Notorious: The Legal Legacy of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Featuring guest speakers, Corey Brettschneider, a professor at Brown University and editor of Decisions and Dissents of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: A Selection, and Joshua Block, Senior Staff Attorney with the ACLU’s LGBT & HIV Project. In Season 2, Episode 6 of Notorious, we discuss the 2020-2021 Supreme Court Term and look back at specific cases and instances where Justice Ginsburg’s influence is still alive and well. Specifically, we discuss the cases, FDA v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System, Tanzin v. Tanvir, and Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Corey Brettschneider, a professor at Brown University and editor of Decisions and Dissents of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: A Selection,: Joshua Block, Senior Staff Attorney with the ACLU’s LGBT & HIV Project; and Patterson Belknap Partner Michelle Bufano discuss Justice Ginsburg’s influence and legacy on the Supreme Court. Related Resources: For a selection of Justice Ginsburg’s writings, see Decisions and Dissents of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:  A Selection, edited by Corey Brettschneider. For more information about Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, see www.pbwt.com. For information about becoming a guest on Notorious, email Michelle Bufano. For questions or more information about Notorious, email Jenni Dickson. Also, check out the Patterson Belknap podcast, How to Build A Nation in 15 Weeks. Related People: Michelle Bufano

In Season 2, Episode 5 of Notorious, we discuss the case of Ricci v. DeStefano, which involved the question of whether the city of New Haven, Connecticut violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act when it rejected the results of a civil service exam given to firefighters. The results of the exam showed that white candidates had out-performed minority candidates and the question was raised as to whether the exam was discriminatory. The Supreme Court held 5–4 that New Haven's decision to ignore the test results violated Title VII because the city did not have a "strong basis in evidence" that it would have subjected itself to disparate impact liability. Because the plaintiffs won under their Title VII claim, the Court did not consider the plaintiffs' Equal Protection Clause argument. The majority opinion was written by Justice Kennedy, joined by Justice Scalia, Justice Roberts, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito. Justice Ginsburg issued a dissent in this case, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Breyer.  Justice Ginsburg opined:  This case presents an unfortunate situation, one New Haven might well have avoided had it utilized a better selection process in the first place. But what this case does not present is race-based discrimination in violation of Title VII. I dissent from the Court's judgment, which rests on the false premise that respondents showed "a significant statistical disparity," but "nothing more." Patterson Belknap attorneys Michelle Bufano, Catherine A. Williams, and Leigh E. Barnwell discuss Justice Ginsburg’s impact on this case. Related Resources: For a selection of Justice Ginsburg’s writings, see Decisions and Dissents of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:  A Selection, edited by Corey Brettschneider. For more information about Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, see www.pbwt.com. For information about becoming a guest on Notorious, email Michelle Bufano. For questions or more information about Notorious, email Jenni Dickson. Also, check out the Patterson Belknap podcast, How to Build A Nation in 15 Weeks. Related People: Michelle Bufano Catherine A. Williams Leigh E. Barnwell

In Season 2, Episode 4 of Notorious, we discuss the case of Adarand Construction v. Pena, which involved whether a federal statute, which provided for favor treatment to a suspect class to remedy past discrimination, violated the Equal Protection Clause as embodied in the Fifth Amendment. In this case, Adarand, a contractor specializing in highway guard rail work, submitted the lowest bid as a subcontractor for part of a project funded by the United States Department of Transportation. Under the terms of the contract, the prime contractor would receive additional compensation if it hired small businesses controlled by “socially and economically disadvantaged individuals.” Gonzalez Construction Company was awarded the work as they were certified as a minority business and Adarand was not. The primary contractor would have accepted Adarand’s bid had it not been for the additional payment it received for hiring Gonzalez.  Justice O’Connor, writing for the majority, held that racial classifications, imposed by the federal government, must be analyzed under a standard of "strict scrutiny." Strict scrutiny is the most stringent level of judicial review for claims of Equal Protection Clause violations and requires that racial classifications be narrowly tailored to further compelling governmental interests. Interestingly, there were six different opinions issued in this case, including the majority opinion.  Justice Ginsburg issued a dissent, in which she once again proved herself to be a consensus builder: “I write separately to underscore not the differences the several opinions in this case display, but the considerable field of agreement--the common understandings and concerns--revealed in opinions that together speak for a majority of the Court.” Patterson Belknap attorneys Michelle Bufano, Melissa Ginsberg, and George Soussou discuss Justice Ginsburg’s impact on this case. Related Resources: For a selection of Justice Ginsburg’s writings, see Decisions and Dissents of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:  A Selection, edited by Corey Brettschneider. For more information about Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, see www.pbwt.com. For information about becoming a guest on Notorious, email Michelle Bufano. For questions or more information about Notorious, email Jenni Dickson. Also, check out the Patterson Belknap podcast, How to Build A Nation in 15 Weeks. Related People: Michelle Bufano Melissa Ginsberg George Soussou

