Dean Harold Krent spoke to WBBM Newsradio on January 31, 2017, about the judicial philosophy of President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Circuit Judge Neil Gorsuch.
Professor Carolyn Shapiro was quoted in a January 30, 2017, Slate article about what happens if federal employees or officials from the executive branch ignore a federal court order.
Dean Harold Krent was one of two panelists on WTTW’s “Chicago Tonight” on January 12, 2017, discussing whether President-elect Trump’s plans to hand over his business empire to his sons satisfies ethical concerns.
Professor Carolyn Shapiro was a guest on WTTW’s “Chicago Tonight” on December 12, 2016, to discuss what the Founding Fathers intended when they created the Electoral College and whether President-elect Trump’s actions after the election could influence how the electors vote on December 19.
Professor Carolyn Shapiro wrote an article titled “States Can’t Stop Electors From Voting Their Conscience” that appeared on the Washington Monthly website on December 9, 2016, in which she explains the constitutional responsibilities of the Electoral College as well as the role of the states under the Constitution and federal law.
Dean Harold Krent spoke to “Chicago Tonight” host Phil Ponce on December 1, 2016, about how President-elect Donald Trump’s business entanglements create an ethical minefield and could violate the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause.
In a guest blog post for the Huffington Post on December 1, 2016, Professor Carolyn Shapiro explained how the Electoral College could prevent Donald Trump from becoming president and outlines the reasons why she thinks he’s unfit for office.
In response to a Chicago Tribune op-ed by Northwestern law professor Stephen Presser titled “What American law professors forgot and what Trump knew” (11/18/2016), Dean Harold Krent wrote a letter to the editor, published November 25, 2016, refuting Professor Presser’s claim that American law professors are out of touch.
What does a Trump Presidency have in store for the Supreme Court? Answering this question requires considering two separate, albeit related, questions: (1) the impact of one or more Trump nominees on the Supreme Court, and (2) the possible legal challenges to policy Trump has endorsed that might end up in the Supreme Court. In this post, I’ll focus on the first question; in a subsequent post, I’ll look at the second.
One of the immediate implications of Trump’s victory is that President Obama nominee Merrick Garland’s hopes of getting on the Supreme Court are over. The seat left vacant by Justice Scalia’s death in February will remain open until the new President has an opportunity to make his own nomination. (Some have urged Obama to simply give Garland his seat based on the fact that the Senate’s refusal to hold hearings constitutes some sort of consent. But it is hard to imagine the current President seriously considering this constitutionally questionable path.) The Republican strategy of refusing to hold Senate hearings on the nominee until after the election worked. What looked a few weeks ago like a desperate stalling action that had run its course now looks like a high-stakes gamble that paid off.
Professor Edward Lee spoke on WTTW’s “Chicago Tonight” on November 21, 2016, about the spread of fake news on the internet and what can be done about it.