Wednesday, February 25, 2026

RIP Jerome Cohen - by Martin Flaherty




 Jerome Cohen, the late lawyer and NYU Law Professor was our leading

"China hand".  He was an advocate for democracy in China while maintaining the ability to be heard in China.

I am grateul for his inviting me to join him and Judges John Walker and Jed Rakoff in China fifteen years ago.

Here Fordham and Princeton Professor Martin Flaherty offers his own reflections and tribute:

On the Legacy of Jerry Cohen
 
Jerry Cohen, who died earlier this month, did Thomas More one better.  More may have been a “Man for All Seasons.”  Jerry, as befits the title of his recent and compelling memoir, Eastward, Westward, was a Man for All Regions – more specifically, a man who more than any other united the East and West.  As many have noted, he was founder, father, and doyenne of the study of Chinese law outside – and in many ways, inside -- China.  As many have noted has well, he was very much more.  Not least, he drew in, and supported, countless people who otherwise would not have been much involved in the rule of law and China.  I was very fortunate to be one of them, and for that reason, so too have over a generation of my students at Princeton.
 
       Jerry taught me profound lessons starting from the first time I became aware of him.  Yet my first impression could not have been worse.  I had just been involved in a human rights mission to Hong Kong just after its handover back to Chinese sovereignty.  Not long after, the mainland government essentially overruled Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal concerning the right to abode under the new Basic Law designed to entrench the policy of “One Country, Two Systems.” This “[re]-interpretation” stoked fears that Hong Kong’s autonomy would be dead on arrival (rather than dead in 2020 with the National Security Law).  Most human rights advocates and NGOs steadfastly supported the stand of the Hong Kong Judiciary.  Yet Jerry argued that the Court of Final Appeal would have been wiser to issue a less bold ruling, the better to consolidate its position.  At the time, I thought this Professor Cohen was one of those typica “China hands” who never missed the chance to err on the side of Beijing.  I could not have been more wrong.  One lesson I learned was that Professor Cohen was probably right and usually was.  Another was that there was no more steadfast champion of the rule of law and human rights in China than Jerry Cohen. 
 
Jerry taught these lessons in countless ways to multiple audiences.  To specialists, his scholarship could not be anything other than essential since he more or less invented the study of modern Chinese law in the United States.  Then there was his courageous championing of an array of Chinese lawyers, scholars, and activists, themselves courageous, who risked their careers and freedom in the cause of fulfilling the promise of a reconstructed Chinese legal system.
 
      But for me, no less contribution was sustaining those concerned for the rule of law in general as it applied to the world’s largest state.  General human rights advocates benefited from a lifelong crash course through NYU’s US-ALI programs, Jerry’s regular column in the South China Morning Post, and his unparalleled Winston Lord Roundtable sessions on China at the Council on Foreign Relations, an institution not known for prioritizing international human rights law (as witness its Henry Kissinger fellowships).  Not for Jerry was the exclusivity speaking only to a closed group of specialists and Mandarin speakers.  So long as one cared about promoting basic legal standards of equity and fairness, Jerry was instantly your mentor.
 
Among the innumerable mentees were my students.  For over 20 years I’ve taught an ungraduated policy task force at Princeton’s School of Public and International Affairs devoted to the rule of law in China.  For the first decade, the goal was promoting the idea in China; for the last ten years it has pivoted to defending the concepts from assaults by China.  Either way, the project would culminate at the State Department and White House.  But the real highlight of the course was our “dress rehearsal” at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York hosted by Jerry and China experts he assembled.  There my students got a master class on all aspects of the topic.  Among other things, they saw a man in his 80s, then 90s, going on 30.  They also experienced Jerry’s rigorous courtliness and generosity.  Most of all they appreciated how his disappointment with the regime’s turn away from law translated not into despair or cynicism.  Rather, they saw that frustration turn into a renewed commitment to promoting fundamental fairness through law everywhere, including what has arguably become the most consequential country on the planet.
 
