It is time for Washington and Lee University to drop both George Washington and Robert E. Lee from the University name. The predominantly White faculty at Washington and Lee recently announced that it will petition the Board of Trustees to remove Lee from the University name. This is the first time in Washington and Lee’s history that the faculty has drafted such a petition. It is worth exploring why the faculty has decided to make a collective statement on Lee now and why the faculty has not included a demand to drop Washington in their petition. The answer is simple—it is no longer acceptable, profitable, or convenient to be associated with Lee but it is for Washington. At least for now.
Washington and Lee Law Review - Civil Rights
Development
by Robert Gatter & Seema Mohapatra
As states begin to loosen their COVID-19 restrictions, public debate is underway about what public health measures are appropriate. Many states have some form of mask-wearing orders to prevent the spread of COVID-19 infection. Public health guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization has conflicted. From a public health point of view, it is not clear what the right answer is. In the absence of directives, individuals are also making their own choices about mask use. At a time when public health measures, like shelter-in-place orders and social distancing, are being used to stop the spread of coronavirus, wearing masks can be seen as a form of solidarity and desire to not infect others. Similarly, not wearing a mask can also be a political statement of sorts. Additionally, black men wearing masks have reported being asked to leave stores and fearing for their own safety. This Article provides an overview of the legal and policy landscape and focuses on the potential for policing against black Americans when mask mandates are in place. Despite the public health benefits of mask usage, due to mask mandates likely being enforced discriminatorily, we advise caution against mask mandates.
Article
by Amanda S. Sen, Stephanie K. Glaberson, and Aubrey Rose
This Article seeks to advance due process protections for people included in state child abuse and neglect registries. Between states, there are differences in the types of cases included in the state registry and the process required to be placed on or removed from the registry. To obtain judicial due process review, a plaintiff must demonstrate that a protected liberty or property interest is at stake. When federal courts have evaluated the individual liberty interest(s) implicated by placement on state child abuse and neglect registries, they have so far only found such an interest when the plaintiff’s employment opportunities were clearly affected. We identify a more principled method by which courts should evaluate challenges to state child abuse and neglect registries. Our proposed method would root the analysis in the core constitutional right of family integrity. We then go on to identify ways in which states could structure their child abuse and neglect registries to better comport with due process requirements.
Note
by Lara M. McMahon
This Note proposes four factors courts should consider when asked to determine whether law enforcement’s use of a cell-site simulator constituted a Fourth Amendment search. The first asks courts to consider whether the cell-site simulator surveillance infringed on a constitutionally protected area, such as the home. The second asks courts to consider the duration of the cell-site simulator surveillance. The third asks courts to consider whether the cell-site simulator surveillance was conducted actively or passively. The fourth asks courts to focus on the nature and depth of the information obtained as a result of the cell-site simulator surveillance. If, after analyzing these four factors, a court concludes that law enforcement officers conducted a Fourth Amendment search, the court must then ask whether the search was reasonable. Cell-site simulators are generally used in the “enterprise of ferreting out crime.” Thus, if law enforcement’s use of a cell-site simulator amounts to a Fourth Amendment search, that search should be considered unreasonable, and therefore violative of the Fourth Amendment, if it was conducted without a warrant.
The Note also provides background information regarding the development and use of cell-site simulators at the federal, state, and local levels. Part II lays out a general framework for analyzing Fourth Amendment search and seizure cases. Part II.A concludes that law enforcement’s use of a cell-site simulator does not constitute a Fourth Amendment seizure, but Part II.B argues that it may constitute a Fourth Amendment search. Part II.B then delves into Fourth Amendment search case law, chronicling several key Supreme Court decisions that apply both the traditional, physical trespass test and the Katz reasonable expectation of privacy test to various electronic surveillance techniques. Part II.B next analyzes the three cell-site simulator cases referenced earlier in this Part—Maryland v. Andrews, United States v. Lambis, and Jones v. United States—and concludes that the courts in Andrews and Jones (D.C.) came to overly broad conclusions in holding that law enforcement’s use of cell-site simulators categorically violates individuals’ expectations of privacy. Part III proposes four factors courts should consider to determine whether, on a case-by-case basis, law enforcement’s use of a cell-site simulator constitutes a Fourth Amendment search. Part IV addresses the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness requirement and concludes that the warrant preference model for determining reasonableness is best-suited to cell-site simulators.
Note
by Courtney Joy McMullan
This Note examines if, and to what degree, courts should consider the pressure put on universities to address sexual misconduct on campus as support for an accused student’s Title IX claim of gender discrimination during university disciplinary proceedings. This Note begins in Part II by discussing the prevalence of campus sexual assault and the ways in which Title IX is used to address it on university campuses. Part III examines reverse Title IX claims by accused students, including the various causes of action and the pleading standards required. Part III also surveys the success of reverse Title IX claims using public pressure on universities to address sexual assault to support their allegations of gender discrimination. Part IV then evaluates the way summary judgment rules and burden-shifting frameworks affect the likelihood of success for reverse Title IX claims. Finally, Part V emphasizes the need for clarity and consistency in the evaluation of reverse Title IX claims. In considering the purposes and policies of Title IX, this Note ultimately argues that reverse Title IX claims, especially those relying on external pressure on universities, should be assessed in a strict and limited manner going forward. This Note concludes in Part VI by discussing the possibilities of proposed changes to federal regulations and their impact on reverse Title IX claims.
