Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

Author: William A. Jacobson

Profile photo

William A. Jacobson

William A. Jacobson is a Clinical Professor of Law and Director of the Securities Law Clinic at Cornell Law School.

He is a 1981 graduate of Hamilton College and a 1984 graduate of Harvard Law School. At Harvard he was Senior Editor of the Harvard International Law Journal and Director of Litigation for the Harvard Prison Legal Assistance Project.

Prior to joining the Cornell law faculty in 2007, Professor Jacobson had a highly successful civil litigation and arbitration practice in Providence, Rhode Island, concentrating in investment, employment, and business disputes in the securities industry, including many high profile cases reported in leading newspapers and magazines.

Professor Jacobson has argued cases in numerous federal and state courts, including the Courts of Appeal for the First, Fifth and Sixth Circuits, and the Rhode Island Supreme Court.

Professor Jacobson has a national reputation as a leading practitioner in securities arbitration. He was Treasurer, and is a former member of the Executive Committee and Board of Directors of the Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association, a professional organization of attorneys dedicated to protecting public investors. He frequently is quoted in national media on issues related to investment fraud and investor protection, and in the past has served as one of a small number of private practice attorneys who trained new arbitrators for the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.

Professor Jacobson is co-author of the Securities Arbitration Desk Reference (Thomson-Reuters), updated annually.

Professor Jacobson is frequently quoted in the media on political and legal topics, has authored many Op-Eds in major publications, and appears on television and radio to discuss politics and the law.

A more complete listing of Professor Jacobson's professional background is available at the Cornell Law School website. The views expressed here are his own and not those of any employer or organization,

