Daniel Epps, former law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, is associate professor of law.
Epps focuses on criminal law and criminal procedure – and his scholarly approach draws upon history, philosophy, political science and economics.
He is currently working on projects about the role of the jury, the Supreme Court’s case-selection process and the harmless-error doctrine.
In addition to his scholarship, Epps co-hosts a seasonal podcast about the Supreme Court with Ian Samuel, a former clerk for Justice Scalia who is currently a fellow at Harvard Law School. First Mondays is available on iTunes and also has a twitter feed that stays up to date on all things Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died Sept. 18, visited Washington University in St. Louis twice during her career — in 1979 and 2001. She met with students and faculty, lectured and even contributed journal articles to the Washington University Law Quarterly and Washington University Journal of Law & Policy. Faculty from the School of Law reflect on her long and influential career.
Daniel Epps, associate professor in the School of Law at Washington University in St. Louis, and Steven Smith, Kate M. Gregg Distinguished Professor of Social Science, weigh in on who has the most to lose before the election if a nomination is completed, how this situation differs from the Senate-stalled Merrick Garland nomination in 2016 and why the nomination system needs to change.
There are steps Congress might take that would strike an appropriate balance between victim’s interests, the need to protect essential services acting reasonably, and federalism values. Instead, this bill gives businesses a free pass at the expense of COVID-19’s victims. If passed into law, the bill would make it anything but safe for the country to go back to work.
There is no reason to be distraught about Supreme Court leaks. If anything, we should welcome the chance for the public to better understand how those who govern us — including judges — make their decisions.
In the end, the best argument for eliminating qualified immunity is less about deterrence and more about symbolism. Qualified immunity routinely requires courts to say that there will be no penalty for a police officer who has violated the Constitution. That is the wrong message.