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.
Category Archives: Term
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.
Wood v. Moss: Behind the Decision
On May 27, 2014, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of the qualified immunity of Secret Service agents in Wood v. Moss. But what does the decision mean? Professor Steven Heyman (IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law) takes you behind the decision and explains the key aspects of the case.
Patent Cases Before the Court
This week, the Supreme Court heard arguments on two important patent cases: Limelight v. Akamai and Nautilus v. Biosig. In addition to this week’s video from Professor David Schwartz on these cases, the Chicago-Kent Faculty Blog has argument analysis and predictions on these two cases. The analyses are written by Professor Christi Guerrini, and the … Continue reading Patent Cases Before the Court
Nautilus & Limelight: Inside Two Cases
On April 28, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., and two days later, the Court heard argument in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc. These two patent cases have important implications for intellectual property law. Professor David Schwartz (IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law) explains the issues and background of both cases.
Riley v. California: Inside the Case
On April 29, 2014, the Supreme Court hears oral argument in Riley v. California. This case raises a complicated question about technology: Can the police search your cell phone upon arrest without a warrant? Professor Kimberly Bailey (IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law) discusses the background of the case and the issues at stake.