Editing Ken Starr
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 64: | Line 64: | ||
==Post–independent counsel activities== | ==Post–independent counsel activities== | ||
After five years as independent counsel, Starr resigned and returned to private practice as an appellate lawyer and a visiting professor at [[New York University | After five years as independent counsel, Starr resigned and returned to private practice as an appellate lawyer and a visiting professor at [[New York University]], the [[Chapman University School of Law]], and the [[George Mason University School of Law]]. Starr worked as a partner at [[Kirkland & Ellis]], specializing in litigation. He was one of the lead attorneys in a class-action lawsuit filed by a coalition of liberal and conservative groups (including the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Rifle Association) against the regulations created by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, known informally as McCain-Feingold Act. In the case, Starr argued that the law was an unconstitutional abridgment of free speech. | ||
On April 6, 2004, he was appointed dean of the [[Pepperdine University School of Law]]. He originally accepted a position at Pepperdine as the first dean of the newly created School of Public Policy in 1996; however, he withdrew from the appointment in 1998, several months after the Lewinsky controversy erupted. Critics charged that there was a conflict of interest due to substantial donations to Pepperdine from billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, a Clinton critic who funded many media outlets attacking the president. (Scaife's money, however, supported the Foster-was-murdered theory, according to CNN, and Scaife defunded ''The American Spectator'' after it endorsed Starr's conclusion of suicide and mocked a Scaife-aided book.) In 2004, some five years after President Clinton's impeachment, Starr was again offered a Pepperdine position at the School of Law and this time accepted it. | On April 6, 2004, he was appointed dean of the [[Pepperdine University School of Law]]. He originally accepted a position at Pepperdine as the first dean of the newly created School of Public Policy in 1996; however, he withdrew from the appointment in 1998, several months after the Lewinsky controversy erupted. Critics charged that there was a conflict of interest due to substantial donations to Pepperdine from billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, a Clinton critic who funded many media outlets attacking the president. (Scaife's money, however, supported the Foster-was-murdered theory, according to CNN, and Scaife defunded ''The American Spectator'' after it endorsed Starr's conclusion of suicide and mocked a Scaife-aided book.<ref name="jackson" />) In 2004, some five years after President Clinton's impeachment, Starr was again offered a Pepperdine position at the School of Law and this time accepted it. | ||
===Death penalty cases=== | ===Death penalty cases=== | ||
Line 74: | Line 74: | ||
===''[[Morse v. Frederick]]''=== | ===''[[Morse v. Frederick]]''=== | ||
On May 4, 2006, Starr announced that he would represent the school board of Juneau, Alaska, in its appeal to the United States Supreme Court in a case brought by a former student, Joseph Frederick. A high school student at that time, Joseph Frederick unfurled a banner at a school-sponsored event saying "[[Morse v. Frederick|Bong Hits 4 Jesus]]" as the Olympic torch was passing through Juneau, before arriving in Salt Lake City, Utah, for the 2002 Winter Olympics. The board decided to suspend the student. The student then sued and won at the U.S.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which stated that the board violated the student's first amendment right to free speech.<ref name="ap">https://web.archive.org/web/20081229233018/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002970774_bong04.html </ref> On August 28, 2006, Starr filed a writ of certiorari for a hearing with the Supreme Court.<ref name="juneau">http://www.jsd.k12.ak.us/newdistrict/news/archive/pdf_documents/jsdboard_cert_petitionFINAL.pdf</ref> On June 21, 2007, in an opinion authored by Chief Justice [[John G. Roberts]], the court ruled in favor of Starr's client, finding that "a principal may, consistent with the First Amendment, restrict student speech at a school event, when that speech is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use."<ref name="supreme">https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-278.pdf</ref> | On May 4, 2006, Starr announced that he would represent the school board of Juneau, Alaska, in its appeal to the United States Supreme Court in a case brought by a former student, Joseph Frederick. A high school student at that time, Joseph Frederick unfurled a banner at a school-sponsored event saying "[[Morse v. Frederick|Bong Hits 4 Jesus]]" as the Olympic torch was passing through Juneau, before arriving in Salt Lake City, Utah, for the 2002 Winter Olympics. The board decided to suspend the student. The student then sued and won at the U.S.<span class="mw_htmlentity"></span>Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which stated that the board violated the student's first amendment right to free speech.<ref name="ap">https://web.archive.org/web/20081229233018/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002970774_bong04.html </ref> On August 28, 2006, Starr filed a writ of certiorari for a hearing with the Supreme Court.<ref name="juneau">http://www.jsd.k12.ak.us/newdistrict/news/archive/pdf_documents/jsdboard_cert_petitionFINAL.pdf</ref> On June 21, 2007, in an opinion authored by Chief Justice [[John G. Roberts]], the court ruled in favor of Starr's client, finding that "a principal may, consistent with the First Amendment, restrict student speech at a school event, when that speech is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use."<ref name="supreme">https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-278.pdf</ref> | ||
