President Lyndon Johnson and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., at the signing of the Civil Rights Act. Image from the LBJ Presidential Library.

On June 19, 1865, Maj. Gen. Gordon Granger stood on the balcony of a house in Galveston, Texas, and read out the text of General Order No. 3, informing the people of Texas of the effects of the Emancipation Proclamation. Annual celebration of Juneteenth (a portmanteau of “June” and “nineteenth”) began the next year; although celebration of the day declined in the early 20th century and was primarily centered in Texas, in more recent years recognition of the day has increased and spread. Juneteenth was officially recognized as a state holiday in Texas in 1980. Today, 43 states and the District of Columbia recognize Juneteenth through legislation.

The reading of General Order No. 3 is not the only significant event in civil rights history to occur on this day. 98 years after Maj. Gen. Granger read out the order, President Kennedy called for the passage of comprehensive civil rights legislation, and legislation that would later become the Civil Rights Act was introduced in Congress. Exactly one year later, on June 19, 1964, the Senate passed the Civil Rights Act (H.R.7152).

Does the National Basketball Association (“NBA”) have the power to force the owner of Los Angeles Clippers (Donald Sterling) to sell his team after he made some racist remarks in a private conversation that was leaked to the public? [Story]

Right to Privacy?

Sterling first asserts that under Cal Pen Code § 632 that the audio tapes were illegally recorded because he did not consent – California requires all parties to consent to a recording (whereas, one-party consent is enough in states like Georgia: O.C.G.A. § 16-11-66). Sterling contends the NBA’s usage of the audio tape recording should not “be admissible in any judicial, administrative, legislative, or other proceeding” as that would be a violation of his rights under the California Constitution.

However, in the NBA Constitution and By-laws there is a provision in Article 14, Procedure for Termination that states “strict rules of evidence shall not apply, and all relevant and material evidence submitted prior to and at the hearing may be received and considered”. On its face, this purports to allow the NBA Board of Governors to consider the audio tape in their proceedings as they are a private association and not a court of law.  Further, there is question of whether California vs. New York law applies as Article 18(e) in the Constitution and By-Laws declares that New York laws apply.

Contractual rights? 

The NBA in its “Summary of Sterling Termination Charge” avowed four legal grounds for terminating Sterling’s ownership:

1. Article 13(d) Fail or refuse to fulfill its contractual obligations to the Association, its Members, Players, or any other third party in such a way as to affect the Association or its Members adversely.
2. Violation of the Duty of Loyalty Under New York law, all member teams of the NBA owe each other a duty of loyalty to support the League in the attainment of its proper purposes.
3. Article 13(a) Willfully violate any of the provisions of the Constitution and By-Laws, resolutions, or agreements of the Association.
4. Article 13(c) Fail to pay any dues or other indebtedness owing to the Association within thirty (30) days after Written Notice from the Commissioner of default in such payment.

Sterling argues that he did not violate any of these provisions and as a result the NBA has no basis to terminate his ownership. None of this may matter, the has league canceled their vote to forcibly remove Sterling because Sterling’s wife has reportedly negotiated the sale of the team for $2 billion.

Additional Resources:

NBA Constitution and By-Laws

Summary of Sterling Termination Charge

Donald Sterling Answer to Charge

Flickr photo by Orange County Archives

Plans are apart of life. Even those who like to live spontaneously make some plans. Law students definitely plan the courses they will take during law school, tourists hopefully plan what to see on their summer trip, and teachers always plan the topics they will discuss in class. Plans also come in handy when conducting legal research.

To conduct efficient legal research, you need a plan. What sources will you consult? What order will you consult them in? How long do you have to complete the project? These are all questions you can answer by making a research plan. To assist with research planning, the GSU Law Library produced a Legal Research Worksheet. Think of this worksheet as a museum map. When you go to a museum, you know there are certain exhibits you want to see, and a museum map helps you see those items in the most efficient manner. When doing legal research, you know you need to determine your issue, figure out your key terms, and consult cases, statutes, administrative materials, and statutory sources. The legal research worksheet helps you do just this.

What are the legally significant facts? Should I consult a secondary source? What are the citations for the relevant cases I have found? By using the worksheet, you are able to walk through each of the research steps, check off completed items, and then incorporate your research into a finished product, such as a memo or brief. Without a plan, you could find yourself stumbling through the legal research wilderness with no end in sight.

Remember, as John “Hannibal” Smith from the A-Team says, “I love it when a plan comes together.”

Flicker photo by smlp.co.uk.

