All posts by WordPress Admin

OT 2012, Title VII

Carolyn Shapiro On This Week’s Title VII Rulings

ISCOTUS Director and Chicago-Kent Professor Carolyn Shapiro writes on this week’s rulings in her blog post “More Pro-Business Decisions at the Supreme Court.”

The decisions she refers to are Vance v. Ball State University and University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, which both found in favor of employers in workplace discrimination cases.

Professor Shapiro wrote last week on the decision in American Express v. Italian Colors Restaurant and the Roberts Court’s pro-business attitude.

OT 2012

ISCOTUS Director Carolyn Shapiro on American Express

Yesterday’s decision in American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant was not widely publicized, nor was it one of the most anticipated decisions of the Term. But it has profound effects on the legal and business world.

ISCOTUS Director Carolyn Shapiro argues against the Court’s finding in the Chicago-Kent Faculty Blog. Click here to read her explanation and denunciation of the decision in “Arbitration uber alles in the Supreme Court.”

News, OT 2012

What Are They Doing? Why Does It Take So Long?

As we all wait for decisions in this Term’s major cases, people may wonder what is taking so long and why the big cases are so often the last cases to be announced. The short answer is that the big cases are also those in which there is most likely to be fairly strong disagreement among the justices, meaning that there are likely to be multiple opinions — and when that happens, the process can take some time. Here’s a quick primer on what happens:

Continue reading →

Fourth Amendment, OT 2012

Maryland v. King Decision Allows DNA Swabs In Serious Arrests

Case:

Maryland v. King

This morning, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 opinion, with a scathing dissent from Justice Scalia. But the case, Maryland v. King, is not one of the big marquee cases of this Term, nor was the line-up predictable. Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy held that the Fourth Amendment allows a state to take a DNA sample using a cheek swab from all individuals arrested for serious crimes. He was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and by Justices Alito, Breyer, and Thomas. Justice Scalia, who dissented orally this morning after Justice Kennedy announced the opinion, was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor.

The difference in the line-up today and in Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders is interesting. In that case, in which the Court upheld the routine strip search of non-violent arrestees (at least under some circumstances), Justice Scalia was in the majority upholding a state practice against a Fourth Amendment challenge, while Justice Breyer was the scathing dissenter. All the other votes tracked today’s case.

Affirmative Action, OT 2012, Same Sex Marriage

Recapping the Same-Sex Marriage and Affirmative Action Cases

Video

Case:

Hollingsworth v. Perry

If you’re looking to refresh your memory on some of the big cases still awaiting the Supreme Court’s decision, take a look at the videos provided by Chicago-Kent’s Institute on the Supreme Court of the United States (ISCOTUS).

Same-sex marriage

Discover information on the politics, the background, and the issues involved in the two same-sex marriage cases before the Supreme Court in our Deep Dive. These videos discuss the basics of both Hollingsworth v. Perry (the Prop 8 case) and United States v. Windsor (the DOMA case).

Affirmative action

Professors Carolyn Shapiro (ISCOTUS Director and Associate Professor of Law) and Sheldon Nahmod (Distinguished Professor of Law) discuss the details in Fisher v. University of Texas.

The Arguments

The Background

To stay updated with the latest in Supreme Court commentary, subscribe to ISCOTUSnow’s YouTube channel.