“We’ve come from the world over, conquered circumstances, and overcome obstacles as varied as this dear city,” student speaker William Creeley proclaimed. Creeley graduated from the Gallatin School and will attend NYU School of Law in 2003-04. “Change the world,” he told the J.D. candidates, “but wait for me.”

NYU President John Sexton then presented honorary degrees to five outstanding New Yorkers, including Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who received an honorary doctor of laws degree. Bloomberg explained that his mother had graduated from the University in 1929, and his daughter was a freshman at the Gallatin School. “I went to school elsewhere,” he laughed, “but they do say smarts skip a generation. As mayor, I appreciate how much we depend on this university. No stone gates separate the school from the city. New York City is NYU’s campus.”

Sexton echoed the sentiment. “I hope you regard this day not as a moment of departure, but as a redefinition of your relationship with the school.”

The 2003 Commencement Choir sang “New York State of Mind,” and a student from each school accepted a degree on behalf of his or her class. Dean Richard Revesz of NYU School of Law presented a doctoral degree to Fengchun Jin, LL.M., and Theano Evangelis accepted the juris doctor degree and waved to her cheering classmates.

The next day, three candidates for doctorates of juridical science, 534 candidates for master’s of laws, and 443 candidates for juris doctorates celebrated Convocation at the Law School’s ceremony at the Theater at Madison Square Garden. Revesz opened the ceremony with remarks on the present and future successes of the 2003 class. “You have achieved so much already,” he commented, listing several accomplishments, including an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, cited by Justice David Souter; supervision of a legal needs and resources project; and assistance in drafting East Timor’s Constitution. The dean called for the students to continue to be “a part of the solution,” as the world encounters disruptions and scandal.

Lester Pollack (’57), chairman of the NYU School of Law Foundation, congratulated the students, advised vigilance in meeting the challenges ahead, and encouraged their continued active involvement and participation in the NYU School of Law community.

Sexton, former dean of the Law School, praised Revesz’s work with the Law School and congratulated him on a great first year. Sexton described his newfound appreciation for the University as a whole, and called on students to be the leaders of this century.

Patrizia Papaianni (pictured in the center), representative of the LL.M. class, praised the ability of the students to bring diverse backgrounds to a common experience. She encouraged the students to strive for the goal “to work in law for a better world.”

Travis Tu (at far right), speaking for the 2003 J.D. class, praised the graduates’ abilities to make achievements in public service: “Rare is a student body more prepared to heed that call than this one.”

Described as “brilliant, dedicated, and selfless,” Professor Randy Hertz, director of the Law School’s clinical and advocacy programs, was recognized for being awarded a University Distinguished Teaching Award for his work with the Law School clinical program. Hertz congratulated students on the bright futures that lie ahead of them. “I look forward to hearing about the mountains you will move in the years to come,” he said.

Larry Thompson (above left), then deputy attorney general of the United States, gave the Convocation address. Thompson, whose son, Larry Thompson Jr., was graduating, praised both the students for having reason to be proud of their accomplishments and the families whose efforts were part of those successes. He encouraged the students to seek opportunities to reach beyond and take risks. He reminded the students that the law is a profession and that a lawyer must always remember who the client is and always give his or her “independent professional judgment.” Thompson said that every lawyer will encounter invitations to abandon his or her principles, but encouraged the students to hold true to those principles and their professional judgments, and, finally, wished them good luck.

Candidates for doctorates of juridical science were hooded first, followed by the candidates for master’s of law and candidates for juris doctorates. Revesz continued the tradition of inviting family members and loved ones who are alumni of the Law School to hood their graduates, and for the first time, started a new tradition of inviting alumni scholarship donors to hood their recipients. Revesz concluded the convocation with warm congratulations to the students.

The four competition finalists, Holsinger; Ion Hazzikostas (’04), who won the “Best Brief” award in the semifinals; Peter Lallas (’04); and Amnon Siegel (’04), the winner of the “Best Brief” award in the preliminary rounds, briefed and argued cases in preliminary rounds before advancing to a second round as semifinalists. The semifinals were held before local judges and attorneys. The top four students were then assigned a new side of the argument to be argued in the final round before Kozinski, Koeltl, and Judge Wilfred Feinberg of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

After rebuttals, the judges retired to chambers and emerged to pronounce the appellants victorious in the case, and to name Holsinger the best oralist. They praised all the finalists, calling for a round of applause in their honor.

