Tag Archives: Los Angeles Times

Can Trump cut off funds for sanctuary cities? The Constitution says yes.

By David Rivkin and Elizabeth Price Foley

December 7, 2016, in the Los Angeles Times

But whatever one thinks about Trump’s strategy, it almost certainly would pass muster at the Supreme Court.Several cities and public universities have vowed to resist President-elect Donald Trump’s plan to deport undocumented criminals by doubling down on sanctuary policies. In response, Trump has pledged to curtail federal funding for sanctuary providers. Activists, predictably, are crying foul, and some legal scholars, such as Harvard’s Noah Feldman, have even claimed that such a response would be unconstitutional.  

Feldman and others point to New York v. United States (1992) and Printz v. United States (1997), in which the Supreme Court concluded that the federal government cannot conscript state or local officials to carry out federal law. The federal government must enforce its own laws, using federal personnel. So when state or local police arrest immigrants who are present in the country illegally, they are under no obligation to deport them, as deportation is the responsibility of the federal government alone. 

This “anti-commandeering” doctrine, however, doesn’t protect sanctuary cities or public universities — because it doesn’t apply when Congress merely requests information. For example, in Reno v. Condon (2000), the Court unanimously rejected an anti-commandeering challenge to the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act, which required states under certain circumstances to disclose some personal details about license holders. The court concluded that, because the DPPA requested information and “did not require state officials to assist in the enforcement of federal statutes,” it was consistent with the New York and Printz cases.

It follows that, consistent with the anti-commandeering doctrine, Congress can require state, local or university police to tell federal agents when they arrest an immigrant present in the country illegally.

It’s true that cities such as Los Angeles instruct city employees not to ask about immigration status, but they may still have access to that information. Under California law, for example, driver’s licenses issued to immigrants in the country illegally contain prominent distinguishing language stating, “federal limits apply.” Indeed, Congress could specify that licenses issued to immigrants in the country illegally must include a distinguishing feature, or they won’t be accepted for federal purposes, such as TSA airport security. Congress already has enacted the Real ID Act, which mandates that driver’s licenses display certain details.

A separate constitutional doctrine, the anti-coercion doctrine, likewise won’t shield sanctuaries. This doctrine holds that while Congress may impose conditions on receipt of federal funds, it cannot coerce states into accepting those conditions.

In the 1980s, Congress passed a law withholding 5% of highway funds from any state that refused to adopt a minimum drinking age of 21. The Supreme Court, in South Dakota v. Dole (1987), upheld it. Because highway funds are expended — in part — to ensure safe travel, the court reasoned that raising the drinking age was “relevant to the federal interest in the project and the overall objectives thereof.” More significantly, withholding 5% of federal funds wasn’t coercive because while it represented a loss of $615 million dollars, it was only 0.19% of states’ total budgets.

By contrast, in NFIB v. Sebelius (2012), the Supreme Court found that Congress violated the anti-coercion doctrine. Specifically, in the Affordable Care Act, Congress withheld 100% of states’ Medicaid funding if they didn’t expand those programs. A court plurality characterized this as a coercive “gun to the head” because it involved a loss of over $233 billion dollars — more than 20% of states’ budgets.

The South Dakota and NFIB cases teach that Congress can cut off funds if the conditions imposed are relevant “to the federal interest in the project” and the threatened loss of money doesn’t amount to a “gun to the head,” defined by a substantial percentage — approaching approximately 20% — of states’ budgets.

Congress certainly could meet these standards. Many federal programs provide billions to universities and state and local law enforcement. Provided the percentage withheld didn’t approach the 20% threshold, it should be constitutional. As with the highway funds in South Dakota, these programs are designed in part to improve safety of campuses and communities. This goal would be furthered by withholding funds from cities and universities that provide sanctuary for criminals present in the country illegally. Such individuals, by definition, not only are unvetted by the federal government, but have committed crimes while here.

Whatever one’s view of the best immigration policy, it should be uniform. Some, including the Washington Post’s editorial board, have suggested that Congress should give sanctuary cities flexibility to report only those who’ve committed the most serious violent offenses. But precisely which criminals should be subject to deportation requires resolution by Congress, not each city or university.

