxic coalition of Fox News talking heads, radio hosts, angry ‘patriot' groups and power-hungry right-wing politicians" helping to fuel "poisonous rubbish" about the Constitution.

    The Tea Party and other fringe rightists are promoting a seriously cramped Constitution, one frozen in time and limiting of government. "It's easy to understand why conservative politicians and judges are trying to align their political program with a strained reading of the Constitution: Social Security, Medicare, environmental protection and aid to education have broad popular support. Even the healthcare program, so reviled by the Republican Party, will be almost impossible to repeal using the legislative process," Epps writes. (Indeed, the rightist majority of the House did pass a measure repealing the landmark health care reform law this week, but was quickly called on its blatant political posturing.)

  • December 17, 2010
    The argument made by many far right politicians that Congress, under its power to regulate commerce among the states, cannot require individuals to maintain health care insurance is wobbly, but more importantly, potentially nation-wrecking, writes law professor Garrett Epps.

    Epps, also a correspondent for the Atlantic, notes that Jude Henry Hudson's recent decision striking the landmark health care reform law's individual coverage provision as a violation of the Constitution's Commerce Clause, is "about as significant as an early NBA playoff game," but if it were advanced and eventually embraced by the Supreme Court's conservative justices, who might not be able to "resist the temptation to deliver a knockout blow to a president they despise, it would seriously hamper a Congress' ability to run a "modern economy."

    Epps writes:

    Imagine for a moment a sudden outbreak of smallpox (weaponized smallpox, if your taste runs to Jack Bauer-style scenarios). Airborne, highly contagious, deadly, it has the capability of spreading across the country and beyond in weeks, if not contained with a program of vaccination - vaccination not for a few, but for everybody, as soon as possible.

    If Congress passed emergency authorization for the program, would you want a judge to block it? What if some citizens preferred not to be vaccinated? What if they promised Scout's honor not to get smallpox, or if they did, not to give it to anyone else?

    Would you want the judge to halt the program on the grounds that not getting vaccinated was ‘inactivity,' and thus beyond Congress's power over ‘to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes?' Those who refused vaccination might act as reservoirs of the disease, and thus affect commerce. What if the judge conceded that point, but said Congress still couldn't reach them because they weren't voluntarily in the stream of commerce?

    ...

    While the disease spread, and hundreds or even thousands died, would you thank the judge for his fidelity to the pre-1937 vision of the Commerce Clause? Or would you think that, no matter what was written in the judge's order, the irretrievable spread of the epidemic really had affected commerce and should have been stopped?

    Judge Hudson in Virginia v. Sebelius advanced a pre-1937 vision of the commerce clause in striking the Affordable Care Act's individual coverage provision and produced an opinion that is "grievously wrong," Epps writes. "Threat-to-the-nation-from-rampaging-smallpox wrong."

    Epps, a professor of law at the University of Baltimore School of Law, says that his critics will charge that he believes that Congress "can regulate all human activity."

    But not surprisingly those critics, employing simplicity, miss the mark. Congress cannot regulate everything, Epps continues, but it can regulate "everything that needs to be reached as part of a comprehensive scheme required by a necessity that affects the nation."

    And, Professor Epps asks, "Who could seriously claim that the 50.7 million people who currently have no health care do not constitute an emergency?"

  • September 9, 2010
    Beyond calling for a repeal of the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship clause, proponents of harsh crackdowns on undocumented workers and families are now targeting public school children, writes Catherine A. Traywick for The Media Consortium.

    Traywick notes, "California, New York, Iowa and Colorado are among the states that have cracked down on immigrant students by hiring ICE [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement] agents to investigate residency statuses or unlawfully barring students from enrolling. Such blatant discrimination files in the face of the 14th Amendment and Supreme Court precedent, both of which guarantee all children the right to a public education regardless of immigration status."

    Traywick's piece goes on to note that there are efforts in New Jersey to strip immigrants of social services. According to a lawsuit lodged by several documented immigrants, the state's human services department is violating the equal protection clause of the Constitution "by denying health care subsidies to legal permanent residents."

    The 14th Amendment states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

    But as noted earlier this summer by University of Baltimore School of Law Professor Garrett Epps a movement has formed that is "urging Congress and the courts to simply ignore the Citizenship Clause and pass laws purporting to strip citizenship from American children because of their parents' immigration status."

  • August 10, 2010
    Following a tired and cynical election-year tactic politicians are openly talking about amending the Constitution, writes University of Baltimore School of Law Professor Garrett Epps for the Atlantic.

    Like amendments promoted to ban flag burning and restrict marriage, senators, such as Lindsey Graham of South Carolina of have garnered national attention for disparaging the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, suggesting its repeal or hearings to consider altering it. The clause guarantees citizenship to all people born in the United States.

    Epps writes that these lawmakers are showing "contempt for the document American office holders are sworn to uphold," and that too many citizens and "even some judges, seem not to understand the function of this amendment. It is, not to put too fine a point on it, the part of the Constitution that makes America a democracy. We meddle with it at our peril."

    Epps continues:

    The Fourteenth Amendment is the only place in the Constitution where the idea of human equality is recognized. Certainly the Framers of 1787 never endorsed it: they constructed a government with classes of people carefully defined in a hierarchy, beginning with "free persons" and descending through "Indians not taxed" to "other persons," the noxious euphemism they used for "slaves." They put in place a Bill of Rights that limited the federal government but placed no bar in the path of oppressive state laws restricting free speech, voting rights, or due process.

    At the end of the Civil War, the victorious Union Congress created an amendment (by far the longest and most important in the Constitution) to ensure democratic politics and human rights wherever the American flag flies. Section One of the Amendment does the following. First, it makes every person born in the U.S. a citizen of the nation and of the state in which he or she lives. (This reversed the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision that citizenship was a gift of the majority to favored groups or races.) Second, it applies the Bill of Rights to all persons in the states; and third, it bars any state from denying any person "the equal protection of the laws."

    The professor notes that if the nation were to support yanking citizenship from "children born here, we create a new class of untouchables, born to suffer and serve."

    He continues, "The children of immigrants are, whether their parents are ‘legal' or ‘illegal,' our fellow Americans. They've violated no law, and committed no crime."

    During a panel discussion at the 2010 ACS National Convention on the roles of Congress and the Courts, Pamela Karlan, a Stanford Law School professor, noted that the Reconstruction Amendments - the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments - provided "Congress special power to enforce by appropriate legislation the guarantees that go into the rights of citizenship, the guarantees of the privileges or immunities clause, the equal protection, and the due process clause." The framers of the Reconstruction Amendments, Karlan continued, "gave Congress that power in part because they distrusted the Supreme Court. I mean today the Supreme Court is living off the fumes of Brown against Board of Education, that's why it has such power in country." But Karlan noted, during the middle of Reconstruction, the high court, was "living off the fumes of Dred Scott," and the high court "was not the place you went to get equality, you went to the legislature." See here for video of the entire panel discussion.