Dean Richard Revesz presented Holsinger with the Marden Moot Court Award for Best Oralist. The competitors, which each year includes both second- and third-year students, joined the dean, judges, and members of the Moot Court Board to celebrate the competition and the accomplishments of the board.

In 1996, Congress, in order to address perceived failings by the INS, enacted several laws to reform the immigration system. Some provisions of these laws have been criticized as harsh anti-immigrant measures and certain parts have been held unconstitutional. The specific statute at issue in Demore v. Kim, 8 U.S.C. §1226(c), compels the INS to detain immigrants who have been convicted of crimes that may prompt their ultimate removal from the United States.

Congress made a categorical determination that immigrants charged by the INS with being deportable should be subject to mandatory detention during the pendency of their removal proceedings. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held this statute unconstitutional as applied to Hyung Joon Kim, a lawful permanent resident who has been living in the United States since he was six years old. At heart, this case pitted the fundamental liberty interests of an individual against the state’s ability to make categorical determinations based on immigration policy.

Judy Rabinovitz (’85), senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union’s Immigrants’ Rights Project and NYU School of Law adjunct professor, argued the case on behalf of Kim. Rabinovitz has been involved with challenges to §1226(c) since it took effect in 1998, and has successfully argued the issue in Kim in three circuits. Each of the circuit courts held that due process requires an individualized bond determination assessing danger to the community and flight risk, and rejected the government’s argument that its plenary power in immigration cases deserves latitude wide enough to enact such a categorical rule.

During oral argument Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy had difficult questions for both sides, but seemed uncomfortable with the idea that due process requires more than is provided under §1226(c). To address these concerns, Rabinovitz directed the Court’s attention to an amicus brief filed by a group of immigrants’ rights associations.

This brief, prepared by NYU School of Law students Alexsa Alonso (’03), Kevin Lapp (’04), Christopher Le Mon (’03), and Isaac Wheeler (’03), under the direction of Law School Professor Nancy Morawetz, presented the harsh reality of §1226(c). The experiences of numerous immigrants with this statute demonstrate that immigrants held without possibility of bail for up to 17 months are later released when it turns out that the INS accusation that they are deportable was incorrect.

Ultimately, the Court ruled in April that mandatory detention of lawful permanent residents during their immigration proceedings is constitutional.

The Immigrant Rights Clinic at NYU School of Law started working on this issue in the clinic’s first year of existence. Clinic students addressed the issue on behalf of Citizens and Immigrants for Equal Justice, a national coalition of family members of persons who face deportation and detention.

The circuit-level briefs, written by clinic students Tony Lu (’02), Rachel Rosenbloom (’02), Mike Shumway (’00), and Rhodri Williams (’00), were referenced at oral arguments by some circuit courts. The brief was subsequently updated and submitted to several courts by pro bono counsel at Kramer Levin, helping to lead to the string of favorable circuit court opinions.

When the Supreme Court took the case, Alonso and Wheeler, assisted by Lapp and Le Mon, reworked the amicus brief to fit the specific issues anticipated to be important to the Supreme Court.

Justice David Souter’s dissent (which was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg) refers to the brief by name four times to support four different points:
• Many immigrants facing mandatory detention have legal issues in their cases that will not be resolved until the conclusion of their proceedings.
• Many of these issues require research and evidence, so that immigrants are greatly disadvantaged by being forced to litigate their cases in remote detention centers far from witnesses and counsel.
• Many immigrants with these merits issues win their cases.
• Many immigrants suffer months or years of detention while they fight against their deportation.

Two other Law School alumni, Wanyong Austin (’83) and Christopher Meade (’96), were also actively involved in the case. As an ACLU contract attorney during 1999 and 2000, Austin worked closely with Rabinovitz on all aspects of the litigation strategy, and later helped to coordinate amicus briefs to the Supreme Court. Meade, a Root-Tilden-Kern Scholar and an associate at Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, devoted countless pro bono hours as co-counsel on the brief.

In addition, students Benita Jain (’03) and John Radice (’03) assisted Rabinovitz through the Law School’s Hays Fellowship Program, which provides students with opportunities to work with top-notch practitioners in civil rights and civil liberties. Jain and Radice researched legislative history and immigration cases and edited the final brief. An earlier Hays fellow, Iris Bennett (’99), also developed legal arguments for the first challenge to the statute in November 1998, and subsequently assisted with the Ninth Circuit litigation.