Article
by Omari Scott Simmons
Shareholder activism—using an equity stake in a corporation to influence management—has become a popular tool to effectuate social change in the twenty-first century. Increasingly, activists are looking beyond financial performance to demand better corporate performance in such areas as economic inequality, civil rights, human rights, discrimination, and diversity. These efforts take many forms: publicity campaigns, litigation, proxy battles, shareholder resolutions, and negotiations with corporate management. However, a consensus on scope is lacking. Should corporations change their own operations to reflect a specific agenda or use their power to influence society on a much broader scale? Distinctions between private and public become blurred in light of the ubiquitous and inevitable influence corporations wield over third parties. Theoretical absolutes on the individualist-communitarian spectrum may underestimate the complex co-dependent and co-responsible interrelationship between corporations and modern society. Critics may fairly question why corporations, arguably society’s most potent institutions, should sit idle on problems like civil rights.
This essay offers a historical account of a seminal civil rights decision, Belton v. Gebhart, in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The circumstances surrounding the Belton case illuminate the limits and potential of shareholder activism to bolster civil rights in the modern context. Examining a historical civil rights example is instructive for thinking about how shareholder activism might advance the modern civil rights agenda.
Part II of this essay examines Belton v. Gebhart in its contemporary context. Part III examines the key differences between past and present civil rights-related shareholder activism. Part IV concludes that Belton v. Gebhart, along with its surrounding circumstances and events, vividly illustrates that advancing civil rights requires a range of tactics that leverage public, private, and philanthropic resources. Shareholder activism works best as part of a multipronged activist strategy, not as a substitute for other types of activism. Recognizing the complex challenges associated with advancing civil rights, this essay raises key questions about the nascent environmental, social, and governance (ESG) framework with which scholars, practitioners, and other observers must contend.
This article builds upon the author’s remarks at the 2018-2019 Lara D. Gass Annual Symposium: Civil Rights and Shareholder Activism at Washington and Lee University School of Law, February 15, 2019.
Article
by Sarah C. Haan
What does “corporate democracy” mean? How far does federal law go to guarantee public company investors a say in a firm’s policies on important social, environmental, or political issues? In 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court appeared ready to start sketching the contours of corporate democracy—and then, at the last minute, it pulled back. This Article tells the story of Securities and Exchange Commission v. Medical Committee for Human Rights, in which a national civil rights organization, best known for its work at civil rights marches and protests, fought to expand the limits of corporate democracy and nearly succeeded.
This Article proceeds in three parts. Following the introduction, Part II tells the story of how a civil rights organization advanced the cause of shareholder activism in the late 1960s. It begins with the group’s first, clumsy efforts to use shareholder tools and traces developments through the tumultuous 1970 proxy season, in which major companies’ annual meetings featured confrontations involving police, private security forces, guard dogs, and rock-throwing stockholders. Archival documents reveal that a Yale law student was the original donor of five shares of Dow Chemical Company stock to Medical Committee, and that he helped connect the civil rights organization to the prominent securities lawyers who litigated its case. An important victory came early: Dow stopped manufacturing napalm in May 1969, around the time of its annual shareholders meeting. However, Dow’s management never admitted any concession to the investor insurgency.
Part III describes the legal wrangling that took place in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court. This Part excavates primary documents from the case files of Supreme Court Justices involved in the case, including those of Justice Thurgood Marshall, who wrote the opinion that declared the controversy moot, and Justice William O. Douglas, the former New Deal SEC Chair, who departed from his longstanding practice of recusing himself from securities law cases to dissent. What these documents suggest is that, if it had been decided on the merits, SEC v. Medical Committee for Human Rights would have been a close case. This is especially noteworthy considering that two of the nine Justices who were members of the Court when it granted certiorari—Justices Hugo Black and John Marshall Harlan—had resigned for health reasons by the time the case was argued. In the end, Medical Committee saw its gains for corporate democracy dissolved as fierce maneuvering by Dow’s corporate management and the SEC won the upper hand.
Part IV considers the significance of SEC v. Medical Committee for Human Rights to history. It presents the case as civil rights history, as securities law history, and as corporate governance history, and offers some reflections on the case in light of the current debate about the right of shareholders to have a voice in a company’s manufacture or sale of controversial products.
This article builds upon the author’s remarks at the 2018-2019 Lara D. Gass Annual Symposium: Civil Rights and Shareholder Activism at Washington and Lee University School of Law, February 15, 2019.
