New Releases by Erwin Chemerinsky

AS SEEN ON MSNBC''s MORNING JOE A groundbreaking work from one of America’s leading legal scholars, No Democracy Lasts Forever audaciously asserts that the only way a polarized America can avoid secession is to draft a new Constitution. The Constitution has become a threat to American democracy. Due to its inherent flaws—its treatment of race, dependence on a tainted Electoral College, a glaringly unrepresentative Senate, and the outsized influence of the Supreme Court—Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of Berkeley Law School and one of our foremost legal scholars, has come to the sobering conclusion that our nearly 250-year-old founding document can no longer hold. Much might be fixed by Congress or the Supreme Court, but they seem unlikely to do so. One might logically conclude that amending the Constitution would solve the problem, yet logic seldom takes precedent, given that only fifteen of the 11,848 amendments proposed since 1789 have passed. Chemerinsky contends that without major changes, the Constitution is beyond redemption in that it has created a government that can no longer deal with the urgent issues, such as climate change and wealth inequalities, that threaten our nation and the world. Yet political Armageddon can still be avoided, Chemerinsky writes, if a new constitutional convention is empowered to replace the Constitution of 1787. Just as the Founding Fathers replaced the faulty Articles of Confederation that same year, we must, No Democracy Lasts Forever argues, rewrite the entire Constitution from start to finish. Still, Chemerinsky goes further than that, suggesting that without serious changes Americans may be on the path to various forms of secession based on a recognition that what divides us as a country is, in fact, greater than what unites us. No Democracy Lasts Forever asserts with exceptional clarity that if the problems with the Constitution are not fixed, we are ineluctably heading toward a crisis where secession is, indeed, possible and where it will be necessary to think carefully about how to preserve the United States as a world power in a very different form of government. Despite these troubles, Chemerinsky remains hopeful, revealing how the past offers hope that change can happen. The United States has been through enormously challenging and divisive times before, with a civil war and the Great Depression, and Chemerinsky ultimately shows that it may still be possible to cure the defects and save American democracy at the same time.

"This review of the Supreme Court''s October 2022 Term looks back at the major cases addressed by the Court and provides a valuable focus on the implications of these decisions. Written by Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of the University of California at Berkeley School of Law, the book takes a neutral tone, neither praising nor criticizing the decisions, and organizes the case essays by topic." --

This review of the Supreme Court''s October 2021 Term looks back at the major cases addressed by the Court and provides a valuable focus on the implications of these decisions. Written by Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of the University of California at Berkeley School of Law, the book takes a neutral tone, neither praising nor criticizing the decisions, and organizes the case essays by topic.

u200bu200bIntended for use with any of the authors’ three casebooks for Criminal Procedure—all of which were revised in 2022—the 2023 Case and Statutory Supplement combines two objectives: first, it covers the cases decided in the 2021-2023 Supreme Court terms; second, it provides important statutory material related to each of the casebooks’ chapters.u200b New to the 2023 Edition: Significant new decisions and materials, among them: Analysis of important, recent decisions in the area of Criminal Procedure, including several decisions from the Supreme Court’s most recent terms and discussion of policy issues at the forefront of criminal law Changes in Investigation chapters: New case: Vega v. Tekoh (the ability to sue police for violating Miranda v. Arizona) Changes in Adjudication chapters: New cases, including United States v. Tsarnaev (pretrial publicity and jury selection); Bucklew v. Precythe (method of execution); Denezpi v. United States (dual sovereignty exception to the double jeopardy rule); Samia v. United States (Bruton problems); Smith v. United States (double jeopardy rules in venue cases) Amended Rules 16(a)(1)(G) and 16(b)(1)(C) (Expert Witnesses)

