At our Class of ’74 lunchtime talk on August 9, 2022, Columbia Law Professor James Liebman (’74 TC) discussed recent Supreme Court decisions on abortion, guns and religion and what they reveal about the new Court majority’s hidden and not-so-hidden agenda.

He also fielded questions from classmates about the prospects for new Constitutional amendments, changes to the Electoral College, limits to regulation by federal agencies, and other issues in what he sees as a dramatic transformation of the Court’s direction.

Jim is the Simon H. Rifkind Professor at Columbia Law School and founder of the school’s Center for Public Research and Leadership. During his career, Jim has tackled school desegregation including at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, accountability in education for the NYC school system, and the death penalty and habeas corpus, arguing five cases in the Supreme Court. From 1978 to 1979 he was law clerk to Justice John Paul Stevens of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Watch the video of this session here.

Chapter breaks:
0:00 Intro by host Alec Haverstick
4:10 Jim Liebman’s opening remarks
22:00 Q&A with classmates – Questions from classmates Alec Haverstick, Mark Cramolini, Larry Robbins, Lisa Goldman, Harry Manhoff, Patricia Sheppard and Charles Schwartz.

Chat transcript:
Susan Doud: I’d like to shout out for Anne Riney’s book club. Anne, what are we. reading next?
Anne Riney: Red Notice by Bill Browder
Carolyn Grillo: Fred, where will you be moving?
FPeters: I will remain here in the Free Republic of the Upper West Side!
Alec: Yay Fred. Then I will stay too
Stanley H. Weiss: TY Larry for bringing the EPA related decision up. Research of mine had partly underpinned the EPA regulations that the Supreme Court then invalidated. Very concerning to me that science is routinely getting overpowered by politics. It had taken the EPA over 20 years from when the law had been passed by Congress (that was co-written by Frank Lautenberg) requiring such regulations! for it to finally institute the required regs. And now none.
Carolyn Grillo: Thank you, Lisa. Good, sensible questions from a civilian!
Lisa Goldman: Thank you.
Lisa Goldman: Harry- I’m so glad you asked about the religious right to an abortion.
FPeters: Me too. But I also want to hear Jim’s opinion about the whole larger issue of representation
Lisa Goldman: What about breaking California up into several states? Each would get two senators if that happened.
Carolyn Grillo: And New York! And even states like Virginia that are politically and geographically bisected! Wahoo!
Harry Manhoff: We have tried to get rid of Northern California for a long time, but that would give the conservatives two more Senate votes.
Carolyn Grillo: PS but Puerto Rico as a state would make up for that. I like LIsa’s suggestion.
Harry Manhoff: The only way we will get Puerto Rico as a state will be to give Guam statehood as well. Once again setting up a stalemate.
Anne Riney: I would argue that each territory should be given the choice of independence or state hood. Not way to know how the senate falls out with that,
Carolyn Grillo: Jim, this has been fascinating and disturbing. Thank you for creating the opportunity for this conversation!
Lisa Goldman: We have not addressed the Republicans violation of standard processes in order to create the current court.
Stanley H. Weiss: If a state refuses to certify electors (based on actual vote) in a future presidential race: what are the constitutional issues?
Lisa Goldman: thank you, Jim. Very thought-provoking!
Stanley H. Weiss: Excellent talk. TY.