In Season 2, Episode 3 of Notorious, we discuss the case of Grutter v. Bollinger, which involved the question of whether a law school admissions policy that considered race as a factor in admissions violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The 5-4 majority opinion decided that the law school’s admission policy complied with the Equal Protection Clause and was written by Justice O’Connor and joined in whole by Justice Ginsburg, Justice Stevens, and Justice Breyer. The Court found that the law school’s stated interest that it wanted to maintain diversity of its student body was a compelling government interest and that compelling interest withstood strict scrutiny by the Court. Justice Ginsburg filed a concurrence, joined by Justice Breyer, agreeing in the judgment and in the overall opinion, but elaborating on Justice O’Connor’s point in reference to the timeline she expected universities and other institutions to maintain race as one of the considerations that go into the admissions process.  Patterson Belknap attorneys Michelle Bufano, Alejandro Cruz, and Amir Badat discuss Justice Ginsburg’s impact on this case. Related Resources: For a selection of Justice Ginsburg’s writings, see Decisions and Dissents of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:  A Selection, edited by Corey Brettschneider. For more information about Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, see www.pbwt.com. For information about becoming a guest on Notorious, email Michelle Bufano. For questions or more information about Notorious, email Jenni Dickson. Also, check out the Patterson Belknap podcast, How to Build A Nation in 15 Weeks. Related People: Michelle Bufano Alejandro Cruz Amir Badat

Featuring guest speaker, Mai Ratakonda of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. In Season 2, Episode 2 of Notorious, we discuss the case of Gonzales v. Carhart, which involved the Supreme Court’s consideration of the constitutionality of The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (“the Act”). In 2003, Congress passed and President Bush signed the Act into law. Dr. LeRoy Carhart and other physicians, who performed late term abortions, sued to stop the Act from going into effect. A federal district court agreed and ruled the Act unconstitutional. The government appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which upheld the lower court’s ruling. The question ultimately presented to the Supreme Court was whether the Act was an unconstitutional violation of the personal liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment because the Act lacked an exception for partial birth abortion necessary to protect mothers. In a 5-4 ruling, the majority ruled that there was no undue burden because there are other types of abortions that one could get in their second trimester. Justice Ginsburg wrote the dissent, joined by Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, and Justice Breyer. The dissent criticized the majority for failing to follow precedent in this case. Specifically, Justice Ginsburg noted “Retreating from prior rulings that abortion restrictions cannot be imposed absent an exception safeguarding a woman's health, the Court upholds an Act that surely would not survive under the close scrutiny that previously attended state decreed limitations on a woman's reproductive choices.” Mai Ratakonda of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, joined by Patterson Belknap attorneys Michelle Bufano and Patricia Kim discuss Justice Ginsburg’s impact on this case. Related Resources: For a selection of Justice Ginsburg’s writings, see Decisions and Dissents of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:  A Selection, edited by Corey Brettschneider. For more information about Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, see  www.pbwt.com. For information about becoming a guest on Notorious, email Michelle Bufano. For questions or more information about Notorious, email Jenni Dickson. Also, check out the Patterson Belknap podcast, How to Build A Nation in 15 Weeks. Related People: Michelle Bufano Patricia Kim

In Season 2, Episode 1 of Notorious, we explore Justice Ginsburg’s influence on overcriminalization in our justice system. Specifically, we discuss the broad statutes passed by Congress, the latitude afforded to prosecutors under these statutes, judicial interpretations of the law and the possibility that strict literalism in interpretation can lead to unintended results. We analyze the cases of Cleveland v. United States, Skilling v. United States, Yates v. United States, as well as Justice Ginsburg’s dissent in Pasquantino v. United States. We conclude the episode discussing Justice Ginsburg’s doctrinal views with respect to overcriminalization and scrutinize the role Congress must play in amending such laws when vagueness and ambiguities in statutory language are laid bare.  Patterson Belknap Partners Michelle Bufano, Lauren Schorr Potter, and Harry Sandick discuss Justice Ginsburg’s legacy on this issue. Related Resources: For a selection of Justice Ginsburg’s writings, see Decisions and Dissents of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:  A Selection, edited by Corey Brettschneider. For more information about Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, see  www.pbwt.com. For information about becoming a guest on Notorious, email Michelle Bufano. For questions or more information about Notorious, email Jenni Dickson. Also, check out the Patterson Belknap podcast, How to Build A Nation in 15 Weeks. Related People: Michelle Bufano Lauren Schorr Potter Harry Sandick