Federal Courts deservedly has the reputation of being an exceptionally difficult course, and this book is designed to make it accessible to students by providing the context of cases and doctrines, as well as explaining their relevance to the issues being litigated in the 21st century. Federal Courts in Context supports what pedagogic research calls “deep learning.” It does so by framing federal jurisdiction and structural constitutional law using clear, concise explanations of the social and historical context of canonical cases to reveal the concrete stakes of traditional debates about federal judicial power. The result is an engaging, accessible, and richly textured account of the subject supporting not only more sophisticated doctrinal and jurisprudential analysis, but also the necessary foundation for inclusive pedagogy in the training of diverse 21st century lawyers. The focus is on canonical cases and their context rather than notoriously dense treatise-like material common to other books in the field. The book is also organized to dovetail with Erwin Chemerinsky’s Federal Jurisdiction to maximize the accessibility of the casebook content and learning outcomes. Benefits for instructors and students: Structured to pair with the most commonly used secondary reference in the field, Erwin Chemerinsky’s Federal Jurisdiction Focuses on canonical cases and excerpts rather than long, dense notes and treatise-like material Directly addresses the structural constitutional significance of the Civil War, Reconstruction Amendments, and the retreat from Reconstruction for federalism, the modern Court’s federalism revival, and separation of powers Makes explicit the influences of Indian Removal, allotment, and the late nineteenth century extension of American empire on doctrines of sovereignty, jurisdiction, plenary power, and non-Article III courts Provides interdisciplinary contextualization of the labor movement, the New Deal, and the reproductive rights movement to enrich analysis of reverse-Erie cases, the rise of the administrative state, agency adjudication, and standing Marries doctrinal and theoretical precision about the course’s core concepts (federalism, separation of powers, the Supremacy Clause, and jurisdiction) with legal realist sensibilities and attention to how ordinary people are affected by structural constitutional law, rather than abstractions, Socratic questions without answers, or other pedagogic techniques divorced from the research on deep learning

The United States is a nation of laws, and its Constitution and the rule of law have allowed it to confront and successfully navigate many threats to democracy throughout the nation''s complex history, including a Civil War. All of these threats challenged the nation in various ways, but never has there been a challenge to the truth of our elections like what happened on January 6, 2021. The Insurrection represents a turning point in America''s history. In addition to the unprecedented assault on the U.S. Capitol, members of the government sought to undermine an election and supported an attack on the government. Exposing the issues that led us to January 6, Beyond Imagination? brings together 14 deans of American law schools to examine the day''s events and how we got there, from a legal perspective, in hopes of moving the nation forward towards healing and a recommitment to the rule of law and the Constitution.

Why originalism is a flawed, incoherent, and dangerously ideological method of constitutional interpretation "Chemerinsky . . . offers a concise, point-by-point refutation of the theory [of originalism]. He argues that it cannot deliver what it promises--and if it could, no one would want what it is selling."--David Cole, New York Review of Books Originalism, the view that the meaning of a constitutional provision is fixed when it is adopted, was once the fringe theory of a few extremely conservative legal scholars but is now a well-accepted mode of constitutional interpretation. Three of the Supreme Court''s nine justices explicitly embrace the originalist approach, as do increasing numbers of judges in the lower courts. Noted legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky gives a comprehensive analysis of the problems that make originalism unworkable as a method of constitutional interpretation. He argues that the framers themselves never intended constitutional interpretation to be inflexible and shows how it is often impossible to know what the "original intent" of any particular provision was. Perhaps worst of all, though its supporters tout it as a politically neutral and objective method, originalist interpretation tends to disappear when its results fail to conform to modern conservative ideology.

"Selected pages from Constitutional Law, Sixth Edition by Erwin Chemerinsky; Constitutional Law 2021 Supplement, Sixth Edition by Erwin Chemerinsky; The Regulatory State, Third Edition by Lisa Schultz Bressman, Edward L. Rubin and Kevin M. Stack." --

