Featured

On the Move to Case Western

I will be joining the Case Western Reserve University School of Law faculty effective January 1, 2023. Though this is a major transition, I will nonetheless continue my teaching and scholarship around Election Law, Civil Rights, and Race and the Law.

Academics don’t usually like to “self promote,” especially when it comes to big career moves. But this is news about me that I’m thrilled to share:

I will be joining the Case Western Reserve University School of Law faculty as a tenured full professor effective January 1, 2023. Though this is a major transition, I will nonetheless continue my teaching and scholarship around Election Law, Civil Rights, and Race and the Law.

In particular, I will be engaged two exciting projects in the near future at Case which will expand my research, engagement, and public commentary around voter eligibility, democracy, and race. First, I’m excited to share that I am co-authoring a forthcoming new edition of Derrick Bell’s Race Racism and American Law (with Cheryl Harris, Justin Hansford, Amna Akbar, and Audrey McFarland). The completed book will be forthcoming in the next year or so. Second, I look forward to furthering preliminary work I have done towards a book project around voter suppression and American democracy. Both of these projects will inform the contributions I look forward to making at Case.

While I’m saddened to leave my friends at Marquette and am grateful for the five years of community I have had in Wisconsin, my spouse and I are excited to have the opportunity to be on the ground in Ohio. While she forwards her work on military ethics, I look forward to continuing to teach, lecture, and research around the present and future of American democracy.

Cycles of History, Frustration, and Hope

I believe that we must create space for building authentic multiracial democratic community by naming and changing mechanisms that frustrate voting processes and risk backsliding from democratic aspirations. We must give space for every voice and each voter to believe that their vote matters.

On Wednesday, May 13, 2026, I was formally recognized by the Case Western Reserve University School of Law as the Morris G. Shanker Professor of Law. In this manuscript for my investiture remarks, I offer a personal reflection on how the present moment in American democracy (especially post-Callais) fits into history and how I find hope in this most difficult of moments.

Last month, I was having lunch with a friend of decades-long acquaintance, a friend with whom I connected at my thirty-year college reunion. Early in our meal, I complained about a book chapter I was working on. I commented that I found myself frustrated. I felt sick of writing about the law of democracy over and over again.

Photo from Investiture and Faculty Awards May 13, 2025 (credit: Laura McNally)

Of course, the chapter is about voting rights and voter suppression – topics about which I’ve written at length in what is now the prelude to my twentieth year in the legal academy. I’ve tried to name voter suppression as inequality, an expression of—and a product of—disinformation, distrust, and discord around the belief that we can and should have an authentic multiracial democracy. The existence of voter suppression cuts against the vision that the voters (and We the People generally) ought to be treated as the true source of the legitimacy of our republic, since the legitimacy of government comes from “the consent of the governed.”

Those words from the Declaration of Independence make a promise, a promise that our Founders encoded (poorly) in the Constitution. And when, after two generations of struggle our republic found that this promise—such as it was—did not truly speak to the people since the Constitution perpetuated caste, our republic made this promise again in its “second founding” brought about by the Reconstruction Amendments and the laws meant to bolster it, like the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Klu Klux Klan Act of 1871. And when, again, that promise failed because Jim Crow made two Americas–a democracy for some, and a racial authoritarian state for others–and in the name of answering the demand of folks like Martin King’s who demanded of this country to “Give Us the Ballot,” this nation again restated its promise – through laws like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

In all these places I have found the possibility and the potential that we must our heart, be a democracy and build community despite the received boundaries of race, sex, gender, nationality, ability and distrust. I believe that we must create space for building authentic multiracial democratic community by naming and changing mechanisms that frustrate voting processes and risk backsliding from democratic aspirations. We must give space for every voice and each voter to believe that their vote matters. This will serve the goal of governmental legitimacy and preserve the democratic promise. 

Specifically, in my work, I’ve tried to illustrate that governmental design that presumes distrust of those who participate, and in the process, plants seeds of distrust of our fellow Americans based on over-exaggerated myth, is a danger to the republic itself. (And we’ve seen in the last decade, meme, myth, denial and insurrection have served to threaten the heart of the democratic mechanism of our republic.) 

