Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
He discusses the challenges he faces as a member of the Jewish community in the legal workspace, as well as how the government in Belgium handled the COVID-19 pandemic, revealing whether his jurisdiction is becoming more progressive or regressive.
As an Orthodox Jewish lawyer in Antwerp, which is rare to find, what challenges do you face?
In the last few decades, the Belgian people have grown to demonstrate a type of hidden “dégoût” [disgust] of everything that has any association with religion. When they initially meet you, they obviously say that they respect you and have no problem with religion at all, but once it interferes with their needs or habits, it does become clear that some do not understand nor respect it at all. My three-year internship was done at a law firm that had no previous experience working with other Jewish people, resulting in me being on the receiving end of remarks, comments and resistance when it came to my persistence in keeping Jewish Laws, such as eating strictly kosher food and keeping the Sabbath (which is from sunset on Friday until Saturday night).
Now that I work independently, I don’t face these challenges as often. Courts are very understanding when a case-hearing needs to be postponed if it happens to be on a Jewish Holiday and also my fellow lawyers almost never make a problem out of it.
Do you face unique cases, based on your background? How does this place you in good stead when working on such cases?
I do work on cases involving Jewish victims of antisemitism, which sadly still happens quite often. Those cases are, of course, very personal because I mostly know the victims from my private life, it can happen to me too (and it has done), and because it’s my mission to get Belgian lawmakers to modernise Belgian law against Racism and Xenophobia as it is dated from 30 July 1981 and thus is completely outdated. It is extremely difficult to get convictions based on this law, most certainly when faced by antisemitism on social media. There is a sense of impunity out there and I’m determined to fight this.
A Belgian ban on the Muslim and Jewish ways of ritually slaughtering animals went into effect on New Year’s Day; what backlash did this cause with citizens?
This ban on ritual slaughter has indeed been in effect since January 1st 2019 in Flandres and the backlash is enormous. Kosher meat became rare and thus very expensive. It needs to be imported from countries without such a ban, which takes time and costs much more. It feels like discrimination based on religion comparing to non-Jews, which makes the Jewish community feel very uncomfortable and unwanted.
Furthermore, the plan the newly formed government came out with for the next few years doesn’t mention anything about the fight against antisemitism and mentions the withdrawal of the army from the Jewish neighbourhoods.
How does this, in your opinion, relate to article 9 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms? Was this ruling a step in the right or wrong direction?
The impression I have is that in Belgium this Human Right to practice Religion has become completely subordinate to all other Rights. The Belgian people prefer that any religion should be practised strictly at home and shouldn’t interfere with any other right, which then always precedes. The fact that the method of ritual slaughter has been proven painless for the animal doesn’t make any difference to them. When I enter into a discussion with a non-Jew and ask about the animal right’s of a lobster that is put in boiling hot water alive (!) before being consumed, the sudden silence is deafening. It gives me a sad feeling that all this is not about the rights of the animals but the rebellion against anything related to religion.
The ban of ritual slaughter was, of course, challenged at the Belgian Constitutional Court, which passed the question to the European Court of Justice. Advice was recently given by the Avocat-General against the ban, which of course gives me high hopes that the Court will rule in favour of lifting the ban.
Following on from controversial actions, how has your jurisdiction legally handled the COVID-19 pandemic?
Belgium not only faced the COVID-19 pandemic, but also simultaneously faced a constitutional crisis as there had been no definitive government ever since the elections in May 2019. From December 2019 until last month, the country was led by an interim-government on federal level led by Mrs Wilmes and her government who had to face the pandemic. In my opinion, it was one big mess with many unclear decisions that were overturned a short time later, which, naturally, made the Belgian population lose all trust in the people leading the country. That was even more so when the virologists started openly criticising the politicians for apparently not following their guidelines. The mayhem on a federal level in combination with the rising numbers of COVID-19 cases resulted in actions that were then taken on a lower, more local, level. The most intrusive one was the decision taken by the Governor of the Province of Antwerp to impose a curfew in the whole Province. Such a measure hadn’t been taken since World War II and, in my opinion, it was absolutely not a measure the Governor was competent to take. The measure was fought in court, but before it ever appeared for treatment at court, it was already lifted.
Are there any other changes on the horizon which you are keeping your eye on?