As evidenced by recent developments to laws regarding marijuana, same-sex marriage, and the right to carry, laws are constantly changing. An attorney’s legal education doesn’t end after graduating law school and passing the bar exam. On the contrary, these are mere starting points, as an attorney’s legal education continues throughout their career.

The Georgia Bar requires active lawyers in Georgia to attend a minimum of 12 hours of continuing legal education each year. While not required, many attorneys will also use current awareness resources to stay up-to-date with their area of practice. Current awareness resources come in many shapes and sizes, from a magazine or a newsletter, an email alert, or a blog. Each attorney will have their own preference for how they stay abreast of developments in their area of law.

Below you will find a few popular current awareness resources:

Georgia and Atlanta

• Daily Report (formerly Fulton County Daily Report): The Daily Report is Fulton County’s official legal newspaper and Georgia’s leading source for legal news and information. It focuses on the latest developments in specialized practice areas, court decisions, business developments, and political news.
• Georgia Bar Journal: A bimonthly publication of scholarly articles, feature articles, updates, rules changes, notices, classified ads and other information pertinent to practitioners in Georgia.
• The Atlanta Lawyer: A monthly newsletter that provides news and section updates to members of the Atlanta Bar Association.
• “Review of Selected Georgia Legislation,” Issue 1 of Georgia State Law Review: Annual legislative review that provides the legal community with an in-depth view of the Georgia General Assembly’s activities and the legislative intent behind significant bills.
• “Annual Survey of Georgia Law,” Issue 1 of Mercer Law Review: Reviews Georgia appellate court decisions that have an impact on major practice areas.
• “Annual Eleventh Circuit Survey,” Issue 4 of Mercer Law Review: Reviews Eleventh Circuit decisions that have an impact on major practice areas. 

National

• ABA Journal: A monthly publication and website that provides breaking legal news, analysis, and stories.
• ABA Sections: The specialty sections through the American Bar Association are excellent sources of current developments and legal news for a specific area of law.
• SCOTUSblog: A blog that provides comprehensive coverage of the Supreme Court.
• Law Professor Blogs Network: The network includes over 40 legal blogs that are edited by law professors. Posts include legal news, information, commentary, and analysis.

flicker photo by Steve Rhode

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will vote today to determine whether to propose new rules for net neutrality. The idea behind net neutrality is that internet service providers should treat all online traffic equally. Hence, in the Atlanta area, Comcast and AT&T would have to treat online traffic coming from Georgia State College of Law Library’s website the same as it would traffic from Hulu or Yahoo!. This is not the FCC’s first attempt to propose net neutrality rules.

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in favor of Verizon on January 14, 2014, holding that the FCC did not have the power to require internet providers to comply with net neutrality regulations in regards to traffic (opinion PDF). The court reasoned that the FCC could not impose “open Internet” rules on internet providers because the Telecommunications Act of 1996 exempted them from being treated as common carriers (e.g., telephone, water, and electricity providers). The rules under consideration today will allow internet providers to charge companies for faster, higher quality content delivery.

As with all new regulations, the proposed rules must go through a public comment period before they can take effect. The FCC will publish the proposed rules in the Federal Register, which the public can view through the Federal Register website. The proposed rules will include the contact information of the person that comments can be sent to, along with information for how to access the rule and leave a comment on Regulations.gov. Once the comment period ends, the rule makers will consider the comments and publish the final rule, which will also be published in the Federal Register. The final rule will also be incorporated into the Code of Federal Regulations, which the public can access on the Government Printing Office’s FDSys website.

Based on the deep feelings on both sides of the argument, one can expect plenty of comments on the proposed rules. Gail Sullivan of the The Washington Post notes that those in favor of net neutrality believe that without it, higher prices will get passed onto consumers and innovation will suffer, while those against net neutrality believe that without it, internet providers will be able to provide faster, better quality service for customers and better network quality (“What the heck is net neutrality?,” The Washington Post).

News Stories on Net Neutrality

• FCC lacked authority to impose ‘Net neutrality’ on broadband carriers, federal appeals court rules by Martha Neil (ABA Journal)
• What the heck is net neutrality? by Gail Sullivan (The Washington Post)
• Amid protests, U.S. FCC to vote on new ‘net neutrality’ proposal by Alina Selyukh (Reuters)

Books on Net Neutrality at Georgia State

• Net neutrality: towards a co-regulatory solution by Christopher Marsden (Law Library)
• The illusion of net neutrality: political alarmism, regulatory creep, and the real threat to Internet freedom by Robert and Eva Zelnick (Main Library)
• Regulating the Web: network neutrality and the fate of the open Internet by Zachary Stiegler (Main Library)