Sanctuary policies create Balkanization on an issue with important foreign policy implications and corresponding potential for diplomatic embarrassment. As the Supreme Court affirmed in Arizona v. United States (2012), “the removal process is entrusted to the discretion of the Federal Government” because it “touch[es] on foreign relations and must be made with one voice.”

The Constitution is clear that power to determine deportation policies belongs to Congress, not states, municipalities or universities.

David Rivkin and Elizabeth Price Foley practice appellate and constitutional law in Washington, D.C. Rivkin served at the Department of Justice and the White House Counsel’s office during the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations. Foley is also a professor of constitutional law at Florida International University College of Law.

Source: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-rivkin-foley-sanctuary-city-20161207-story.html


Justice Scalia kept constitutional originalism in the conversation — no small legacy

by David B. Rivkin Jr. & Lee A. Casey, in the Los Angeles Times

“I’m Scalia.” That’s how Justice Antonin Scalia began to question a nervous lawyer, who was mixing up the names of the nine Supreme Court justices during oral arguments on the controversial 2000 case Bush vs. Gore. His introduction should have been unnecessary, because if any justice dominated the contemporary Supreme Court stage, it was Scalia.

By turns combative, argumentative and thoughtful, Scalia was a stout conservative who transformed American jurisprudence in 34 years on the bench. He was also charming, witty and cordial, able to maintain a close friendship with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, perhaps his leading intellectual rival on the Supreme Court’s left wing.

Appointed to the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., by President Reagan in 1982, Scalia was elevated by Reagan to the Supreme Court in 1986. Scalia was, first and foremost, an “Originalist” — the title of a popular play about the justice that premiered last year in the capital. Scalia was not the first to argue that the Constitution must be applied based on the original meaning of its words — that is, the general, public meaning those words had when that document was drafted, rather than any assumed or secret intent of its framers. He did, however, supply much of the intellectual power behind the movement to reestablish the primacy of the Constitution’s actual text in judging.

With Scalia on the bench, academics, lawyers and jurists left, right and center were forced to confront originalist theory, which many had previously dismissed as hopelessly simplistic.

If there was one predominant thread running through Scalia’s cases it was a determination, consistent with his originalism, to limit the unelected judiciary’s power to the exercise of “merely judgment,” as characterized by Alexander Hamilton in a Federalist Papers passage that Scalia loved to quote. His view of the proper judicial role was driven by his belief that the Constitution assigned judges a modest part to play, both as to the types of issues they could resolve and the instances in which they could overturn choices made by elected officials.

Although the Constitution took disposition of some issues off the political table, Scalia understood that it nevertheless established a republic where on most matters the majority would rule. Individual liberty, he believed, was protected not only by specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights, but also by the system of checks and balances—limitations on the authority vested in government and the structural separation of powers among the three federal branches, as well as between the federal government and the states.

Indeed, Justice Scalia did as much or more to limit the scope of judicial power than any of his predecessors, particularly with respect to “standing” (who might have a sufficient case or controversy to litigate in federal courts), and his insistence that judges could enforce the law only as written, which could never be trumped by personal policy preferences.

It should come as no surprise that Scalia was not a great coalition builder or deal maker, joining only those majority opinions consistent with his guiding principles and dissenting in all other instances. For him, politicking and judging were simply incompatible.

He bristled at the idea that judges were the custodians of a “living Constitution” whose meaning they could change in accordance with “evolving standards.” As Scalia wrote dissenting from the court’s 2005 death penalty decision in Roper vs. Simmons: “On the evolving-standards hypothesis, the only legitimate function of this Court is to identify a moral consensus of the American people. By what conceivable warrant can nine lawyers presume to be the authoritative conscience of the Nation?”

Few justices could turn a phrase like Scalia, a talented writer. In one famous example, dissenting from a 1988 opinion upholding the now-defunct Independent Counsel Act, Scalia defended presidential power to control executive branch appointees by noting that “frequently an issue of this sort will come before the Court clad, so to speak, in sheep’s clothing…. But this wolf comes as a wolf.”