The newly formed government makes me worry a lot about the future of Belgium as a whole and also what the future holds for the Jewish community in Belgium. The government is formed by no less than seven smaller parties, leaving the biggest elected parties, the extreme-right and a party who strives for an independent Flanders, out and putting them in the opposition. So, this government is not made out of the parties the majority of Belgian citizens had voted for. There’s a big possibility that the next elections will cause a smashing victory for the extreme-right, which is very worrying.
Furthermore, the plan the newly formed government came out with for the next few years doesn’t mention anything about the fight against antisemitism and mentions the withdrawal of the army from the Jewish neighbourhoods. This is a clear sign that the safety of and the Rights for the Jews in Belgium isn’t a priority at all but on the contrary, is superfluous.
About David Braun
Please share with us your journey into law.
From when I was a kid I knew I wanted to become a lawyer as I loved speaking in public and always had a drive to end a discussion in my favour. After my studies at the University of Antwerp in 2010, I started my internship at a law firm specialised in tax law, which ended quite fast as the only thing I wanted was to get to court. After changing firms, I got to do my thing and became a pure litigator. In 2013 I competed in the yearly moot court competition organised by the Bar of Antwerp, which I won. I became third at the next stage, which was for the whole of Flandres.
Please share your specialisms in law.
With time and through experience I specialised in property law, going from cases for and against contractors, estate agents, tenants, co-owners in building, etc. It’s a very variated field of expertise, which keeps it interesting and challenging.
I also still focus on tax law, but only the litigation part and not the estate planning part. In other words, I fix the mess of others.
What motivates you most about your role?
What gives me my daily drive is that amazing feeling when pleading a case in court and then winning the case. Mostly the stakes for the clients are enormous and they are extremely nervous about the outcome. Sending them the e-mail that we got a positive judgment with the subsequent ecstatic phone conversation is very satisfactory and keeps me going for more and more.
David BRAUN
Advocaat
Lexlitis Antwerpen
Belgiëlei 187
B-2018 ANTWERPEN
Tel. +32/(0)3/231.14.44
Fax +32/(0)3/231.72.32
Cell +32/(0)473/250.300
@Antwerp.Lawyer
Testifying before the Senate Commerce Committee on Wednesday, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai said that they would be willing to submit to more extensive transparency rules on how their platforms moderate user-posted content.
Following a unanimous vote by the Committee, the three CEOs were called to testify virtually amid debate on a possible revision of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the decades-old federal laws that shield internet platforms from liability for the content that their users post.
The questioning of the CEOs largely fell along partisan lines, with Democratic senators voicing concerns over the proliferation of misinformation on their platforms and Republican senators accusing the executives of showing political bias in their moderation of content.
Dorsey suggested the imposition of rules to restore user confidence in internet platforms’ willingness to handle potentially controversial content in “good faith”. Among his suggestions were publishing the details of platforms’ moderation practices, letting users choose the algorithms that determine what they see on online platforms and allowing affected users to appeal moderation decisions.
“They could be expansions to Section 230, new legislative frameworks or a commitment to industrywide self-regulation best practices," Dorsey said.
Pichai also said that Google, Alphabet’s subsidiary, would be willing to work with Congress on reforming Section 230, but urged caution in modifying the statute so that users would be able to post without restrictive government oversight and websites would not lose the legal protections that their business models rely upon.
[ymal]
Zuckerberg also agreed that "increasing transparency into the content moderation process would be an important step toward trust and accountability."
In July, the House Antitrust Subcommittee grilled the chief executives of four of America’s largest tech giants in a televised hearing. The CEOs of Facebook, Google, Apple and Amazon were grilled on their companies’ “monopoly power” over their respective industries and their ability to gate out challengers to their business models by controlling the content that gains priority on their established platforms.
Dorsey and Zuckerberg are scheduled to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on 17 November over what a press release described as “censorship and suppression of news articles” and platforms’ handling of election news.
Mass legal action is being taken against Facebook for failing to safeguard users’ personal information in the Cambridge Analytica data breach.
The action is being taken by the group Facebook You Owe Us, and follows a similar mass action lawsuit led against Google for another data breach (launched by group Google You Owe Us), which is due to be heard in the Supreme Court in April next year.
Both groups are represented by law firm Millberg London.
The Cambridge Analytica scandal concerns the named political data analytics firm and its harvesting of data from over 87 million Facebook users through an external app in 2015. Presented in the form of a quiz, which some users were paid to take, pulled information from respondents’ accounts and the accounts of their friends, using the gathered data to build psychological profiles of the users. This information was later used in political campaigns, including the 2016 US presidential election, to target users with political ads.