I also believe – and the need for a conversation about this more clearly present than ever – that a constructive race consciousness that traces out our personal and structural patterns of discrimination and works to correct them in the name of inclusion and authentic multiracial democracy is needed now more than ever. It is the original sin that persists from the settling of this land and the founding of this country on the back of slavery.

It is through conscious conversation and intervention to build community, rather than denial of the the reality of racism or the premature declaration of unwarranted democratic success, that the promise of democracy can be fulfilled, 60, 160 or 250 years after it was made. 

Many who have come before me, and many who have and will come after—especially those who learn in the halls of Case Western Law School and carry the message to the world—have sought to evoke this democratic promise and to strive that our entire country tries to live up to it. Those like Fred D. Gray who helped shape the law in the period of the Second Reconstruction—and blazed a path that many of us seek to follow. And those of my students who have helped me write and who are now off to write their own chapter in this uniquely American story. 

For the two generations of the Second Reconstruction, our laws, though not perfect, nonetheless helped to bring the promise of a multiracial democracy to reality. But with every advance comes retrenchment. Every step forward is accompanied with two, three, or more steps back. And on this day, two weeks after the Supreme Court’s decision to hollow out Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in Louisiana v. Callais, that backsliding feels like an all-out rout. Some would say it’s just politics. Some would say that it is the reinvention of—perhaps, even the second coming of—Jim Crow. But it also feels like the moment we see in 2026 is eerily similar to the retrenchment we saw in 1903, or 1877, or 1857, or in the flaw of what was left out of ‘our’ Declaration of 1776.

Our democracy—in its cyclical efforts to be born, live free, and exist for the People—can be stuck and frustrated, just as I felt writing that book chapter. But my classmate and lunch friend unwittingly gave me a challenge. She challenged me to write (or maybe, I could say, to live) as if this frustration at the cycles of history is our truth and to write with the energy and the frustration and—dare I say—outrage that comes from living in this time. 

Indeed, as I understand history, it is that frustration and outrage—and the decision to demand more by doing something about it—that is the source of hope. It is the hope of 1903 where Jackson W. Giles’s lawsuit–though unsuccessful–inspired a movement that had its high point in Lyndon Johnson’s signing of the Voting Rights Act. It is that suit by Harriott and Dred Scott to possess their own humanity–though lost–that was nonetheless a catalyst for the promise of equality embedded in the Fourteenth Amendment. And in this age of Callais, the future of multiracial democracy remains unwritten but can strive in possibility—if we are dedicated to making the possibility a reality

My friend’s encouragement to write in that truth reveals possibility in the cycles of history. That possibility allows me—allows us—to speak for the multiracial, mindful democracy that many dreamed of before and for which we hope today. We can speak to possibility the way that Wynton Marsalis and Stanley Crouch imagined in their poem/sermon/musical masterpiece, Premature Autopsies, when the personified legacy of slavery speaks to the imagined soul of America and says, “If you give me a fair chance, I will help you better understand the meaning of democracy.” Let us continue using our history to evoke a future where we can understand—and for our posterity create—the meaning of democracy.

The New Normal of Redistricting — my new commentary on recent mid-decade redistricting at Oxford Human Rights Blog

I recently wrote this commentary for the Oxford University Human Rights Blog Hub concerning the disturbing move to mid-decade gerrymandering in Texas, California, and elsewhere in anticipation of the 2026 congressional elections. As the blog discusses, what has happened in the lead up to this fall’s congressional elections will have implications for years to come. Read more at the link.

Thoughts on July, Reconstruction, and a New Birth of Freedom

I have a habit of memorializing July 3, 1863 — the end date of the Battle of Gettysburg. When I’m home, I will usually stream Episode Five of The Civil War by Ken Burns: The Universe of Battle. (Actually, I still own the DVD box set.) I’ve written about this habit of mine before. Indeed, I texted friends of mine “Happy July 3rd!”

