Image 01 Image 03

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.

Wendy Davis rose to national prominence when she conducted a filibuster to block a Texas bill restricting non-medically necessary abortions after 20-weeks. For that position, which is wildly unpopular, Davis became the next Elizabeth Warren -- the Great White Hope in pink sneakers. Erick Erickson dubbed her "Abortion Barbie," which led to howls of sexism. But as I explained in Why is “Abortion Barbie” off limits for Wendy Davis?, Barbie and Ken analogies in politics are quite common. Erickson's remark was directed not at Davis' gender, but her self-professed ignorance of the Kermit Gosnell House of Abortion Horrors. That someone running on a pro-late term abortion platform didn't know about the biggest abortion story of the year made her look, well, like a plastic impression. Like Elizabeth Warren, whose life story does not hold up to scrutiny, Davis appears to have narrative problems, as detailed today by The Dallas Morning News, As Wendy Davis touts life story in race for governor, key facts blurred:
Wendy Davis has made her personal story of struggle and success a centerpiece of her campaign to become the first Democrat elected governor of Texas in almost a quarter-century. While her state Senate filibuster last year captured national attention, it is her biography — a divorced teenage mother living in a trailer who earned her way to Harvard and political achievement — that her team is using to attract voters and boost fundraising.

Because we focus so much on the Boycott, Divest, Sanction movement on campuses, it's easy to get the impression that such anti-Israeli students are the majority. They are not. They are just the loud mouths, who scream, call people names, and built idiotic mock walls and checkpoints -- for which they never include mock suicide bombers or shrapnel backpack bombs for context. While it is true that anti-Israel sentiment has grown among some sectors of the student body, students remain mostly pro-Israel or -- like students tend to be -- apathetic. A case in point to debunk the myth would be The University of Pennsylvania, which has seen some of the worst of the anti-Israel BDS movement, as detailed in my post in February 2012, Anti-Israel sickness on display at U. Penn:
Israel Matzavand JWeekly have good write-ups of the anti-Israel derangement at the University of Pennsylvania, which hosted a Boycott Divest Sanction conference.  Not Boycott Divest Sanction Syria, or Saudi Arabia, or Iran … just Israel. We have featured these anti-Semitic — yes that’s what they are by their actions – before, but they are far more vicious and devious than most people understand, and one of their primary goals is the indoctrination of college students into the anti-Israel movement. This audio shows a U. Penn. professor discussing how to work anti-Israel agitation into classes that have nothing to do with Israel:

We have noted before the tensions between white liberal feminists and non-white liberal feminists. Sometimes it breaks out into a Twitter War, as it did when #SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen hashtag unleashed bitter intra-feminist racial grievances. Or when Joan Walsh of Salon.com got into a twitter war with some ladies who did not like Walsh's condescending "professional left" attitude towards women of color, Dem Base Fractures Into Twitter War And Charges Of Racism Against Professional Left. This past week, for reasons unknown to me, the eruption used the hashtag #WhiteWomanPrivilege. It was like Festivus, the airing of grievances: There was not enough popcorn growing in the States of Iowa and Nebraska combined to cover this outbreak of intra-feminist racial greivances. Here are some of my favorites, but by all means scroll through the hashtag -- but don't get any butter on the couch please:

I recently was referred to disparagingly as a mere "blogger," by an attorney in a matter I was reporting about, in an email in which "reply to all" was mistakenly selected. It was disappointing at many levels, particularly given the person the attorney was representing, but not really surprising. Well, buddy, I got rights. Via Eugene Volokh, Bloggers = Media for First Amendment Libel Law Purposes:
So holds today’s Obsidian Finance Group v. Cox (9th Cir. Jan. 17, 2014) (in which I represented the defendant). To be precise, the Ninth Circuit concludes that all who speak to the public, whether or not they are members of the institutional press, are equally protected by the First Amendment. To quote the court,
The protections of the First Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was a trained journalist, formally affiliated with traditional news entities, engaged in conflict-of-interest disclosure, went beyond just assembling others’ writings, or tried to get both sides of a story. As the Supreme Court has accurately warned, a First Amendment distinction between the institutional press and other speakers is unworkable: “With the advent of the Internet and the decline of print and broadcast media … the line between the media and others who wish to comment on political and social issues becomes far more blurred.” Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 352. In defamation cases, the public-figure status of a plaintiff and the public importance of the statement at issue — not the identity of the speaker — provide the First Amendment touchstones.
I think that’s right, not just as a matter of First Amendment principle but also as a matter of history and precedent.... The specific legal issue that the Ninth Circuit was confronting in this passage, by the way, is whether all who speak to the public are equally protected by the Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. rules, which are that

Unsustainable: Scary Chart of the Day Recent Grads Struggle to Find Jobs That Require a Bachelor’s Degree Prediction: How the College Bubble Will Burst Loyola University Trims Deficit by $2 Million Through Faculty Buyouts 2014 Law School Applications Plummet Why Law School Can’t be “Fixed” From Within Zionist Entity-Loving Neo-Colonialist Israel Lobbyists: UCLA...

