Gale Encyclopedia Of American Law 3Rd Edition Volume 5 P29 potx

v HIGGINBOTHAM, ALOYISUS LEON, JR. A. Leon Higginbotham Jr. was an attorney, a scholar, and a federal judge. His distinguished judicial career culminated in his attaining the rank of chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Higginbotham was born February 25, 1928, in Trenton, New Jersey. Although he attended segregated public schools, his mother was determined that he would receive the same opportunities available to white students. “She knew that education was the sole passport to a better life,” he said. No African American student had been admitted to the academic high school program in Trenton because Latin, a requirement for the program, was not offered at the black elementary schools. But Higginbo- tham’s mother fought for her son’s right to enroll and finally convinced the principal to allow him into the program. Higginbotham had no doubt that his mother’s advocacy made a difference in the outcome of his life. “When I see students who went to [elementary school] with me now working as elevator operators or on street maintenance,” he said, “I often wonder what their future would have been if the school had offered Latin.” After finishing high school, Higginbotham decided to become an engineer and enrolled at Purdue University, in West Lafayette, Indiana. A winter spent sleeping in an unheated attic with 11 other African American students caused him to rethink his career goals. “One night, as the temperature was close to zero, I felt that I could suffer the personal indignities and denigration no longer,” he wrote in the preface to his book, In the Matter of Color: The Colonial Period (1978). He spoke to the university president, who told him the law did not require the university to “let colored students in the dorm.” Higginbotham was advised to accept the situa- tion or leave. “How could it be that the law would not permit twelve good kids to sleep in a warm dormitory?” he wondered. He decided then and there to abandon engineering and pursue a career in law. ▼▼ ▼▼ A. Leon Higginbotham Jr. 1928–1998 19501950 19751975 20002000 19251925 ❖ ◆ ◆ ◆ 1939–45 World War II 1950–53 Korean War 1961–73 Vietnam War ◆ ◆ 1928 Born, Trenton, N.J. ◆ ◆ ❖ 1952 Graduated from Yale Law School 1953–54 Served as assistant district attorney in Philadelphia 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decided 1964–77 Sat on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pa. 1969 Elected first black trustee of Yale University 1962 Appointed to Federal Trade Commission 1977–93 Sat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ◆ 1978 In the Matter of Color published 1998 Died, Boston, Mass. 1996 Shades of Freedom: Racial Politics and Presumptions of the American Legal Process published 1989 Promoted to chief judge of the Third Circuit 1993 Joined faculty at Kennedy School of Government at Harvard 1995 Appointed commissioner of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights; awarded Presidential Medal of Freedom ◆ A. Leon Higginbotham. COURTESY OF THE ESTATE OF A. LEON HIGGINBOTHAM JR. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 268 HIGGINBOTHAM, A LOYISUS LEON, JR. Higginbotham left Purdue to attend Anti- och College, in Ohio, where he studied sociology, earning his bachelor of arts degree in 1949. He went on to Yale Law School, and received his bachelor of laws degree in 1952. Another incident that helped galvanize his commitment to racial equality occurred shortly after his gradua tion from Yale. He was a job candidate for a prominent Philadelphia law firm that did not know he was black until he arrived for the interview. Although the partner who spoke with him praised his qualifications, he told Higginbotham he could not do anything for him except direct him to local African American law firms who might hire him. Discouraged but not daunted, Higginbo- tham began his legal career as an assistant district attorney in Philadelphia and then became a partner in a law firm that handled business, church, and CIVIL RIGHTS CASES. Presi- dent JOHN F. KENNEDY made him a commissioner with the FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION in 1962; he was the youngest person ever appointed to the post and the first African American. The same year, the U.S. Junior Chamber of Commerce named him one of its ten outstanding young men. In 1964 President LYNDON B. JOHNSON named him a U.S. district judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; at age 36, he was the youngest federal judge to be appointed in three decades. In 1977 President JIMMY CARTER elevated him to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which encompasses Pennsyl- vania, New Jersey, Delaware, and the Virgin Islands. Higginbotham’s distinguished judicial ca- reer was capped in 198 9 when he was promoted to chief judge for the Third CIRCUIT COURT of Appeals. At the time, he was the only African American judge directing one of the federal judiciary’s 12 circuits. His ascendancy was hailed by many who saw it as proof that the U.S. judicial system was becoming more inclu- sive. Guido Calabresi, dean of Yale Law