I believe Gettysburg matters now more than ever because the victory there opened America to a possibility of “a new birth of freedom.” But that possibility can still be lost.

Now, I realize you’re probably reading this while celebrating Independence Day 2025. You might be thinking, isn’t “The Fourth,” which celebrates the signing of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, the holiday that matters? If July 3rd was a big deal, you might argue, it would be a holiday too. Maybe you’re lauding the fact that the Declaration pronounced that “all men are created equal.”

But that proposition, while an eloquent and seminal idea, isn’t the entire story. Thomas Jefferson, the drafter of the Declaration, wrote, then under pressure, deleted an anti-slavery passage from the Declaration. Even after the Revolution, slavery shaped the framing of the Constitution and divided the United States for decades. Indeed, Fredrick Douglass, lauded abolitionist and civil rights activist, pointed out in 1852 the meaningless of celebrating the liberty and equality proclaimed on the Fourth of July in the face of chattel slavery. All persons may have been created equal, but slavery created a caste system that divided America.

This entrenched conflict over slavery came to a head in the Civil War, and 87 after the founding, on July 1-3, 1863, the Battle of Gettysburg was fought. To quote the Smithsonian Institution’s essay celebrating the 150th anniversary of the Civil War, the Battle of Gettysburg was “the moment of decision” for the conflict.

A chaotic scene depicting the Battle of Gettysburg, with soldiers, horses, and cannons amidst smoke and dust.
By Paul Philippoteaux – National Park Service website: [1], Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=2051550

“Gettysburg changed everything,” the Smithsonian essay continues. After the defeat of the Army of Northern Virginia, “[t]he North began to see Robert E. Lee as a mortal, a flawed individual capable of being defeated. Also, coupled with General Ulysses Grant’s vanquishing of the last southern stronghold on the Mississippi—Vicksburg fell on July 4, the day after the conclusion of Gettysburg—the North believed that the Union cause had finally acquired military leaders capable of prosecuting the war.”

The possibility of new liberty through Union victory became clear in July 1863.

And with victory in April 1865 came Reconstruction, and with it the abolition of legal slavery, the redefinition of citizenship, and the creation of the foundation of the civil and political rights in America today. Yet, as quickly as these rights were articulated, these rights were betrayed through political manipulation, judicial undercutting, and open racial violence. Nearly a century of Jim Crow segregation ensued, and America needed protest from Selma to Washington to lead to a Second Reconstruction that (re-) establish the promise of formal civil and political rights for all. And even today, the terms of Reconstruction are still being debated and can be lost.

But without the conclusion of the Civil War, and the turning of the tide of that war made at Gettysburg, the United States as we know it now could never have existed. Indeed, without the victory at Gettysburg, Lincoln could not have articulated in his famous address at the dedication of the Gettysburg battlefield, a new declaration for the United States:

that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom – and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

To read July 3rd along with July 4th, to see the scope of America as ranging from Independence Day to Gettysburg, from the Colfax Massacre to Selma, from the beginning to today and all the struggle in between, is to recognize that the work of Reconstruction remains incomplete.

It is to celebrate how far American has come, but to recognize how far America has to go to fulfill its promise. Propositions that we used to think of as well settled — like birthright citizenship, a universal right to vote, and a commitment to liberty and justice for all — remain contested a century and a half later.

And so long as we debate whether some have rights, and others suffer as a consequence, none of us is truly free. And the work of changing this for the better, of making us all free is, in Lincoln’s words, “the great task remaining before us.”

Black History Lecture, Greenbrier County, WV on 2-23-23

I will be in Lewisburg, WV, to deliver a lecture on voting rights, race, and democracy for the Greenbriar County Chapter of the West Virginia NAACP on Thursday, February 23, 2023, at the County Courthouse. This will be part of the Chapter’s Black History Month Celebrations. This will also be a fun return to see friends and former colleagues from West Virginia. I look forward to it, and if you are in the area, please come by. More information can be obtained from the Greenbriar NAACP website or by calling the chapter at (304) 952-9927.