We’re back, with a new season of Notorious, continuing our discussions of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s notable decisions and dissents. Season Two will air for six consecutive days beginning Monday, September 13th, with our final episode airing on Saturday, September 18th—the one year anniversary of Justice Ginsburg’s passing.

Featuring guest speaker, Mai Ratakonda of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. In Episode 12 of Notorious, we discussed the case of Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, which addressed issues related to reproductive freedom. At issue was a Texas Law that placed restrictions on physicians and facilities performing abortions. As a result, the U.S. Supreme Court considered whether the provisions violated the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Writing for the majority, Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Kennedy, Sotomayor, and Kagan, highlighted a balancing test. The articulated balancing test considered whether the government purposes of the law at issue outweighed the burden placed on substantive due process rights. Here, the majority found that the law imposed an undue burden on abortion access. While joining in the majority opinion, Justice Ginsburg also wrote a concurring opinion. In her concurrence, Justice Ginsburg bluntly stated:  "[I]t is beyond rational belief that . . . [the law at issue] could genuinely protect the health of women." Mai Ratakonda, of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, joined by Patterson Belknap attorneys, Michelle Bufano and Amy Vegari, discuss this case and Justice Ginsburg’s fight for reproductive freedom. Related Resources: For a selection of Justice Ginsburg’s writings, see Decisions and Dissents of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:  A Selection, edited by Corey Brettschneider. For more information about Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, see www.pbwt.com. For information about becoming a guest on Notorious, email Michelle Bufano. For questions or more information about Notorious, email Jenni Dickson. Also, check out the Patterson Belknap podcast, How to Build A Nation in 15 Weeks. Related People: Mai Ratakonda Michelle Bufano Amy Vegari

In Episode 11 of Notorious, we discussed the case of Craig v. Boren, in which Ruth Bader Ginsberg, an attorney for the ACLU, helped shape a new level of judicial review in gender discrimination cases, appearing as amicus curiae. In addressing Oklahoma laws that prevented young men, but not young women, from consuming low alcohol-content beer, the United States Supreme Court held that the gender classifications at issue were unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.  In making that determination, the Court found that the statistics relied on by the state were insufficient to show a substantial relationship between the statute and the benefits intended to stem from it.  As a result, the Court instituted a new standard of judicial review, "intermediate scrutiny" under which: (1) the state must prove the existence of specific important governmental objectives; and (2) the law must be substantially related to the achievement of those objectives. Justice Ginsberg, who would not join the Supreme Court, until 17 years later, influenced the outcome as an ACLU lawyer, appearing as amicus curiae, or a friend of the Court.  Ginsburg advocated on behalf of the male petitioner, arguing for striking down a law that discriminated against young men. Patterson Belknap attorneys, Michelle Bufano, Alejandro Cruz and Patricia Kim discuss this case and Justice Ginsburg’s long legacy of fighting for equality for all.    Related Resources: For a selection of Justice Ginsburg’s writings, see Decisions and Dissents of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:  A Selection, edited by Corey Brettschneider. For more information about Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, see www.pbwt.com. For information about becoming a guest on Notorious, email Michelle Bufano. For questions or more information about Notorious, email Jenni Dickson. Also, check out the Patterson Belknap podcast, How to Build A Nation in 15 Weeks. Related People: Michelle Bufano Alejandro Cruz Patricia Kim