School, praised him as “a first-rate judge, a sensitive judge, who is powerful in style and analytically strong.” But some African American lawyers felt that too much emphasis was placed on Higginbotham’s skin color and on the racial import of his promotion. “There is no more significance to it than anybody else becoming Chief Judge,” said THURGOOD MARSHALL, associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. “I think he is a great lawyer and a very great judge. Period.” Higginbotham was an outspoken proponent of CIVIL RIGHTS and racial equality. In 1990 he declined to officiate at a MOOT COURT competi- tion at the University of Chicago Law School because, he said, Chicago was the only one of the top ten schools in the United States that “for two decades has not had even one black professor in either a tenured position or a tenure-track position.” Higginbotham’s devotion to civil rights was evident in his criticism of Justice CLARENCE THOMAS , a conservative African American whose nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1991 provoked criticism and controversy. In an article titled “An Open Letter to Justice Clarence Thomas from a Federal Judicial Colleague” (U. Pa. L. Rev., Jan. 1992), Higginbotham called upon Thomas to remain cognizant of his responsibilities as an African Americ an on the Supreme Court. He reminded Thom as of the discrimination both men’s grandfathers had faced and of Thomas’sdebttothe CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT , commenting that without the move- ment, “probably neither you nor I would be Federal judges today.” He was also sharply critical of Thomas’s record. He noted that after studying nearly all of Thomas’s speeches and writings, “I could not find one shred of evidence suggesting an insightful understanding on your part of how the evolutionary movement of the Constitution and the work of the civil rights organizations have benefited you.” During his career, Higginbotham was awarded more than 60 honorary degrees; in 1969, he became the first African American elected to the board of trustees of Yale University. He was also a tireless lecturer, teaching at various times over the course of 20 years at the University of Pennsylvania, Univer- sity of Michigan, Stanford, New York Universi- ty, and Yale. In addition, Higginbotham was well known for his prolific writings, including more than one hundred articles. His book In the Matter of Color received several national and international awards. In 1996, he published Shades of Freedom: Racial Politics and Presump- tions of the American Legal Process. In 1993 Higginbotham retired from the circuit court and formed an associatio n with the law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton, & Garrison in New York City. In 1995 President BILL CLINTON awarded Higginbotham the Presi- dential Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest BROWN CHANGED THE MORAL TONE OF AMERICA ; BY ELIMINATING THE LEGITIMIZATION OF STATE -IMPOSED RACISM IT IMPLICITLY QUESTIONED RACISM WHEREVER IT WAS USED . —A. LEON HIGGINBOTHAM GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION HIGGINBOTHAM, ALOYISUS LEON, JR. 269 civilian award. In the same year, Presid ent Clinton appointed him to serve a six-ye ar term as a commissioner of the U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS . Higginbotham died of a stroke on December 14, 1998, in Boston, Massachusetts. FURTHER READINGS “A. Leon Higginbotham Jr., Federal Judge, is Dead at 70.” The New York Times (December 15, 1998). Diver, Colin S. 1999 “A. Leon Higginbotham (1928–1998): A Tribute.” The Pennsylvania Gazette. Available online at http://www.upenn.edu/gazette/0399/higginbotham. html; website home page: http://www.upenn.edu (accessed July 29, 2009). Higginbotham, A. Leon. 1996. Shades of Freedom: Racial Politics and Presumptions of the American Legal Process. New York: Oxford Univ. Press. HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS The offenses for which presidents, vice presidents, and all civil officers, including federal judges, can be removed from office through a process called impeachment. The phrase high crimes and misdemeanors is found in the U.S. CONSTITUTION. It also appears in state laws and constitutions as a basis for disqualification from holding office. Originating in English common law, these words have acquired a broad meaning in U.S. law. They refer to criminal actions as well as any serious misuse or abuse of office, ranging from TAX EVASION to OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. The ultimate authority for determining whether an offens e constitutes a ground for IMPEACHMENT rests with Congress. The exact meaning of the phrase cannot be found in the Constitution itself. Article II, Section 4, establishes, “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, TREASON, BRIBERY, or other High Crimes and Misdemea- nors.” Treason and bribery are specific, but high crimes and misdemeanors is not. In fact, considerable debate occupied the Framers of A depiction of the 1868 impeachment proceedings against President Andrew Johnson. The Senate’s vote on the 11th Article of Impeachment fell short of the two-thirds majority needed to impeach Johnson. Two other articles were later defeated. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION 270 HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS the Constitution over the issue of impeachment, and the wording of the grounds for impeach- ment was itself controversial. A proposed offense of maladministration was rejected as being too vague and susceptible to political abuse. Finally, they chose to use a phrase from English common law that had no precisely settled meaning at the time yet at least connoted serious offenses. The reason for the choice lies in the Framers’ approach to the larger question of impeachment. Although borrowing language from the law they knew best, they explicitly chose not to imitate the English model of impeachment. Traditionally, this approach had allowed the British Parliament to conduct a simple review of charges and then remove officials by a majority vote. Instead, the Framers intended for removal from office to be the final step in a two-part process that began in the House of Representatives and, if charges should result, ended in a trial-like hearing before the U.S. Senate. Thus, two goals would be achieved: a full public inquiry into allegations, and, if necessary, the adjudication of those charges requiring a two-thirds majority for removal. Generally, debate over the phrase high crimes and misdemeanors has split into two camps. The minority view is held by critics who undertake a literal reading of the Constitution. They maintain that high crimes means what it says—criminal activity—and argue that the Framers wanted only criminal activities to be the basis for impeachment. The generally accepted viewpoint is much broader. It defines high crimes and misdemeanors as any serious abuse of power— including both legal and illegal activities. Sup- porters of this reading believe that because impeachment is a public inquiry, first and foremost, it is appropriate to read the phrase broadly in order to provide the most thorough inquiry possible. Thus, a civil officer may face impeachment for misconduct, violations of oath of office, serious incompetence, or, in the case of judges, activities that undermine public confi- dence or damage the integrity of the judiciary. The vagueness of the standard has left much interpretive power to Congress. In 1868 Presi- dent ANDREW JOHNSON underwent impeachment proceedings when he ordered the firing of his secretary of war. His opponents charged that this order violated the TENURE OF OFFICE ACT, which set the tenure of certain officials. Johnson escaped conviction in the Senate by only one vote, but the attempt to IMPEACH him quickly came to be seen as a politically motivated mistake. In 1974 the House Judiciary Commit- tee recommended that the full House of Representatives approve ARTICLES OF IMPEACH- MENT against President RICHARD M. NIXON.Itdid not cite any single impeachable offense, but instead found a broad pattern of wrongdoing: Nixon had conspired with his advisers to obstruct federal and congressional investiga- tions of the WATERGATE break-in, the burglarizing of the Democratic National Committee head- quarters in Washington, D.C., which was eventually linked to the Nixon administration. Nixon resigned from office before the process could continue. The dispute over what constitutes a high crime or MISDEMEANOR reemerged in 1998 when the House Judiciary Committee voted to recommend that the House begin impeachment proceedings against President BILL CLINTON. The House concurred with the recommendation, which included charges of perjury and obstruc- tion of justice. Legal commentators debated for weeks about whether these charges were the type of high crimes and misdemeanors contem- plated by the language of the Constitution, but the House neverth eless approved two of the four articles of impeachment. The trial then moved to the Senate, which failed to garner the necessary two-thirds majority to remove Clinton from office. FURTHER READINGS Coulter, Ann H. 2002. High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case against Bill Clinton. New York: Perseus. Isenbergh, Joseph. 1999. “Impeachment and Presidential Immunity from Judicial Process.” Yale Law and Policy Review 18. Smith, Alexa J. 1995. “Federal Judicial Impeachment: Defining Process Due.” Hastings Law Journal 46 (January). Tushnet, Mark V. 1995. “Clarence Thomas: The Constitu- tional Problems.” George Washington Law Review (March). Williams, Victor. “Third Branch Independence and Integrity Threatened by Political Branch Irresponsibility.” 