Chisolm Distinguished Research Scholar Appointment

As you may recall, I announced last fall that I had been appointed a Professor of Law at Case Western Reserve University School of Law. Today, I follow up with additional personal news–that I have been appointed the Laura B. Chisolm Distinguished Research Scholar at Case Western. I am proud of this, as it marks a milestone in my ongoing research mission.

And this particular distinguished scholar designation is in memory and honor of the late Professor Laura Chisolm, an alumnus of Case Western Law, and a distinguished researcher around wills and trusts, and an academic leader in her own right. (More on her legacy here.) I’m honored that through this appointment, I will get to carry on my research mission of defending and bolstering American democracy in her honor.

The Website is Alive Again!

With a nod to the UK, I’m happy to announce the republication of atibaellis.com

After too long of a hiatus, I write to announce that the website is now active again. I’m excited about this, and I look forward to sharing new projects and big changes to come.

While the website has been around since 2016 and remains a resource, the last two years have been a challenge. The pandemic diminished my capacity, and like all of us, I had to make choices. Among the many of things I had on my plate, this website and my Internet presence fell to the bottom of the to-do list.

No longer!

In anticipation of some exciting new projects and the need to fight for American democracy, I am now returning to the blogosphere and reviving this website to make it a useful, functioning, interactive platform once again.

If you take a browse now, you’ll notice that I have updated it with my work from the last two years. This includes two new law review essays (which you can find on the Research tab), a number of the online programs I’ve participated in since the pandemic (available under Media Appearances), and the most recent Public Scholarship I have written on and around the issues American democracy has faced — especially in the aftermath of the 2020 election. And in the coming months, you can anticipate that I’ll blog about forthcoming projects, lectures, and stuff worth your read, including two book projects to which I am contributing–including the Seventh Edition of Bell’s Race Racism and American Law. Moreover, I’ll soon announce some big professional changes that I’m happy to share.

The bottom line is that atibaellis.com is back! Stay tuned!

This Fourth of July is Yours, Not Mine

I cannot celebrate this Independence Day in a spirit of joy over “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Yet I feel in this time that the clarity we see these days for America’s faults is now more than ever balanced by America’s possibility, that continuing yet unfulfilled promise of equality.

That possibility was born on the Third of July. This year, I will celebrate it and mourn the Fourth.

The Third of July birthday of which I speak was July 3, 1863. That day ended the Battle of Gettysburg. It saw the repulse of Pickett’s Charge, the hamstringing of the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia, and the beginning of the end of Robert E. Lee’s rebellion. July 3 signaled the long march to the eventual ruin of slavery and the Confederacy.

Admittedly, the Confederacy of the mind won the Jim Crow peace. This “Lost Cause” resisted equality and civil rights for nearly a century after Appomattox (and that same resistance under the banner of the Confederate battle flag is invoked every time the flag’s removal is protested). But the actual Civil War’s end, and the victory of the idea of equality, began at Gettysburg.

Indeed, in reflecting on the underlying meaning of Gettysburg in his famous November 1863 address, President Abraham Lincoln saw the battle as the test of whether American democracy based on rhetoric of equality could survive civil war. In his famous speech, he hoped

that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

That cause, the New Birth of Freedom, promised an America that laid stock in Lincoln’s great cause of abolishing slavery and restoring union (even despite Lincoln’s own slow realization of the former). The bullets and blood of Gettysburg set in motion the ultimate Reconstruction of the US Constitution that promised an equal protection of the laws for all persons in the United States without yolk of slavery or differentiation based on status or race.

Unlike the America of the Founders, that promised United States actually includes me as a free Black man equal to all other men and women. It is that New Birth of Freedom that I prefer to celebrate through commemorating the victory of Gettysburg and the demise and fall of the Confederacy. For that victory sowed the seeds of a Union more perfect than the one of 1789.

This promise is an answer to African-American orator Frederick Douglass’s question, “What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?” His Independence Day 1852 oration held a mirror to a white supremacist America that would enslave his body yet celebrate liberty:

I am not included within the pale of this glorious anniversary! Your high independence only reveals the immeasurable distance between us. The blessings in which you, this day, rejoice, are not enjoyed in common. The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity and independence, bequeathed by your fathers, is shared by you, not by me. The sunlight that brought life and healing to you, has brought stripes and death to me. This Fourth [of] July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn.