Featuring Guest Speaker, Professor Rick Hasen of the University of California, Irvine. In Episode 10 of Notorious, we discussed the case of Bush v. Gore, which involved one of the closest presidential elections in United States history at that time. This case concerned the 2000 presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore. After Gore won the popular vote, the election’s outcome was contingent upon Florida and its twenty-five electoral votes. After Gore requested a recount of votes, the Florida Supreme Court held that the recount procedures were constitutional. In a per curium opinion, the United States Supreme Court reversed the Florida Supreme Court, holding that the scheme for recounting ballots was unconstitutional. The Court found that even if the recount was fair in theory, it was unfair in practice because the factual record suggested that different standards were applied from ballot to ballot, precinct to precinct, and county to county. Therefore, the scheme violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, with this decision, Bush became the first president since Benjamin Harris in 1888 to lose the popular vote but win the general election.  Justices Ginsburg and Stevens (writing separately) argued that for reasons of federalism, the Florida Supreme Court's decision ought to be respected. This is one of the rare occasions where Justice Ginsburg rejected an Equal Protection Clause argument in one of her opinions.  Professor Rick Hasen, of the University of California, Irvine, joined by Patterson Belknap attorneys, Michelle Bufano and Alejandro Cruz, discuss this case and Justice Ginsburg’s unique take on federalism over the Equal Protection Clause.    Related Resources: For a selection of Justice Ginsburg’s writings, see Decisions and Dissents of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:  A Selection, edited by Corey Brettschneider. For more information about Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, see  www.pbwt.com. For information about becoming a guest on Notorious, email Michelle Bufano. For questions or more information about Notorious, email Jenni Dickson. Also, check out the Patterson Belknap podcast, How to Build A Nation in 15 Weeks. Related People: Rick Hasen Michelle Bufano Alejandro Cruz

In Episode 9 of Notorious, we discussed a series of cases related to criminal sentencing, including: Apprendi v. New Jersey, United States v. Booker, and Kimbrough v. United States. Justice Ginsburg’s contributions to our country’s jurisprudence focus heavily on equality. Although less discussed, her criminal procedure jurisprudence expresses her commitment to fairness and equality. The area of criminal procedure where this dedication to fairness is particularly evident is in sentencing. She tended to be the critical swing vote in some of these cases. We also see how her commitment to fairness was marked by a simultaneous commitment to gradualism -- the same as we have seen in many of her opinions on other topics, including gender equality.  Patterson Belknap Partners, Peter Harvey, former Attorney General of the State of New Jersey, and Harry Sandick, a former Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, are joined by Michelle Bufano for a discussion of these cases and the concept of fairness in sentencing.    Related Resources: For a selection of Justice Ginsburg’s writings, see Decisions and Dissents of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:  A Selection, edited by Corey Brettschneider. For more information about Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, see  www.pbwt.com. For information about becoming a guest on Notorious, email Michelle Bufano. For questions or more information about Notorious, email Jenni Dickson. Also, check out the Patterson Belknap podcast, How to Build A Nation in 15 Weeks. Related People: Peter Harvey Harry Sandick Michelle Bufano

Featuring guest speaker, Joshua Block of the American Civil Liberties Union.  In Episode 8 of Notorious, we discuss the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The U.S. Supreme Court addressed whether the actions of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (CCRC), under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, in assessing a cakeshop owner’s reasons for declining to make a cake for a same-sex couple’s wedding celebration, violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In a 7-2 opinion by Justice Kennedy, the Court reversed the CCRC’s decision. The Court narrowly ruled that the CCRC did not employ religious neutrality and violated the bakery owner’s right to free exercise of religion. The Court declined to decide the broader issues of the intersection of anti-discrimination laws, free exercise of religion, and freedom of speech.  Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Sotomayor joined. Strongly disagreeing with the outcome of the majority, Justice Ginsburg argued, “When a couple contacts a bakery for a wedding cake, the product they are seeking is a cake celebrating their wedding ― not a cake celebrating heterosexual weddings or same-sex weddings ― and that is the service [the couple] were denied.” Joshua Block, a senior staff attorney with the National ACLU’s Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender & HIV Projects, joined by Patterson Belknap attorneys, Michelle Bufano, Jonah Knobler and Elena Steiger Reich, discuss the different views expressed by the majority and dissent.  Related Resources: For a selection of Justice Ginsburg’s writings, see Decisions and Dissents of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:  A Selection, edited by Corey Brettschneider. For more information about Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, see www.pbwt.com. For information about becoming a guest on Notorious, email Michelle Bufano. For questions or more information about Notorious, email Jenni Dickson. Also, check out the Patterson Belknap podcast, How to Build A Nation in 15 Weeks. Related People: Joshua Block Michelle Bufano Jonah Knobler Elena Steiger Reich