1995. Seton Hall Constitutional Law Journal (summer). HIGHWAY A main road or thoroughfare, such as a street, boulevard, or parkway, available to the public for use for travel or transportation. The nature of a public way is determinable from its origin, as well as the intention and GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION HIGHWAY 271 plans of the appropriate authorities and the use to which it has been put. If a particular road or highway is designated as private, its character will not be altered if it is actually a public road or highway. Private roads are intended for use by a few private individuals, as distinguished from highways that are for public use. It is essential that a highway be established in a manner recognized by the particular jurisdiction, whether it be by extended use— prescription—or by dedication to the public by the owner of the property subject to the consent of public authorities. Prior to the time that any statutory procedure for the establishment of highways was devised, prescription and dedica- tion were the methods used in common law. Currently, most highways are created by statute. Extended Use or Prescription One method of establishing a highway or public road is through prescription—the extended use of a piece of land for a certain length of time by the public, absent the owner’s consent. The actual number of persons using the road or the frequency or extent of such use is immaterial provided the property is openly and continuously used as a road with no restrictions. In addition, such public use must not be interrupted by acts of the owner that are designed to stop the use of his or her property as a public highway. For example, the posting of several “no trespassing” signs around the land and the erection of a fence would most likely prevent a highway from being recognized. Verbal objections alone, or unsuccessful attempts to curtail use as a highway, are ordinarily insufficient. Any property subject to the right of the state to lay out a public way over it can become a highway by extended use if the conditions prescribed by statute are met. The public is given an easement in the land as a highway, and the width and extent of a highway are deter- mined by the extent of its actual use for such purposes. Statute The creation of highways is a function of the government that stems from its power of eminent domain—the authority to take private property for public use. The legislature makes the determination needed for public use and convenience and provides for establishment of highways by local boards or courts. In deciding whether the need for a highway exists, factors for consideration include topography, soil character, population, location, conditio n, con- venience of highways already established or proposed, and the probable extent of use. In the absence of statutory authorization, a highway cannot be constructed through lands of the state, or property that has already been designated for public use, such as a park. Additionally, some state laws proscribe the ILLUSTRATION BY GGS CREATIVE RESOURCES. REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF GALE, A PART OF CENGAGE LEARNING. Highway Mileage in the United States in 2007 FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS OF U.S. HIGHWAYS NUMBER OF MILES OF ROAD SURFACE URBAN VS. RURAL LOCATION OF HIGHWAY NUMBER OF MILES OF ROAD SURFACE SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Hi g hwa y Administration, Hi g hwa y Statistics 2007. Rural 6,113,495 Local 5,570,553 Urban 2,343,858 Interstate 212,782 Other freeways / expressways 50,845 Other arterial 1,019,820 Collector 1,603,353 GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 272 HIGHWAY creation of highways through residences, build- ings used for trade, gardens, or orchards. Public Authorities Public officials, such as state highway commis- sioners, act on behalf of the particular county or municipal corporation upon which the state has conferred power to establish highways. A highway and road district is a subdivision of the state, which the legislature creates to facilitate the admi nistration of highways. The legislature defines and sets the territorial extent, limits, and boundaries of the road or highway district, and, generally, only l ands that will be benefited are included. Highway boards and commissions are ordinarily responsible for the construction, improveme nt, and maintenance of highways. Abandonment, Alteration, and Vacation The right of the public to use a highway may be forfeited by abandonment. Nonuse might be considered abandonment under statutory pro- visions. The evidence that a highway is in such a dangerous state of disrepair for a numb er of years that the public stops using it and a county fails to repair it constitutes abandonment in some jurisdictions. Where provided by statute, delay in opening a highway might be regarded as abandonment if it extends over an unreason- able length of time. An alteration of a highway ordinarily refers to a change in its course that the state may effect in exercise of its POLICE POWER. A proceeding for a change or alteration in a public road generally will not be brought unless the change will further safety, convenience, or other public interests. Vacation of a highway occurs when its existence is terminated by the direct action of public officials. The authority to vacate is generally delegated to the appropriate authori- ties or local agencies. Certain statutes make the provision that highways may be vacated by a vote of the town in a town meeting. Ordinarily, highways cannot be vacated unless they are useless, inconvenient, or burdensome, and the grounds are usually regulated by