Frederick_Douglass_c1855We appreciate Douglass’s assertions even more today. Indeed, the irony of Thomas Jefferson’s appeal to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is clear when we recognize that he echoed John Locke, who pointed to “life, liberty, and property,” and thus we can read Jefferson’s rhetoric (as forced by Southern slaveholders) as a protection of his property—including his slaves. Moreover, the signers of the Declaration of Independence used their eloquent call for liberty to shroud their tax revolt which in a sense sought to reapportion more of the benefits of the transatlantic slave trade to themselves. And it is to appreciate that the original pro-slavery American constitution set the stage for our arguments about race today.

I like Douglass must ultimately morn. Even in this 244th year of the United States, Lincoln’s promised freedom and the reconstructed constitutionalism which should have followed remains desperately under fulfilled. Antiblackness still pervades and perverts promised liberty for all.

My life still remains at greater risk than a white life at police stop. I mourn for George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, Trayvon Martin, Tamir Rice, and how their deaths are symbols of the many thousands gone because of extremist police violence against people of color (who’s origins are inextricably tied to slavery). To speak their names is to invoke the sign and signal of an America still addicted to anti-Black police violence. For me to invoke their memories is to remember my own life has a target on it. And so I mourn.

I mourn because my vote is devalued because of the caprice of those who suppress the votes of Black, Latinx, and poor people. I mourn for the racial wealth gap, the school-to-prison pipeline, and the fact that Black and Brown bodies suffer and die more from COVID-19.

I cannot but join Douglass in saying that an America that claims liberty and justice for all, as measured by its progress in all these structures of racism from the Founding to the present, may have improved since 1863, but ultimately America (to date) remains “false to the past, false to the present, and solemnly binds herself to be false to the future.” And thus, on this eve of Independence, the contradiction between the promise and the reality of America is clear. And I wonder whether the promise of overthrowing racial oppression once and for all is true.

But rather than despair, I, like Douglass, would say, “notwithstanding the dark picture I have this day presented of the state of the nation, I do not despair of this country.” Indeed, I am heartened by the destruction of communal symbols of racism and white supremacy—blackface, appropriated black icons, and propagandistic Confederate statues, to name a few—and I express my hope that further mindful erasure of allegiances to white supremacy through democratic deliberation continue.

But for a Fourth of July that is more joy than pain for me, the Reconstruction must actually be completed. The promise of the Third of July must be fulfilled by transforming the structures that perpetuate racist effects (even without any racist intent). That includes, among other things, reinvented policing, reimagined democracy, and a revision of the structures and ideology that perpetuate the New Jim Crow. Government of the people must protect and value all the people.

Until then, “this Fourth of July is yours, not mine.”

Join Me in NYC for Two Talks on November 4

I have the privilege of participating in two panels in New York City this Monday, November 4. The first is a lunchtime event sponsored by NYU Law Review and the Center on Race, Inequality, and the Law on “Race and an Exclusionary Democracy.”

The second is an evening event on the impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump and the their implications for the future of our democracy. It’s sponsored by the Sorensen Center for International Peace and Justice and the CUNY Law Office of Student Affairs.

Both events are open to the public, but require an RSVP. The details and registration links for each event are below. If you in the city Monday, I hope you will join me.

nyu

NYU Law Review Lunchtime Series on The Anatomy of Racism and Inequality: Race and an Exclusionary American Democracy

November 4, 2019, 12:30 to 2:00 pm, Lester Pollack Colloquium
Event details
RSVP

This panel will explore how racial identity has colored American democracy and political participation.  Panelists will discuss how racism, xenophobia, and religious intolerance have impacted public conceptions of who is an American, and therefore who has the right to vote and otherwise participate in the nation’s political life.  The panelists will also consider contemporary efforts to expand and restrict active engagement in the democratic process including discriminatory redistricting efforts, voter ID laws, and felon disenfranchisement.