The best way to reach Prof. Jacobson is by e-mail here.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on January 28, 2014 11 Comments
Filmmaker Quentin Tarantino is suing Gawker Media and related entities based on Gawker allegedly assisting in the distribution of a stolen film script:
Director Quentin Tarantino has filed a lawsuit against Gawker Media for copyright infringement. A week after declaring he would no longer make his next film "The Hateful Eight" because someone in his small circle had leaked the screenplay, director Quentin Tarantino has taken legal action against Gawker Media alleging copyright infringement for disseminating the script Tarantino's lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles on Monday, alleges that the web site Gawker disseminated "unauthorized downloadable copies of the leaked unreleased complete screenplay" and "expressly refused to remove their directions to and URL links to get the infringing materials." The director is demanding actual and statutory damages as well as Gawker's profits in the amount of at least $1 million. "Gawker Media has made a business of predatory journalism, violating people’s rights to make a buck," the complaint states. "This time, they went too far. Rather than merely publishing a news story reporting that Plaintiff’s screenplay may have been circulating in Hollywood without his permission, Gawker Media crossed the journalistic line by promoting itself to the public as the first source to read the entire screenplay illegally."
Not being a fan either of Tarantino's films, or of Gawker, I consider myself neutral. I read the Complaint. All Gawker did was promote the fact that it had links to others on the internet who had the script. That seems like a tough claim of copyright liability, but hey, presumably the plaintiffs' lawyers did the reasearch and think they have a legal claim. But still, just linking to others creates a copyright liability? Yikes, if that's true. Gawker is promising a fight:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on January 28, 2014 11 Comments
On Saturday, January 24, I appeared on the syndicated radio show of our friend Pete "Da Tech Guy" Ingemi. I had a chance to talk about the backround and nature of the anti-Israel Boycott, Divest and Sanction (BDS) movement, most specifically the American Studies Association academic boycott of Israel. See our BDS and ASA tags for background. I discussed how the pushback against the academic boycott has been overwhelming, with over 200 university presidents, the major academic organizations, and 134 Congressmen denouncing the boycott. This fast rejection of the boycott by American civil and political society has made a pariah of the ASA and the supporters of academic boycotts. That is a significant achievement. But it's not enough. I also had a chance to announce the next phase of the opposition to the academic boycott movement (at 9:30)(full audio embedded at bottom of post):
"We're going to continue to push back, and you'll be hearing about those in coming months, we're not stopping now.... [T]he boycott is discrimination on the basis of national origin. While they don't boycott all Israeli academics, they only boycott Israeli academics, and that's national origin discrimination. And we're going to be, you know it hasn't really been publicly announced 'till now, but we're going to be going around the country, and wherever they meet, we're going to insist that universities and that municipalities apply their local anti-discrimination laws to these events. That if they're going to hold an event that's going to discriminate on the basis of national origin, we want the laws enforced as to them just as they would be to any other group. So it's going to be an active year, like I mentioned Legal Insurrection tends to take a fairly active approach to issues, we don't just write about them, we actually pursue them, and we're going to be pursuing them for the coming months and maybe the coming years."
This will be a joint project with Anne Sorock's Capitol City Project. At Legal Insurrection we are chronically short of time, manpower and resources, so CCP's help is greatly appreciated.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on January 27, 2014 18 Comments
Much like insurance, Hillary Clinton isn't bought, she's sold. And it's always been a hard sale. She has name recognition, and is the default candidate for a significant percentage of the electorate, but there's always been something missing. It's why Obama could appear out of nowhere to take her down, and it's why Elizabeth Warren could do the same thing if only she would run. That's why there is the Ready for Hillary shadow campaign apparatus -- we must want Hillary. The selling of Hillary by the Ready for Hillary PAC is playing out in the earliest stages of the Iowa caucuses, as Ruby Cramer at Buzzfeed reports, Clinton Supporters Want Iowa To Want Her:
After the meetings, the exhausted team declared the day a success. Attendees had been excited; had pinned “Iowans Ready for Hillary” buttons to their lapels; had smiled wide watching video clips from Clinton speeches; had even, at one point, broke into spontaneous applause and cheering at her mention. “If we build it, she will come,” said one of the meeting’s organizers, Bonnie Campbell, a former Iowa attorney general and Clinton administration appointee.... Another frustration emerged during meetings. In spending time and resources on a candidate who isn’t even in the race yet, some said, Ready for Hillary stages a “total inversion” of the traditional primary, as state Rep. Jo Oldson put it. Iowa, Oldson said, likes its candidates to beg voters — not the other way around. “This is just a different twist on how Iowans view getting into presidential campaigns,” she said. “It’s Iowa asking her to run, rather than the candidate asking Iowa to elect her.”
All this We Want You To Want Hillary stuff could backfire, as Michael Warren at The Weekly Standard points out, Hillary Supporters in Iowa: She Can't Be Seen As 'Ordained':

