Jane Fonda to receive William O. Douglas Award for political work
Feb. 18 (UPI) -- Public Counsel announced Tuesday that Jane Fonda will receive the William O. Douglas Award at their annual dinner. The awards dinner is Thursday, Feb. 27 in Beverly Hills, Calif.
The William O. Douglas Award is given to a person who represents Supreme Court Justice Douglas's principles of "equal access to justice, freedom of expression and equal rights." Fonda, 87, was chosen for her political advocacy.
Still politically active, Fonda attended a Climate Rally in D.C. in 2020 and launched Fire Drill Fridays in 2019 to fight climate change. She protested the Vietnam War in the '70s and continues to speak for women's rights, for example lobbying Congress for protections against sexual harassment in 2018.
Public Counsel is a nonprofit pro bono law firm. This year Public Counsel is awarding Molly Munger and Stephen R. English with the Audry Irmas Social Justice Impact Awards. Munger and English are married and retired attorneys who founded the civil rights advocacy group Advancement Project and continue to do philanthropic work.
Morrison & Foerster LLP is receiving the Law Firm Pro Bono Award for their pro bono work.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
A judge sided with Trump. Behind the scenes, he was lobbying for a nomination.
On Feb. 12, the court published his opinion in Trump's favor in the defamation case against the Pulitzer Board, and on Feb. 27, he interviewed with attorneys from the White House Counsel's Office. Thereafter, he was informed that he was under consideration for the nomination, and on May 27, he met with Trump, according to Artau's answers provided in the questionnaire. Trump announced he would nominate Artau to be a district judge in South Florida the next day, writing in a post on Truth Social that Artau has 'a GREAT track record of restoring LAW AND ORDER and, most importantly, Common Sense.' In the Senate disclosure, Artau affirmed no one involved in the judicial nomination selection process 'discussed with [him] any currently pending or specific case, legal issue or question in a manner that could reasonably be interpreted as seeking any express or implied assurances concerning [his] position on such case, issue, or question.' Scott's office did not respond to a request for comment. Moody's office declined to comment. Artau's opinion in the defamation case was unusual, in part because the ruling concerned a largely procedural matter. Trump had sued the Pulitzer Board for defamation after he requested that it rescind the 2018 awards given to The New York Times and The Washington Post for their coverage of Russian election interference and ties to Trump's orbit. The three-judge panel in Florida, including Artau, allowed the case to proceed. ''FAKE NEWS.' 'The phony Witch Hunt.' And 'a big hoax.' President Donald J. Trump has publicly used these phrases to describe the now-debunked allegations that he colluded with the Russians to win the 2016 presidential election,' Artau wrote in his concurring opinion. '[T]he board members vouched for the truth of reporting that had been debunked by all credible sources charged with investigating the false claim that the President colluded with the Russians to win the 2016 presidential election.' (The Pulitzer Board has stood by its decision to grant them the award.) Yet Artau's opinion also suggested going further, arguing the Supreme Court precedent known as New York Times Company v. Sullivan wrongly applied the First Amendment in its ruling that required a public official to prove 'actual malice' in a defamation case. While maintaining that the President had satisfied the standard in his case against the Pulitzer Board, Artau called for the Supreme Court to revisit the matter — a controversial position that Trump and his lawyers support. Trump has repeatedly sought to punish news outlets who have written critical coverage of him. Among those efforts, he sued CNN for $475 million in a defamation case that alleged the network sought to undermine him politically. In the complaint, his lawyers argued the standard established in New York Times v. Sullivan should not apply where the media 'seeks to participate in the political arena by offering propaganda.' A judge dismissed the case, but Trump's appeal remains pending. More recently, ABC News and anchor George Stephanopoulos settled with Trump in a defamation lawsuit after Stephanopoulos mischaracterized the outcome of E. Jean Carroll's civil suit against Trump that found him liable for sexually abusing and defaming her. Moving the federal judiciary to the right was a marquee accomplishment of Trump's first term, during which he installed hundreds of judges on the bench and three Supreme Court justices. In recent months, his political operation has become increasingly critical of judges deemed hostile to his agenda and called for impeaching those who have ruled against him. Artau is currently a judge on the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Florida, where he has served since he was appointed by Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in 2020. He earned his law degree from Georgetown University Law Center in 1988.
