Articles Posted in Commentary and Opinion

FROM THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF LAW LIBRARIES (AALL)

Dear Colleagues,

The American Association of Law Libraries (AALL) is deeply concerned by the recent dismissal of the Librarian of Congress and Register of Copyrights. As the head of the Library of Congress, home to the Law Library of Congress and one of the most important public institutions in the world, the Librarian of Congress plays a critical role in ensuring access to accurate, reliable, and nonpartisan legal and legislative information. This is an essential part of civic understanding and democratic governance.

The Library of Congress serves as the research arm of Congress, houses the U.S. Copyright Office, and maintains one of the most comprehensive collections of knowledge and culture worldwide. Its ongoing modernization and commitment to public access are especially important at a time when trustworthy information is increasingly at risk.

The Law Library of Congress is also a vital public institution. Its extensive collections include U.S. federal and state laws, legal materials from nearly every country, and documents from international and regional organizations. These resources help people understand legal systems in the United States and globally. The Law Library ensures this information is preserved, organized, and accessible to all.

The Register of Copyrights registers copyright claims, maintains public records, and administers U.S. copyright law. This position has long been nonpartisan and housed within the Library of Congress to uphold professional independence and public trust. Law library professionals are deeply concerned about the Register’s recent dismissal. An independent Copyright Office is essential to ensuring continued access to legal information, protecting intellectual property rights, and supporting the lawful use and sharing of copyrighted works. Removing the Register without transparency undermines the legal framework libraries, researchers, and the public rely on to access trusted and authenticated resources.

Librarians play a unique role in making complex information understandable and available. Among the many individuals and entities their work supports are the courts, legislatures, researchers, and the general public. These roles must be protected from undue external pressure. Undermining their independence threatens the stability and credibility of institutions that serve the public good.

AALL stands with our colleagues at the Library of Congress and across the legal profession who work every day to protect access to the law and are essential to supporting transparency, accountability, and justice. We reaffirm the principles that must guide appointments to positions of public trust: professional expertise, institutional independence, and a strong commitment to public service. We know our members are watching closely, and we share their concern. AALL remains committed to defending the integrity of public access to legal information and the professionals who make it possible.

306a3f1c-f59e-475b-896f-b364d92d7ac9
Cornell H. Winston

AALL President

“This year’s celebration of Law Day is much different than any we have ever faced. Our justice system and profession face grave risks due to the clear pattern of statements and actions by elected and appointed officials that threaten the rule of law. These include attacks on the judiciary and the legal profession, retaliation against those who disagree with government actions, and efforts to penalize those who seek to eliminate bias in our justice system and profession and enhance diversity. The frequency and intensity of these attacks are escalating. You read about them every day. We, [ the ABA] have spoken strongly and clearly about these threats. Make no mistake. Our judicial system, profession and the principles we have cherished for 250 years are at risk”  ABA Fights for the rule of law.

BAR ORGANIZATIONS’ STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE RULE OF LAW.

There are clear choices facing our profession. We can choose to remain silent and allow these acts to continue or we can stand for the rule of law and the values we hold dear. We call upon the entire profession, including lawyers in private practice from Main Street to Wall Street, as well as those in corporations and who serve in elected positions, to speak out against intimidation.

To those of us who have benefited from SLA membership, this announcement is sad news. After 116 years of dedicated service to information professionals and specialized librarians, the Special Libraries Association (SLA) has announced its decision to initiate a dissolution process. The global organization, known for its unwavering support in the field, has been a cornerstone for professionals seeking specialized knowledge and resources. This marks the end of an era for the profession as we reflect on the significant contributions and impact the SLA has had over more than a century.

Announcement of SLA dissolution:

The Special Libraries Association (SLA), a global organization dedicated to supporting information professionals and specialized librarians, has announced it will begin a dissolution process after 116 years of service to the profession.

This posting consists of commentary on  Roger Citron’s article, Judge Wilkinson’s Dualist Opinion in Abrego Garcio v. Noem: Judicial Review of Executive Action in a Transformative Time amplified with information from additional sources related to Bruce Ackerman’s theory of the United States as a dualist democracy.

In his article, Roger Citron revisits Bruce Ackerman’s theory of the United States as a dualist democracy, presenting a timely analysis of how this framework sheds light on current constitutional tensions. Through a close reading of Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III’s opinion in Abrego Garcia v. Noem, Citron suggests we may be witnessing an effort at higher lawmaking—a constitutional transformation driven not just by legal arguments, but by political and public realignment.

Ackerman’s concept of dualist democracy, introduced in We the People: Foundations, distinguishes between two modes of governance (Bruce Ackerman, We the People: Foundations 6–8 (1991),

The digital age has dramatically expanded how we connect, communicate, and share. Yet with these advances come new risks—especially for vulnerable individuals targeted through online platforms. One of the most alarming forms of harm emerging in this environment is cyber sexual misconduct, which encompasses a broad range of non-consensual, sexually inappropriate behaviors conducted via digital means.

As technology evolves faster than the law can keep up, cyber sexual misconduct presents pressing questions about privacy, consent, and accountability. Increasingly, these acts are being recognized not merely as ethical violations, but as criminal offenses requiring serious legal and societal responses.

What Is Cyber Sexual Misconduct?

The U.S. Constitution enshrines a system of separation of powers, ensuring that legislative, executive, and judicial branches operate independently while keeping one another in check. This structure is meant to prevent the concentration of power and to safeguard individual liberty. But in recent years, many legal scholars, judges, and concerned citizens have raised a critical question: Has the balance of power shifted too far in favor of the Executive Branch?

Following a brief discussion about what the Founding Fathers believed about separation of powers, this post examines key constitutional flashpoints—executive orders, emergency powers, war powers, pardons, and more—illustrating how modern challenges are testing the limits of our separation-of-powers framework.

What the Founding Fathers Believed About Separation of Powers

Report-April 11, 2025.

The Congressional Budget Office* “(CBO) provides an overview of federal tax credits that support investment in wind and solar electric power. The agency also explains how it assesses the credits’ budgetary and economic effects and how its baseline reflects JCT’s revenue estimates.”

SUMMARY:

These News Briefs and Decision Summaries are from  the  the New Jersey State Bar Association. They are an exclusive benefit of the Association in partnership with the New Jersey Law Journal. A subscription may be necessary to access the full text of some of the items listed:

NEWS BRIEFS:

Adopted August 2016; Revised Commentary 2017 and 2024.

FROM THE INTRODUCTION:

Persons with mental disorders are disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system. Studies suggest that anywhere from 16 to 24% of people in jails and prisons have a serious mental illness.1 This rate is three to 12 times higher than the rate of serious mental disability in the community, 2 and at least three times higher than the population in psychiatric hospitals.3 It also represents a vast increase over the incarceration rate of people with mental disability 30 years ago, when the first edition of these Standards was promulgated.4 If mental disorder is defined more broadly, to include personality disorders, the percentages involved in the criminal system skyrocket to over 50%.

Contact Information
OSZAR »