In honor of the sixtieth anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, Oyez and ISCOTUS are posting the transcript from the two rounds of oral arguments that led up to the May 17, 1954, ruling. Here is a quick setting of the scene. The first round of arguments took place … Continue reading A Look Back at Brown v. Board of Education
On Tuesday, for the first time in her five years on the Supreme Court, Justice Sotomayor read a dissent from the bench. This was in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, the case in which the six-justice majority upheld Michigan’s ban on racial preferences in its public universities. Oral dissents, as a relatively unusual … Continue reading Justice Sotomayor’s First Oral Dissent
Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in a New Mexico case involving a photography business that refused to take pictures at a same-sex commitment ceremony. This act of discrimination, according to the state human rights commission, ran afoul of the New Mexico public accommodations law. The couple who owned the photography company … Continue reading The Right to Discriminate in Historical Perspective
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 … Continue reading Chief Justice Warren Talks About His Hate Mail
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 … Continue reading “If Madison Were Alive Today….” Oral Arguments in New York Times v. Sullivan
Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action
The Supreme Court will decide on another affirmative action case this Term. Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, though, is different from the previous Term’s case in its central premise. Learn the background of the case from Professor Vinay Harpalani of Chicago-Kent College of Law.
Case: United States v. Windsor Tomorrow, Thursday, October 10, Chicago-Kent will host a panel discussion on the same-sex marriage cases the Supreme Court decided last June. This event marks the law school’s belated celebration of Constitution Day (Sept. 17). The symposium is funded largely through a grant from the Jack Miller Center’s Constitution Day Initiative. … Continue reading Guest Post: Constitutional Interpretation in the 21st Century, by Christopher Schmidt
Case: Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action While the Supreme Court was still deciding Fisher v. University of Texas last Term, it granted cert to a case out of Michigan called Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action. Both cases deal with affirmative action, but in very different ways.
The 2012 Term of the Supreme Court wrapped up with many important decisions. The faculty of Chicago-Kent College of Law goes behind the decisions to explain what happened, why, and what it means for the future.
In Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court found that Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional. But the Voting Rights Act isn’t gone. Professor Carolyn Shapiro (Chicago-Kent College of Law) explains the decision and what it means for the future of voting rights law.