Given the countless persons Jerry has influenced in every region, it is a commitment that will live on.  From all of us, Jerry, Xie Xie.


Martin S. Flaherty
Charles and Marie Robertson Visiting Professor
School of Public and International Affairs

Sunday, February 8, 2026

COLD by Mary Oliver

I think of summer with its luminous fruit,

blossoms rounding to berries, leaves,

handfuls of grain.

Maybe what cold is, is the time

we measure the love we have always had, secretly,

for our own bones, the hard knife-edged love

for the warm river of the I, beyond all else; maybe

that is what it means the beauty

 of the blue shark cruising toward the tumbling seals.

In the season of snow,

in the immeasurable cold,

we grow cruel but honest; we keep

ourselves alive,

if we can, taking one after another

the necessary bodies of others, the many

crushed red flowers.

—Mary Oliver, “Cold”

Monday, February 2, 2026

The Crisis - Thomas Paine 1776



250 years ago!

 These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. 

Thomas Paine The Crisis, December 23 1776

 

Sunday, February 1, 2026

Josh Marshall - Corrupt, fascistic Supreme Court - Talking Points Memo



 Reality Distortion in the Age of Trump and the Corrupt Court

With a hearing on the constitutionality of birthright citizenship now on the calendar, I want to return to a basic point we’ve discussed several times over the last year. Given our experience living mostly in “normal” times, many of us are used to the idea that the law evolves over time. When judges create new case law, the law evolves and changes. And we accept that it has “changed” — in a certain meaning of the word — even when we may not agree with the change. But with so many other things that have changed slowly since 2016 and then rapidly from early 2025, these are outdated ideas, outdated understandings of how the world and the law works.

Birthright citizenship is a key example of this.

Birthright citizenship is clearly, explicitly and incontestably written into the U.S. Constitution. It’s the country’s fundamental law and more than 150 years of American history have been lived on that basis. There’s a reason why no one has doubted this over all those years even if many have opposed it.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/reality-distortion-in-the-age-of-trump-and-the-corrupt-court

Saturday, January 31, 2026

Monday, January 26, 2026

Three Cardinals: Say NO to ICE

Cardinals Joseph Tobin- Newark, Cupich - Chicago, and McElroy - D.C. Say NO to ICE - National Catholic Reporter

A high-ranking Catholic leader is ratcheting up criticism of the Trump administration's immigration crackdown and urging people of faith to be more vocal in calling out injustice.

Responding to a sense of helplessness many people are feeling in the wake of violence at the hands of federal immigration officials, Cardinal Joseph Tobin of Newark, New Jersey, urged people of faith not to shy away from the news and to use their voices to say, "No."

In a reflection delivered Jan. 26 during an online interfaith prayer service hosted by Faith in Action, Tobin employed some of the strongest language yet by a U.S. cardinal to condemn the Trump administration's immigration crackdown, describing Immigration and Customs Enforcement "lawless" and urging Catholics to tell their lawmakers to vote against additional funding.

Recounting a story from Bread and Wine, a 1936 novel by Ignazio Silone, Tobin described a character lamenting the incursion of fascist forces who asks a priest, "Father, what can we do?" With "the machinery of death" set in motion, as Tobin put it, the priest tells the young woman that what worries dictators and authoritarian regimes is the person who scrawls on the piazza wall, "No." 

"I think if we are serious about putting our faith in action, we need to say 'no,' each one of us," Tobin said. What saying "no" looks like today, he continued, is by telling the truth about what is happening and honoring those whose lives are upended.

Over the weekend, immigration enforcement agents killed Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old Minneapolis resident and intensive care nurse who was filming at the protest. Federal authorities say that Pretti was armed and a threat to law enforcement, but video analysis by The New York Times and other media outlets dispute that account. According to reports, Pretti's gun had already been secured by officers before two agents shot him at least 10 times. 