An unprecedented work of civil rights and legal history, Presumed Guilty reveals how the Supreme Court has enabled racist policing and sanctioned law enforcement excesses through its decisions over the last half-century. Police are nine times more likely to kill African-American men than they are other Americans—in fact, nearly one in every thousand will die at the hands, or under the knee, of an officer. As eminent constitutional scholar Erwin Chemerinsky powerfully argues, this is no accident, but the horrific result of an elaborate body of doctrines that allow the police and, crucially, the courts to presume that suspects—especially people of color—are guilty before being charged. Today in the United States, much attention is focused on the enormous problems of police violence and racism in law enforcement. Too often, though, that attention fails to place the blame where it most belongs, on the courts, and specifically, on the Supreme Court. A “smoking gun” of civil rights research, Presumed Guilty presents a groundbreaking, decades-long history of judicial failure in America, revealing how the Supreme Court has enabled racist practices, including profiling and intimidation, and legitimated gross law enforcement excesses that disproportionately affect people of color. For the greater part of its existence, Chemerinsky shows, deference to and empowerment of the police have been the modi operandi of the Supreme Court. From its conception in the late eighteenth century until the Warren Court in 1953, the Supreme Court rarely ruled against the police, and then only when police conduct was truly shocking. Animating seminal cases and justices from the Court’s history, Chemerinsky—who has himself litigated cases dealing with police misconduct for decades—shows how the Court has time and again refused to impose constitutional checks on police, all the while deliberately gutting remedies Americans might use to challenge police misconduct. Finally, in an unprecedented series of landmark rulings in the mid-1950s and 1960s, the pro-defendant Warren Court imposed significant constitutional limits on policing. Yet as Chemerinsky demonstrates, the Warren Court was but a brief historical aberration, a fleeting liberal era that ultimately concluded with Nixon’s presidency and the ascendance of conservative and “originalist” justices, whose rulings—in Terry v. Ohio (1968), City of Los Angeles v. Lyons (1983), and Whren v. United States (1996), among other cases—have sanctioned stop-and-frisks, limited suits to reform police departments, and even abetted the use of lethal chokeholds. Written with a lawyer’s knowledge and experience, Presumed Guilty definitively proves that an approach to policing that continues to exalt “Dirty Harry” can be transformed only by a robust court system committed to civil rights. In the tradition of Richard Rothstein’s The Color of Law, Presumed Guilty is a necessary intervention into the roiling national debates over racial inequality and reform, creating a history where none was before—and promising to transform our understanding of the systems that enable police brutality.

In the Eighth Edition of Federal Jurisdiction, luminary author Erwin Chemerinsky unpacks the black letter law and underlying policy issues of his subject with the clarity and penetrating insight for which he is renowned. An accessible and thorough exposition of the laws, issues, and policies that determine the jurisdiction of federal courts— students know they can rely on Federal Jurisdiction, Eighth Edition to inform and enrich their understanding of the cases and materials covered in this course. New to the Eighth Edition: Political question doctrine after Rucho v. Common Cause (partisan gerrymandering) Sovereign immunity after Franchise Tax Board v. Hyatt and Cooper v. Allen Developments in suing government officers, especially qualified immunity New limits on Bivens suits Professors and students will benefit from: Thorough updating of every aspect of the book

New to the 2020 Edition: Decisions concerning subpoenas of financial information pertaining to President Trump (Trump v. Vance and Trump v. Mazars USA) Decision concerning constitutionality of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) Decision concerning Louisiana restriction on abortion (June Medical Center v. Russo) Decisions concerning free exercise of religion (Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue; Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey Beru)

Throughout American history, views on the proper relationship between the state and religion have been deeply divided. And, with recent changes in the composition of the Supreme Court, First Amendment law concerning religion is likely to change dramatically in the years ahead. In The Religion Clauses, Erwin Chemerinsky and Howard Gillman, two of America''s leading constitutional scholars, begin by explaining how freedom of religion is enshrined in the First Amendment through two provisions. They defend a robust view of both clauses and work from the premise that that the establishment clause is best understood, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, as creating a wall separating church and state. After examining all the major approaches to the meaning of the Constitution''s religion clauses, they contend that the best approaches are for the government to be strictly secular and for there to be no special exemptions for religious people from neutral and general laws that others must obey. In an America that is only becoming more diverse with respect to religion, this is not only the fairest approach, but the one most in tune with what the First Amendment actually prescribes. Both a pithy primer on the meaning of the religion clauses and a broad-ranging indictment of the Court''s misinterpretation of them in recent years, The Religion Clauses shows how a separationist approach is most consistent with the concerns of the founders who drafted the Constitution and with the needs of a religiously pluralistic society in the 21st century.

