Constitutional Law

Koppelman Says Focus on Footnote Misguided

The criticism of Dawn Johnsen's nomination to head the Office of Legal Counsel has centered on a footnote in a 1990 article written by Northwestern Law Prof. Andrew Koppelman. Conservative senators are claiming that Koppelman's article asserts that Johnsen analogized being denied reproductive rights to involuntary servitude, which was banned by the Thirteenth Amendment. Now, Koppelman says such charges are incorrect.

In his piece 'Lying about Dawn Johnsen' on Balkinization, Koppelman explains: [emphasis added]

Johnsen … has been accused of misrepresenting a position she took in litigation, and I have been cited as authority against Prof. Johnsen. On this basis, Republican senators are considering a filibuster against the nomination.

The accusation is false, and the reliance on my writings distorts what I wrote.

Koppelman's letter to Sen. Specter further states:

Nowhere in my article [relied upon by senators opposing Johnsen's nomination] do I cite, much less discuss, the brief written by Johnsen. I was fully aware of Johnsen's brief when I wrote my article, but decided not to mention it because, unlike the California NOW brief, her brief does not make or endorse a Thirteenth Amendment argument.

Full post as published by ACS Blog on April 03, 2009 (boomark / email).