===''Blackwater Security Consulting v. Nordan'' (No. 06-857)=== | ===''Blackwater Security Consulting v. Nordan'' (No. 06-857)=== | ||
Line 80: | Line 80: | ||
===California Proposition 8 post-election lawsuits=== | ===California Proposition 8 post-election lawsuits=== | ||
On December 19, 2008, California Proposition 8 (2008) supporters named Starr to represent them in post-election lawsuits to be heard by the Supreme Court of California. Opponents of the measure sought to overturn it as a violation of fundamental rights, while supporters sought to invalidate the 18,000 same-sex marriages performed in the state before | On December 19, 2008, California Proposition 8 (2008) supporters named Starr to represent them in post-election lawsuits to be heard by the Supreme Court of California. Opponents of the measure sought to overturn it as a violation of fundamental rights, while supporters sought to invalidate the 18,000 same-sex marriages performed in the state before Proposition<span class="mw_htmlentity"></span>8 passed.<ref name="egelko">http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/20/MN6514RNVU.DTL</ref> Oral arguments took place on March 5, 2009, in San Francisco. | ||
Starr argued that "Prop. 8 was a modest measure that left the rights of same-sex couples undisturbed under California's domestic-partner laws and other statutes banning discrimination based on sexual orientation," to the agreement of most of the judges.<ref name=SFGATE_justice>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/05/MNLP169S2G.DTL</ref> The main issue that arose during the oral argument included the meaning of the word "inalienable," and to which extent this word goes when used in Article I of the Californian Constitution. Christopher Krueger of the attorney general's office said that inalienable rights may not be stripped away by the initiative process. Starr countered that "rights are important, but they don't go to structure ... rights are ultimately defined by the people."<ref>http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_11838385?source=most_viewed</ref> | Starr argued that "Prop. 8 was a modest measure that left the rights of same-sex couples undisturbed under California's domestic-partner laws and other statutes banning discrimination based on sexual orientation," to the agreement of most of the judges.<ref name=SFGATE_justice>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/05/MNLP169S2G.DTL</ref> The main issue that arose during the oral argument included the meaning of the word "inalienable," and to which extent this word goes when used in Article I of the Californian Constitution. Christopher Krueger of the attorney general's office said that inalienable rights may not be stripped away by the initiative process. Starr countered that "rights are important, but they don't go to structure ... rights are ultimately defined by the people."<ref>http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_11838385?source=most_viewed</ref> | ||
Line 87: | Line 87: | ||
===Defense of Jeffrey Epstein=== | ===Defense of Jeffrey Epstein=== | ||
In 2007, Starr joined the legal team defending Palm Beach billionaire Jeffrey Epstein, who was criminally accused of the statutory rape of numerous underage high school students.<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20120516122546/http://www.page2live.com/2007/09/12/lewinsky-prosecutor-joins-defense-of-clinton-crony/</ref> Epstein would later plea bargain to plead guilty to several charges of soliciting and trafficking of underage girls, serve | In 2007, Starr joined the legal team defending Palm Beach billionaire Jeffrey Epstein, who was criminally accused of the statutory rape of numerous underage high school students.<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20120516122546/http://www.page2live.com/2007/09/12/lewinsky-prosecutor-joins-defense-of-clinton-crony/</ref> Epstein would later plea bargain to plead guilty to several charges of soliciting and trafficking of underage girls, serve 13<span class="mw_htmlentity"></span>months on work release in a private wing of the Palm Beach jail, and register as a sex offender.<ref>http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-03-25/jeffrey-epstein-how-the-billionaire-pedophile-got-off-easy/ </ref> Starr said he was “in the room” when then-US attorney Alex Acosta made the deal that yielded the plea bargain for Epstein and later described Acosta as “a person of complete integrity,” adding that “everyone was satisfied” with the agreement. <ref>https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/former-epstein-attorney-ken-starr-says-alex-acosta-played-tough-in-2008 </ref> In early 2019 a federal judge ruled that because prosecutors failed to disclose the deal to Epstein's victims, they had violated the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA) which entitles victims to know about significant events in their cases.<ref>https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/judge-prosecutors-deal-with-jeffrey-epstein-in-molestation-case-violated-law-misled-victims/2019/02/21/2b48684a-3618-11e9-854a-7a14d7fec96a_story.html</ref> | ||
Acosta, who later served as Secretary of Labor, resigned that role in mid 2019 under pressure over the perceived lenience of the Epstein deal. <ref>https://www.wsj.com/articles/labor-secretary-alexander-acosta-is-stepping-down-11562939135</ref> | Acosta, who later served as Secretary of Labor, resigned that role in mid 2019 under pressure over the perceived lenience of the Epstein deal. <ref>https://www.wsj.com/articles/labor-secretary-alexander-acosta-is-stepping-down-11562939135</ref> | ||