Posted by William A. Jacobson on January 27, 2014 18 Comments
Melissa Harris-Perry hosted a panel on the question: "Are attacks against Wendy Davis sexist or standard political fare?" Harris-Perry gave a pretty good intro, pointing out that narrative failures are political problems for women and for men. And she did highlight that Wendy Davis' narrative is not quite as portrayed in her campaign. But were the attacks "gendered" if not outright "sexist." Watch the video below. Does it strike you, as it did me, that the panelists could not generate any visible indignation over the supposedly sexist treatment of Davis? They mouthed the words, but seemed a bit shy about it after listening to Harris-Perry's intro about the discrepancies in Davis' narrative. Davis' parenting and maternal commitment were an express part of her narrative -- when that narrative failed, it was not gendered or sexist, it just was what it was. There was no dissent among the panelists. Jonathan Capehart particularly dropped the ball by suggesting that Newt Gingrich is an example of a man leaving his first wife and kids behind who did not pay a price. But in fact, Newt has been excoriated for it and it was a damaging blow to his presidential ambitions, as I explained to Kirsten Powers. This should have been a panel that breathed "sexism" fire. That all they could muster were a few glowing embers of "sexism" tells you something right there. There doesn't appear to be any fire in the belly even at MSNBC to defend Wendy Davis' failed personal narrative. Here's the video, in two parts:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on January 27, 2014 30 Comments
Dinesh D'Souza allegedly violated campaign finance laws through a relatively small scheme to have friends donate $20,000 to Republican Senate candidate Wendy Long, who had little chance of defeating Kirsten Gillibrand in 2012. The alleged illegality was that D'Souza would reimburse them, thereby allowing him to exceed the individual campaing donation limits. It he did it, it's hard to excuse. He must have known about the campaign limits. But such small-scale violations of campaign finance law often are treated as civil matters, with fines. When the Obama campaign turned off credit card security features that would prevent foreign donations, it didn't even get a slap on the wrist. When the Obama campaign was caught hiding over $1 million in excess donations, it merely was fined:
Barack Obama's presidential campaign has been fined $375,000 by the Federal Election Commission for violating federal disclosure laws, Politico reports. An FEC audit of Obama for America's 2008 records found the committee failed to disclose millions of dollars in contributions and dragged its feet in refunding millions more in excess contributions.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on January 27, 2014 17 Comments
A legislator in Oklahoma has proposed legislation to ease the "zero tolerance" school policies that have created absurdities in which young children with toy or imaginary guns are punished. We're seen so many of these instances: The legislator has an opponent, the Oklahoma Education Association, as explained in this report:
A proposed law that would ease school rules when it comes to fake weapons is causing a stir. It's called the "Common Sense Zero Tolerance Act" and the bill's author says it will protect children in school. "Real intent, real threats and real weapons should always be dealt with immediately. We need to stop criminalizing children's imagination and childhood play," explained Sally Kern, Republican from Oklahoma City. "If there's no real intent, there's no real threat, no real weapon, no real harm is occurring or going to occur, why in the world are we in a sense abusing our children like this." .... It also prevents schools from punishing students "using a finger or hand to simulate at weapon," "vocalizing imaginary firearms" or "drawing a picture of a firearm." But the Oklahoma Education Association isn't on board with Kern's proposed law.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on January 25, 2014 16 Comments
This apparently happened: So did this (via Twitchy): So did this:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on January 25, 2014 46 Comments
There is a growing attempt to paint Wendy Davis as the victim of a double standard, in which a woman is treated more harshly than conservative men as to family failings and career ambition. Kirsten Powers articulated that view in her post at The Daily Beast, The Right Subjects Wendy Davis to Litmus Tests No Male Would Ever Face (interestingly, the title shows up in search engines as "Wendy Davis the Piñata Parent," not sure if that was the original title):
It seems that Wendy Davis needs to learn her place.... It’s fair to criticize Davis for her misleading bio that implied she had been a single mother during law school. Instead, a misogynistic mob is determined to punish her for her parenting choices.... Where were the headlines claiming the unfitness of male Republican candidates who ditched wives with whom they had children (think Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani)? Or are we to understand that conservatives believe that cheating on a spouse and getting divorced is not relevant, but giving your husband full custody of a child is?
Similarly, Politico Magazine has a lead article playing up the "Wendy as victim of sexism" defense.  In The Most Judged Woman in America, the sub-title tells the story:
Wendy Davis did make a mistake. She thought that we were ready for a single mother.
Just Google "Wendy Davis Sexism" and you will see that these two examples above are not exceptions, they are part of a pattern of defending Davis. There is no double standard. Both Newt Gingrich and John McCain were seriously attacked because of their treatment of first wives and kids, as I shared with Powers in a Twitter exchange:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on January 25, 2014 18 Comments

RIP, The Professor: TV’s Most Famous Professor Dies at Age 89 Because real life professors could not live up to The Professor: The Loss of Trust in Higher Education Nasty guy: Rural Schools Targeted by Obama Administration during Sequestration Don't rub it in: Job Prospects for College Grads in Two Charts Student Debt:...

Posted by William A. Jacobson on January 25, 2014 7 Comments

We have faced the problem of the Big Google Algorithm in the Sky before. Vicious smirkle (Alan Grayson) Vicious Smirkle, Part 2 (Democratic Senate campaign) Michele (Walk) Hansen noted at the time: Well, sure, some people got sick, sadistic enjoyment costing Alan Grayson money, but there was a problem: The more you...

