Professors Brownstein Moderates Debate and Speaks at 2017 Sacramento Court/Clergy Conference

Professor Emeritus Alan Brownstein  played a significant role in the 2017 Sacramento Court/Clergy Conference, moderating a debate between UC Berkeley School of Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky and Chapman University Law Professor John Eastman that drew coverage in Sacramento Lawyer. Professor Brownstein also spoke at a subsequent meeting of lawyers and judges that grew out of the Court/Clergy Conference that was the subject of an article in the Daily Journal.

The Sacramento Court-Clergy Conference is an outreach effort sponsored by the Sacramento County Superior Court, the California Judges Foundation, and Brigham Young University. The October 19 event addressed multiple issues relating to the relationship between church and state in American society, including the conflict between the exercise of religious liberty and the guarantee of civil rights to the LGBT community. The conference highlight was the debate between Dean Chemerinsky and Professor Eastman over the Masterpiece Cakeshop case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Co-Directors of the UC Davis School of Law Immigration Law Clinic Professor Holly S. Cooper ’98 and Professor Amagda Pérez ’91 also spoke  at the conference, discussing immigration law and “sanctuary city” policies. Justice Louis Mauro ’87 of the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, delivered closing remarks.

Following the conference, Sacramento Superior Court Judge James M. Mize and Justice George W. Nicholson of the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, convened a small group of interested judges and lawyers on November 30 to discuss ways of moving past the divisiveness that may follow the Supreme Court’s decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop. In the Daily Journal account of the meeting, Professor Brownstein is credited with presenting issues in a way  that helped to avoid “superficial, knee-jerk understandings of the case and the conflict at large.”

Professor Brownstein is also quoted as saying that the parties involved could make efforts to help the public understand the Supreme Court’s ultimate decision. “It would be helpful,” he said, “if both sides of the dispute avoided overstating the decision’s meaning and consequences.”

Primary Category

Tags