Weekly Roundup – February 26, 2014

Did you miss your Supreme Court news this week? Let our Weekly Roundup help. (To stay on top of the latest Supreme Court happenings, follow ISCOTUS on Twitter.)

The Chief Justice’s hate mail — fifty years ago, Earl Warren mused about his inbox during oral argument. Our director explains

Protesters aren’t allowed anywhere in or near the Supreme Court. But should they be?

Justice Scalia: We need more civics education!

Why are there no cameras in the Supreme Court? Jeffrey Toobin claims the answer is two words: Jon Stewart

Petite-sized justice warns of petite-sized 4th Amendment – Adam Liptak writes on Tuesday’s Supreme Court decisions

Continue reading

Stratosphere, Troposphere, Whatever – Looking Back at Mass. v. EPA (2007)

The Supreme Court today considered the scope of the Environmental Protection Agency’s power to regulate greenhouse gases. According to early reports from oral arguments—and to the surprise of no one—the more liberal justices seemed open to allowing the EPA to regulate, while at least some of the more conservative justices were skeptical of allowing the EPA to venture further down this road. Justice Scalia, as per usual, made no effort to hide his views. He came out swinging against the EPA’s authority.

Justice Scalia was similarly outspoken seven years ago in oral arguments in the case that set in motion the EPA’s regulation of greenhouse gases. In Massachusetts v. EPA, the specific issue was motor vehicle emissions (whereas today’s arguments dealt with industrial plant emissions), but the underlying question about whether the Clean Air Act applies to greenhouse gases was the same. Justice Scalia believed then, and apparently still believes today, that the Clean Air Act’s provisions regarding “air pollution” should be read to apply to the air we breathe, but not to the pollution of the stuff beyond that, up in the sky, whatever it’s called. In the following exchange from the 2007 case, we get the rare instance of a brave lawyer correcting a justice in oral argument.

Continue reading

Weekly Roundup – February 19, 2014

Did you miss your Supreme Court news this week? Let our Weekly Roundup help. (To stay on top of the latest Supreme Court happenings, follow ISCOTUS on Twitter.)

What does James Madison have to do with the civil rights movement? ISCOTUS director Christopher Schmidt explains

Burning effigies, attempted suicide, and a justice on the run? Welcome to the first Supreme Court

With so many amicus briefs being submitted to the Court – including two more for Sebelius v. Hobby Lobbyhow useful can they be?

Chief Justice Warren talks about his hate mail

The Supreme Court released its last oral argument calendar for this term. Cases include copyright issues and cellphone privacy

Captive Audience: Inmate book club reads Justice Sotomayor’s memoir, “My Beloved World”

Chief Justice Warren Talks About His Hate Mail

Last week I discussed oral argument in New York Times v. Sullivan, the landmark First Amendment case that limited the use of libel suits based on criticism of public officials. The case arose from an fundraising advertisement that ran in the New York Times on March 29, 1960. Titled “Heed Their Rising Voices,” the ad was intended to raise money to support Martin Luther King Jr. and others involved in the civil rights struggle. It included some factual inaccuracies about the way police in Montgomery, Alabama, treated King and civil right protesters. Montgomery’s commissioner who was in charge of the police, L.B. Sullivan, won a $500,000 verdict against the New York Times, which was upheld in the Alabama Supreme Court. Sullivan also included in his libel suit four African American preachers, all leading figures in the civil rights movement, whose names were listed as endorsing the fundraising ad. The U.S. Supreme Court heard their appeal, Abernathy v. Sullivan, alongside the New York Times case. It was a colloquy with Sullivan’s lawyer in the ministers’ appeal that led Chief Justice Earl Warren to talk about his hate mail.

Sullivan’s lawyer, Roland Nachman Jr., was explaining to the justices how Alabama libel law allowed a potential defendant to avoid liability by issuing a retraction. But when the four ministers who were defendants in this case received notice of the defamation suit, they failed to respond. The reason they did not respond was that they knew nothing about the advertisement—the people who ran it had added their names without their knowledge. But Nachman insisted that even if this were true, a jury could have interpreted their non-response as evidence “to the effect that the charge is correct.”