His pen could also be sharp. Recently, for example, in response to the majority opinion upholding a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, Scalia excoriated his colleagues: “The world does not expect logic and precision in poetry or inspirational pop-philosophy; it demands them in the law. The stuff contained in today’s opinion has to diminish this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis.” Love him or hate him, agree or disagree, no one can say that Scalia ever pulled a punch.

Scalia’s ultimate impact on American law will continue to unfold for decades to come, but one thing is certain. Before he joined the Supreme Court, judicial opinions could resolve constitutional issues with little discussion of that document’s original meaning. Today, jurists must at least confront it, even if they then resolve the issues based on the Constitution’s supposed living character. That is Scalia’s achievement, and it is no small thing.

David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey are constitutional lawyers who served in the Justice Department under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

Source: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0216-rivkin-casey-scalia-legacy-originalism-20160216-story.html

Ignore Trump — the issue of birthright citizenship has been settled

By DAVID RIVKIN, JOHN YOO, Sept. 6 2015 in the Los Angeles Times

Donald Trump’s call to end birthright citizenship has roiled the Republican presidential primary. Jeb Bush, John Kasich and Marco Rubio embrace the traditional view that the Constitution bestows citizenship on anyone born on U.S. territory. Ben Carson and Rand Paul agree with Trump that Congress could dismantle birthright citizenship by itself. Meanwhile, Ted Cruz acknowledges birthright citizenship but seeks a constitutional amendment to abolish it.

Conservatives should reject Trump’s nativist siren song and reaffirm the legal and policy vitality of one of the Republican Party’s greatest achievements: the 14th Amendment. Under its text, structure and history, anyone born on American territory, no matter their national origin, ethnicity or station in life, is a U.S. citizen.

Although the original Constitution required citizenship for federal office, it never defined it. The 14th Amendment, however, provides that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” Congress did not draft this language to alter the concept of citizenship but to affirm American practice dating from the origins of our republic.

With the exception of a few years before the Civil War, the United States followed the British rule of jus solis (citizenship defined by birthplace) rather than the rule of jus sanguinis (citizenship defined by that of parents), which still prevails in much of continental Europe. As the 18th century English jurist William Blackstone explained: “The children of aliens, born here in England, are generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such.”

After the Civil War, congressional Republicans drafted the 14th Amendment to correct one of slavery’s grave distortions of our law. In Dred Scott vs. Sanford (1857), Chief Justice Roger Taney found that slaves, even though born in the United States, could never become citizens. The 14th Amendment directly overruled Dred Scott by declaring that anyone born in the U.S., irrespective of race, is a citizen. It also removed from the majoritarian political process the ability to revoke the citizenship of children born to members of disfavored ethnic, religious or political minorities.

The only way to avoid this straightforward understanding is to misread “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as an exception that swallows the jus solis rule. Some scholars have argued that this language must refer to aliens, who owe allegiance to another nation and not the United States. We disagree.

Conservatives should reject Trump’s nativist siren song and reaffirm the legal and policy vitality of one of the Republican Party’s greatest achievements: the 14th Amendment.

Proponents of “allegiance” citizenship do not appreciate the consequences of opening this Pandora’s box. Among other problems, such a standard could spell trouble for millions of dual citizens, who certainly owe allegiance to more than one country. This is not an entirely speculative concern; during World Wars I and II, public sentiment ran strongly against German Americans or Japanese Americans.

More generally, the whole notion of national loyalty is open-ended, requires person specific determinations and would put the government in the business of reviewing the ancestry of its citizens. Washington and the states would have to pour even more resources into already dysfunctional immigration and security bureaucracies that cannot even control the borders. Reading allegiance into the 14th Amendment would largely defeat the intent of its drafters, who wanted to prevent politicians from denying citizenship to those they considered insufficiently American.

