Yale Law Clinic Teams Up With Heavy Hitters on Mexico Border Controversy
The school's Rule of Law Clinic assisted in drafting a joint declaration opposing President Donald Trump's declaration of a national emergency at the Mexico border signed by 60 former national security experts, including Madeleine Albright and John Kerry.
February 28, 2019 at 04:14 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Amid the controversy over President Donald Trump's declaration of a national emergency at the Mexico border, a small cadre of Yale Law students has been key in arming a bipartisan group of national security heavyweights to oppose the move.
Sixty former national security officials, including former Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright and John Kerry and former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, this week released joint declaration laying out their myriad arguments against Trump's emergency declaration in hopes of swaying lawmakers to oppose it.
Behind the scenes, a half-dozen students in Yale Law School's Rule of Law Clinic worked for weeks to research the matter and help draft the joint declaration, which in addition to being placed in the Congressional Record will be filed as part of the court record in the lawsuits challenging the emergency declaration.
The declaration was released the day before the U.S. House of Representatives voted to block Trump's declaration of a national emergency at the border with Mexico—a move that is largely intended to bolster lawsuits challenging the declaration, given that the president is likely to veto any bill that might emerge from the Senate.
Others among the signatories of the joint statement are former CIA Director John Brennan, former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, former Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and former United Nations Representatives Susan Rice and Samantha Power.
“We have lived and worked through national emergencies, and we support the President's power to mobilize the Executive Branch to respond quickly in genuine national emergencies,” the joint declaration reads. “But under no plausible assessment of the evidence is there a national emergency today that entitles the President to tap into funds appropriated for other purposes to build a wall at the southern border.”
Second-year law student Danielle Zucker said she and five other classmates from the clinic—their group adopted the nickname Blue Steel—waded through hundreds of emails as they helped shepherd the draft through multiple revisions, wrote footnotes and conducted research. They began working on the project weeks before Trump actually declared a national emergency on Feb. 15.
“It's exciting to take an issue that's something I care about and is something all the people who signed on care deeply about—and to feel like you are a part of a group that's having an effect on the national conversation,” Zucker said in an interview Tuesday, shortly before the House vote. “All the students working on it were pretty motivated to put in the time and get this right.”
The joint declaration was an outgrowth of an earlier policy statement that the Rule of Law Clinic helped 10 former national security officials release in opposition to Trump's travel ban. Those 10 original signatories helped circulate the new document highlighting problems with the border emergency declaration among an even wider group of national security colleagues. They sought out experts in counterterrorism, human trafficking, relations with Mexico and other areas that touch the border emergency debate, said clinic instructor and former Yale Law Dean Harold Koh.
“Somebody has to make an assessment that there is an emergency,” Koh said. “Trump is asserting no facts and putting forth no experts. And here are people who dealt with national emergencies their whole lives and are in fact are deferential to the claim when there is any basis to assert it.”
“The people on this list were responsible for protecting the country and did so through numerous crises through numerous presidents, Democratic and Republican alike,” Koh continued. “They ought to know the different between an emergency and a non-emergency.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAfter 2024's Regulatory Tsunami, Financial Services Firms Hope Storm Clouds Break
Judge Slashes $2M in Punitive Damages in Sober-Living Harassment Case
Managing Partner Vindicated in Disciplinary Proceeding Brought by Former Associate
5 minute readConnecticut Movers: Year-End Promotions, Hires and an Office Opening
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The American Lawyer's Top Stories of 2024
- 2Semiconductor Component Maker Accused of Deceiving Investors About Market Downturn, Export Curbs
- 3Zuckerman Spaeder Gets Ready to Move Offices in DC, Deploy AI Tools in 2025
- 4Pardoning Jan. 6 Defendants May Send Bad Message About Insurrection, Rule of Law
- 5Looming Clash Over Abortion Pills Shows Overturning 'Roe v. Wade' Settled Nothing
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250