statutes. A highway t hat has been laid o u t but not constructed may be discontinued due to a change of circumstances, such as where a variation in traffic patterns ma kes the proposed highway unnecessary. Title The public only acquires the right to use a highway, whereas title to the land remains with the owner, subject to the public’srights. When a highway is constructed, the public has the RIGHT OF WAY as well as privileges incident thereto, including the right to construct, improve, and repair the highway. When a highway is abandoned or discontinued, how- ever, total and unlimited ownership reverts to the true owner. An individual whose land abuts a public highway might have special rights, including the right to a reasonable passageway to the highway from his or her land. Construction and Maintenance The construction and maintenance of highways are assumed by either the state, local commu- nities, or a specifically designated agency. The actual plan of work in constructing, maintain- ing, or repairing highways is in the discretion of the highway authorities, whereas the state legislature determines their routes. The desig- nation and location of a federally-aided state highway must be in accordance with federal and state law. A state, in its construction of a highway under the federal-aid primary system might be required to obtain the approval of federal agencies if the highway has a marked effect on the environment. The authorities may make provisions for the drainage of surface waters and for the building of ditches and culverts. The construction and repair of public roads may be funded by general TAXATION, because the public roads are for a public purpose. The power to impose highway taxes vests in the legislature, and funds may be raised from vehicle taxes, gasoline taxes, property taxes, the sale of bonds, or by special assessments on the property for the amount necessary to cover the costs of construction or improvement. In 1998 Congress enacted a law (Transpor- tation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Public Law (105-178) that required states to enact .08 as the blood alcohol count (BAC) needed to constitute the crime of driving while intoxicat- ed. States that did not lower their BAC to meet this standard would lose federal highway funds. By 2005 all of the states had met this new federal standard. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION HIGHWAY 273 The U.S. TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT, estab- lished by Congress, works with the states to establish and maintain a national highway system (23 U.S.C.A. § 101 et seq.). Federal revenues pay for most of the national highway system. Congress may withhold portions of these funds if states do not enact certain laws related to highways or highway use and affecting interstate commerce. For example, Congress may withhold funding if a state does not set the minimum age for alcohol consumption at 21 years; suspend, for at least six months, the driver’s license of persons convicted of drug offenses; or prohibit driving under the influence of alcohol. Obstruction Any unauthorized obstruction that hinders the use of a public highway, such as a fence, gate, or ditch, is illegal and constitutes a NUISANCE. Officials may, however, lawfully obstruct high- ways temporarily under their jurisdictions for a reasonable period to make necessary repairs or improvements. Anyone who causes or allows an obstruction to be placed on a public highway is liable and may be enjoined to compel its removal. In addition, the authorities or private indivi- duals who have sustained special damages— financial or other losses that differ from those incurred by the public—may sue for damages against one who obstructs a highway. What constitutes SPECIAL DAMAGES is dependent upon the facts of each case. Special injury might exist where the obstruction blocks access to the plaintiff’s property. In a number of jurisdictions the obstruction of highways is a criminal offense. Use The state has the power to control and regulate the use of public highways, provided its regulations do not constitute an unreasonable interference with the right of travel or impede interstate commerce. The state may determine the character of motor vehicles that use its highways and may properly exclude vehicles weighing in excess of a maximum set by statute. A reasonable tax may be imposed on vehicles based on their excess weight in order to compensate the state for the additional costs of maintaining the highway as a result of the severe wear and tear placed on the road by such vehicles. To protect the public health, the state may prohibit trucks that transport chemicals or explosives from driving through populated or residential areas. The secretary of transportation regulates the safety per formance of all commer- cial motor carriers transporting explosives or dangerous articles, such as flammable or radioactive materials, in interstate or foreign commerce. The state may restrict the speed of vehicles, or proscribe parking alongside the highway except in emergencies. Bicycles used on highways may be subject to reasonable restr ic- tions, such