As a matter of constitutional interpretation, the 14th Amendment’s reference to jurisdiction means only that the children fall under American law at birth. Almost everyone in the United States, even aliens, come within our jurisdiction; otherwise, they could violate the law with impunity. “Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” refers to discrete categories of people that American law does not govern, such as diplomats and enemy soldiers occupying U.S. territory during war. International law grants both diplomats and enemy soldiers protected status, when present on the soil of another state, from the application of that state’s laws.

At the time of the 14th Amendment’s ratification, one obvious group not subject to U.S. jurisdiction: Native Americans living on tribal lands; the tribes exercised considerable self-governance. In the late 19th century, the federal government began to regulate Indian life, substantially diminishing tribal sovereignty and in 1924 extended birth citizenship to them as well.

The 14th Amendment’s drafting history supports our reading. The Civil Rights Act of 1866, which inspired the amendment, guaranteed birthright citizenship to anyone born in the U.S. except those “subject to any foreign power” and “Indians not taxed.” If the 14th Amendment’s drafters had wanted “jurisdiction” to exclude children of aliens, they easily could have repeated the “foreign power” line.

Significantly, congressional critics of the amendment recognized the broad sweep of the birthright citizenship language. Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania, a leading opponent, asked: “Is the child of the Chinese immigrant in California a citizen? Is the child born of a Gypsy born in Pennsylvania a citizen?” Sen. John Conness of California responded yes, and later lost his seat because of anti-Chinese sentiment in his state. The original public meaning of the 14th Amendment, which conservatives properly believe to be the lodestar of constitutional interpretation, affirms birthright citizenship.

Our position, finally, works no great legal revolution. The Supreme Court has consistently read the 14th Amendment to grant birthright citizenship. United States vs. Wong Kim Ark (1898) upheld the American citizenship of a child born in San Francisco to Chinese parents, who themselves could never naturalize under the Chinese Exclusion Acts. The court held that “the 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens.” It also explicitly rejected the argument that aliens, because they owed allegiance to a foreign nation, were not within the jurisdiction of the United States.

Critics of birthright citizenship respond that the Wong Kim Ark decision does not apply to the children of undocumented immigrants because Wong’s parents lived here legally. But in 1898, federal law did not distinguish between “legal aliens” and “illegal aliens,” so the court’s opinion could not turn on the parents’ legal status.

In Plyler vs. Doe (1982), moreover, the Supreme Court held 5 to 4 that the equal protection clause required Texas to provide public schooling to children of unauthorized immigrants. All nine justices agreed that “no plausible distinction with respect to the 14th Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.”

The 14th Amendment settled the question of birthright citizenship once and for all. Conservatives should not be the ones seeking a new law, or even a constitutional amendment to reverse centuries of American tradition.

David Rivkin is a constitutional litigator and served in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations. John Yoo is a professor of law at UC Berkeley and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. He served in the George W. Bush administration.

Source: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0906-rivkin-yoo-birthright-citizenship-20150906-story.html

The Supreme Court’s bad call on Affordable Care Act

By DAVID B. RIVKIN JR., ELIZABETH PRICE FOLEY, Los Angeles Times, June 29, 2015

In King vs. Burwell, the Supreme Court ruled that the Affordable Care Act permits individuals who purchase insurance on the federal exchange to receive taxpayer subsidies. Though the King decision pleases the ACA’s ardent supporters, it undermines the rule of law, particularly the Constitution’s separation of powers.

Under Section 1401 of the ACA, tax credits are provided to individuals who purchase qualifying health insurance in an “[e]xchange established by the State under Section 1311.” Section 1311 defines an exchange as a “governmental agency or nonprofit entity that is established by a State.”

As Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent notes, one “would think the answer would be obvious” that pursuant to this clear language, subsidies are available only through state-established exchanges.

Yet the King majority ignored what the ACA actually says, in favor of what the Obama administration believes it ought to have said, effectively rewriting the language to read “exchange established by the State or federal government.”

Scalia observes that “Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State.’” Like Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Carroll’s “Through the Looking Glass,” the majority claims that when the court is asked to interpret a word, “it means just what [the court chooses] it to mean — neither more nor less.”