"One way that we say 'no' is that we mourn, we do not celebrate death, and, what is probably worse, we do not pretend it doesn't happen. We say names. We pray for the dead," Tobin said. "We mourn for a world, a country, that allows 5-year-olds to be legally kidnapped and protesters to be slaughtered."

Cardinal Joseph Tobin of Newark, N.J., arrives in St. Peter’s Basilica for the Mass “Pro Eligendo Romano Pontifice” (“for the election of the Roman pontiff”) at the Vatican May 7, 2025. (CNS/Lola Gomez)

One of three U.S. cardinals who recently signed a statement condemning President Donald Trump's foreign policy aims and calling for the White House to focus on peace, Tobin noted that he was speaking within a few miles from two detention centers. 

"Everyday people from many faith communities go to Delaney Street here in Newark, and to the Elizabeth Detention Center, and they say 'no' by standing at the gates, by talking with the ICE personnel, by insisting on the rights of the detainees within," he said. "They bring them human comfort, they console the families of those who aren't always admitted to see their loved ones. How will you say 'no?' How?"

Citing the Gospel story of the Good Samaritan, and invoking the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Tobin asked how people will say "no" to what's happening today.

"How will you say 'no?' How will you say 'no' to violence?" he said. "How will you say 'no' this week when an appropriations bill is going to be considered in Congress? Will you contact your congressional representatives, the senators and representatives from your district? Will you ask them, for the love of God and the love of human beings, which can't be separated, to vote against renewing funding for such a lawless organization?"

 Full text of statement by Chicago Cardinal Blase J. Cupich, Washington Cardinal Robert W. McElroy, and Newark Cardinal Joseph W. Tobin:

Charting A Moral Vision of American Foreign Policy:

Josh Marshall - As Minneapolis Writhes under ICE, recall the Boston Massacre

 image.png


Minnesotans march against ICE

Alex Pretti, RN




Renee Good


 
Josh Marshall - founder and EIC of Talking Points Memo - is a Brown University PhD in American History. He looks [link above]  at ICE in Minnesota and elsewhere  acting as occupying soldiers - not as ordinary civilian-governed police.

We see that in their masked  thuggishness. They are an occupying army, not border protection - as we see from the mass protest marches by Minnesotans in freezing northern weather.
Resistance to this form of martial rule is key now as we face a thuggish President on the offensive.

The deaths of Renee Good -  a mother of three - and of Alex Pretti - an ICU nurse treating VA patients - have shocked us all.  Particularly because the President, Secretary Noem and others have leapt to swift readily rebutted justifications of these killings.

We have never faced this sort of repressive wave.  Not even the National Guard actions in LA, Detroit and Newark in 1965 - 1968 had the lawless character of today's repressive forces.  LA, Detroit and Newark led to the National Commission on Civil Disorders - which acknowledged we were moving toward "two societies, one black, one white, separate and unequal,"   It acknowledged the just causes of the protests and called for a national commitment to jobs, housing, education, and police reform to foster integration .

We are in particular jeopardy because the Supreme Court 6-3 in Trump v. U.S. has immunized Presidents for official acts, even for the January 6  events and for "spreading knowingly false claims of election fraud to obstruct the collecting, counting, and certifying of the election results."  Elsewhere we would call that an attempted coup d'etat.  We should be grateful for Jack Smith's recent defense of the prosecution of Donald Trump for attempting to block the results of an election he lost.

We should heed the call of Newark Archbishop Joseph Tobin to say NO.

- GWC

Sunday, January 25, 2026

ICE OUT of Minnesota

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DT6pLNujEWW/?igsh=dms1Zjdpa3F0bWZp

Fallows - PM Mark Carney's Speech for the History Books at DAVOS

 

Mark Carney - Canadian PM at Davos

(Photo via Getty Images)

 A SPEECH FOR THE HISTORY BOOKS - CANADIAN PM MARK CARNEY AT DAVOS 

By James Fallows  [a former Presidential speechwriter for Jimmy Carter]

Mark Carney, prime minister of Canada, acknowledging a rare-for-Davos sustained standing ovation, at the end of his brief (17 minutes) but exquisitely composed address to the 1,800-person crowd of world financial and political leaders yesterday. He explained American values, and lamented the effects of their permanent loss, far more eloquently than the person who ranted, complained, bragged, and lied on that same stage this morning. And who left the stage to no applause except from his own staffers. 

