Law Commons^™

Brief Of Amici Curiae Privacy And First Amendment Law Professors In Support Of Defendant-Appellant And Reversal, G. S. Hans, Hannah Bloch-Wehba, Danielle K. Citron, Julie E. Cohen, Mary Anne Franks, Woodrow Hartzog, Margot E. Kaminski, Gregory P. Magarian, Frank Pasquale, Neil Richards, Daniel J. Solove

Faculty Scholarship

STATEMENT OF INTEREST: Amici curiae are law professors and scholars of data privacy, constitutional law, and the First Amendment. Amici write to provide the court with scholarly expertise on the complexities of data privacy law and its intersection with the First Amendment. Amici have collectively written scores of academic articles and multiple books on data privacy, technology, the First Amendment, and constitutional challenges to state and federal privacy regulation.

Amici submit this brief pursuant to Fed. Rule App. P. 29(a) and do not repeat arguments made by the parties. No party’s counsel authored this brief, or any part of …

Reply Brief For Petitioner, Ferguson V. America, Brian Wolfman, Madeline H. Meth

Faculty Scholarship

The Government concedes that the circuits are divided over whether 28 U.S.C. § 2255 limits a district court’s discretion in reviewing 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motions. And because it cannot dispute that this issue is cleanly presented, unaffected by the Sentencing Commission’s policy statement, and exceptionally important, it instead rewrites the question presented. The Government’s effort to replace a question about the relationship (if any) between Section 3582(c)(1)(A) and Section 2255 with one about whether the district court abused its discretion should be rejected, and with it the Government’s attempt to gloss over the intractable circuit split, its misguided argument …

Reply Brief For Petitioner, Muldrow V. City Of St. Louis, Madeline H. Meth, Brian Wolfman

Faculty Scholarship

Section 703(a)(1) is straightforward: It prohibits all discrimination against an employee “with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin[.]” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e2(a)(1). The Department does not dispute that job transfers concern “terms and conditions” of employment. See Resp. Br. 1, 35. So, if the statute’s words are honored, and Jatonya Muldrow can show that the Department’s transfer decisions were imposed “because of” her sex, the Department is liable.

Yet the Department maintains that some discriminatory job transfers escape Title VII’s reach. It relies nearly exclusively …

Brief For Petitioner, Muldrow V. City Of St. Louis, Missouri, Madeline H. Meth, Brian Wolfman

Faculty Scholarship

Title VII prohibits an employer from discriminating against an employee because of her race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Its core antidiscrimination provision, Section 703(a)(1), protects individuals not only from discriminatory hiring, firing, or compensation but also from discrimination with respect to their “terms, conditions, or privileges” of employment. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e2(a)(1). Petitioner Jatonya Clayborn Muldrow maintains that her employer, the City of St. Louis Police Department, discriminated against her in the terms, conditions, or privileges of her employment when, because of her sex, it transferred her out of the Department’s Intelligence Division to an entirely different job, …