The FTC issued Facebook a historically large $5 billion fine for its failure to prevent the breach.
Facebook You Owe Us argues that, by taking users’ data without heir consent, Facebook failed to meet their legal obligations as outlined in the Data Protection Act 1998. The case specifically focuses on Facebook’s alleged misuse of information from over one million of its users in England and Wales.
[ymal]
"We have not received any documents regarding this claim,” a Facebook spokesperson said. “The Information Commissioner's Office investigation into these issues, which included seizing and interrogating Cambridge Analytica's servers, found no evidence that any UK or EU users' data was transferred by Dr Kogan to Cambridge Analytica.”
Due to the nature of immigration involving people moving between countries, the immigration process has been one of the most severely affected industries of this global crisis. As if US immigration wasn’t already enough of a headache, the system is now beset by more restrictions, delays, and general chaos than ever.
One of the first measures put in place to try to limit the spread of COVID-19 into the United States was a 31 January , 2020 presidential proclamation which prohibited entry into the United States from China for non-US citizens or residents. This ban was subsequently expanded to include Iran and Europe. By mid-March, the US land borders with Mexico and Canada had been closed to non-essential travel. Combined with restrictions on deportation flights into other countries, this left tens of thousands of people in limbo in Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention centers, where the crowded jail-like conditions leave them vulnerable to rapidly spreading contagious diseases like the coronavirus.
As part of the border closure, over 147,000 people have been expelled by the Border Patrol at the Mexican border without the opportunity to seek asylum. All hearings for asylum seekers in Mexico have been suspended indefinitely.
US Citizenship and Immigration Services suspended all in-person services at its offices for three months before beginning a gradual reopening. This meant all interviews for asylum and immigration benefit applications were postponed, as were naturalisation oath ceremonies. All visa services around the world were also suspended. As a result, temporary visa holders such as temporary workers and students were unable to apply for extensions or permanent resident status, putting them at risk of overstaying their visas.
USCIS also suspended biometric services like fingerprinting, which are required for some applications, such as employment authorization documents.
[ymal]
All of these delays and suspensions of services mean that even once services are fully restored, massive backlogs will create significant delays in processing by immigration agencies.
The Department of Justice’s Operational Status Map for immigration courts shows that while few remain closed, many are open only for filings and detained hearings. Most USCIS offices have reopened, with restrictions such as face mask and social distancing requirements, and you will not be allowed to enter if you have COVID-19 symptoms or have recently been in close contact with someone who does, or are awaiting the results of a COVID test. You also may not enter more than 15 minutes before your scheduled appointment time.
USCIS offices are sending notices for rescheduling to applicants who previously scheduled interviews and naturalization ceremonies. Visitors to offices are restricted to only the applicant, one attorney, one person providing disability assistance if necessary, and an interpreter in some cases. Attorneys may also attend meetings by phone.
In all cases, delays and slow processing times should be expected for the foreseeable future.
If you intend to immigrate to the US, consider connecting with an experienced immigration attorney to guide you through the immigration process during COVID-19 and beyond. Now more than ever it’s essential to make sure your immigration application goes smoothly and is done correctly, with no mistakes, omissions, or submission errors causing further delays and problems, jeopardizing your chances of getting the immigration document you need as soon as possible.
In a 52-48 vote, the US Senate on Monday confirmed Amy Coney Barrett’s appointment to the Supreme Court eight days before the presidential election.
The vote was split almost exactly along party lines. Senator Susan Collins of Maine, currently embroiled in a tough fight for re-election, was the only Republican senator to join the unified Democrats in opposition to Barrett’s nomination.
President Trump oversaw Justice Barrett’s swearing-in ceremony on Monday night after returning from a campaign event in Pennsylvania. "This is a momentous day for America, for the United States constitution and for the fair and impartial rule of law,” he said. "She is one of our nation's most brilliant legal scholars and she will make an outstanding justice on the highest court in our land."
Trump’s Democratic rival for the presidency, Joe Biden, said that the appointment was “rushed and unprecedented”, and evidence that Trump “wants to tear down the Affordable Care Act in its entirety.” Biden’s running mate, Kamala Harris, expressed a similar sentiment, calling Barrett’s confirmation “a disgrace, not only because of what she will do when she gets on the bench, but because of the entire process.”