Panelists:

Khaled Beydoun, University of Detroit Mercy School of Law

Atiba Ellis, Marquette University Law School

Ryan Haygood, New Jersey Institute of Social Justice

Danielle Lang, Campaign Legal Center

Myrna Perez, Brennan Center for Justice

Moderated by Vincent Southerland, Center on Race, Inequality, and the Law, NYU School of Law.

 

cuny

Critical Voices: Impeachment and Beyond

November 4 ,2019, 5:00 pm – 6:30 pm
CUNY School of Law, 2 Ct Square W, Long Island City, NY 11101
Event details
RSVP

Join the Sorensen Center for International Peace and Justice and the CUNY Law Office of Student Affairs for a panel discussion with Atiba Ellis, Ruthann Robson, and B.J. Steiner on the impeachment inquiry against President Trump and its wider implications for democracy. Natalie Gomez-Velez will preside.

Atiba Ellis is a Professor of Law at Marquette University Law School who writes on democracy, voting, and race. Ruthann Robson is a Professor of Law and University Distinguished Professor at CUNY Law who is a frequent commentator on constitutional issues. B.J. Steiner is a third-year CUNY Law student who served as a Legal Fellow at Common Cause during this past summer where he co-wrote an accountability report on the case for an impeachment inquiry of President Trump with Karen Hobert Flynn and Paul Seamus Ryan. Natalie Gomez-Velez is a Professor of Law at CUNY Law who teaches Constitutional Law and directs the Center on Latino/a Rights and Equality.

When Diversity Is At the Bottom of the List

Recently, Forbes published a news report entitled, “Chief Diversity Officers Are Set Up to Fail.” The article draws on a survey of a group of Fortune 500 Chief Diversity Officers that asked them what they need to succeed. The article points to CDOs stating that they do not having enough experience, data, or power to accomplish their role. In particular the article reported that, “All of the leaders surveyed reported that diversity and inclusion came in last on a list of eight potential business priorities for their companies.”

And interestingly, as to higher education in particular, The Chronicle of Higher Education reported on a study from September 2018 about University Chief Diversity Officers hired to increase faculty diversity. The claim there was that CDOs likely had no significant impact on the diversification of representation in higher education. The question remains for corporate and educational institutions that claim to want it: why is diversity still such a low priority?

This problem is nothing new. The disconnect between institutional priorities and achieving diversity (whatever that means, as it can mean many things to different people) seems to be indicative of our current broken attitudes towards diversity and inclusion. This brokenness can result in diversity-as-tolerance (as I’ve discussed before), which cravenly takes advantage of being seen as diverse merely to increase profits or enrollments (to the extent that, as Nancy Leong has pointed out, such institutions are willing to fake diversity) without there being an authentic commitment to inclusion and transformation of institutional culture.

The law appears particularly vulnerable to this problem. We can point to examples of the perception of a lack of commitment to diverse representation in law schoolslaw firms, and law practice generally. All of which are microcosms of the society’s shallow practices about diversity and inclusion. And this is ironic given the legal profession’s mission to protect vulnerable minorities.

Maybe “diversity” as idea is in the midst of an existential crisis. Despite good intentions diversity may appear meaningless and amorphous. Or maybe all of this reflects society’s comfort with the patterns of white supremacy, and thus the lip service to diversity is simply a cover for preserving the status quo. And maybe—a thought I would never have uttered four years ago—some people in power actually want the rising tide of renewed white heteronormative patriarchal supremacy to take us to a time when America was “great,” and authentic diversity based on equality is treated as poison.

The existential crisis that diversity faces doesn’t excuse ending the search for it. Authentic diversity is an essential predicate for American institutions, whether for-profit or nonprofit, private or public, that strive to represent all of the people. These recent thoughts about Chief Diversity Officers would suggest some basic starting places for authentic institutional diversity—finding a working definition of diversity, making that definition as part of the institutional vision, and most importantly achieving that vision by making diversity a real, measurable priority.

The priority at the bottom of the list rarely gets achieved.

Originally posted on Race and the Law Prof Blog