Marquette NAAC Team Advances to Quarterfinals

NAACAfter three rounds of oral argument at the National Appellate Advocacy Competition (NAAC) regional in New York City this weekend, Marquette University Law School students Brett Schnepper (3L) and Adam Koenings (3L) were 3-0 and seeded eighth out of 49 teams.  Schnepper and Koenings advanced to the quarterfinals, but unfortunately lost a very close match to another team. Annie Halverson-Piron was also a member of the team. Attorneys Jesse Blocher and Michael Cerjak coached Schnepper and Koenings.

Bailey Briggs (3L) and Jenna Leslie (3L) also competed in the New York regional competition, facing tough competition.  Their team was coached by attorneys Alyssa Dowse and Lindsey Johnson.  Professor Lisa Mazzie is the faculty advisor for both teams.

The NAAC is sponsored by the American Bar Association Law Student Division.

Continue ReadingMarquette NAAC Team Advances to Quarterfinals

Dreyfus Secret File Released

Alfred-DreyfusSome number of years ago I wrote a lengthy blog post on France’s Dreyfus Affair — a post I was proud of at the time, but seems to have fallen like a tree in a depopulated forest — arguing that the Dreyfus Affair could stand to get more mileage as a metaphor for a judicial system run amok. As I explained in the post, “[t]he Dreyfus Affair is a story about an egregious abuse of the legal system, driven primarily by a powerful current of French antisemitism and by a desire to shield the French military from its own mistakes. It involves procedurally flawed court-martials, secret evidence, conspiracies, theft of government secrets, deportation to a brutal island prison, leaks to the press, leak prosecutions, riots by antisemitic mobs, and a cover-up and whitewash perpetrated at the highest levels of the French military.”

Without recapping the entire story — you can read my post for a synopsis — briefly what happened is that the French military, on discovering evidence of a spy in its midst passing information to the Germans, railroaded a Jewish artillery captain, Alfred Dreyfus, into a conviction, using secret evidence the existence of which was not revealed to Dreyfus or his counsel. The military then steadfastly refused to overturn the conviction even as it became increasingly clear that someone else was the spy, going so far as to warn the spy to be more careful in the future! It’s hard to make stuff like that up, which is why I think the Dreyfus story makes for a useful allegory.

In any event, there is a new development. The historical department of the French Ministry of Defense has placed the secret file used to convict Dreyfus on the web, on a site located at, interestingly enough, www.affairedreyfus.com. (See NY Times story.) If you read French, you can now see for yourself the sketchy evidence used to convict Dreyfus, and the forgeries used later to maintain that conviction. What’s on the affairedreyfus.com site is transcriptions of the original files, which is good, because the originals (available at the links on the bottom of this page) are difficult to read.

Continue ReadingDreyfus Secret File Released

Important Points Won Even as ACA Case Was Lost, Paul Clement Says

Paul Clement’s arguments did not carry the day when it came to the outcome a year ago of the historic United States Supreme Court decision on the constitutionality of the individual mandate in the federal Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare. But his arguments were supported by a majority of the justices on important points that will have an impact for years to come in Congress and in the judicial system, Clement said in delivering the Hallows Lecture 2013 in the Appellate Courtroom of Marquette University Law School’s Eckstein Hall this week.

Clement, formerly solicitor general of the United States, has argued 65 cases before the Supreme Court. He was the lead attorney in presenting arguments to the Court on behalf of 26 states that challenged the health care law. The Court heard a remarkable six hours of arguments focused on several major aspects of the challenge.

“The challenge for the challengers was to run the table to the tune of going 15 for 15” on legal points involved in the case, Clement said. “The good news is the challengers went 14 for 15. The bad news, from the perspective of my clients, is that 14 out 15 isn’t good enough. . . . Getting a really satisfying opinion from four justices still counts as a loss.”

The question at the heart of the case was whether there would continue to be a meaningful limit on the power of the federal government to impose laws such as the Affordable Care Act on the states, Clement said. He said, “I do think in some respects, the single most important takeaway from the decision was there were not five votes to say that there really is no meaningful judicial review of federalism constraints on Congress. There are constraints—again, the power is very substantial, very broad in the wake of the New Deal precedents of the Court, but it remains a limited power.”

Continue ReadingImportant Points Won Even as ACA Case Was Lost, Paul Clement Says