On June 30, 2014, the Supreme Court decided one of the most closely-watched cases of the Term. In their ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby, the Court held that the Affordable Care Act’s birth control mandate does not require closely held for-profit companies to provide contraception coverage in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores. Professor Christopher Schmidt (IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law) explains the case, the ruling, and its implications in this video.
Monthly Archives: June 2014
Weekly Roundup – June 27, 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.)
About the decisions
Learn more about the Supreme Court’s decision in the Aereo case from Prof. Ed Lee in this video
A unanimous Supreme Court holds that police need a warrant to search the cell phone of an arrestee. Prof. Godfrey explains in our video
The Supreme Court ruled to limit the president’s recess appointment power. Prof. Greenberg explores the ruling in our video
Interested in Lane v. Franks, the employee free speech case? Learn about it from Professor Sheldon Nahmod, who submitted an amicus brief to the case
National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning: Behind the Decision
On June 26, 2014, the Supreme Court declared the recent use of presidential recess appointment power unconstitutional in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning. Professor Sanford Greenberg (IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law) explains this highly technical, yet very important, ruling.
Breyer and Scalia Debate the Role of Established Practice in Constitutional Interpretation
Although Justices Breyer and Scalia ended up on the same side in today’s landmark decision on the President’s recess appointment power, they offered starkly opposing views on the question of whether the past practice of the executive can resolve this constitutional question.
Riley v. California: Behind the Decision
On April 25, the Supreme Court held that police must obtain a warrant to search the digital contents of an arrestee’s phone. The unanimous ruling raised many interesting points, and so Professor Douglas Godfrey (IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law) sat down to explain the decision. The decision was for both Riley v. California and United States v. Wurie.
ABC v. Aereo: Behind the Decision
Today, the Supreme Court ruled in ABC v. Aereo that Aereo’s service infringes on the copyrights of the broadcasters. Professor Edward Lee (IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law) explains the details of the ruling and the unusual lineup of Justices in the majority.
The 2014 EPA Cases – Behind the Decision
Today, the Supreme Court decided Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, which was a consolidation of several cases brought against the EPA. Professor Dan Tarlock (IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law) discusses the complex issues behind the case and the implications of the decision.
Weekly Roundup – June 18, 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.)
On the 47th anniversary of the decision that struck down laws banning interracial marriage, Professor Christopher Schmidt takes a look at the key moments of the case’s oral argument
Jeff Toobin argues that the Supreme Court’s decisions deregulating campaign finance have a drastic effect on the debate over climate change
How does a case make it to the Supreme Court’s docket? Columbia Law’s Olatunde Johnson explains in 30 seconds
A Look Back at Loving v. Virginia
Today marks the 47th anniversary of Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court decision striking down bans on interracial marriage in sixteen states. The case was argued on April 10, 1967, and announced just two months later, on June 12.
Looking back at the oral arguments in the case, several points stand out. First, the momentum in the case was clearly on the side of those challenging the offensive laws. The winds of change were behind them, and the Justices were clearly with them. Philip J. Hirschkop, the ACLU lawyer who made the equal protection argument for the challengers (another lawyer made the due process argument) spoke with almost no interruption from the bench. His central argument was stark and direct. “You have before you today what we consider the most odious of the segregation laws and the slavery laws and our view of this law, we hope to clearly show is that this is a slavery law,” he told the Justices. He later made the point more concisely: “These are slavery laws pure and simple.” Hirschkop also compared the law to the policies of Nazi Germany and South Africa. Those who passed these laws “were not concerned with the racial integrity,” he argued, “but racial supremacy of the white race.”
Weekly Roundup – June 11, 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 did the Court’s decision in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action mean? Professor Vinay Harpalani explains the case and its implications
A New York Times reporter could face jail time for refusing to reveal a source, now that the Supreme Court has refused his case
Voting rights will be back in the Supreme Court spotlight next Term with a new case out of Alabama
The Supreme Court unanimously decided the Arkison bankruptcy case in a way that encouraged an “expansive view of jurisdiction”. Learn about the case from our video