Barrett fills the seat left vacant by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who passed away on 18 September. Senate Democrats have uniformly denounced the appointment, noting strongly conservative opinions on abortion rights and healthcare expressed by Barrett in the past, putting her at odds with Ginsburg’s staunchly liberal legacy.
Democrats have also accused Republican senators of hypocrisy, citing the GOP-majority Senate’s refusal to consider President Barack Obama’s nominee in 2016. At the time, Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell declared that “action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over.”
[ymal]
Barrett was tapped for the Supreme Court a week after Ginsburg’s death. The 30-day gap between her nomination and confirmation marks the fastest approval of a Supreme Court justice since 1975, where the Senate unanimously confirmed Justice John Paul Stevens to the bench 19 days after his formal nomination.
Chief Justice Roberts will administer the Judicial Oath to Barrett today in a private ceremony to take place in the Supreme Court’s East Conference Room, according to a press release.
"Upon administration of that oath, she will be able to begin to participate in the work of the Court," the press release said.
In an open letter published this weekend, more than 800 legal professionals invited both Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Home Secretary Priti Patel to apologise for their “display of hostility” towards lawyers.
Among the signatories are three former supreme justices of the Supreme Court – Lord Walker, Lord Dyson and Lord Collins – alongside 294 junior barristers, 162 solicitors, 90 academics, 84 QCs, 76 partners and law firm directors, 74 law professors and eight legal NGO directors.
“We are all deeply concerned at recent attacks, made by the Home Secretary and echoed by the Prime Minister, on lawyers seeking to hold the government to the law,” the signatories wrote.
“Such attacks endanger not only the personal safety of lawyers and others working for the justice system, as has recently been vividly seen; they undermine the rule of law which ministers and lawyers alike are duty bound to uphold.”
The letter follows the UK legal sector’s widespread condemnation of comments from Boris Johnson and Priti Patel criticising lawyers who represent migrants arriving in the UK, describing them as “do-gooders” and “lefty lawyers”.
In August, the Home Office also tweeted a video accusing “activist lawyers” of delaying and disrupting the return of illegal immigrants to their home countries. The post was later removed following its condemnation by Matthew Rycroft, the department’s top civil servant.
[ymal]
Last week, a man was charged with planning an act of terrorism after allegedly visiting a firm of immigration lawyers in London and threatening staff with a knife over what he believed to be their preventing of the removal of illegal immigrants from the UK.
Two American legal organisations have published an open letter calling for the US Senate not to confirm Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. It has received over 5,000 signatures from attorneys, marking the largest known lawyer letter written in opposition to a Supreme Court nomination.
The organisations behind the letter are Lawyers for Good Government (L4GG), a liberal group “committed to upholding human rights and justice for all”, and Alliance for Justice, a progressive judicial advocacy organisation with over 100 member groups including the Abortion Care Network, AIDS United and the Center for Reproductive Rights.
“Judge Barrett has an extreme ideology, and we have grave concerns that, if confirmed, she will erode critical rights and legal protections for millions of Americans,” the organisations wrote in the letter, focusing on Barrett’s past criticism of Roe v Wade and the possibility that her appointment to the bench will see the landmark abortion ruling overturned. “Her confirmation to the Supreme Court will be devastating to millions of women in this country.”
The letter also argued that Barrett’s confirmation would lead to the Affordable Care Act’s being struck down by a conservative majority. “The Affordable Care Act protects 133 million Americans with pre-existing conditions including the seven million Americans who tested positive for COVID-19, but Donald Trump has promised that any judge he nominates will overturn the ACA,” the letter said. “We are deeply troubled that Judge Barrett has repeatedly argued that the Supreme Court should have done just that.”
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on whether or not some provisions of the Affordable Care Act will remain law on 10 November, a week after the presidential election.
[ymal]
Earlier this month, more than 1,500 alumni from Rhodes College in Memphis, Barrett’s alma mater, signed a separate letter of concern over her pending appointment in response to a statement from Rhodes President Marjorie Hass lauding Barrett for her “professional distinction and achievement”.
"We oppose this embrace because we believe both her record and the process that has produced her nomination are diametrically opposed to the values of truth, loyalty, and service that we learned at Rhodes,” wrote authors and Rhodes alumni Rob Marus and Katherine Morgan Breslin.
In his keynote speech during Tuesday’s Conservative Party conference, Prime Minister Boris Johnson accused “lefty human rights lawyers” of hampering the criminal justice process.
