Oyez will have oral argument audio in today’s Prop. 8 case around 1:00 PM Eastern Time today, moments after we have the audio from the Court. A synchronized, searchable transcript of the audio will be posted roughly 90 minutes after the audio.
On Wednesday, May 27, 2013, at 3 pm CDT, IIT Chicago-Kent is presenting a forum on the same sex marriage cases. The forum will be streaming live here and will be posted later on Chicago-Kent’s YouTube channel. The event is cosponsored by ISCOTUS, as well as by the Chicago-Kent Lambdas and the Chicago-Kent chapters of The Federalist Society and The American Constitution Society. Panelists are Professors Steven Heyman, Katharine Baker, and Christopher Schmidt, and the event will be moderated by ISCOTUS director Professor Carolyn Shapiro. (All of these Chicago-Kent faculty members — and several of their colleagues — can also be seen discussing key issues in the cases here.)
Want to learn more about the politics, history, and legal issues involved in the same sex marriage cases? ISCOTUS and The Oyez Project have created a “deep dive” website, containing a wealth of information about these cases, which will be argued on March 26 and 27, 2013. We encourage you to visit the site, explore, and share the link widely.
The Court today announced that recordings of oral arguments in the two same-sex marriage cases it will hear next week will be released same day. Oyez will also have the transcript-synchronized audio available same-day. The Court will hear arguments concerning California’s Proposition 8 on Tuesday, March 26, and concerning the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act on Wednesday, March 27.
Shelby County v. Holder, the case challenging the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, has gotten a lot of attention. But another very important voting rights case was argued on March 18 in the Supreme Court. This case, Arizona v. Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona, involves a challenge to Arizona’s requirement that people show proof of citizenship in order to register to vote. According to severalaccounts, Justice Sotomayor and Justice Scalia were both extremely active questioners in today’s arguments — and were clearly in disagreement. You can hear for yourself when the argument becomes available at the end of this week. Listen here or on your ISCOTUSnow app, available at the iPhone app store for free!
I recently posted a short article on the history of the Supreme Court’s shrinking docket on SSRN. The article, which got a mention at the Legal History Blog, appears in IIT Chicago-Kent’s compilation, Then and Now: Stories of Law and Progress (2013), which was published in honor of the law school’s 125th anniversary.
Usually when the Supreme Court denies certiorari, there is no comment at all from the justices. No one has way of knowing why the case was denied or what the justices thought about lower courts’ the decision. On Monday, February 25, however, when the Supreme Court denied certiorari in the case of Calhoun v. United States, Justice Sotomayor (joined by Justice Breyer) issued a statement. Justice Sotomayor agreed with the Court’s decision not to take the case but she was so appalled by the facts of the case that she felt compelled to comment.
On February 19, the Supreme Court announced that it would hear argument in a case challenging some of the contribution limits in federal campaign finance laws. (The lower court rejected the challenge.) One possible outcome of the case, McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, is for the Supreme Court to declare some or all federal contribution limits unconstitutional. This possibility has drawnenormousattention.
But one point is worth keeping in mind when speculating about what the Court will do: The Court had no choice about whether or not to decide this case (a point also mentioned by Rick Hasen, proprietor of the Election Law Blog). There are a small number of types of cases, like this one, over which the Court has mandatory jurisdiction; in other words, parties can bring appeals to the Supreme Court as a right and the Court must decide them. The Court does not, of course, have to hear oral argument, and it often summarily affirms. But a summary affirmance is more consequential than a simple denial of certiorari, so as a practical matter, the justices may well have a lower bar for deciding to hear oral argument in such cases than they do for granting cert.