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Justice Jackson: Supreme Court appears to favor `monied interests' over ordinary citizens
Jackson's dissent in a case about air pollution rules came two weeks after she said the court may be unintentionally showing preferential treatment for the Trump administration. WASHINGTON − For the second time this month, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has complained that her colleagues are weighing the scales of justice differently depending on who is asking for help. 'This case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens,' she wrote in her disagreement with the majority's June 20 decision that fuel producers can challenge California emissions standards under a federal air pollution law. Jackson's dissent came two weeks after she wrote that the court is sending a 'troubling message" that it's departing from basic legal standards for the Trump administration. The court's six conservatives include three appointed by President Donald Trump in his first term. In a case involving the Trump administration, the Supreme Court on June 6 said Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency could have complete access to the data of millions of Americans kept by the U.S. Social Security Administration. Jackson said a majority of the court didn't require the administration to show it would be 'irreparably harmed' by not getting immediate access, one of the legal standards for intervention. "It says, in essence, that although other stay applicants must point to more than the annoyance of compliance with lower court orders they don't like," she wrote, "the Government can approach the courtroom bar with nothing more than that and obtain relief from this Court nevertheless." More: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson can throw a punch. Literally. The court's two other liberals – Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan – also disagreed with the majority's opinion in the Trump case. But Kagan joined the conservatives June 20 in siding with the fuel producers. Jackson, however, said there were multiple reasons the court shouldn't have heard the case from among the thousands of appeals it receives. Those reasons include the fact that the change in administrations was likely to make the dispute go away. But by ruling in the fuel industry's favor, Jackson wrote, the court made it easier for others to challenge anti-pollution laws. 'And I worry that the fuel industry's gain comes at a reputational cost for this Court, which is already viewed by many as being overly sympathetic to corporate interests,' she said in her dissent. A clock, a mural, a petition: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's chambers tell her story Jackson said the court's 'remarkably lenient approach' to the fuel producers' challenge stands in contrast to the 'stern stance' it's taken in cases involving fair housing, desegrated schools or privacy concerns. In response, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who authored the 7-2 opinion, pointed to other cases he said show the court is even handed. Those include its decision last year that anti-abortion doctors couldn't challenge the Food and Drug Administration's handling of a widely used abortion drug. More: Supreme Court revives suit against cop who fatally shot driver stopped for unpaid tolls 'In this case, as we have explained, this Court's recent standing precedents support the conclusion that the fuel producers have standing,' Kavanaugh wrote about the industry's ability to sue. 'The government generally may not target a business or industry through stringent and allegedly unlawful regulation, and then evade the resulting lawsuits by claiming that the targets of its regulation should be locked out of court as unaffected bystanders,' he wrote.
San Francisco Chronicle
2 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Supreme Court rejects toy company's push for a quick decision on Trump's tariffs
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a push from an Illinois toy company asking for a quick decision on the legality of President Donald Trump's tariffs. Learning Resources Inc. wanted the justices to take up the case soon, rather than let it continue to play out in lower courts. The company argues the tariffs and uncertainty are having a 'massive impact' on businesses around the country and the issue needs swift attention from the nation's highest court. The justices didn't explain their reasoning in the brief order rebuffing the motion to fast-track the issue, but the Supreme Court is typically reluctant to take up cases before lower courts have decided. An appeals court is set to hear the case in late July. The company argues that the Republican president illegally imposed tariffs under an emergency powers law, bypassing Congress. It won an early victory in a lower court, but the order is on hold as an appeals court considers a similar ruling putting a broader block on Trump's tariffs. The appeals court has allowed Trump to continue collecting tariffs under the emergency powers law for now. The Trump administration has defended the tariffs by arguing that the emergency powers law gives the president the authority to regulate imports during national emergencies and that the country's longtime trade deficit qualifies as a national emergency.
