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.
All posts by WordPress Admin
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.
Weekly Roundup – June 18, 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.)
On the 47th anniversary of the decision that struck down laws banning interracial marriage, Professor Christopher Schmidt takes a look at the key moments of the case’s oral argument
Jeff Toobin argues that the Supreme Court’s decisions deregulating campaign finance have a drastic effect on the debate over climate change
How does a case make it to the Supreme Court’s docket? Columbia Law’s Olatunde Johnson explains in 30 seconds
A Look Back at Loving v. Virginia
Today marks the 47th anniversary of Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court decision striking down bans on interracial marriage in sixteen states. The case was argued on April 10, 1967, and announced just two months later, on June 12.
Looking back at the oral arguments in the case, several points stand out. First, the momentum in the case was clearly on the side of those challenging the offensive laws. The winds of change were behind them, and the Justices were clearly with them. Philip J. Hirschkop, the ACLU lawyer who made the equal protection argument for the challengers (another lawyer made the due process argument) spoke with almost no interruption from the bench. His central argument was stark and direct. “You have before you today what we consider the most odious of the segregation laws and the slavery laws and our view of this law, we hope to clearly show is that this is a slavery law,” he told the Justices. He later made the point more concisely: “These are slavery laws pure and simple.” Hirschkop also compared the law to the policies of Nazi Germany and South Africa. Those who passed these laws “were not concerned with the racial integrity,” he argued, “but racial supremacy of the white race.”
Weekly Roundup – June 11, 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.)
What did the Court’s decision in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action mean? Professor Vinay Harpalani explains the case and its implications
A New York Times reporter could face jail time for refusing to reveal a source, now that the Supreme Court has refused his case
Voting rights will be back in the Supreme Court spotlight next Term with a new case out of Alabama
The Supreme Court unanimously decided the Arkison bankruptcy case in a way that encouraged an “expansive view of jurisdiction”. Learn about the case from our video
Weekly Roundup – June 4, 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.)
Are you a fan of Oyez’s case summaries and accessibility? Thanks to a grant from The Knight Foundation, their efforts can now begin expanding to state courts. First up: Texas!
Why was last week’s Supreme Court decision about Bush protesters decided in favor of the Secret Service? Professor Heyman unpacks the decision in this video
Professor Nahmod goes in depth on the Court’s decision in the case of officers who used deadly force during a dangerous car chase
The Supreme Court’s decision may be the final word in a precedent-setting case – but the Justices keep editing when every word counts
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.
Weekly Roundup – May 28, 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.)
Who needs the Supreme Court? Gay marriage might become the law of the land without it
“Intellectual disability is a condition, not a number,” Justice Kennedy said in ruling for a Florida death row inmate
The Supreme Court held that Secret Service agents have qualified immunity. Learn more about the background of this case from Professor Steven Heyman
“Brown has always lived in the shadow of the bold expectations it has inspired.” Professor Schmidt on Brown v. Board of Education‘s complicated legacy
Weekly Roundup – May 21, 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.)
Brown v. Board of Education, 60 Years Later
“Brown has always lived in the shadow of the bold expectations it has inspired.” Professor Schmidt on Brown v. Board of Education‘s complicated legacy
Saturday marked the 60th anniversary of the decision to desegregate schools in Brown v. Board of Education. Did you know the case took almost two years to decide? Find out more from our director and the argument transcripts
Education Week on Brown v. Board of Education at 60: New Diversity, Familiar Disparities
US Courts website offering resources about landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision