E-mail:
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
Ketanji Brown Jackson and the job of a public defender
Andrew Koppelman
The
Supreme Court nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson is likely to elicit a
kind of demagoguery that has been deployed against both her and other former
public defenders, claiming that she should be disqualified because her clients
included very bad people. The implicit
premise of such attacks is that it is wrong to represent criminal defendants –
that we should punish them without hearing the strongest case that can be made
on their behalf. That amounts to a
proposal to replace due process with some combination of raw intuition plus
brute force.
When
Jackson was nominated to her present position as a Court of Appeals judge,
Senator Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) asked her “were you ever concerned that your work as an Assistant
Federal Public Defender would result in more violent criminals—including gun
criminals—being put back on the streets?” Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.)
demanded, “Have you ever represented a terrorist at Guantánamo Bay?” The answer was yes. During her two years representing indigent
defendants in the DC federal defender office, one of her clients was Khi Ali Gul, a Guantanamo detainee
accused of terrorism.
If that’s disqualifying, then
we can give up on having a fair criminal justice system. Sasse asked whether she’d ever considered resigning
from her representation of Khi Ali Gul, because her work might “result in his
returning to his terrorist activities.”
The implicit assumption is that no one ought to represent him. He should be convicted without any attorney’s
help. Her answer was powerful, citing
the principles “that the government cannot deprive people . . . of their
liberty without meeting its burden of proving its criminal charges,” and “that
every person who is accused of criminal conduct by the government, regardless
of wealth and despite the nature of the accusations, is entitled to the assistance
of counsel.”
The Republican National Committee has now responded
to her Supreme Court nomination by running the same line: her record “includes
defending terrorists,” and “she worked as a lawyer for terrorists."
We are likely to see
more of this tactic, which has
been used to block federal nominees in the past.