Issue 73 - Stanford Lawyer - Stanford University

CHANGING THE WORLD
27
STANFORD
LAWYER
Assistant professor of law Jenny
S. Martinez had hoped that
the case she argued for amici
curiae, Hwang Geum Joo v. Japan,
would provide a small consolation
to a group of women who experienced
a nightmare 60 years ago.
No such luck: the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia decided June 28 that the
case, in which World War II “comfort women” were
asking Japan for reparations, was a matter for politicians,
not the courts. The court cited the political
question doctrine, saying that the postwar treaty the
United States signed with Japan negated lawsuits
arising from the war.
The 15 appellants, from China, Taiwan, South
Korea, and the Philippines, were among thousands of
women kidnapped during the war, enslaved, and forced
to work as prostitutes for the Japanese military. Japan
has never formally apologized for its actions.
“These women are very brave to come out and talk
about an extremely painful experience,” Martinez said.
“Some are in their 90s now, and they wanted some
acknowledgement of what happened to them before
they died.”
PHOTO: STEVE GLADFELTER
JENNY MARTINEZ: ENDING SEXUAL TRAFFICKING
Martinez first argued the case in 2000, when
she was an associate at Jenner & Block LLP in
Washington, D.C. Though the court dismissed the
case, the U.S. Supreme Court summarily reversed its
decision based on another World War II case and sent
it back to appeals court, at which point Martinez picked
it up again.
Though the women are pursuing their goal through
diplomacy and other tactics, Martinez said their fight in
the U.S. court system—which allows individuals to sue
foreign governments under the Alien Tort statute—is
very likely over.
However, Martinez added that the ruling did contain
a silver lining, as the court left open the possibility
that other victims of sexual slavery could sue foreign
states in U.S. courts under the Alien Tort statute. “One
of the reasons I thought the case was important was
that sex trafficking today is a big problem and governments
are involved in it,” Martinez said.
“Jenny contributed an enormous amount to this
case,” said Martina Vandenberg, a Jenner & Block associate,
who was previously an expert on sex trafficking
at Human Rights Watch. “Jenny’s legal work definitely
blazed a trail. The legal arguments have been made to
allow other victims to sue.”—Mandy Erickson
KATHLEEN SULLIVAN: CREATING A PRACTICE
Three months after stepping down
as dean of Stanford Law School,
Kathleen M. Sullivan received an
unusual package in the mail. Inside
were a new laptop, a BlackBerry, a
stack of business cards imprinted with
her name, a bottle of fine champagne, and a
case file. The sender, Los Angeles–based Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, LLP, had
an intriguing proposal: Would Sullivan be willing
to use part of her sabbatical to help the commercial
litigation firm build a West Coast appellate
department that would rival the established players
in Washington, D.C.
It didn’t take Sullivan, Stanley Morrison
Professor of Law, long to accept. Before she
PHOTO: LINDA A. CICERO
became one of the nation’s premier constitutional
scholars, Sullivan had developed a passion for litigation
and has cultivated that interest throughout
her academic career, handling two or three appellate
cases a year. In May she won a major victory
for California vintners in a case before the U.S.
Supreme Court, arguing that wineries should be
allowed to ship directly to consumers living out of
state. “I’ve always viewed my litigation sideline as
not only compatible with, but a huge contributor
to my teaching and research,” she explained. “You
cannot possibly overestimate how much students
love having real world experiences imparted to
them in the classroom.”
Since becoming of counsel to Quinn Emanuel
in January, Sullivan has kept up with the academic