We have aligned the audio + transcripts for this week’s arguments and made some corrections to the transcripts in the process. (We provide all six audio files but the audio+transcripts in two cases argued on November 9 will be released on November 11). Two cases argued on November 7 and Nov ember 8 received considerable press attention: Zivotovsky v. Clinton and United States v. Jones.
Prof. Douglas Godfrey of IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law discusses the implications of one of the most important Search & Seizure cases the Court will have reviewed in the last decade.
Prof. Edward Harris discusses a curious case that has the potential to impact both the definition of political questions and the role of the courts in deciding them, and the relationship between Congress and the President in U.S. foreign relations.
A few of the highlights of last term’s announcements include:
Justice Elena Kagan’s first dissent from the bench in Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett
Prof. Richard Kling discusses the Court’s upcoming review of the reliability of eye witness testimony in Perry v. New Hampshire.
The Court agreed on Monday, October 17 to hear arguments in a case addressing whether patently false statements are protected by the Freedom of Speech clause of the First Amendment. Specifically, the Court will examine the Stolen Valor Act of 2005, which makes it a crime for an individual to falsely claim that they have received a military decoration. The case is particularly noteworthy because, while the Court has previously tolerated laws forbidding libel and other forms of false statements in specific contexts, it remains unclear whether false statements, in general, can be prohibited.
The case is No. 11-210, United States v. Alvarez
Did you know you can listen to oral arguments and opinion announcements through podcasts on your iPod or iPhone? Oyez has recently redesigned and improved our iTunes U site. Check it out to see what podcasts are available.
The Court today agreed to hear a double jeopardy case, specifically addressing whether an accused murderer can be retried on all counts if the first jury deadlocks on lesser charges but acquits him of a greater offense.
The case is No. 10-1320, Blueford v. Arkansas. You can read the full background of the case on Oyez.