(some links require that you be logged in to GW’s Aladin network)

Legal Treatises

Farnsworth on Contracts, 4th Edition. Wolters Kluwer.  2018 and updates 5x/year

Hate Crimes Law.  Eagan, MN: Thomson/West, 2007 Ed. onwards

Articles

Prosecutors Overreach in RICO Gang Arrests (with Heidi Boghosian), Huffington Post, Feb. 13, 2017

Transition of Power, Liberation News, Nov. 16, 2016

Marriage Equality and Peoples’ Struggles Win at the Supreme Court, Liberation News, June 26, 2015

Struggle for equality at the Supreme Court, Liberation News, April 28, 2014 [News account of oral arguments]

Gay Marriage: Accommodationist Demands Expand the Conception of Human Dignity.  National Lawyers Guild Review 70.2 (2013): 88-99

Liberation newspaper articles in the last week of the 2012-13 Supreme Court Term:

• Supreme Court decisions weaken laws against workplace discrimination:  Majority sides with employers over workers
• Supreme Court strikes down key provision of Voting Rights Act:  Resurrects view of “states’ rights” predating U.S. Civil War
• Two victories for marriage equality in Supreme Court decisions:  DOMA declared unconstitutional and California’s Prop 8 struck down

“Reclaiming the Judiciary:  Notes for the next Supreme Court nomination.” Position Paper of the National Lawyers Guild.  Press Release issued and Paper published online, May 7, 2010.

“Understanding the Prop. 8 decision: Another setback courtesy of judicial liberals and pragmatists,” Liberation, May 28, 2009. [Regarding the California Supreme Court’s upholding of Prop 8 — before the federal courts overturned Prop 8.]

“Gay & Lesbian Prisoners:  Recent Developments and a Call for More Research,” Prison Legal News 19.10 (2008):1-6

“The Right to Say No to Discrimination:  A Commentary on Rumsfeld v. FAIR.”  The Modern American 2.3 (2006): 30-31

“What We Think, Say and Do:  Why the Guild Must Apply Its Radical Analysis in Practice,” Guild Practitioner 62 (2005): 1-11

“On the NLG and the New McCarthyism,” Guild Notes 27 (2003): 5-6

“New Police Strategy:  Pre-emptive Strikes,” Guild Notes 24.2 (2000): 11-14

“Fields of Opportunity: Protecting Farmworkers Through a Broader Statutory Interpretation,” Clearinghouse Review: Journal of Poverty Law and Policy 33 (2000): 701-709

Amicus Curiae Briefs

Trump v. CASA, Inc., Trump v. Washington, Trump v. New Jersey
April 2, 2025
U.S. Supreme Court, Nos. 25A884, 25A885, 25A886
Brief filed in three cases, urging the Court to refuse the Trump Administration’s efforts to implement its reversal of birthright citizenship. Fuller comments and highlights on this post.

Ulbricht v. United States
Feb. 5, 2018
U.S. Supreme Court, No. 17-950
This case involves the Silk Road website.  The brief, filed on behalf of seven organizations and a retired judge, urges the Supreme Court to review the judgment below because the government improperly gathered internet browsing history without probable cause and the judge imposed sentenced on the basis of unproven allegations.

Panagacos v. Towery
Jan. 27, 2016
9th Circuit, Nos. 14-35598, 14-35816
The case involves Army spying on domestic activist organizations.  The brief discusses the historic and contemporary importance of maintaining a line between law enforcement and military operations, and argues that the 9th Circuit should “allow a jury to evaluate the real effects on Plaintiffs’ ability to exercise their constitutional rights of the cumulative practices of Army personnel, working with a local fusion center, in monitoring and acting against the Plaintiff anti-war group Port Militarization Resistance.” More info is on http://www.peoplevtowery.org.

Kjonaas v. US
Nov. 23, 2010
U.S. Supreme Court, No. 10-7187
Urging the Supreme Court to accept review of conviction of webmasters with Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC), who were convicted of being responsible for others’ illegal acts based solely on their online activity approving of such actions.

Hammer v. Ashcroft
Nov. 25, 2009
U.S. Supreme Court, No. 09-504
Urging the Supreme Court to accept review of a US Bureau of Prison policy of preventing interviews with death row inmates.

The Cuban Five
Campa v. USA
March 2, 2009
U.S. Supreme Court, No. 08-987
This brief is in support of Supreme Court review of a political case involving supporters of the socialist Cuban government who were tried in the most anti-Castro jurisdiction on the planet…  Moreover, as the brief argues, the prosecutor’s challenges to potential jurors appeared to track prejudices about the black community’s relationship to the Cuban American community, but the 11th Circuit refused even to examine the disproportionate exclusion of African Americans from the jury.  The brief is submitted on behalf of the National Lawyers Guild and the National Conference of Black Lawyers, in support of the Petitioners. More on the case is on www.FreeTheFive.org.

Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle
Oct. 10, 2006
U.S. Supreme Court, No. 05-908
2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 1040
The case involves affirmative action programs designed to end de facto discrimination in elementary and secondary public schools.  The brief opposes efforts to misuse the 14th Amendment to prevent such programs.  This brief also explains that international human rights law offers an additional, compelling interest in upholding the programs.

Abu-Jama v. Horn
July 26, 2006
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Nos. 01-9014 & 02-9001
This appeal involves improper statements by the prosecutor during the 1982 trial of Mumia Abu-Jamal.  The brief notes that “the judiciary is burdened with a racist history, a contemporary perception of racism, and countless experiences of racism, not the least of which in the death penalty context, as exemplified in [this case].”  The brief also gives special consideration to the prosecutor’s attempts to guide the jurors to distance themselves from the significance of their decision – whether or not to send a person to death.  The prosecutor told the jury that Mr. Abu-Jamal would have “appeal after appeal,” so their decision would not really be final.  The brief cites sociological and psychological studies to demonstrate why such a statement is a significant violation of Mr. Abu-Jamal’s rights.

Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights
U.S. Supreme Court, No. 04-1152
2005 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 618; reprinted in Guild Practitioner 62 (2005): 113-123
This case was a challenge to the Solomon Amendment, which required schools to allow the military to recruit on campus, notwithstanding its non-compliance with the schools’ non-discrimination policy.  The brief argues that “law schools are involved in an historic effort to improve the profession’s understanding of equality and what it means to conduct oneself in an ethical and responsible manner.  Most have concluded that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is an unacceptable form of bigotry, and that the school should not associate with anyone who discriminates on that basis.  The government must not be permitted to aggressively insert itself into that important debate by forcing law schools either to regress their understanding of the meaning of non-discrimination or to fail to live up to those principles.”
• ABA Journal story quoting Prof. Wolfe
• Related commentary