Supreme Court Hears Wal-Mart Sex Discrimination Case Certification
The Supreme Court heard oral argument Tuesday on a challenge to the certification of a class-action lawsuit on behalf of […]
Amicus, Courts & Judicial Interpretation, Sex Equality
Courts & Judicial Interpretation
Amicus, Courts & Judicial Interpretation, Freedom of Expression, Voting and Elections Rights
Campaign-Finance Challenges Before SCOTUS Once Again
Today the Supreme Court hears the most recent campaign-finance challenge, the first since ruling in 2010’s Citizens United v. Federal
Amicus, Courts & Judicial Interpretation, Voting and Elections Rights
Two Years After Caperton, Judicial Reform Loses Momentum
Just over two years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Caperton v. Massey, a case involving the
Amicus, Courts & Judicial Interpretation, Criminal Justice, Human Rights
Immunity of Government Officials Is Not A License to Ignore the Constitution
The Supreme Court head argument on March 2 in the case of Ashcroft v. Al-Kidd, questioning whether John Ashcroft is entitled to immunity from charges that Abdullah Al-Kidd was held under the act allowing detention of material witnesses, but was treated as a suspect and was in fact never intended to be a witness in any trial. Ashcroft v. Iqbal did enough to undermine the ability of those wrongfully detained by an overzealous government to challenge their detentions, and now Ashcroft asks the court to go even further. The Court needs to take a strong stance that waving the flag of fighting terrorism is not a license to ignore the democratic freedoms government officials claim to be protecting.
Amicus, Courts & Judicial Interpretation, Freedom of Expression
Blurring of the Public and the Private
While the majority of coverage regarding the Snyder v. Phelps decision has swirled around the distinction between the majority’s characterization
Amicus, Courts & Judicial Interpretation
SCOTUS rules 8-1 for Gov't transparency,
says FOIA exemption for “personnel files” cannot apply to things like the maps and data related to the location of
Amicus, Courts & Judicial Interpretation, Freedom of Expression
8 Justices Agree Constitution Protects Free Speech
Whether you believe the Constitution is a living document, or whether you believe the Constitution is rigid and should only be interpreted according the expressed intent of the framers, we can all agree that the Constitution protects free speech (except apparently Samuel Alito). The Supreme Court sent a resounding message this week when it upheld the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to speak in the most offensive possible voice at the most sensitive of times, at military funerals.
Amicus, Courts & Judicial Interpretation
What does it mean when Justice Thomas says nothing?
Is it a problem when a Supreme Court justice chooses not to ask questions at oral argument? Is it a problem when that same justice doesn’t seek consensus with others to try to craft majority opinions and guide the law? Do Justice Thomas’s potential political and family conflicts of interest change your opinion of his position on the court and the way he chooses to exercise his judicial authority? Regardless of what you think about his positions on the issues, is this appropriate behavior for a man appointed to establish the supreme law of the land?
Amicus, Courts & Judicial Interpretation
Judges Have a Right to Play Politics – OpEd
Harvard Law School Professor Noah Feldman contributed an op-ed to the NY Times this week that argues against the presumption that
Amicus, Courts & Judicial Interpretation
Empty Bench Syndrome
The NY Times takes everyone to task (Obama, the Democrats, the Republicans) for not doing more to fill the glaring
Amicus, Courts & Judicial Interpretation
Health Care's March Towards the Supreme Court
For those keeping score, President Obama’s health-care-reform law has a solid 2-2 record in federal courts. While, according to Justice