To reach the desired meaning, the King majority declared that “an exchange established by the State” was somehow ambiguous, enabling it to ignore the text and advance instead its vision of the ACA’s overarching purpose. But the precedent upon which the King majority relied for this contextual interpretation, FDA vs. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corp. (2000), involved a fundamentally different situation.

In that case, a group of tobacco manufacturers challenged the Food and Drug Administration’s authority to regulate tobacco products as “medical devices” or “drugs.” The court concluded that the words “device” and “drug” did not directly address tobacco and were consequently ambiguous.

When judges take it upon themselves to “fix” a law — or to bless an executive “fix” — they diminish political accountability by encouraging Congress to be sloppy.

The court looked beyond the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, or FFDCA, for contextual clues, discovering that Congress had subsequently passed several statutes allowing the continued sale of tobacco products, while regulating their labeling and advertising. This suggested to the justices that Congress did not intend tobacco to be regulated under the FFDCA as a drug or device.

In King, by contrast, there were no subsequent statutes providing contextual clues about congressional intent. The only reliable evidence was contained in the act’s language itself. This extra-textual approach is deeply problematic for the rule of law, since discerning a statute’s meaning from its context is always a dicey proposition, necessitating judicial inquiry into inchoate matters such as the law’s “purpose.”

Ascertaining a law’s purpose from evidence outside its text is virtually impossible, given that Congress consists of 535 members, each of whom is motivated by different purposes. This is why, at least until King, the court has not resorted to contextual interpretation when the text is plain.

In the words of Palmer vs. Massachusetts (1939), contextual interpretation is a “subtle business, calling for great wariness lest what professes to be … attempted interpretation of legislation becomes legislation itself.” Yet this is exactly what happened in King: Attempted interpretation became legislation itself. By ignoring what the ACA actually says, in favor of what the King majority believes the statute ought to have said or what it thinks Congress meant to say, the court upset the entire constitutional balance.

The King majority acknowledged that the ACA is full of “inartful drafting” and was written “behind closed doors, rather than through the traditional legislative process.” It also conceded that it was passed using unusual parliamentary procedures, and “[a]s a result, the Act does not reflect the type of care and deliberation that one might expect of such significant legislation.”

Despite all these flaws, the majority felt compelled to save Congress, and the ACA, from its own foibles. Specifically, the King majority believed that applying the ACA’s plain meaning “would destabilize the individual insurance market in any State with a Federal Exchange, and likely create the very ‘death spirals’ that Congress designed the Act to avoid.”

Even if a loss of subsidies would have exacerbated the death spiral, courts are emphatically not in the law-writing business. Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution grants “all” lawmaking power to Congress,” not merely “some.” The job of the judiciary is to implement laws, warts and all.

When judges take it upon themselves to “fix” a law — or to bless an executive “fix” — they diminish political accountability by encouraging Congress to be sloppy. And they bypass the political process established by the Constitution’s separation of powers, arrogating to itself — and the executive — the power to amend legislation.

This leads to bad laws, bad policy outcomes and fosters the cynical belief that “law is politics.”

<em>David B. Rivkin Jr. is a constitutional litigator at BakerHostetler who served in the Justice Department and the White House Counsel’s Office in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations. Elizabeth Price Foley is Of Counsel at BakerHostetler and a professor of constitutional law at Florida International University College of Law.</em>

Source: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0629-rivkinfoley-king-burwell-20150629-story.html

A time for clemency

(from The Los Angeles Times, December 1, 2010)

by Alan M. Dershowitz and David B. Rivkin, Jr.

“The state of California may be about to execute an innocent man.” That is the warning of Judge William Fletcher of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 101-page dissent from the court’s decision to uphold the murder conviction of Kevin Cooper. Although the courts lack the power to grant clemency, the governor has the responsibility to do so when justice requires it. Now Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is duty-bound to use that power to save a possibly innocent man from death.

Support or oppose the death penalty — each of us differs on the issue — Cooper’s case is chilling. In 1985, he was convicted of murdering Doug and Peggy Ryen, their daughter, Jessica, and their houseguest, Christopher Hughes, in Chino Hills. Eight-year-old Joshua Ryen, found badly wounded, survived. The police arrested Cooper, who had escaped from a minimum-security prison two days earlier and was hiding in an empty house next door to the Ryens’.