as the requirement that they be equipped with lights at night. The law of the road is composed of a system of rules and regulations based upon the traditional practices and customs that govern safe travel on highways. The law is often embodied in statutes or government regulations and is regarded as being so well-known that there is a legal presumption that everyone knows it. Highway travelers, therefore, may properly make the assumption that other travelers will observe the law and comply with rules and regulations. When an individual fails to observe the law of the road without justification, he or she will be held liable for injuries precipitated by the NEGLIGENCE.A violation of a particular rule of the road may be justified by special circumstance. FURTHER READINGS King, Ledyard. “Delay of Road Bill Will Cost States.” USA Today (September 23, 2003). Available online at http:// www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-23-road money_x.htm; website home page: http://www.usatoday. com (accessed July 29, 2009). Lynch, James. 1986. “The Federal Highway Beautification Act after Metromedia.” Emory Law Journal 35. Queary, Paul. “Seat Belt Law Comes under Fire.” Seattle Post-Intelligencer (August 4, 2003). Available online at http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-23- roadmoney_x.htm; website home page: http://www. usatoday.com (accessed July 29, 2009). CROSS REFERENCES Automobiles; National Transportation Safety Board. HIJACKING The seizure of a commercial vehicle—airplane, ship, or truck —by force or threat of force. Hijacking is the modern term for “piracy.” It is derived from the phrase “High, Jack!” which is a command to raise one’s hands before being robbed. The word gained popular currency during Prohibition (1920–33), when boot- leggers commandeered truckloads of liquor GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 274 HIJACKING from each other, and reappeared when political activists began to seize commercial airplanes in the 1960s. Airplane Hijacking The first U.S. airplane hijacking occurred in 1961. The number of such incidents, also known as skyjackings or air piracies, grew during the 1960s, with 40 attempts made in 1969. Many of the early hijacking incidents involved persons seeking to divert airplanes to Cuba, where they could gain asylum. These hijackings became so numerous that the phrase “Take me to Havana” entered popular culture. In 1973 the United States and Cuba were able to reach an agreement that allows either country to request the EXTRADITION of a hijacker. The agreement came about through an ex- change of diplomatic notes. It was in Cuba’s interest to make the agreement because many Cubans had hijacked planes from Cuba and forced them to fly to the United States. The agreement allows either country to take into account EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES when the hijackers acted “for strictly political reasons and were in real and imminent danger of death without a viable alternative, provided there was no financial EXTORTION or physical injury” to crew, passengers, or other persons (12 I.L.M. 370–76, No. 2 [March 1973]). In addition to this agreement, the United States, in 1961, made the hijacking of an airplane a federal crime. Under the Aircraft Piracy Act (18 U.S.C.A. § 32), the attempted or successful execution of the following actions is considered hijacking: damaging an aircraft; placing or bringing a destructive device or substance on an aircraft; damaging or interfer- ing with an air navigation facility, or equipment and property used in connection with the operation of an aircraft; committing an act of violence against or otherwise injuring an individual on an aircraft; or making threats or statements that they know are false against or about the safety of an aircraft that is already in flight. Hijacking has not been confined to the United States and Cuba. In 1970 hijackers seized more than 90 planes around the world. The growth of international TERRORISM, specifi- cally in the Middle East, led to widely publicized hijackings. In these situations hijackers sought the satisfaction of political demands and a platform to air their views. In 1970 members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine hijacked three airliners and flew two of them to an airstrip in the desert near Amman, Jordan, while blowing up the third in Cairo, Egypt after releasing the passengers and crew. Several days later another plane was hijacked. The hijackers demanded the release of Palestinian prisoners in European prisons and in Israeli jails. When their demands were not met, they removed the passengers from the airliners and destroyed the planes one by one. Faced with increased numbers of air hijack- ings, the international community sought to negotiate agreements that would prevent hijack- ers from finding safe haven. The 1970 Hague Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft (22 U.S.T. 1641, T.I.A.S. 7192 [ effective in the United States in 1971]) deals specifically with the hijacking of aircraft in flight. The 1971 Montreal Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation (24 U.S.T. 