Professor Fish Writes for The Hill About Pulsifer v. United States

In an op-ed published in The Hill on Oct. 2, Professor Eric Fish and Ryan Stitt discuss a timely Supreme Court case, Pulsifer v. United States, that depends on the interpretation of the word "and." 

"If the court rules against the government, then thousands more federal defendants each year can avoid federal drug laws’ draconian mandatory minimum sentences," they wrote.

Professor Fish’s primary research is in criminal law, with particular focus on the ethical duties of participants in the criminal process, the structure of immigration crimes, and the system’s emphasis on administrative efficiency. Fish has served as a public defender, first with the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office, and later as a Federal Defender in San Diego.