In June of 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court issued one of its first major church-state rulings in some time. In Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, it held that the federal Free Exercise Clause required the State of Missouri to provide direct funding to an arm of a church despite an anti-establishment clause in the Missouri Constitution which barred it. This article argues that the decision was contrary to American constitutional history at both the federal and state level, was not faithful to Court precedent in this area, and was contrary to sound constitutional policy in the area of church-state relations. Most importantly, it argues that the Court''s reasoning will open the door to increased governmental funding of churches and other devotional communities, all to the detriment of a healthy separation of church and state that is vital for religion to thrive and the state to properly perform its functions.

The author and dean of constitutional law offers framework for understanding the US Constitution and the current threats facing democracy. Worried about what a super conservative majority on the Supreme Court means for the future of civil liberties? From gun control to reproductive health, a conservative court will reshape the lives of all Americans for decades to come. The time to develop and defend a progressive vision of the US Constitution that protects the rights of all people is now. University of California Berkeley Dean and respected legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky expertly exposes how conservatives are using the Constitution to advance their own agenda that favors business over consumers and employees, and government power over individual rights. But exposure is not enough. Progressives have spent too much of the last forty-five years trying to preserve the legacy of the Warren Court’s most important rulings and reacting to the Republican-dominated Supreme Courts by criticizing their erosion of rights—but have not yet developed a progressive vision for the Constitution itself. Yet, if we just look to the promise of the Preamble—liberty and justice for all—and take seriously its vision, a progressive reading of the Constitution can lead us forward as we continue our fight ensuring democratic rule, effective government, justice, liberty, and equality. Includes the Complete Constitution and Amendments of the United States of America Praise for We the People Paste Magazine’s 10 Best Books of November “This work will become the defining text on progressive constitutionalism—a parallel to Thomas Picketty’s contribution but for all who care deeply about constitutional law. Beautifully written and powerfully argued, this is a masterpiece.” —Lawrence Lessig, Harvard Law School, and author of Free Culture “Thank heaven for Erwin Chemerinsky. . . . His latest book, We the People, really is his finest work. . . . Clear and concise. . . . This book could not have come at a better time. It is a life preserver for those who feel adrift in the uncharted waters of the Trump era.” —Laurie L. Levenson, Los Angeles Review of Books “Chemerinsky . . . pulls no punches. . . . [His] rock-solid arguments are rooted in history, in a profound progressive philosophy.” —Kirkus Reviews (starred review)

"Focusing on the investigation phase of criminal procedure, Criminal Procedure: Investigation combines Laurie L. Levenson''s first-hand experience in the criminal justice system with Erwin Chemerinsky''s student-friendly writing style. The Third Edition examines the impact of a host of recent developments in the courts and legislature on the process investigating crime. It eschews reliance on rhetorical questions and law review excerpts in favor of...exploration of black letter law and trendsetting policy issues. The book utilizes a chronological approach that guides students through criminal procedure doctrine from rules governing law enforcement investigation to matters related to habeas corpus relief. In addition to presenting the perspectives from various stakeholders, the authors...provide...practice-oriented materials. [This book] not only employs a systemic approach that takes students through issues from policy to application of legal doctrine but also introduces issues at the forefront of modern criminal procedure debates."--

Can free speech coexist with an inclusive campus environment? Hardly a week goes by without another controversy over free speech on college campuses. On one side, there are increased demands to censor hateful, disrespectful, and bullying expression and to ensure an inclusive and nondiscriminatory learning environment. On the other side are traditional free speech advocates who charge that recent demands for censorship coddle students and threaten free inquiry. In this clear and carefully reasoned book, a university chancellor and a law school dean—both constitutional scholars who teach a course in free speech to undergraduates—argue that campuses must provide supportive learning environments for an increasingly diverse student body but can never restrict the expression of ideas. This book provides the background necessary to understanding the importance of free speech on campus and offers clear prescriptions for what colleges can and can’t do when dealing with free speech controversies.

