Women To Constitute A Third of the SCOTUS Bench

For the first time in our nation's history, three women will be sitting together on the bench of the United States Supreme Court.  By the time you read this post, President Obama will have conducted his 7:15 am press conference on Monday, May 10, to officially announce that his Solicitor General, Elena Kagan, will be nominated to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens.

The nomination requires approval of the Senate, expected later this summer.

Ms. Kagan is used to being first when it comes to the law.  She was the first female dean of the Harvard Law School, where she graduated magna cum laude back in 1986.  During her tenure, however, Kagan sued to prohibit the U.S. Army from recruiting students from the law school to fill the Judge Advocate General Corps.

She also served as an Associate White House Counsel under President Clinton.  She was the first woman to serve in the post of Solicitor General of the United States; the federal government's litigator. In that capacity, she managed the government's SCOTUS docket.

Her judicial experience, however, is limited to a clerkship at the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, followed by a clerkship with Justice Thurgood Marshall.  Most of her legal career has been spent in private practice and academia.

Kagan was a tenured law professor at the University of Chicago in the mid-1990s and undoubtedly wound-up among President Obama's professional contacts from that era.

Since she has never been a judge, Dean Kagan does not have a long list of decisions for the Senate's Judiciary Committee to pour over.  All the more reason Senate Democrats will be pushing to approve her nomination prior to the summer recess. 

In an era where women now make up a majority of all college graduates and law students, it only seems natural that they should occupy a third of the seats on our nation's high court.  Never much of a "good old boys" club, the Court has always been a vital mix of contemporary politics and long-term principles.

This Blog wonders how Kagan will be voting on the issue of same-sex marriage, likely to come up during her first year on the bench.  Until now, she has, by virtue of her brief tenure as Solicitor General, defended the constitutionality of California's referendum outlawing gay marriage in the Perry v Schwarzenneger case.

She really had no choice but to join that momentous fight on the side of upholding the California ban on gay marriage.  California's Attorney General, Jerry Brown, declined to defend the law, saying it was unconstitutional.  Governor Schwarzenneger likewise declined to wade directly into the legal fray, saying he approved of the litigation as it raised important constitutional legal issues that called for judicial resolution at the national level.

Update:  The official blog of the State Bar of Michigan has posted links to all the numerous blogs covering this nomination.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

CBAs and comprehensive planning

You can find a recently published law review article coauthored by myself and my colleague Patricia Salkin here. (You should also visit Patricia Salkin's excellent blog, Law of the Land.) The article is titled Community Benefits Agreements and Comprehensive Planning: Balancing Community Empowerment and the Police Power, and it's appearing in the current issue of the Brooklyn Law School Journal of Law and Policy.

Here's the abstract:

Traditionally, the states have empowered local governments to develop plans and implement regulations for neighborhood and community development. When accomplished at the local or regional level, the interests and benefits of the community as a whole are to be weighed against the detriments to individuals. Much has been studied and written about the lack of meaningful public participation in the planning and land use regulatory process, suggesting that often low-income and minority communities are not fully engaged in the process, even when it may result in decisions negatively impacting their neighborhoods. Case studies have also shown that governments are sometimes so eager to stimulate local economic development that they fail to fully engage communities in the project review process, both to expedite development and to avoid confronting local opposition. This emphasis on short-term economic growth, however, may obscure a local government’s perception of the social and environmental needs of particular communities. When this occurs, formal planning processes have failed to accomplish their goals of engaging community members and guiding future growth in a manner that maximizes long-term benefits for the common good.

New approaches to planning provide one response to systemic public participation problems. The environmental justice movement, for example, has sought to ensure a fair distribution of both environmental burdens and environmental goods by requiring local governments to make meaningful public participation available to all community members. Community based planning efforts have attempted to improve the planning process by focusing on small and distinct geographic areas and by developing collaborative and inclusive planning programs. Since the late 1990s, community benefits agreements (CBAs) have offered another method to increase community input in the development planning and review process. For communities that have historically been excluded from the planning process, CBAs can be a powerful tool to ensure that neighborhood interests are addressed as an integral component of development. The result, ideally, is growth and development that is accountable to the people it affects and equitable in its distribution of benefits and burdens. However, the people it affects are often a small subset of the municipal jurisdiction and the equitable distribution sought in the CBAs is limited to the proposed project area.

This article explores how the comprehensive planning process and CBAs complement and contradict each other, and how both could be improved by innovative and more inclusive planning techniques. Part II provides a brief historical background on comprehensive planning and community development, including issues relating to community planning and public participation. Part III examines CBAs and their role in community empowerment, community development and the promotion of social justice principles, including equitable development. This part also provides examples of typical land use related elements found in existing CBAs. Using these examples, Part IV segues into a discussion regarding whether private CBAs usurp the public planning process. The section explores whether CBAs are just another type of community based plan and whether CBAs advance narrow interests at the expense of the larger community. The question of what local governments should do when presented with a CBA that is inconsistent with the local comprehensive land use plan is examined to determine whether amending the plan to incorporate the community vision as articulated through the CBA is appropriate. The article concludes in Part V by pointing out that shortcomings of the current regulatory system allow local governments, intentionally or inadvertently, to exclude robust public participation from the development and implementation of comprehensive land use plans. This provides the impetus for privately negotiated CBAs, but these agreements may not always be ideal because not all parties to a CBA will have the best interests of the neighborhood or the community as a whole at the forefront of their agendas. While many CBAs have been successful, a number of case studies also reveal pitfalls in the process. The article concludes with the belief that local governments must be more inclusive and accountable in the public planning process to better meet the true goals of the community benefits movement.

And the New York City CBA debate continues...

The New York City Bar Association's report on CBAs, issued in March, recommended that CBAs not be considered as part of the planning process. According to a New York Times article summarizing reactions to the report, city comptroller John Liu thinks the suggestion to remove the agreements from the land use process is "idealistic rather than practical." Jesse Masyr, a land use attorney who was involved in the Gateway Center and Columbia CBAs, also argued that CBAs are here to stay, and suggested that better rules and regulations be put into place. N.Y.U law professor Vicki Been, one of the primary authors of the report, defended the report's conclusion by arguing that while private CBA-type agreements may be inevitable, that doesn't mean that government officials have to participate in them or give them undue weight in the planning process.

Liu has convened his own task force on CBAs and according to the NYT article, his "emphasis is on what kinds of mechanisms exist to make sure that the promised benefits are delivered". This may be because the comptroller doesn't have much ability to change the land use planning process, which is heavily dominated by the mayor in New York. Indeed, as reported by City Limits, task force member and urban planning professor Tom Angotti thinks a better solution would be comprehensive land use reform, including more funding and a larger role for community boards.

The City Limits article also reports that Liu's task force will not hold public meetings, apparently because it's a "sensitive issue" and task force members need to be "able to have candid conversations."

Okay, I can sort of respect that. But why not have at least some public meetings? This is, after all, an issue that's sensitive for a lot of people other than the 35 select members of the task force. The task force might even learn something from listening to the public. And, by the way, the task force's PR people should probably tell them that needing to have "candid conversations" pretty easily translates to wanting to keep things hidden. It seems to me that's probably not the best way to earn the public's confidence when you're trying to clean up a process that's already been faulted for secrecy, closed door negotiations, backroom politics, and collusion.