The first panel focused on the VRA, which was designed to give minority groups equal opportunity “to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.” Professor Samuel Isaacharoff of Columbia Law School (second from right) questioned the continued efficacy of the act.

Isaacharoff explained that the act requires redistricting in covered areas to ensure that minority groups can have a representative impact. At the time the VRA was passed, these areas (primarily the South) as a rule did not have any black elected officials, and they were not home to partisan political activity because of the dominance of the Democratic Party. Redistricting changed these conditions. The concentration of minority populations in voting districts allowed Republican players to have a greater presence in the newly created super-majority districts, forcing the Democratic Party to be responsive to the black constituency.

Isaacharoff said that it is no longer effective to stack minorities in districts. For example, a recent redistricting movement in New Jersey created many districts that were approximately 40 percent black. This allocation was approved by both the Democratic and black leaders based on the understanding that large minority groups are powerful and can control elections, whereas a super-majority of minority groups will waste minority votes. A similar redistricting plan, however, was struck down in Georgia, a state covered under the VRA.

Rodolfo de la Garza, professor of political science at Columbia University, discussed the VRA as it relates to the voting rights of Latinos, who were included as a language group in a 1975 amendment. While concurring that the VRA no longer works effectively in the regions it was designed to impact, de la Garza said that some areas originally outside the act’s scope could benefit from it today, including Massachusetts, which has recently experienced a large influx of Latinos. De la Garza (above, far left) agreed that the unbending regime of the VRA is problematic, but saw a continued need for interventions in the voting system to protect the rights of Latinos.

Carol Swain (second from left), professor of political science and professor of law at Vanderbilt University said that, according to poll data, “political party was more important than the race of the representative, and as long as blacks held the positions that they did, they were best represented by the Democrats.”

The second panel addressed felony disenfranchisement and its effect on minority, particularly black, voting populations. The first speaker, Jamie Fellner, director of the Human Rights Watch, said that the United States is the only democracy in the world where ex-prisoners are denied the right to vote, which is the case in 12 states. Moreover, in 48 states, inmates are prohibited from voting. In contrast, inmates have the right to vote elsewhere in the Western world and some countries, like Germany, actively encourage them to do so.

As a result of the disenfranchisement laws, 3.9 million people in the United States currently do not have the right to vote, about one in 50 adults. There also are significant racial disparities; nationwide, 13 percent of African-American men cannot vote. The average disenfranchisement rate is five times higher for blacks than it is for whites.

Fellner asked, “Do the laws serve any purpose, do they work, and are they consistent with human rights?” “No, no, and no,” he answered. These laws also contradict international human rights standards. Disenfranchisement laws do not make distinctions based on the type of crime that was committed, nor do they include any requirement that the crime be related to political activity.

Deborah Goldberg, who is now director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice and is engaged in litigation challenging disenfranchisement, discussed the specific actions taken by a national voting rights restoration campaign focusing on Alabama, Florida, Maryland, New York, and Texas. Because the laws regarding felony disenfranchisement differ by jurisdiction, each strategy must be crafted to address a particular situation taking into account whether a state disenfranchises felons permanently, for the duration of their sentence, or for some other period, and whether the law is statutory or embedded in the state’s constitution.

A state constitutional provision could be amended, which would call for a public education campaign to garner support for an initiative or other amendment procedure. A federal challenge could be brought against state constitutional provisions. Litigation under federal law or a state constitution might be available to challenge a state disenfranchisement statute. Also, a legislative campaign could be mounted for amendment or repeal of the state statute. Although repeals are difficult, some recent progress has been made in this area. Wyoming recently repealed a blanket permanent disenfranchisement law and now permits non-violent offenders to apply for restoration of their voting rights five years after completing their sentence.

In closing, Jessie Allen, associate counsel at the Brennan Center, specifically discussed the Project’s initiative in Florida, where a quarter of black men are disenfranchised, making it the state in greatest need of reform. The Brennan Center considered two alternate approaches in litigation. The first was to make an Equal Protection claim based on intentional discrimination; the second would challenge the laws through the VRA, arguing that when race plus this voting “qualification” are factored in, states end up with a prohibited inequality of opportunity.