On this day in 2014 the Supreme Court announced its opinion in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action. The case involved a 2006 amendment to the Michigan constitution, approved by a statewide referendum, that prohibited “all sex- and race-based preferences” in public education, employment, and contracting. The referendum was organized in response to Grutter … Continue reading This Day in Supreme Court History—April 22, 2014
In previous posts, I discussed last Term’s oral dissents by Justices Sotomayor (Schuette) and Ginsburg (Hobby Lobby)—all now available on Oyez. I now turn to the other major oral dissent of the Term: Justice Breyer’s in the campaign finance case, McCutcheon v. FEC. Justice Breyer’s oral dissents are particularly interesting listening, because they put on … Continue reading A Look Back—Justice Breyer’s Oral Dissent in McCutcheon
With the beginning of the new term at the Supreme Court comes the release of audio from last Term’s opinion announcements, available now on Oyez. In a previous post I discussed last Term’s most notable oral dissent, Justice Sotomayor’s in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, in which she challenged her conservative colleagues for … Continue reading A Look Back—Justice Ginsburg’s Oral Dissent in Hobby Lobby
The Supreme Court has finally released—and Oyez has made available—audio recordings of last Term’s opinion announcements. Most of these announcements are summaries of majority opinions, but there are also a few oral dissents. Standard practice on the Supreme Court is for only the author of the opinion of the Court to read a summary of … Continue reading A Look Back—Justice Sotomayor’s First Oral Dissent
Attorney Debbie Davidson (Morgan, Lewis & Blockius LLP) gives a detailed explanation of the recent Supreme Court case Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer. The case, which was decided on June 25, 2014, affects employee retirement plan stock options.
Yesterday’s decision in the Hobby Lobby case offers yet another chapter in the still-unfolding story of the extent to which corporations are “persons” for purposes of claiming constitutional rights. Judicial recognition that corporations might claim constitutional rights has a long history, dating back to the late nineteenth century. In recent years, the Supreme Court has … Continue reading Hobby Lobby, Corporations & Constitutional Rights
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.
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.
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.
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.