Trending
A Reprimand in the Case of Justice Alito’s Flags Targets the Wrong Jurist
A Reprimand in the Case of Justice Alito’s Flags Targets the Wrong Jurist
By
The Three-Pronged Pardon of Hunter Biden
The Three-Pronged Pardon of Hunter Biden
By
No American Court Should Ever Allow a Death Row Inmate to Volunteer for Execution
No American Court Should Ever Allow a Death Row Inmate to Volunteer for Execution
By
Michael Schaps
Michael Schaps

Mr. Schaps is a civil litigator in Davis, California and a graduate of Berkeley Law.
After law school, Mr. Schaps clerked for Chief Judge David F. Levi of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California in Sacramento and for Judge Pamela Ann Rymer of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Pasadena.
Mr. Schaps has taught courses on negotiation and solo practice at U.C. Davis School of Law.

Columns by Michael Schaps
Permalink to When the Supreme Court Overrules a Prior Constitutional Case, Has the Meaning of the Constitution Itself Changed? A Georgia Abortion Dispute Raises the QuestionWhen the Supreme Court Overrules a Prior Constitutional Case, Has the Meaning of the Constitution Itself Changed? A Georgia Abortion Dispute Raises the Question
When the Supreme Court Overrules a Prior Constitutional Case, Has the Meaning of the Constitution Itself Changed? A Georgia Abortion Dispute Raises the Question
and

Illinois Law dean Vikram David Amar and California civil litigator Michael Schaps respond to the apparent view of a Georgia trial court judge that the current Supreme Court cannot retroactively affect the previous status (existence/non-existence) of a constitutional right found by a previous Court. Dean Amar and Mr. Schaps point out the flaws of this view and the absurd outcomes it would lead to if taken to its logical extension.

Permalink to How Strong is San Francisco’s “Sanctuary City” Lawsuit Against the Trump Administration?How Strong is San Francisco’s “Sanctuary City” Lawsuit Against the Trump Administration?
How Strong is San Francisco’s “Sanctuary City” Lawsuit Against the Trump Administration?
and

Illinois Law dean Vikram David Amar and California civil litigator Michael Schaps consider the strength of San Francisco’s lawsuit against the Trump Administration arising out of its identity as a “sanctuary city.” Amar and Schaps discuss both the ripeness of the claim, a threshold procedural matter, and also the merits of San Francisco’s arguments.

Permalink to Two Big Legal Misconceptions That Have Recently Arisen in the Presidential RaceTwo Big Legal Misconceptions That Have Recently Arisen in the Presidential Race
Two Big Legal Misconceptions That Have Recently Arisen in the Presidential Race
and

Illinois Law dean Vikram David Amar and California civil litigation attorney Michael Schaps address two common misconceptions about the relationship between criminal law and politics that recently arose in the presidential race. Amar and Schaps explain first why the presumption of innocence does not apply to politics, and second, why the president actually does have the power to order prosecutions.

Permalink to How Should Courts Evaluate a Treatment Decision by a Government Doctor That Takes into Account the Patient’s Race? The Ninth Circuit Doesn’t Quite Get Things RightHow Should Courts Evaluate a Treatment Decision by a Government Doctor That Takes into Account the Patient’s Race? The Ninth Circuit Doesn’t Quite Get Things Right
How Should Courts Evaluate a Treatment Decision by a Government Doctor That Takes into Account the Patient’s Race? The Ninth Circuit Doesn’t Quite Get Things Right
and

Vikram David Amar, law professor and dean at Illinois Law, and Michael Schaps, a California civil litigation attorney, critique a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit considering whether and when a government physician can take into account a patient’s race. Amar and Schaps argue that the court’s analysis is internally consistent and legally flawed, as well.

Permalink to How One Might Have Answered Justice Scalia’s Questions (About the Mismatch Theory) at Oral Argument in the Fisher CaseHow One Might Have Answered Justice Scalia’s Questions (About the Mismatch Theory) at Oral Argument in the Fisher Case
How One Might Have Answered Justice Scalia’s Questions (About the Mismatch Theory) at Oral Argument in the Fisher Case
and

Vikram David Amar, law professor and dean at Illinois Law, and Michael Schaps, a California civil litigation attorney, discuss Justice Scalia’s provocative comments during last week’s oral argument in Fisher v. University of Texas. Amar and Schaps point out that viewed in the most charitable light, Justice Scalia’s comments are actually an attempt to articulate an academic theory—known as mismatch theory—not simply bare racism. Though the authors are not persuaded of mismatch theory, they critique Scalia’s assumption that truth of the theory would compel the abolition of affirmative action altogether.

Permalink to When Does Congress’s Recognition of an Injury Count to the Supreme Court? Standing and the Spokeo v. Robins CaseWhen Does Congress’s Recognition of an Injury Count to the Supreme Court? Standing and the Spokeo v. Robins Case
When Does Congress’s Recognition of an Injury Count to the Supreme Court? Standing and the Spokeo v. Robins Case
and

Vikram David Amar, law professor and dean at Illinois Law, and Michael Schaps, a California civil litigation attorney, discuss Spokeo v. Robins, in which the U.S. Supreme Court will consider the nature of injury required for a plaintiff to avail herself of the federal court system. Specifically, Amar and Schaps describe the justices’ various perspectives on the issue and the possible origins and significance of these perspectives.