Constitutional Law 2017 Case Supplement

A leading legal scholar explores how the constitutional right to seek justice has been restricted by the Supreme Court The Supreme Court s decisions on constitutional rights are well known and much talked about. But individuals who want to defend those rights need something else as well: access to courts that can rule on their complaints. And on matters of access, the Court s record over the past generation has been almost uniformly hostile to the enforcement of individual citizens constitutional rights. The Court has restricted who has standing to sue, expanded the immunity of governments and government workers, limited the kinds of cases the federal courts can hear, and restricted the right of habeas corpus. Closing the Courthouse Door, by the distinguished legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky, is the first book to show the effect of these decisions: taken together, they add up to a growing limitation on citizens ability to defend their rights under the Constitution. Using many stories of people whose rights have been trampled yet who had no legal recourse, Chemerinsky argues that enforcing the Constitution should be the federal courts primary purpose, and they should not be barred from considering any constitutional question.

In Stern v. Marshall (2011), the Supreme Court held that it violated Article III of the Constitution for a bankruptcy court to issue a final judgment as to a state law counterclaim. Although Chief Justice Roberts'' majority opinion is predicated on the need to have judges with life tenure to ensure judicial independence, it is difficult to see why this should matter for state law claims. Stern v. Marshall can be understood only as an exercise in formalism, rather than a functional approach to determining what can be decided by non-Article III judges. The formalistic reasoning of the Court is unsatisfying, especially in an area where the Court throughout American history has allowed non-Article III courts for functional reasons. Stern v. Marshall, if followed by the Court, could have enormous implications for the authority of the bankruptcy courts and more generally for federal jurisdiction.

The Professional Responsibility audio lecture explains regulation of attorneys, bar admission, unauthorized practice, competency, discipline, judgment, layer-client relationship, representation, and withdrawal. It also discusses conflicts, disqualification, clients, client interests, successive and effective representation, integrity, candor, confidences, secrets, and past and future crimes. Other topics include perjury, communications, witnesses, jurors, the court, the press, trial tactics, prosecutors, market, solicitation, advertising, law firms, fees, client property, conduct, and political activity.

"Based on declassified FBI documents, including secret documents from J. Edgar Hoover''s vault and never-before-published National Archives documents, Burning Bridges is the first detailed account of the twenty-year legal campaign waged by government lawyers and policymakers, in secret conjunction with private enterprise, to deport labor leader Harry Bridges. Set in the middle decades of the twentieth century during the Cold War, this is a story of bribery, perjury, and wiretaps; of secret FBI investigations, witness intimidation, and secret deals; and of assassination attempts, overzealous government prosecutors, and larger-than-life defense lawyers risking prison defending their clients. Three-quarters of a century on, the legacy of the Harry Bridges trials still haunts America''s legal system and is critical to assess because Americans today again confront a modern surveillance state with the greatest threat of government intrusions into civil liberties since Bridges'' era"--Page 4 of cover.

A preeminent constitutional scholar offers a hard-hitting analysis of the Supreme Court over the last two hundred years Most Americans share the perception that the Supreme Court is objective, but Erwin Chemerinsky, one of the country’s leading constitutional lawyers, shows that this is nonsense and always has been. The Court is made up of fallible individuals who base decisions on their own biases. Today, the Roberts Court is promoting a conservative agenda under the guise of following a neutral methodology, but notorious decisions, such as Bush vs. Gore and Citizens United, are hardly recent exceptions. This devastating book details, case by case, how the Court has largely failed throughout American history at its most important tasks and at the most important times. Only someone of Chemerinsky’s stature and breadth of knowledge could take on this controversial topic. Powerfully arguing for term limits for justices and a reassessment of the institution as a whole, The Case Against the Supreme Court is a timely and important book that will be widely read and cited for decades to come.

This is the 2013 case supplement to accompany Constitutional Law, Fourth Edition by Erwin Chemerinsky. Summary of Contents Preface Chapter 1.The Federal Judicial Power Chapter 2.The Federal Legislative Power Chapter 4. Limits on State Regulatory and Taxing Power Chapter 6. Economic Liberties Chapter 7. Equal Protection Chapter 9. First Amendment: Freedom of Expression

To ensure that you have the most up-to-date and complete materials for your Constitutional Law class, be sure to use Constitutional Law, 2009 Case Supplement . Case coverage includes: Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder Altria Group, Inc. v. Good Wyeth v. Levine Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc. District Attorney''s Office For The Third Judicial District v. Osborne Pleasant Grove City, Utah v. Summum Federal Communications Commission et al., Petitioners, v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., et al.