Featuring guest speakers, Kerry Abrams, Guy-Uriel Charles, and Neil Siegel of Duke University School of Law.  In Episode 7 of Notorious, we discuss the case of Shelby County v. Holder.  The U.S. Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of two provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  The provisions at issue were Section 5, which requires certain states and local governments to receive federal preclearance prior to implementing changes to their voting laws or practices; and Section 4(b), which provides the coverage formula for determining which state and local governments are subjected to preclearance due to histories of discrimination in voting. The Court ruled by a 5-to-4 vote that Section 4(b) was unconstitutional.  Writing the Court’s opinion, Chief Justice Roberts found that because the coverage formula was based on outdated data, it was no longer responsive to current needs; therefore, the coverage formula was an impermissible burden on the constitutional principles of federalism and state sovereignty.  Although the Court did not strike down Section 5, it was essentially rendered moot without the enactment of a new coverage formula by Congress. Justice Ginsburg wrote a blistering dissent, joined by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan, which she uncharacteristically delivered from the bench.  Notably, the dissent reasoned: “The sad irony of today’s decision lies in its utter failure to grasp why the [Voting Rights Act] has proven effective ... Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet." Kerry Abrams, James B. Duke and Benjamin N. Duke Dean of the School of Law, Duke University School of Law, joined by Duke Law professors, Guy-Uriel Charles and Neil Siegel, and Patterson Belknap associate and Duke Law alumnus, Hyatt Howard, discuss the different views expressed by the majority and dissent, as well as the history of voting rights and discrimination in the United States.  Related Resources: For a selection of Justice Ginsburg’s writings, see Decisions and Dissents of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:  A Selection, edited by Corey Brettschneider. For more information about Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, see www.pbwt.com. For information about becoming a guest on Notorious, email Michelle Bufano. For questions or more information about Notorious, email Jenni Dickson. Also, check out the Patterson Belknap podcast, How to Build A Nation in 15 Weeks. *Abraham Lincoln, May 26, 1856

Featuring guest speaker, the Honorable Helen E. Freedman (Ret.), who served 36 years on the New York State Court bench.   In Episode 6 of Notorious, we discuss the case of Daimler A.G. v. Bauman. This case addressed the issue of personal jurisdiction.  A German corporation, Daimler A.G., was being sued in California federal court for injuries allegedly caused by Daimler’s conduct that took place entirely outside the United States. Writing for an 8-1 majority of the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Ginsburg determined that the California court could not exercise personal jurisdiction predicated on the California contacts of an American subsidiary of Daimler.  The Court found that doing so would violate the limits imposed by federal due process.  Justice Sotomayor filed a separate opinion, concurring in judgment. The Honorable Helen E. Freedman (Ret.), who served for 36 years on the New York State Court bench, joined by Patterson Belknap attorneys Michelle Bufano, Rachel Sherman, and Tom Kurland, discuss the Court’s prior decisions on personal jurisdiction, Justice Ginsburg’s majority opinion, and the impact of her legal legacy on personal jurisdiction jurisprudence. Related Resources: For a selection of Justice Ginsburg’s writings, see Decisions and Dissents of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:  A Selection, edited by Corey Brettschneider. For more information about Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, see www.pbwt.com. For information about becoming a guest on Notorious, email Michelle Bufano. For questions or more information about Notorious, email Jenni Dickson. Related People: Honorable Helen E. Freedman (Ret.) Michelle Bufano Rachel Sherman Tom Kurland

In Episode 5 of Notorious, we mix up the format a bit and discuss the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment in the context of several cases.  No issue under the Establishment Clause reached the U.S. Supreme Court until 1947.  Thus, our discussion starts with Everson v. Board of Education, a landmark decision that applied the Establishment Clause in the country's Bill of Rights to state law.  We conclude with an analysis Justice Ginsburg’s dissent in the 2019 case of American Legion v. American Humanist Association. Notably, Justice Ginsburg believed in a strict separation between Church and State.  Her view in this regard is reflected repeatedly in her dissents, even as her view was increasingly rejected by a majority of the Court, which permitted the states more latitude in supporting religious institutions.   Sandra S. Baron, Visiting Clinical Lecturer in Law at Yale Law School, joined by Patterson Belknap attorneys Michelle Bufano and Greg Diskant, discuss the history of the Establishment Clause, Justice Ginsburg’s dissents on this topic and the impact of her legal legacy on future Establishment Clause jurisprudence. Related Resources: For a selection of Justice Ginsburg’s writings, see Decisions and Dissents of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:  A Selection, edited by Corey Brettschneider. For more information about Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, see  www.pbwt.com. For information about becoming a guest on Notorious, email Michelle Bufano. For questions or more information about Notorious, email Jenni Dickson. Related People: Sandra S. Baron Michelle Bufano Greg Diskant