It’s impossible to judge the long-term effect of oratory, in the short term. Many presentations that loom large in history were almost ignored at the time. Here’s just one example of many:

At Harvard’s commencement ceremony in 1947, then-Secretary of State George Marshall spent 12 minutes outlining why it was in America’s interest to help Europe recover from the devastation of World War II. Even though this would mean Americans pouring more tax money into the continent where so many of them had already sacrificed. Even though it would include helping Germany, so recently the Allies’ bitter foe.

At the time, the speech barely drew any coverage. But eventually it was recognized as the debut of what became the Marshall Plan, which in turn was the basis for Marshall himself receiving the Nobel Peace Prize in 1953.1

None of us can know for sure whether yesterday’s brief address at Davos, by Canada’s prime minister Mark Carney, will similarly be remembered as marking a turning point in understanding world power, and of America’s role. But there’s a chance it will be. And in any case, to keep it above the slurry of the latest outrage news, it’s worth noticing the craft, the composition, and the content of these 17 minutes on stage.

I’ll call this out with line-by-line annotations on the text, below. But the main accomplishments of the speech were these:

KEEP READING Text embedded





The Minneapolis murders _ Goodman and Weissman analyze

https://open.substack.com/pub/ryangoodmanlaw/p/dissecting-the-federal-governments?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=zv1g

Wednesday, January 21, 2026

The new colossus: DO NOT SEND ME YOUR TIRED, YOUR POOR, YOUR HUDDLED MASES YEARNING TO BREATH FREE

 

The new colossus: DO NOT SEND ME YOUR TIRED, YOUR POOR, YOUR HUDDLED MASES YEARNING TO BREATH FREE

Perdomo v. Noem, 790 F. Supp. 3d 850 (C.D. Cal. 2025)

Image of the words of the New Colossus inscribed on a bronze plaque.

 "Give me your tired, your poor, / Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"

Emma Lazarus

So engrained in our national ethic were those words at the base of the Statue of Liberty that Ronald Reagan – whose conservative bona fides were beyond question – stood on the deck of an aircraft carrier near the Statue to mark our nation’s bicentennial.

Liberty Weekend - Wikipedia

But half a century later the Department of Homeland Security searches for unauthorized immigrants in Maine under the rubric of “Catch of the Day”.  Like Lewiston and Portland, Maine, Minnesota is home to many Somali emigrees embraced by Lazarus’s famous words.

But today’s President – Donald J. Trump strikes a gravely different tone. Speaking of Minnesota he has said

“It's a rigged state. And the Somalians vote as one group even if they're not citizens. They all ought to get the hell out of here. They're bad for our country.”

After swarming Minneapolis with thousands of masked  ICE troops attention turned to Los Angeles where United States District Judge Maame Frimpong found that agents have seized people based on language and appearance but the agents’ “knowledge that undocumented individuals use and seek work at car washes falls woefully short of the reasonable suspicion needed to target any particular individual at any particular car wash.”


The Judge asked:

Is it illegal to conduct roving patrols which identify people based upon race alone, aggressively question them, and then detain them without a warrant, without their consent, and without reasonable suspicion that they are without status? Yes, it is.

• Is it unlawful to prevent people from having access to lawyers who can help them in immigration court? Yes, it is.


And, further,

are the individuals and organizations who brought this  lawsuit likely to succeed in proving that the federal government is indeed conducting roving patrols without reasonable suspicion and denying access to lawyers? This Court decides—based on all the evidence presented—that they are.

And second, what should be done about it?

