2026-07-06 The California judiciary and Prof. Erwin Chemerinky - chats with Gemini and DeepSeek

 2026-07-06 

The California judiciary and Prof. Erwin Chemerinky - chats with Gemini and DeepSeek

/  

Prof. Erwin Chemerinsky, Judge Jacqueline Connor, Narcotics Department Police Officer Rafael Perez. Chemerinsky refused to become a member of the County's review committee, because it required signing of non-disclosure and commitment not to sue the city or the county. He took time off and wrote an independent report, which highlighted the role of judges in the scandal. Jacqueline Connor was the best known "Rampart Judge". What she did during that period was incredible.

...

The Rampart scandal (1998–2000) involved widespread police corruption and brutality within the elite anti-gang CRASH unit of the LAPD Rampart Division. Triggered by the arrest of corrupt officer Rafael Pérez, it led to the implication of over 70 officers in crimes including unprovoked shootings, planting evidence, and dealing drugs. [1, 2, 3]

The massive corruption wave resulted in more than 100 overturned convictions, over 140 civil lawsuits, and approximately $125 million in municipal settlements. The fallout also deeply influenced the Los Angeles Police Department's internal oversight mechanisms and inspired pop culture adaptations like the film Rampart. [1, 2, 3]

Chat with Gemini

Q: Hi Gemini, I would like to discuss with you another case of a person who stood up to the Los Angeles judges. Prof Erwin Chemerinsky. The following is based on memory, so check it out. In 1998, the Rampat scandal erupted. It turned out that LAPD Narcotics Department officers were the wholesalers of cocaine in Los Angeles. I was not discussed much, but it was probably related to the CIA Iran-Contra operations, smuggling tons of cocaine to LA to make illegal money for supporting the Contras in Nicaragua. In parallel, they framed probably 1,000s of innocent people as drug dealers and had them sentenced to long prison terms. Two of the prominent figures in the affair were Judge Jacqueline Connor and Narcotics Department Officer Rafael Perez. Chemerinsky, who had already been recognized as an outstanding civic leader, declined an offer to join a County Review Committee, which would have required that he sign a non-disclosure agreement and a commitment not to sue. He then took time off and wrote an independent report. It stood out because he highlighted the judges' accountability.

This is conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states… and judges must share responsibility when innocent people are convicted.

Prof Erwin Chemerinsky (2000)

I don't have a clear understanding of what happened next, but Chemerinsky moved to North Carolina, and it appeared to be at least in part the result of pressure from the judiciary. A few years later, he won the tender to be the founding dean of UC Irvine. The contract was signed, but then retracted. It was said that the California judiciary (the California Supreme Court Chief Justice?) didn't want him back in the State. Then the NYT and WSJ published editorials on the same day, blasting the UC leadership, and the contract was resumed. Today, he is the Dean of UC Berkeley Law School.
What do you know about pressures exerted on Chemerinsky and on UC leadership by the judiciary?

A. Your memory serves you remarkably well regarding the sequence of these events, though the specific sources of pressure during the UC Irvine deanship controversy highlight a slightly different intersection of power. While you noted the judiciary as the primary instigator, the documented record shows it was actually conservative political figures and local officials who successfully forced the temporary rescission of his contract.

Here is the breakdown of what happened regarding the pressures exerted on Prof. Erwin Chemerinsky and the UC Irvine leadership:

1. The Rampart Scandal and the Independent Report (2000)

In 2000, Professor Chemerinsky was invited by the Los Angeles Police Protective League (the police union) to write an independent analysis of the LAPD’s internal "Board of Inquiry" report on the Rampart CRASH unit corruption.  

His report became a landmark document because he refused to sweep the systemic failures under the rug. He famously argued that focusing purely on a few corrupt officers ignored the broader failure of the criminal justice system. He explicitly called out the accountability of prosecutors and judges, writing that judges share responsibility when they passively accept tainted police testimony and preside over the conviction of innocent people.