While repeating a pledge to put a further 20,000 police officers on the streets, he added: “We are also backing those police, and protecting the public, by changing the law to stop the early release of serious sexual and violent offenders, and stopping the whole criminal justice system from being hamstrung by what the Home Secretary would doubtless and rightly call the lefty human rights lawyers and other do-gooders.”
Several legal organisations have this week condemned remarks by Home Secretary Priti Patel linking immigration lawyers with human traffickers during a speech to the Conservative Party conference on Sunday. “Those defending the broken system – the traffickers, the do-gooders, the lefty lawyers, the Labour Party – they are defending the indefensible,” she said.
Johnson’s reiteration of Patel’s attacks quickly drew condemnation from those same legal organisations.
“This divisive language serves nobody and puts lawyers and their clients at risk,” said Law Society president Simon Davis. “All solicitors advise their clients on their rights under the laws created by parliament. Legal rights cannot be rewritten through rhetoric.”
[ymal]
Bar Council chair Amanda Pinto QC commented: “It is shocking and troubling that our own Prime Minister condones and extends attempts to politicise and attack lawyers for simply doing their job in the public interest.”
“Lawyers — including those employed by the government itself — are absolutely vital to the running of our grossly under-funded criminal justice system. Their professional duty is to their client and to the court, and not to play political games,” she continued, noting that Johnson escalated Patel’s comments by suggesting that human rights lawyers are actively damaging the justice system.
Legal bodies and leading immigration lawyers have slammed comments from Home Secretary Priti Patel attacking lawyers who defend asylum seekers, with the Law Society claiming that her comments have put lawyers at increased risk of verbal and physical abuse.
During a speech at the Conservative Party conference on Sunday, Patel linked lawyers defending migrants with human traffickers who help them cross international borders.
“No doubt those who are well-rehearsed in how to play and profit from the broken system will lecture us on their grand theories about human rights,” she said. “Those defending the broken system – the traffickers, the do-gooders, the lefty lawyers, the Labour party – they are defending the indefensible.”
The Home Secretary’s speech quickly drew rebukes from across the legal profession. “The fact that a lawyer represents an asylum seeker does not make them a ‘lefty lawyer’,” said Law Society president Simon Davis in a statement on Monday. “It simply makes them a lawyer. Attacks on members of the legal profession for doing their jobs do our country no credit.”
“Slinging insults at lawyers undermines the rule of law in an area where views are already hotly held on all sides and risks leading to verbal abuse and to lawyers being physically attacked for doing their job,” Davis continued.
[ymal]
Amanda Pinto QC, Chair of the Bar Council, also condemned Patel’s rhetoric. “Attempting to paint lawyers with the ‘leftie’ brush seeks to demonise the very people helping constituents every day, without agenda, simply because they provide a vital public service,” she said.
“As the Lord Chancellor, a member of the Cabinet, said publicly a few days ago, ‘it is wholly wrong for any professional to be threatened, harassed or worse, attacked simply for doing their job – we must call it out and deal with it. And make the point that those who attack people providing a professional service will be subject to that very same rule of law.’”
The passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg on 18 September has deprived the Supreme Court of the United States of one of its keenest minds. Appointed to the SCOTUS by Bill Clinton in 1993, as the second woman ever to sit the bench, Ginsburg’s legal insights helped to steer the country towards major advancements in civil rights. By the time of her death at age 87, Ginsburg herself had become a national symbol for social justice.
Despite the brewing partisan battle over her now vacant seat on the SCOTUS, Justice Ginsburg will be remembered first for her achievements as a lawyer and a judge, and the far-reaching impact they have had on the shape of US law.
Ginsburg was initially seen as moderate in her views, though as the Supreme Court shifted towards the right with President Bush’s nominations of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito she became a prominent figure in its liberal wing. Playfully nicknamed “The Notorious RBG” by a law student – a moniker she later embraced – Ginsburg saw her image in popular culture shift from a reserved and soft-spoken junior justice to a staunchly vocal advocate for progress.
The transformation of her image came about in large part due to her dissenting opinions. Though she did not read dissents from the bench any more frequently than her colleagues, Ginsburg’s rejoinders drew acclaim for their incisiveness, as well as their often scathing undertones.
Possibly the most famous of Ginsburg’s dissents was delivered in 2007 in response to Ledbetter v Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. Lilly Ledbetter’s case, which alleged that she had been paid less than men who shared her position in an Alabama Goodyear Tire plant, was squashed in a 5-4 ruling by the court after finding she had waited too long to file suit. The outcome made it significantly harder for employees to file pay discrimination suits, especially if the pay disparity was not discovered for some time.