We previously have written about the copyright and trademark lawsuit by North Jersey Media Group against Sarah Palin and SarahPAC over a single use by Palin in a 9/11 Facebook post of a photo of fireman raising the U.S. Flag at Ground Zero. We also previously noted that the claim in plaintiff's papers that Palin used the image for fundraising seemed to be a real stretch (at best). There was no evidence attached to the Complaint showing any specific fundraising. Plaintiff's claim appears to be that anything that takes place in Palin's name or at SarahPAC constitutes fundraising. Palin and SarahPAC moved to dismiss the case for faiture to state a legal claim, or alternatively, to transfer the case to Alaska since New York had no connection to the dispute. In an Order filed today, the Judge granted the motion to transfer, but to New Jersey where NJMG is headquartered. Given the transfer, the Judge deferred ruling on the merits of the motion to dismiss to whichever federal judge gets assigned in New Jersey. It will be interesting to see if NJMG continues to fight the lawsuit, which makes no sense given that the photo clearly was not used for fundraising and was taken down quickly. Indeed, as previously noted, there is an issue as to whether Palin and SarahPAC even received actual notice of the takedown demand prior to the filing of the lawsuit just two days after the Facebook post was made. Here is the substantive text of the Order (embedded below):

I guess this was a surprise to most people, including me, via Fox News:
Sen. Tom Coburn, one of Washington’s leading and most fiscally conservative lawmakers, announced Thursday he would be stepping down at the end of the year. The Republican from Oklahoma had previously announced he would not seek reelection but his latest comments have him leaving Congress two years sooner than he previously planned. Coburn has been suffering from a recurrence of prostate cancer and hinted about his departure during an interview with reporters last week. “Serving as Oklahoma’s senator has been, and continues to be, one of the great privileges and blessings of my life," said Coburn, 65. "But after much prayer and consideration, I have decided that I will leave my Senate seat at the end of this Congress."
He was best known for his Wastebook releases on absurd federal spending:

Obama just completed his speech on NSA reforms. Below the key video portion of the speech (full text here). I found this part to be a key dose of reality often lacking from the debate:
First, everyone who has looked at these problems, including skeptics of existing programs, recognizes that we have real enemies and threats, and that intelligence serves a vital role in confronting them. We cannot prevent terrorist attacks or cyber-threats without some capability to penetrate digital communications – whether it's to unravel a terrorist plot; to intercept malware that targets a stock exchange; to make sure air traffic control systems are not compromised; or to ensure that hackers do not empty your bank accounts. Moreover, we cannot unilaterally disarm our intelligence agencies. There is a reason why blackberries and I-Phones are not allowed in the White House Situation Room. We know that the intelligence services of other countries – including some who feign surprise over the Snowden disclosures – are constantly probing our government and private sector networks, and accelerating programs to listen to our conversations, intercept our emails, or compromise our systems. Meanwhile, a number of countries, including some who have loudly criticized the NSA, privately acknowledge that America has special responsibilities as the world's only superpower; that our intelligence capabilities are critical to meeting these responsibilities; and that they themselves have relied on the information we obtain to protect their own people.
Whether the "reforms" are meaningful in protecting the privacy of law-abiding Americans is another questions.

A total of 134 Members of the House of Representatives have signed a letter, organized by the offices of Reps. Peter Roksam (R) and Ted Deutch (D) condeming the academic boycott of Israel passed by the American Studies Assoction. The effort was truly bipartisan, with 65 Republicans and 69 Democrarts signing.  The full list of signatories is at the bottom of this post. As previously reported, the congressional organizers were hoping for 50 signatures, so the response was better than expected. Gathering signatures on short notice was difficult, one of the staffers explained to me, because of the press of House business before members left today on break. In a Press Release by the Office of Rep. Peter Roksam, the background of the letter was explained:
Today, a bipartisan coalition of House lawmakers condemned the American Studies Association’s (ASA) academic boycott of Israel. 134 Members of Congress, led by Reps. Peter Roskam (R-IL), Ted Deutch (D-FL), Doug Collins (R-GA), and Brad Schneider (D-IL), sent a letter to ASA President Curtis Marez opposing ASA’s boycott as bigoted and an affront to academic freedom. “We come together—Democrats and Republicans alike—to strongly condemn the ASA boycott, which undermines academic freedom and exhibits flagrant prejudice against the Jewish State of Israel,” said the House lawmakers. “This boycott doesn’t advance peace between Israelis and Palestinians, but only reinforces dangerous stereotypes that limit mutual understanding and cooperation—two things that should be at the very heart of our academic endeavors. We therefore cannot tolerate these ignorant smear campaigns to isolate Israel and deteriorate the historic U.S.-Israel relationship.”
The letter reads, in full:

For those of you who have been reading Legal Insurrection since the early days, the name Bill Owens may be familiar. Owens won the 2009 special election in what then was the NY-23 District (since reconfigured and now NY-21) against the insurgent conservative candidate Doug Hoffman.  In a precursor to the Tea Party uprising, Hoffman ran as a third party candidate and was surging ahead of liberal Republican Dede Scozzafava in a traditionally Republican District. Robert Stacy McCain did extensive on-the-ground reporting on the race, and has a special emnity for mainstream Republican endorsements of Scozaffava from Newt Gingrich and others: Twitter RS McCain Hoffman The Hoffman surge also was a chance for Democrats to test the Tea Party Demonization strategy that continues to this day. Rather than allow the conservative to win, Scozzafava dropped out of the race and backed Democrat Owens.  The influential Watertown Times also switched its endorsement based on Owens' promise to keep bringing home federal port to the district, something Hoffman opposed as a fiscal conservative. Here are some posts from way back:

There has been a mostly quiet refusal of county and local officials to implement and enforce the onerous provisions of the NY State gun law rushed through the state legislature in almost comical fashion after the Newtown, CT, school shooting. In the rush to legislate, the text of the law failed to exempt police and other law enforcement from limits on the number of rounds in a magazine, and imposed a ludicrous 7-round magazine limit that even the State agreed was unworkable.  That 7-round limit has been declared unconstitutional by a federal court, although the rest of the law was upheld. But what has slowed the law the most was an upstate insurrection, where almost every county legislature declared its opposition, and many clerks and local police simply ignored the law. Local Sheriff groups have come out against the law as have police unions. The Ithaca Journal reports on the result:
When a gunman killed 26 people in Newtown, Conn., in December 2012, New York’s top elected leaders rushed to toughen state gun laws in a month’s time. Propelled by the flash of emotions following the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, the state Legislature approved the NY Safe Act on Jan. 15, 2013, and Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed it hours later. Now, a year later, the new gun law has yet to be effectively implemented. Officially called the NY Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act, the law regulates weapons ownership, sales, permits and ammunition. In dozens of interviews with The Ithaca Journal, county sheriffs, county clerks, a retailer, a target shooter and a hunting guide described the law’s shortcomings, administrative delays and a maze of gun permit paperwork that some local public officials predict will take years to sort out. Those delays and flaws have weakened the enforcement of the SAFE Act — designed to protect New Yorkers from the national horror of mass shootings in schools, shopping centers and theaters.

On Monday I wrote how the Village of Cayuga Heights, bordering the Cornell University campus and the City of Ithaca, has spent $2,984 per deer in  a sterilization program which had no hope of reducing the deer population to an environmentally safe level. A reader just emailed me with a press release issued this morning by the NY State Department of Environmental Conservation declaring war on deer in the central Tompkins County area in and around Ithaca:
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation sent this bulletin on 01/15/2014 12:59 PM EST DEC Press Release Hello, The NYS Department of Environmental Conservation has issued the following press release:

Special Deer Hunting Season in Central Tompkins County to Help Control Local Deer Population

Deer Management Focus Area Open Until January 31, 2014

A special deer hunting season to help control the deer population in and around the city of Ithaca, Tompkins County, will be open until January 31, 2014, State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Regional Director Ken Lynch announced today. The Deer Management Focus Area (DMFA) program was initiated in 2012 in the Ithaca area to expand the use of hunting to assist local communities burdened with overabundant deer populations. The DMFA encompasses 60,000 acres of land in and around the city of Ithaca, including the city and town of Ithaca, the villages of Cayuga Heights and Lansing, and parts of the towns of Danby, Caroline, Dryden, Lansing, Enfield, Newfield and Ulysses.

We previously wrote in detail about the “John Doe” investigation in Wisconsin targeting a wide range of conservative groups and Scott Walker supporters relating to the failed Democratic attempt to recall Walker.  See Secret probe of conservatives makes Wisconsin ground zero in First Amendment war for the details. We also noted the Big defeat for anti-conservative Wisconsin “John Doe” probe, when a judge recently quashed subpoenas. In a new development, Eric O'Keefe, one of the targets of the investigation, is demanding that the prosecutors end the probe or face a federal lawsuit (full media release embedded at bottom of post):
Eric O’Keefe, who has been identified in media reports as a target of a secret “John Doe” investigation in Wisconsin, today demanded that state prosecutors end their action against him or face a federal civil rights action. O’Keefe is director of the Wisconsin Club for Growth, which was also targeted for alleged unlawful “coordination” with Governor Scott Walker’s campaign for fiscal reforms. “This investigation is political payback by elected prosecutors against conservative activists for their political successes in Wisconsin,” stated O’Keefe. “They are violating the constitutional rights of private citizens and must be held accountable.”

For background, see my prior posts: The letter will be finalized tomorrow morning as the House goes into recess Friday and many members leave tomorrow afternoon.  The letter is being coordinated through the offices of Representatives Peter Roksam (R) and Ted Deutch (D). With the crush of business before the recess, it's hard to get the attention of Representatives. Is your House Representative on the list of signatories? If not, now is the time to reach out to their offices and find out why not TODAY. You can find your Representative and office contact information here: Find Your Representative. Here is the current list: UPDATE, list closes 9 a.m. Eastern, Thursday, so if your Rep has not signed by then, too late.