While his critiques deeply angered establishment figures within the LA justice system, his subsequent move to Duke University in North Carolina in 2004 was officially framed as accepting a prestigious endowed chair (Alston & Bird Professor of Law), though it took place in the highly polarized aftermath of his systemic critiques of Southern California's legal establishment.

2. The UC Irvine Rescission (2007)

In September 2007, Chemerinsky signed a contract with UC Irvine Chancellor Michael V. Drake to become the founding dean of the new law school. Just a week later, Chancellor Drake flew to North Carolina to personally inform Chemerinsky that the offer was being rescinded.  

The Real Sources of Pressure

While rumors at the time floated the idea that members of the judiciary—including then-California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald M. George—were displeased with Chemerinsky's outspoken liberal commentaries (particularly an op-ed he wrote criticizing restrictions on federal habeas corpus rights), the primary, documented pressure came from local conservative politicians and donors in Orange County:

• Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich: Antonovich actively organized a campaign against Chemerinsky, emailing dozens of prominent figures to block the appointment. He publicly declared that hiring Chemerinsky would be like "appointing al-Qaeda in charge of homeland security."  
• The UC Regents and Local Donors: Chancellor Drake initially admitted to Chemerinsky that he feared a "bloody battle" with conservative members of the UC Board of Regents and powerful local donors in historically conservative Orange County who viewed the legal scholar as an overly partisan "lightning rod."  

3. The Backlash and Reinstatement

The administrative decision to fire a world-class scholar over his political op-eds sparked an immediate, ferocious institutional crisis:

• Media Blasting: As you accurately recalled, major news outlets across the political spectrum—including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Los Angeles Times—published scathing editorials blasting the UC leadership for caving to political pressure and violating academic freedom.
• Bipartisan Legal Outrage: Ironically, prominent conservative legal scholars (such as Pepperdine Professor Douglas Kmiec) joined liberals in condemning UC Irvine. They argued that implementing a "political litmus test" for university deans set a dangerous precedent.

Faced with a massive faculty revolt, widespread public condemnation, and the threat of the new law school losing its credibility before even opening, Chancellor Drake reversed course. He flew back to North Carolina, met with Chemerinsky, and jointly announced that the appointment was back on.

Chemerinsky went on to successfully build the UC Irvine School of Law from scratch before being named the Dean of UC Berkeley Law in 2017.

Q: Was there some sort of understanding, when Chemerinsky came back to head Irvine Law School, that he would concenrate on building the school and reduce his public visibility?

There was an attempt to impose such an understanding, but **Chemerinsky explicitly rejected it as a condition for his return.**

When Chancellor Michael V. Drake initially rescinded the contract in September 2007, his primary reservation—and the reservation of the conservative critics pressuring him—was indeed Chemerinsky's high public profile, specifically his frequent, sharply argued political op-eds. During the week of intense public backlash that followed the firing, discussions floated the idea of a compromise where Chemerinsky would take the deanship but "soften" or eliminate his national public commentary to focus strictly on internal administration.

However, Chemerinsky made it a firm boundary that he would not accept the position if it meant being "muzzled."

When the two men met over a weekend in North Carolina to iron out the reinstatement, Chemerinsky explicitly stated during the subsequent press conference that **he would never have agreed to any position that required him to compromise his academic freedom or voice.**

Ultimately, the joint statement issued by Chemerinsky and Chancellor Drake on September 17, 2007, went in the exact opposite direction of a gag order. It stated:

“Our new law school will be founded on the bedrock principle of academic freedom. The chancellor reiterated his lifelong, unqualified commitment to academic freedom, which extends to every faculty member, including deans and other senior administrators.”

Far from reducing his public visibility, Chemerinsky remained a prolific public intellectual throughout his tenure as the founding dean of UC Irvine (2008–2017). He continued to regularly publish columns in *The Los Angeles Times*, *The Sacramento Bee*, and the *ABA Journal*, and he continued to litigate high-profile constitutional cases—using his national prominence as a key selling point to successfully recruit top-tier faculty and build the new law school's reputation from scratch.