Continue reading

“If Madison Were Alive Today….” Oral Arguments in New York Times v. Sullivan

It was fifty years ago that the Supreme Court considered the case of New York Times v. Sullivan. The landmark First Amendment ruling arose when defenders of segregation in Alabama used their state’s libel law to strike out at the civil rights movement. In the spring of 1960, as the student lunch counter sit-in movement spread across the South, allies of Martin Luther King Jr. ran a full-page fundraising advertisement in the New York Times designed to elicit donations to cover his considerable legal expenses. (King was being prosecuted in Alabama on charges of tax evasion and perjury.) In condemning Alabama law enforcement’s treatment of King and student protesters, the advertisement made some misleading or factually inaccurate statements. Several Alabama officials, including L.B. Sullivan, Montgomery’s commissioner who oversaw the police, sued under the Times, along with four African American ministers who had been listed as endorsing the advertisement, for libel. Sullivan won a $500,000 jury verdict, the Alabama Supreme Court upheld the verdict, and the case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. On January 6 and 7, 1964, the Court heard oral arguments in New York Times v. Sullivan and its companion case involving the black ministers, Abernathy v. Sullivan.

Continue reading

Weekly Roundup – February 12, 2014

Did you miss your Supreme Court news this week? Let our Weekly Roundup help. (To stay on top of the latest Supreme Court happenings, follow ISCOTUS on Twitter.)

Explore exciting moments at oral argument with ISCOTUS Director Christopher Schmidt’s new “Drama in the Court” series

Justice Kagan pokes fun at Justice Ginsburg, including her fondness for a made-up word

Free speech and gay rights – the forgotten case of ONE v. Olesen

It was wrong, but we might do it again — Justice Scalia on the Korematsu decision

Justice Sotomayor on her colleagues, her life, and snowstorms

Continue reading

Introducing a New ISCOTUS Series: Drama in the Court

In my new role as Director of the Institute on the Supreme Court of the United States, I am happy to introduce “Drama in the Court,” a new series on ISCOTUSnow. “Drama in the Court” will offer a weekly post in which I revisit interesting moments at oral argument in the Supreme Court. I will look at recently argued cases, older cases that are relevant to issues currently before the Court, as well as some landmark cases from the Oyez archives.

My goal is to search out exchanges between the Justices and lawyers that are particularly lively, entertaining, humorous, tense, occasionally embarrassing, and always, hopefully, edifying. My posts will place these dramatic moments in context, explaining the basic issues before the Court and the significance of the particular exchange. Each post will include audio clips from Oyez, so readers can hear for themselves these dramatic moments in the Court.

I hope this series will be of interest to all Court watchers out there, but I particularly hope that it will be of use to educators. I know that teachers at all levels have come to appreciate Oyez’s incredible value as a teaching resource. But I also know that it can be difficult to find the time to listen to an entire oral argument, or to locate just the right clips to present in class, or to get a grasp of exactly what is going on in the Court. “Drama in the Court” is intended to help with that. I choose clips both for their entertainment value and for the way they highlight, in a particularly accessible way, important legal disputes.

To get an idea of what to expect, you can visit some of my recent posts.

My two most recent posts focus on recently argued cases. In Constitutional First Principles on Display, I look at NLRB v. Noel Canning. In Hypotheticals Gone Wild, I look at Navarette v. California. And in Pork Chops and Privacy, I look at Smith v. Maryland, a 1979 case that has taken on new relevance with the recent legal challenges to the NSA’s wiretapping program.

I am always looking for new cases to profile, so please let me know if you have any suggestions. You can reach me at cschmidt@kentlaw.iit.edu.

Weekly Roundup – February 5, 2014

Did you miss your Supreme Court news this week? Let our Weekly Roundup help. (To stay on top of the latest Supreme Court happenings, follow ISCOTUS on Twitter.)

Hypotheticals Gone Wild: A Look Back at Oral Argument in Navarette v. California

Employees will not be paid for time spent changing into and out of work clothes, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously

The argument in NLRB v. Noel Canning was quite lively. Director Christopher Schmidt pulls out a few vivid moments for ISCOTUSnow

The Supreme Court limits harsh sentences for drug dealers linked to overdose deaths

Continue reading