Cooper’s behavior was suspicious, and he’s no angel, but too many of the facts allegedly linking Cooper to the murders just don’t add up. First, Joshua Ryen told police that the murderers were three white men — Cooper is black — and repeatedly stated that Cooper was not among the killers. The night of the murders, a white man was spotted driving what was probably the Ryens’ station wagon, which had been stolen. And the injuries to the victims suggested multiple weapons, not just one.

Several key pieces of evidence pointing to other killers were blatantly mishandled by law enforcement authorities. For example, shortly after she learned of the murders, a local woman named Diana Roper suspected that her white boyfriend was involved. She informed the Sheriff’s Department that her boyfriend had left blood-spattered coveralls at her home the night of the murders, and she gave them to the department. Regrettably, the prosecution declined to test the clothing, and a sheriff’s deputy tossed them in a dumpster before the defense knew they even existed. That deputy later testified that he acted of his own accord in destroying the coveralls, but a police report discovered after Cooper’s trial showed that a superior had approved the destruction in advance.

Roper also told police that she had purchased for her boyfriend a tan Fruit of the Loom T-shirt, and such a shirt was recovered near the Ryen house. It wasn’t introduced at the original trial; years later, during the appeals process, forensic testing indicated that Cooper’s blood might have been planted on it. It was also years later that Cooper’s counsel found out that a sheriff’s deputy had discovered a blood-spattered blue shirt near the Ryen home the day after the murders. Like the coveralls, it went missing and was never tested.

Fletcher and four other 9th Circuit judges who also wrote opinions favorable to Cooper’s appeal concluded that the original prosecutor’s chief forensic witness, Daniel Gregonis, falsified evidence. The blood allegedly proving that Cooper’s DNA was found at the crime scene came from a non-secure vial containing more than one person’s DNA. (In a recent case, a state court judge granted relief to another falsely convicted man after determining that Gregonis manufactured evidence against him.)

The record of contorted and abused facts in the case notwithstanding, Cooper was convicted in state court and his conviction affirmed.

Still, even those who believe that Cooper must have been involved should support clemency. Clemency doesn’t require a pardon. Schwarzenegger has the discretion to take lesser steps, taking into account the myriad errors, inconsistencies and injustices in Cooper’s prosecution and conviction. The governor could reduce Cooper’s sentence to life without parole, which, under California law — except in the extremely rare case where new evidence exonerates a prisoner — really lasts a lifetime.

There is another reason that even death penalty supporters should be in favor of clemency for Cooper. As Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote in a 1993 death penalty case, “Executive clemency has provided the ‘fail-safe’ in our criminal justice system.” A credible chance for clemency, particularly when there are serious problems with the investigation and prosecution of the underlying offense, is essential to maintain public confidence and support for a system of justice that includes the death penalty. It’s a safety valve, precluding further polarization in our political and judicial battles about the death penalty.

As Justice Felix Frankfurter explained in a long-ago death penalty case, “Perfection may not be demanded of law, but the capacity to counteract inevitable, though rare, frailties is the mark of a civilized legal mechanism.”

Ultimately, that capacity lies with the executive branch, not the judiciary, which has the duty only of deciding whether a man was convicted pursuant to the law. Kevin Cooper probably was not convicted in a lawful manner, but today the courts can do no more than alert the executive that a grave injustice may have been done. In that respect, Fletcher’s dissent could not possibly be clearer.

Schwarzenegger now bears the responsibility to see that justice is not irreparably perverted by putting Cooper to death. We ask the governor to commute Cooper’s sentence to lifetime imprisonment without a chance for parole. All citizens, no matter where they stand on the death penalty, should demand no less.

Alan M. Dershowitz is a professor of law at Harvard University. David B. Rivkin Jr. is a partner in the Washington office of Baker Hostetler and served in the Justice Department and the White House counsel’s office under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

Source: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/dec/01/opinion/la-oe-rivkin-deathpenalty-20101201