 

The District Judge found that [DHS] failed to provide any concrete details as to what factors led Defendants to stop and question Gomez specifically nor indicate the nature of surveillance and intelligence data gathered that would give rise to reasonable suspicion.


The District Judge explained  that “the field agents' testimony (that it was "INS policy to conduct complete sweeps of all community residences, with or without information as to specific residences") … contradicted the official policy of the defendant agency (that such sweeps should be done only upon "individualized suspicion"),

  • The Judge therefor ordered DHS to cease stop, explaining that “[r]eliance solely on factors such as race/ethnicity, speaking Spanish/English with an accent, presence at a particular location, or type of work does not constitute reasonable suspicion for immigration stops.


Perdomo v. Noem, 790 F. Supp. 3d 850, 894 n.29, 33 (C.D. Cal. 2025)

Today we are again faced with the challenge Emma Lazarus posed.  Unfortunately the majority of the United States Supreme Court in a summary order lifted the injunction granted by a United States District Judge in California.  Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh found that ICE agents “may briefly detain” an individual “for questioning” if they have a “reasonable suspicion…that the person is an alien illegally in the United States.”

But Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s description of ICE conduct departs markedly from Justice Kavanaugh’s sanitized version.  She concluded that the four factors cited by the government do not “taken together ..satisfy the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of reasonable suspicion.”  The District Court, she concluded, properly temporarily enjoined the Government from continuing its pattern of unlawful mass arrests.”

The four factors are generalized, not specific: 1) apparent race or ethnicity, 2) whether they spoke Spanish or English “with an accent”, 3) their location such as at a car wash or bus stop, and 4) the type of job they appeared to work.  Individualized suspicion is not satisfied, Sotomayor wrote...but Justice Kavanaugh was satisfied, asserting that 2 million of the 20 million residents of  Los Angeles area are present “illegally”.

 Even if Kavanaugh’s estimate is correct the Department of Homeland Security has embarked on a campaign of mass deportation of unprecedented scope which would drastically affect life in LA and elsewhere, disrupting schools, the labor force, and much more.

ICE has announced it is now deploying its forces to Maine which, like Minneapolis, has a substantial population of Somali refugees from war and tyranny.

We recognize that significant effort is required to accommodate emigrees.  But our country has been built on such a foundation.  Emigrees come here fleeing poverty tyranny, climate sister and in hope of liberty and prosperity.  Generosity, not hostility, should guide our policies.

-        George Conk

-        1/21/2026

Thursday, January 15, 2026

All candidates can challenge election laws - Scotus Blog

 ALL CANDIDATES CAN CHALLENGE ELECTION LAWS 

Supreme Court Bost v. Illinois Bd of Elections


C.J. Roberts:
***While voters also have a general interest in an accurate vote tally, a candidate’s interest differs in kind.  Those who spend time and resources seeking to claim the right to voice the will of the people have “an undeniably different—and more particularized—interest” in knowing what that will is.   
***
 JUSTICE JACKSON, with whom JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR joins, dissenting. 
Under our standing precedents, this is an easy case.  Article III requires plaintiffs to assert and establish an “injury in fact”—i.e., the “invasion of a legally protected interest” that is both “concrete and particularized” and “actual or imminent.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 560 (1992) (internal quotation marks omitted). Congressman Bost has failed to allege that the election-related law he seeks to challenge has caused him to suffer any injury that satisfies those requirements. A majority of the Court nevertheless concludes that Bost has standing to sue based solely on his status as a candidate for office. The Court thereby subtly shifts from our longstanding actual-injury rule to a presumption that certain kinds of plaintiffs are sufficiently aggrieved to satisfy Article III standing, regardless of whether they will experience any particularized harm.  In my view, this dubious departure from settled law disregards both the equal treatment of litigants and judicial restraint.

It is happening here....ICE in Minneapolis - podcast - The Atlantic

Podcast: https://www.theatlantic.com/podcasts/2026/01/ice-shooting-Minneapolis-federal-prosecution/685618/


 

Tuesday, January 13, 2026