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
Last week, ISCOTUS was a sponsor of Chicago-Kent College of Law’s Supreme Court Intellectual Property Review (SCIPR), which highlighted intellectual property cases before the Supreme Court last Term and discussed implications for the coming Term. ISCOTUSnow presents a summary from each session of the conference, with help from Daniel Saunders of the Chicago-Kent faculty blog.
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.
Continue reading Behind the Decisions of 2012
Shelby County v. Holder
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.
United States v. Windsor
The Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act this Term by declaring it unconstitutional. This historic decision has many important implications for the future. Get the facts on where same-sex marriage now stands from Chicago-Kent Professor Katharine Baker, who submitted an amicus brief on behalf of family law professors to the case.
Hollingsworth v. Perry
The Supreme Court decided the proponents of Proposition 8 did not have legal standing to challenge the California Supreme Court’s ruling that it was unconstitutional. How did the Court decide? Professor Joan Steinman of IIT Chicago-Kent explains.
Fisher v. University of Texas
The Supreme Court’s decision in Fisher v. University of Texas didn’t make any sweeping declarations on affirmative action. In a 7-1 decision (with Justice Kagan recusing herself), the Court sent the case back to the lower courts. Distinguished Professor Sheldon H. Nahmod, who has argued on civil rights in the Supreme Court, explains what the decision means.
Case: Shelby County v. Holder Last month in Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, a law created to counter discriminatory voting laws. At the time, Congress was concerned that it would be easy for jurisdictions to pass new laws or regulations that … Continue reading After The Decision: The Voting Rights Act
Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics
In the most recent Term, the Supreme Court held in a 9-0 decision that human genes could not be patented. Chicago-Kent Professor of Law David Schwartz explains the decision and why it was made.
Case: Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International The following post, which originally appeared in Nahmod Law, has been cross-posted with permission of the author, Professor Sheldon Nahmod. The Supreme Court handed down an important First Amendment decision on June 20, 2013, that has attracted relatively little attention thus far. The decision … Continue reading The Agency for International Development Case: A New Supreme Court Decision on Free Speech and Government Funding (Guest Blogger Sheldon Nahmod)