564, T.I.A. S. 7570 [effective in the United States in 1973]) addresses attacks on or SABOTAGE of civil aircraft either in flight or on the ground, or destruction of or damage to air navigation facilities when this is likely to endanger the safety of aircraft in flight. Either the state of registration or the state in which the aircraft lands can exercise jurisdiction. The state having the hijackers in custody must prosecute or extradite them. A state may decline to extradite if it considers the offense political, or may prefer not to extradite to a state that imposes the death penalty, but in either of these cases, it is obligated to prosecute the offenders. The United States passed the Antihijacking Act of 1974 (49 U.S.C.A. § 1301 et seq.) to implement these international conventions. This act seeks to prevent nations from adopting a permissive posture toward illegal activities such as the commandeering of aircraft, by pro- viding penalties for hijackers and for nations that shield or fail to take adequate precautions against hijackers. The act gives the president the power to terminate air service between an offending nation and the United States if the president determines that the offending nation has acted inconsistently with its obligations under the antihijacking conventions. Since the signing of these international conventions in the 1970s, airplane hijacking fell sharply, esp ecially in the United States. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION HIJACKING 275 Hijacking, however, reached a new level on SEPTEMBER 11, 2001, when terrorists comman- deered four commercial airplanes and crashed them into the World Trade Center in New York, the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., and a field in Pennsylvania. The United States was stunned and the definition of hijacking came into serious question. Prior to the attacks, experts generally found that if pilots adhered to the hijackers’ demands, violence was less likely to occur. In this case, however, there was no negotiation. In effect, the hijackers proved that planes can be used as missiles, causing mass violence not only to those aboard a plane, but to thousands of others located in or near a target of terrorism. As a result, national security became an immediate priority, and regulations and security measures were quickly implemen- ted in the hopes of preventing similar attacks. Prior to September 11, airline security fell under the purview of the FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA). After the attac ks, Con- gress passed the Aviation and Transportation Act (Pub. L. No. 107-71; codifed at 49 U.S.C.A. §§ 40101 et. seq.), which among other things transferred this authority from the FAA to the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). One year later, Congress enacted the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-296 (codified in scattered sections of 6 U.S.C.A.), which included additional provisions for the prevention of hijacking. For example, Title XIV of the act, known as the Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act, qualified certain volunteer pilots as federal law enforcement officers in order to protect cockpits in the case of an attempted hijacking. New approaches to the prevention of airline hijacking led to a tightening of security in U.S. airports. Persons using an airport must now generally show identification several times before boarding a plane. And, because the terrorists in the September 11 attacks used a common household item (box cutters), many articles that could potentially be used as a weapon are now prohibited or restricted. Ship Hijacking Ship hijacking is rare, but the seizure of the Achille Lauro proved that it can happen. The Italian cruise ship was commandeered on October 7, 1985, by four members of a faction of the Palestine Liberation Organization. The hijackers boarded the ship posing as tourists, and waited until the ship was off the Egyptian coast before taking its crew and passengers hostage. They threatened to kill the hostages if Israel did not meet their demand to release 50 Palestinian prisoners. They also threatened to blow up the ship if anyone attempted a rescue mission. When the hijackers’ demands were not met the next day, they shot and killed Leon Klinghoffer, a U.S. citizen who was partially paralyzed and used a wheelchair. They dumped Klinghoffer’s body in the sea. Denied access to a Syrian port, the hijackers sailed to Alexandria, where they surrendered to Egyptian authorities. The hijackers were allowed to leave Egypt for Italy to stand trial, where they were convicted for violating an Italian statute that made terrorist kidnapping illegal. The hijacker who confessed to killing Klinghoffer was sentenced to 30 years in prison. FURTHER READINGS Karber, Phillip A. 2002. “Reconstructing Global Aviation in an Era of the Civil Aircraft as a Weapon of Destruc- tion.” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 25, no. 2. Niles, Mark C. 2002. “On the Hijacking of Agencies (and Airplanes): The Federal Aviation Administration, ‘Agency Capture,’ and Airline Security.” American Univ. Journal of Gender, Social Policy, and the Law 10. Taillon, J. Paul D. 2002. Hijacking and Hostages: Government Responses to Terrorism. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger. v HILL, ANITA FAYE A little-known law professor testifying before a U.S. Senate committee in 1991 became a cause célèbre when she accused a respected U.S. Supreme Court nominee of SEXUAL HARASSMENT. Anita Faye Hill became a household name during the televised confirmation hearings of U. S. Supreme Court candidate CLARENCE THOMAS, the second African American in U.S. history to be tapped for the High Court. Hill, who is also African American, was calm and articulate as she withstood an intense grilling by the all-male, all-white SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. Despite skepticism and open hostility from some of the senators, Hill stood firm on her account of sexually explicit remarks and behavior by Thomas, her former boss. Conservatives reviled Hill, feminists revered her—and by the end of the hearings, U.S. citizens of all political persua- sions had a keener awareness of the problem of sexual harassment in the workplace. Nothing in Hill’s background prepared her for the unremitting media attention she GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 276 HILL, ANITA FAYE received during and after the Thomas confir- mation hearings. The youngest of Albert Hill and Erma Hill’s 13 children, she was an extremely private person. Hill was born July 30, 1956, and raised on a struggling family farm near Morris, Oklahoma. Her religious parents emphasized the importance of hard work, strong moral values, and education. Intelligent and disciplined, Hill was valedictorian of her high school class and an honor student at Oklahoma State University, in Stillwater, where she graduated in 1977 with a degree in psychology. After college, Hill attended Yale University Law School on a scholarship from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People ( NAACP). Hill graduated from law school with honors in 1980, and worked briefly for the Washington, D.C., law firm of Wald, Harkrader, & Ross. In 1981 she left private practice to become special counsel to the assistant secretary in the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of CIVIL RIGHTS . The assistant secretary was Thomas. It was during this time that Thomas asked her out and, according to Hill, sexually harassed her. In 1982 Thomas was appointed chair of the EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (EEOC), and Hill moved to the EEOC with her boss in what she felt was a necessary career step. In 1983 Hill decided to leave Washington, D.C., to become a law professor at Oral Roberts University. In 1986 she accepted a teaching position at the University of Oklahoma. Al- though full professorship and tenure are normally granted at Oklahoma after six years, Hill achieved both in just four years. Hill’s transformation from legal scholar to feminist icon came about after Thomas was offered the career opportunity of a lifetime. President GEORGE H. W. BUSH nominated Thomas, then a federal appeals court judge, to fill an opening on the U.S. Supreme Court. During the mandatory Senate investigation of Thomas, Hill disclosed in private sessions the alleged incidents of sexual harassment by Thomas. Reports of Hill’s private testimony were leaked to a National Public Radio reporter. Anita Faye Hill 1956– ▼▼ ▼▼ 1950 2000 1975 ❖ ◆ ◆ ◆◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆◆ ◆ ◆ 1956 Born, Morris, Ok. 1950–53 Korean War 1961–73 Vietnam War 1977 Graduated from Oklahoma State University 1980 Graduated with honors from Yale Law School 1981 Became special counsel to Clarence Thomas, assistant secretary of the Education Department’s Office of Civil Rights 1982 Thomas appointed chair of EEOC; Hill followed him to EEOC 1983 Left D.C. to become law professor at Oral Roberts University 1990 Granted tenure and full- professorship status at Oklahoma 1991 Thomas narrowly confirmed to replace Thurgood Marshall on Supreme Court after Hill testified about alleged sexual harassment by him while at EEOC 1995 Race, Gender and Power in America, written with Emma C. Jordan, published 1997 Speaking Truth to Power published 1998 Appointed professor of Women’s Studies at Brandeis University 2005 Named one of the first Fletcher Fellows 1986–97 Taught at Univ. of Oklahoma School of Law Anita Faye Hill. SCOTT WINTROW/GETTY IMAGES GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION HILL, ANITA FAYE 277 . 2007. Rural 6,113,4 95 Local 5, 570 ,55 3 Urban 2,343, 858 Interstate 212,782 Other freeways / expressways 50 ,8 45 Other arterial 1,019,820 Collector 1,603, 353 GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 272. 1928–1998 1 950 1 950 19 751 9 75 20002000 19 251 9 25 ❖ ◆ ◆ ◆ 1939– 45 World War II 1 950 53 Korean War 1961–73 Vietnam War ◆ ◆ 1928 Born, Trenton, N.J. ◆ ◆ ❖ 1 952 Graduated from Yale Law School 1 953 54 Served. at Brandeis University 20 05 Named one of the first Fletcher Fellows 1986–97 Taught at Univ. of Oklahoma School of Law Anita Faye Hill. SCOTT WINTROW/GETTY IMAGES GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION HILL,