Public universities must allow unpleasant speech, even anti-semitic speech, on campus. Professor Marcus sharply criticizes universities for allowing such speech. But his position cannot be reconciled with the most basic principles of freedom of speech under the First Amendment.

Intended for use with any of the authors'' three casebooks for Criminal Procedure, the 2009 Case and Statutory Supplement combines two objectives: First, it covers the cases from the October 2008 Term, which ended on June 30, 2009. Second, it provides important statutory material related to each of the casebook''s chapters. The 2009 Case and Statutory Supplement features significant new Supreme Court case decisions regarding: Searches Incident to Arrest Arizona v. Gant Searches When There Are Special Needs Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule Herring v. United States Police Interrogation and the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination Montejo v. Louisiana Speedy Trial Rights Vermont v. Brillon Sentencing Oregon v. Ice Collateral Estoppel Yeager v. United States Important Statutory Material: Selected Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Selected Sections from U.S. Code Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure Selected Sections from U.S. Code Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure

To ensure that you have the most up-to-date and complete materials for your Constitutional Law class, be sure to use Constitutional Law, 2009 Case Supplement . Case coverage includes: Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder Altria Group, Inc. v. Good Wyeth v. Levine Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc. District Attorney''s Office For The Third Judicial District v. Osborne Pleasant Grove City, Utah v. Summum Federal Communications Commission et al., Petitioners, v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., et al.

Over the last few decades, the Supreme Court and the federal appellate courts have undergone a dramatic shift to the right, the result of a determined effort by right-wing lawmakers and presidents to reinterpret the Constitution by reshaping the judiciary. Conservative activist justices have narrowed the scope of the Constitution, denying its protections to millions of Americans, exactly as the lawmakers who appointed and confirmed these jurists intended. Basic long-standing principles of constitutional law have been overturned by the Rehnquist and Roberts courts. As distinguished law professor and constitutional expert Erwin Chemerinsky demonstrates in this invaluable book, these changes affect the lives of every American. As a result of political pressure from conservatives and a series of Supreme Court decisions, our public schools are increasingly separate and unequal, to the great disadvantage of poor and minority students. Right-wing politicians and justices are dismantling the wall separating church and state, allowing ever greater government support for religion. With the blessing of the Supreme Court, absurdly harsh sentences are being handed down to criminal defendants, such as life sentences for shoplifting and other petty offenses. Even in death penalty cases, defendants are being denied the right to competent counsel at trial, and as a result innocent people have been convicted and sentenced to death. Right-wing politicians complain that government is too big and intrusive while at the same time they are only too happy to insert the government into the most intimate aspects of the private lives of citizens when doing so conforms to conservative morality. Conservative activist judges say that the Constitution gives people an inherent right to own firearms but not to make their own medical decisions. In some states it is easier to buy an assault rifle than to obtain an abortion. Nowhere has the conservative assault on the Constitution been more visible or more successful than in redefining the role of the president. From Richard Nixon to George W. Bush, conservatives have sought to significantly increase presidential power. The result in recent years has been unprecedented abuses, including indefinite detentions, illegal surveillance, and torture of innocent people. Finally, access to the courts is being restricted by new rulings that deny legal protections to ordinary Americans. Fewer lawsuits alleging discrimination in employment are heard; fewer people are able to sue corporations or governments for injuries they have suffered; and even when these cases do go to trial, new restrictions limit damages that plaintiffs can collect. The first step in reclaiming the protections of the Constitution, says Chemerinsky, is to recognize that right-wing justices are imposing their personal prejudices, not making neutral decisions about the scope of the Constitution, as they claim, or following the "original meaning" of the Constitution. Only then do we stand a chance of reclaiming our constitutional liberties from a rigid ideological campaign that has transformed our courts and our laws. Only then can we return to a constitutional law that advances freedom and equality.