National Asian Pacific American Bar Association

Last updated

The National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA) is a nonprofit organization representing Asian Pacific American lawyers in the United States. [1]

Activities

The group has advocated for the nomination and confirmation of more Asian American judges to the federal courts. [2] [3]

In 2000, the group led a consortium of Asian American organizations that called for a bipartisan independent inquiry in the Wen Ho Lee case, including whether the investigation of Lee, a former scientist of Los Alamos National Laboratory, was tainted by anti-Asian bias. [4] [5]

Along with other civil rights groups (including other Asian American advocacy organizations), NAPABA has joined amicus briefs defending affirmative action. It did so in the Grutter , [6] Fisher I , [7] [8] Fisher II , [8] [9] and Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and UNC cases. [8] [10] In 2018, NAPABA, along with other civil rights groups, also submitted an amicus brief in support of Hawaii in the Trump v. Hawaii challenge to Trump's "Muslim ban" executive order. [11]

In 2017, NAPABA and a group of Yale Law School students co-published a study critiquing the lack of Asian American representation in major legal positions. The study found that although Asian Americans made up 10% of graduates at elite law schools (more than Asian American's overall share of the U.S. population, 6%), few Asian Americans were underrepresented among U.S. Attorneys (at the time, only 3 of the 94 U.S. Attorneys were Asian American), state elected prosecutors (4 of the 2,437 were Asian Americans), federal judges, state judges, and law school deans. [12] Justice Goodwin Liu of the California Supreme Court was one of the authors of the report. [12]

A follow-up study in 2022 (entitled A Portrait of Asian Americans in the Law 2.0) was a collaboration between the NAPABA, the American Bar Foundation, and several law schools; it found that Asian Americans had progress in increasing representation in many areas within the legal profession (including the proportion of Asian Americans among active federal judges and Fortune 1000 corporate general counsels), but remained stagnant in other areas (including the proportion of Asian Americans among U.S. Attorneys and equity partners at major law firms). [13] Liu also co-authored the 2022 report. [13]

Related Research Articles

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978), was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that involved a dispute of whether preferential treatment for minorities could reduce educational opportunities for whites without violating the Constitution. It upheld affirmative action, allowing race to be one of several factors in college admission policy. However, the court ruled that specific racial quotas, such as the 16 out of 100 seats set aside for minority students by the University of California, Davis, School of Medicine, were impermissible.

Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), was a landmark case of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning affirmative action in student admissions. The Court held that a student admissions process that favors "underrepresented minority groups" did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause so long as it took into account other factors evaluated on an individual basis for every applicant. The decision largely upheld the Court's decision in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), which allowed race to be a consideration in admissions policy but held racial quotas to be unconstitutional. In Gratz v. Bollinger (2003), a separate case decided on the same day as Grutter, the Court struck down a points-based admissions system that awarded an automatic bonus to the admissions scores of minority applicants.

An amicus curiae is an individual or organization who is not a party to a legal case, but who is permitted to assist a court by offering information, expertise, or insight that has a bearing on the issues in the case. Whether an amicus brief will be considered is typically under the court's discretion. The phrase is legal Latin and the origin of the term has been dated to 1605–1615. The scope of amici curiae is generally found in the cases where broad public interests are involved and concerns regarding civil rights are in question.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jones Day</span> US international law firm

Jones Day is an American multinational law firm based in Washington, D.C. As of 2023, it is one of the largest law firms in the United States with 2,302 attorneys, and among the highest grossing in the world with revenues of $2.5 billion. Originally headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio, Jones Day ranks first in both M&A league tables and the 2017 U.S. Law Firm Brand Index. Jones Day has represented over half of the companies in the Fortune 500, including Goldman Sachs, General Motors, McDonald's, and Bridgestone. The firm has also represented former President Donald Trump.

