Weekly Roundup – February 5, 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.)

Hypotheticals Gone Wild: A Look Back at Oral Argument in Navarette v. California

Employees will not be paid for time spent changing into and out of work clothes, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously

The argument in NLRB v. Noel Canning was quite lively. Director Christopher Schmidt pulls out a few vivid moments for ISCOTUSnow

The Supreme Court limits harsh sentences for drug dealers linked to overdose deaths

Continue reading

Hypotheticals Gone Wild – A Look Back at Oral Arguments in Navarette v. California

Case:

Prado Navarette v. California

By Professor Christopher Schmidt

This one was a bit crazy from the start. One just senses that Chief Justice Roberts was sitting there as the first lawyer kicked off oral argument, tapping his foot impatiently, counting the seconds before a respectable amount of time had passed so he could pounce with his wild hypothetical.

Continue reading

The Complexity of Consensus on the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court Justices are famous for their disagreements. Yet they actually come together in agreement on a surprising number of cases. Why do Justices with such passionate ideological differences agree so often?

Political scientists Pamela C. Corley, Amy Steigerwalt, and Artemus Ward explore the question in The Puzzle of Unanimity: Consensus on the United States Supreme Court. Professor and ISCOTUS Director Christopher Schmidt reviewed the book for H-Law. You can read his assessment of their work here.

Weekly Roundup: January 29, 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.)

We are thrilled to announce our founding director, Carolyn Shapiro, has been appointed the Illinois Solicitor General – and that Christopher Schmidt is our new director!

Constitutional First Principles on Display: A Look Back at Oral Arguments in NLRB v. Noel Canning

Anonymous tips and car stops – the Supreme Court has fun with hypotheticals in Navarette v. California

Is it a crime to buy a gun for someone else? The Supreme Court will decide

Continue reading

Constitutional First Principles on Display: A Look Back at Oral Arguments in NLRB v. Noel Canning

Case:

National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning

Last week’s Supreme Court oral arguments on the President’s recess appointment power was absolutely fascinating. National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning might seem on the surface a rather dry, technical case. But it has potentially dramatic implications. (Here is my colleague Carolyn Shapiro’s excellent summary of the case and its possible implications.) And, as the oral arguments showed so well, the case puts on fine display some of the most fundamental of questions relating to constitutional interpretation. These questions about the relationship between text, history, and established practices often lurk in the background when the Supreme Court considers major constitutional issues, but in this case they are uniquely foregrounded.

Now, thanks to the wonder that is Oyez, we can easily listen to audio of the oral argument. Here are some of the highlights of this highly engaging session in the Supreme Court. (For a more comprehensive overview of the oral arguments, you can listen to the complete audio here or take a look at the always terrific “plain English” summary prepared by Amy Howe over at SCOTUSBlog.)

The action was lively right from the start of Solicitor General Donald Verilli’s argument. Continue reading

IIT Chicago-Kent Professor Christopher W. Schmidt is named director of ISCOTUS

IIT Chicago-Kent Professor Christopher W. Schmidt has been named director of the law school’s Institute on the Supreme Court of the United States (ISCOTUS). Professor Schmidt succeeds ISCOTUS founding director Carolyn E. Shapiro, who was recently appointed Illinois Solicitor General.

Established in 2011, ISCOTUS provides information, educational resources, and scholarship on the nation’s highest court. The Institute on the Supreme Court of the United States combines the law school’s core strengths: cutting-edge legal scholarship and technological innovation. The institute comprises three major components: the ISCOTUS Academic Center; the Oyez Project and ISCOTUSnow; and the Civic Education Project.

A member of the IIT Chicago-Kent faculty since 2008, Professor Schmidt teaches in the areas of constitutional law, legal history, comparative constitutional law, and sports law. He has written about the political and intellectual context surrounding the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education, the Tea Party as a constitutional movement, the Supreme Court’s recent decision in the health care case, and the rise of free agency in Major League Baseball. He is currently writing a book on the legal history of the student lunch counter sit-in movement of 1960.

Continue reading

Weekly Roundup: January 22, 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.)

Professor Martin Malin takes you Inside the Case of Harris v. Quinn, a labor case argued Monday at the Supreme Court

Try a little Supreme Court sudoku, with Justices’ names instead of the numbers!

What do pork chops have to do with the NSA’s phone-tapping? Professor Schmidt explores a colorful Supreme Court oral argument

Continue reading

Weekly Roundup: January 15, 2014

Did you miss your Supreme Court news over the last few weeks? Let our Roundup help. (To stay on top of the latest Supreme Court happenings, follow ISCOTUS on Twitter.)

Current Cases

The Supreme Court case Noel Canning v. NLRB deals with presidential appointments when the Senate fails to confirm. Professor Shapiro takes us inside the case

Go inside the upcoming Supreme Court bankruptcy case with Professor Adrian Walters and Judge Timothy Barnes

The holiday season brings the issues involved in Town of Greece v. Galloway into the spotlight

Oral argument in an abduction case before the Supreme Court last session got personal when a lawyer revealed part of his past

Free speech or peer pressure? The Court will not hear a case about political buttons near polling places

The Court will decide what counts as a congressional recess and also a follow-up to a case involving Anna Nicole Smith

Continue reading

Pork Chops and Privacy: Looking Back at Oral Arguments in Smith v. Maryland

Case:

Smith v. Maryland

The precedent that looms over the legal challenges to the NSA’s massive phone data collection is the 1979 case of Smith v. Maryland. The issue before the Supreme Court in Smith was whether the police’s use of a pen register—a device that identifies the numbers dialed from a particular phone—constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment and therefore required a warrant. Michael Lee Smith had been convicted of robbery based on evidence from a police investigation that relied on information secured from a pen register, for which the police had no warrant. The Court held, 5-3, that because an individual had no reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to the phone numbers one dials (as opposed to the contents of the call—see Katz v. United States (1967)), the collection of these numbers was not a search for purposes of the Fourth Amendment and so no warrant was needed. Smith’s conviction was upheld.

Some observations about the oral arguments: Continue reading