Posted by William A. Jacobson on January 24, 2014 61 Comments
Naomi Schaefer Riley writing in The NY Post has a brutal assessment of why Wendy Davis has no future in politics. It's a brutal assessment that I think is right, and one that will drive Davis' most ardent supporters crazy because it cannot be wordsmithed or talking-pointed. The problem gets to the deepest emotional level that cuts across the political spectrum:
After Jeff finished paying off the last of Wendy’s school loans, she filed for divorce and gave up custody of her children. According to Jeff, his wife just decided, “While I’ve been a good mother, it’s not a good time for me right now.”.... There are single mothers all over the country in dire straits who can’t afford to have such a thought. And even if someone offered them the chance to get away from it all and start over without a child, few of them would say yes. Sure, there are women who pursue high-powered careers and need to spend time away from their children. Take Florida Rep. Deborah Wasserman Schultz, who (according to a recent New York Times blog) manages to do plenty with her 9-year-old and 13-year-old twins over the course of a weekend at home. She played basketball with her son, read with her daughter, shuttled one to ballet, took another to the bookstore and out to lunch. Still, when her son complains about her work schedule, she says, “My heart hurts.” Can you imagine Wasserman Schultz saying “it’s not a good time” for her to be a mother? ....

Posted by William A. Jacobson on January 23, 2014 24 Comments
Just last night Neo mentioned how Wendy Davis, both herself and via a support group (the Lone Star Project), were challenging Greg Abbott's courage. Now James O'Keefe has just released an undercover video of another group supporting Davis, the supposedly unaffiliated voter registration group Battleground Texas, laughing at Abbott being in a wheelchair and wondering how that would play out in the campaign. O'Keefe reports (h/t Gateway Pundit):
While investigating Obamacare Navigators, Battleground Texas, and their connection to Obama’s Organizing for America, we caught some deeply offensive comments on tape. It seems Battleground Texas and Wendy Davis’ strategy to win the Governor’s seat is to mock Attorney General Abbott’s disability. We caught Davis supporters and Battleground Texas staff on tape making crude statement such as “isn’t that amazing to think of? He’s in a wheelchair and we want to stand with Wendy?” Even more disturbing was an election official who when asked about forging signatures covered her ears and then went on to admit, “People do that all the time.” A Battleground Texas volunteer then added, “I don’t think it’s legal but I didn’t hear you say that.”
Yes, of course Davis is not responsible for everything every supporter says, but Battleground Texas is a key part of her campaign strategy, part of the Turn Texas Blue project. This video does seems to fit in with the culture surrounding Davis' campaign, brought into the open by her attacks on Abbott after the Dallas Morning News exposed her personal narrative. Updates:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on January 23, 2014 19 Comments
We have been covering the case of the Romeikes, devout Christians from Germany who wanted to homeschool their children because of what they perceived as the secularist agenda in German public schools. They fled and sought asylum in the U.S. after they faced mounting fines and the potential of imprisonment: After losing in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, the Romeikes on October 10, 2013, filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari seeking to have the U.S. Supreme Court take the case. On October 29 the government waived its right to respond, but on November 19 the Supreme Court asked the government to respond to the Petition.  That response was filed two days ago (see embed at bottom of post).  It's hard to know when the Court will rule on whether to take the case. For an indication of what is at stake for the Romeikes if they are forced back to Germany, consider the case of the Wunderlich family:
DARMSTADT, Germany, January 16, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In a shocking verdict regarding a homeschool case in Germany, a family court judge has refused to return legal custody of four children to Christian parents to prevent the family from obtaining visas that would allow them to travel to a country where homeschooling is permitted. In his December ruling against the Wunderlich family, judge Marcus Malkmus called homeschooling a “concrete endangerment to the well-being of the child,” comparing it to a “straitjacket” that he said binds children to “years of isolation.”

“The request of the parents to reinstate their right to determine the location of the children, the right to make educational decisions for the children, as well as the right to file legal applications for their children is being refused,” the judge stated.

Accessibility by WAH