Erwin Chemerinsky

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Erwin Chemerinsky (born 1953) is an American lawyer and law professor. He is a renowned scholar in United States constitutional law and federal civil procedure. He is the founding dean of the Donald Bren School of Law at the University of California, Irvine, which is scheduled to begin classes in the fall semester of 2009.

Contents 1 Career 2 The Clause C Affair 3 Recent publicity 3.1 UCI School of Law 4 Notable Commissions 5 Publications 6 References 7 External links

[edit] Career

Chemerinsky was educated at Northwestern University and Harvard Law School.

Chemerinsky taught for over twenty years at the University of Southern California Law School and at DePaul University College of Law before moving to Duke University on July 1, 2004, and then UC Irvine in July 2008.

In 1995, Chemerinsky was a commentator on the O.J. Simpson trial on KCBS, KNX, and CBS News.

Chemerinsky has published four books (three of which have come out in multiple editions), numerous articles, and a regular column on the United States Supreme Court carried by California Lawyer, the Los Angeles Daily Journal, and Trial Magazine. Chemerinsky has also argued several cases before the United States Supreme Court, including Scheidler v. NOW, Tory v. Cochran, Van Orden v. Perry and Lockyer v. Andrade.

[edit] The Clause C Affair

In 1995 and 1996, Chemerinsky, together with Laurie Levenson of Loyola Law School, received much press attention in California for their controversial contention that California Proposition 209, a ballot measure then before the voters (now Article 1, Section 31, of the California constitution) prohibiting public institutions from discriminating on the basis of race, sex, or ethnicity, would repeal protections against sex discrimination already existing in California's laws and state constitution.

Chemerinsky stated that clause (c) of Proposition 209 would have "a devastating impact on programs to remedy discrimination against women and minorities. Gains of the past few years will be erased and additional progress will be unlikely..." [1] He also said "Clause C [of Proposition 209] creates the outrageous possibility that the protection of women's constitutional rights will be greatly weakened under the California Constitution" [2] These claims were the basis for a significant portion of the TV and print advertising against the ballot measure.

Law review articles pointed out that given its wording, clause (c) could not conceivably affect any other legal or constitutional measures which might already prohibit sex discrimination. [3] Critics viewed Chemerinsky’s interpretation as a gross misreading of clause (c), and doubted that--as law professors--he and Levenson could actually have believed it themselves. The argument was viewed as an unscrupulous effort to get around the fact that the ballot measure's actual substance was quite popular. Although Chemerinsky made numerous media appearances in which he advanced his novel interpretation of clause (c), he did not write any law review articles in which he explicated his analysis.

Clause (c) states, “Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting bona fide qualifications based on sex which are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.” Proponents of the ballot measure stated that the purpose of this clause was simply to make sure that Proposition 209 itself was not read, for example, to mandate "supervision by men of girls' locker rooms" [4]. They pointed out that given its restrictive phrasing "nothing...in this section", as a matter of logic it could not limit the effect of any other pre-existing laws or articles of the state constitution.

In 1996, California voters passed Proposition 209, and it was upheld against various federal court challenges. Since its adoption, there do not appear to have been any court decisions in which clause (c) was the basis for any changes in protections against sex discrimination in California, as Chemerinsky and Levenson had predicted.

[edit] Recent publicity

In addition to teaching at the School of Law, Chemerinsky also teaches undergraduate classes in Political Science. Professor Chemerinsky has a reputation of being very accessible to his students. President Clinton briefly considered Chemerinsky for an opening on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. However, his brief candidacy ended when Senate Republicans sent the word that his nomination would be dead on arrival.^{[citation needed]}

Chemerinsky is married to Catherine Fisk, also a law professor at Duke.

Recently, he declined the offer to become the next dean at the University of North Carolina School of Law. He was then a finalist to become dean at Duke University School of Law.

[edit] UCI School of Law

On September 20, 2007, Chemerinsky was approved by the Regents of the University of California as the founding dean of the planned Donald Bren School of Law at the University of California, Irvine, resolving a hiring controversy.[5] After signing a contract on September 4, 2007, the hire had been rescinded by UCI Chancellor Michael V. Drake, because he felt the law professor's commentaries were "polarizing" and would not serve the interests of California's first new public law school in 40 years; Drake claimed the decision was his own and not the subject of any outside influence.^[1] The action was criticized by both liberal and conservative scholars who felt it hindered the academic mission of the law school, and disbelief over Chancellor Drake's claims that it was the subject of no outside influence.^[1][2] The issue was the subject of an editorial in The New York Times on Friday, September 14. ^[3] Details emerged revealing that UCI had received criticism on the hire from California Chief Justice Ronald M. George, who criticized Chemerinsky's grasp of death penalty appeals as well as a group of prominent Orange County Republicans and Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich, who wanted to derail the appointment.^[4] Drake traveled over a weekend to Durham, North Carolina, and the two reached an agreement late Sunday evening.^[4] On September 17, Chemerinsky issued a joint press release with UCI Chancellor Michael V. Drake indicating that Chemerinsky would head the UCI law school, stating "Our new law school will be founded on the bedrock principle of academic freedom. The chancellor reiterated his lifelong, unqualified commitment to academic freedom, which extends to every faculty member, including deans and other senior administrators."^[5]

[edit] Notable Commissions

• LAPD panel reviewing the Rampart Scandal
• LA commission reviewing irregularities in LA city contracting.
• Helped write the LA city charter.
• Helped draft the Belarus constitution.

[edit] Publications

Chemerinsky has published four books:

• Federal Jurisdiction (Aspen Law & Business 4th ed. 2003)
• Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies (Aspen Law & Business 3d ed. 2006)
• Constitutional Law (Aspen Law & Business 2d ed. 2005)
• Interpreting the Constitution (Praeger 1987)

In addition, Chemerinsky has published over one hundred law review articles, including publications in the Harvard Law Review, Yale Law Journal, Stanford Law Review, Michigan Law Review, Northwestern University Law Review, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, and Southern California Law Review.

Chemerinsky is also a lecturer for the Bar-Bri bar exam prep course, where he lectures about constitutional law in outline format for exactly 6 hours, without the use of any notes.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] References

[edit] External links

• Duke University School of Law biography
• University of Southern California Law School biography
• PLI Faculty