“In our view, the Court does not comprehend, or is indifferent to, the insidious way in which women can be victims of pay discrimination,” Ginsburg said, speaking for the minority. “Today’s decision counsels: “Sue early on, when it is uncertain whether discrimination accounts for the pay disparity you are beginning to experience. Indeed, initially you may not know that men are receiving more for substantially similar work. Of course, you are likely to lose such a less-than-fully-baked case. If you sue only when the pay disparity becomes steady and large enough to enable you to mount a winnable case, you will be cut off at the court’s threshold for suing ‘too late’”.”
Ginsburg then took the extraordinary step of encouraging Congress to “correct this Court's parsimonious reading of Title VII” – which they did. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 was the first piece of legislation signed into law by President Obama, and Ginsburg displayed a copy of it prominently in her chambers.
“In our view, the Court does not comprehend, or is indifferent to, the insidious way in which women can be victims of pay discrimination.”
One aspect of Ginsburg’s liberalism that persisted throughout her life was her advocacy for women’s rights. Prior to her appointment as a Justice, Ginsburg experienced sex-based discrimination first-hand during her education and working life, at one point being demoted in her job at a social security office after becoming pregnant with her first child. While working as a general counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) she cofounded the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project, and delivered her first successful argument before the Supreme Court in 1973 in Frontiero v Richardson by demonstrating that gender discrimination lay at the heart of the case.
Upon joining the SCOTUS, she continued to push for gender equality in all areas, and the victories she achieved would form the bedrock of her legacy. Her eventual triumph in Ledbetter v Goodyear was only one of the successes she achieved for women’s rights. Another groundbreaking example was United States v Virginia, which some analysts now regard as her most celebrated case.
Justice Ginsburg wrote the 7-1 majority opinion – one of her earliest and, at the time, a rare occurrence. She refuted the state-supported Virginia Military Institute (VMI)’s defence of its policy of admitting only qualified applicants who were male, finding it unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The VMI was the last exclusively male public university in the US, and United States v Virginia became a seminal case; with the ruling, the Supreme Court effectively struck down any law that, in Ginsburg’s words, “denies to women, simply because they are women, full citizenship stature”.
Other noteworthy cases followed, such as her emotionally charged dissent in defence of women’s reproductive rights in Gonzales v Carhart and her many repudiations of challenges against Roe v Wade, all of which helped to further cement the place of gender equality in US law. “I ask no favour for my sex,” she once said. “All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.”
[ymal]
Though it did not earn her as much household fame as her accomplishments for women’s enfranchisement, Ginsburg’s tenure on the Supreme Court was marked by insightful stances on intellectual property cases and support for the rights of content owners.
Speaking with Law360, Notre Dame Law School professor Mark McKenna remarked that Ginsburg was "the most pro-copyright, and the advocate for the strongest and longest protection” out of all the Supreme Court Justices of her time. Her pro-copyright stance transcended the usual political alliances of the Court, often causing her to clash with fellow liberal Justice Stephen Breyer.
Ginsburg’s most influential IP decision came in the Eldred v Ashcroft case, where she wrote the 7-2 majority opinion. The case upheld the Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA), which extended existing copyrights for 20 years beyond the limits that had previously been allowed under the law. Ginsburg wrote that the CTEA "continues the unbroken congressional practice of treating future and existing copyrights in parity for term extension purposes," and was therefore a permissible exercise of Congress's power under the Copyright Clause.
Her final majority opinion as a Justice was given on the landmark United States Patent and Trademark Office v Booking.com BV, wherein she wrote that Booking.com and other “.com” names should be treated as nongeneric, protectable trademarks – clearing the way for a slew of eCommerce companies to have their names trademarked.
Though she will likely be most cited as a proponent of gender equality, it would perhaps be more broadly accurate to describe Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s career as a pursuit of justice in all forms. From headline-making events like her siding with the 5-4 majority to legalise same-sex marriage nationwide in Obergefell v Hodges, to less-known efforts like her advocacy for pollution-impacted citizens’ ability to sue in Friends of the Earth Inc. v Laidlow Environmental Services, Justice Ginsburg’s most consistent aim as a judge was to expand access to the courts for groups who were previously denied it. Her remarkable skill secured rights for millions of Americans and ensured that there will be no shortage of new legal talents inspired to follow in her wake.