Mountain States Legal Foundation (MSLF) is an American conservative free market public interest law firm based in Lakewood, Colorado. Its lawyers argue cases on property rights and federal land management in the American West, as well as gun rights and other constitutional law cases.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Michigan Civil Rights Initiative</span> American ballot initiative

The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI), or Proposal 2, was a ballot initiative in the U.S. state of Michigan that passed into Michigan Constitutional law by a 58% to 42% margin on November 7, 2006, according to results officially certified by the Michigan Secretary of State. By Michigan law, the Proposal became law on December 22, 2006. MCRI was a citizen initiative aimed at banning consideration of race, color, sex, or religion in admission to colleges, jobs, and other publicly funded institutions – effectively prohibiting some affirmative action by public institutions based on those factors. The Proposal's constitutionality was challenged in federal court, but its constitutionality was ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sholom Rubashkin</span> Former executive officer of Agriprocessors

Sholom Mordechai Rubashkin is the former CEO of Agriprocessors, a now-bankrupt kosher slaughterhouse and meat packing plant in Postville, Iowa, formerly owned by his father, Aaron Rubashkin. During his time as CEO of the plant, Agriprocessors grew into one of the nation's largest kosher meat producers, but was also cited for issues involving animal cruelty, food safety, environmental safety, child labor, and hiring undocumented immigrants.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Susan Oki Mollway</span> American judge (born 1950)

Susan Oki Mollway is a senior United States district judge of the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii and the first East Asian woman and Japanese-American woman ever appointed to a life-time position on the federal bench.

Established in 1977, Atlantic Legal Foundation, also known as ALF, is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, nonpartisan public interest law firm that litigates individual liberty, deregulation, free enterprise, and private property rights. The foundation was started to pursue a “deep commitment to redressing the bias against business which manifests itself in favor of narrow ‘consumer’ or ‘environmental’ concerns.” ALF has argued against environmental and worker regulations promulgated by federal agencies and works to promote “school-choice”. Atlantic Legal provides legal representation, without fee, to certain individuals, corporations, trade associations, parents, scientists, and educators.

Fisher v. University of Texas, 570 U.S. 297 (2013), also known as Fisher I, is a United States Supreme Court case concerning the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Texas at Austin. The Supreme Court voided the lower appellate court's ruling in favor of the university and remanded the case, holding that the lower court had not applied the standard of strict scrutiny, articulated in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) and Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), to its admissions program. The Court's ruling in Fisher took Grutter and Bakke as given and did not directly revisit the constitutionality of using race as a factor in college admissions.

<i>Cardona v. Shinseki</i>

Cardona v. Shinseki was an appeal brought in the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) of a decision by the Board of Veterans' Appeals upholding the denial of service-connected disability benefits for the dependent wife of a female veteran. The United States Department of Veterans Affairs denied the disability benefits based on the definition of "spouse" as "a person of the opposite sex" under federal statute. On March 11, 2014, the CAVC dismissed the case as moot after the Secretary of Veterans Affairs advised the Court that he would neither defend nor enforce the federal statute. Cardona subsequently received full payment of her spousal benefits, retroactive to her date of application.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Derrick Watson</span> American judge (born 1966)

Derrick Kahala Watson is an American lawyer who serves as the Chief United States district judge of the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii.

The Washington Redskins trademark dispute was a legal effort by Native Americans to define the term "redskin" to be an offensive and pejorative racial slur to deprive the owners of the NFL's Washington Redskins of the ability to maintain federal trademark protection for the name. These efforts had primarily been carried forward in two cases brought before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). While prevailing in the most recent case in which the trademarks were cancelled, petitioners withdrew for further litigation now that the legal issue has become moot due to a decision in another case which found the relevant portion of the trademark law to be an unconstitutional infringement on freedom of speech.

Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, 600 U.S. 181 (2023), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the court held that race-based affirmative action programs in college admissions processes violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. With its companion case, Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina, the Supreme Court effectively overruled Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) and Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), which validated some affirmative action in college admissions provided that race had a limited role in decisions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Legal challenges to the Trump travel ban</span> Legal disputes

Executive Order 13769 was signed by U.S. President Donald Trump on January 27, 2017, and quickly became the subject of legal challenges in the federal courts of the United States. The order sought to restrict travel from seven Muslim majority countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. The plaintiffs challenging the order argued that it contravened the United States Constitution, federal statutes, or both. On March 16, 2017, Executive Order 13769 was superseded by Executive Order 13780, which took legal objections into account and removed Iraq from affected countries. Then on September 24, 2017, Executive Order 13780 was superseded by Presidential Proclamation 9645 which is aimed at more permanently establishing travel restrictions on those countries except Sudan, while adding North Korea and Venezuela which had not previously been included.

<i>Washington v. Trump</i> Lawsuit challenging Executive Order 13769

State of Washington and State of Minnesota v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151, was a lawsuit that challenged the constitutionality of Executive Order 13769, issued by U.S. president Donald Trump.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Deepak Gupta (attorney)</span> American attorney

Deepak Gupta is an American attorney known for representing consumers, workers, and a broad range of clients in U.S. Supreme Court and appellate cases and constitutional, class action, and complex litigation. Gupta is the founding principal of the law firm Gupta Wessler LLP and a lecturer at Harvard Law School, where he is an instructor in the Harvard Supreme Court Litigation Clinic.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jill Otake</span> American judge (born 1973)

Jill Aiko Otake is a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii.

Frank v. Gaos, 586 U.S. ___ (2019), was a per curiam decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in a case concerning the practice of cy pres settlements in class action lawsuits. Following oral argument, the court asked the parties to submit supplemental briefs addressing whether the parties had Article III standing to pursue the case in federal courts. Supplemental briefing was completed on December 21, 2018. On March 20, 2019, the court remanded the case to the Ninth Circuit to address the plaintiffs’ standing in light of Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Micah W. J. Smith</span> American lawyer (born 1981)

Micah William Janso Smith is an American lawyer from Hawaii who has served as an assistant United States attorney for the District of Hawaii since 2018. He is the designate to serve as a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii.

References

  1. ↑ [National Asian Pacific American Bar Association], Employer Identification Number (EIN): 77-0233358, IRS lookup.
  2. ↑ Alexander Burns, From a Placid Judge, a Cutting Rejection of Trump's Travel Ban, New York Times (March 16, 2017).
  3. ↑ Venkatraman, Sakshi (February 2, 2022). "Senate Republicans press Japanese American judge over law school article". NBC News.
  4. ↑ James Sterngold, Reno Says She'll Seek Release of U.S. Study on Los Alamos, New York Times (October 6, 2000).
  5. ↑ James Sterngold, Asian-Americans Demanding Bias Inquiry in Scientist's Case, New York Times (September 18, 2000).
  6. ↑ Grutter v. Bollinger, et al.: Brief of Amici Curiae National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium, Asian Law Caucus, Asian Pacific American Legal Center, et al., in Support of Respondents,
  7. ↑ Terry Baynes, Asian-American rift over Supreme Court affirmative action case, Reuters (August 14, 2012).
  8. 1 2 3 APABA Files Amicus Brief in Supreme Court Affirmative Action Case, (August 3, 2022).
  9. ↑ Press Release: Over 160 Asian American and Pacific Islander groups file amicus briefs in U.S. Supreme Court in support of affirmative action, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (November 3, 2015).
  10. ↑ NAPABA Statement on the U.S. Supreme Court's Affirmative Action Decision (June 29, 2023).
  11. ↑ Alison Frankel, Snubbing Trump DOJ, Big Law firms back Hawaii amici in SCOTUS travel ban case, Reuters (April 3, 2018).
  12. 1 2 Tracy Jan, Law schools are filled with Asian Americans. So why aren't there more Asian judges?, Washington Post (July 18, 2017).
  13. 1 2 Karen Sloan, More Asian Americans on the federal bench; progress lacking at Big Law, Reuters (December 5, 2022).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.