Hobby Lobby at SCOTUS: Behind the Decision

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.

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

Continue reading

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.

Continue reading

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.

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

Continue reading

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.”

Continue reading

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

Continue reading