Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court’s landmark 1954 school desegregation ruling, turned 60 this past week. This anniversary was much like previous ones, equal parts commemoration and lamentation. If there is a consistent theme to Brown anniversaries over the years, it is this: Brown promised much, but only partially delivered. Brown is a chronic underachiever. From the day it was announced, the Brown decision has been a repository of unmet expectations. Brown has always been both inspiration and disappointment. Indeed, they are two sides of the same coin.
All posts by WordPress Admin
A Look Back at Brown v. Board of Education
In honor of the sixtieth anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, Oyez and ISCOTUS are posting the transcript from the two rounds of oral arguments that led up to the May 17, 1954, ruling.
Here is a quick setting of the scene. The first round of arguments took place in December 1952. The Chief Justice at this time was Fred Vinson, who had written important decisions striking down segregation in higher education two years earlier but who was an uncertain vote when it came to segregation in grade schools. He was an active questioner during oral arguments. Other notably engaged justices were Felix Frankfurter, who sympathized with desegregation as a cause but was unsure whether the courts should take a leading role; Stanley Reed, a Kentuckian who was the most personally uncomfortable of the brethren with the prospect of racial integration; and Hugo Black, an Alabaman who had by this point renounced his past support for segregation (including membership in the Ku Klux Klan) and come out as a strong believer that segregated schools violated the Constitution.
Weekly Roundup – May 14, 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.)
“The perception that partisan politics has infected the court’s work may do lasting damage to its prestige and authority and to Americans’ faith in the rule of law.” A thoughtful piece on partisanship in the High Court from Adam Liptak
In one poll, the Court’s ratings are up with both Democrats and Republicans – while another poll says the public wants more transparency and less politics in the Court
The 2014 Supreme Court term is adding up. Keep track of new cases granted on Oyez
The Supreme Court will not rule on a contentious gun control case
Might public dissatisfaction lead to changes at SCOTUS?
Weekly Roundup – May 7, 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.)
Town of Greece v. Galloway
The Supreme Court held that prayer before a town council meeting is constitutional. Professor Christopher Schmidt of IIT Chicago-Kent takes you Behind the Decision of Town of Greece v. Galloway
The Supreme Court ruled that public prayer before town council meetings in Greece, NY does not violate the Establishment Clause. Learn more about the case in our Deep Dive
The Court’s opinion in Town of Greece v. Galloway on the Establishment Clause
Town of Greece v. Galloway: Behind the Decision
On May 5, 2014, the Supreme Court decided Town of Greece v. Galloway. The decision held that under the Establishment Clause, public prayer before a town council meeting was constitutional. Professor Christopher Schmidt (IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law) explains the decision and its facets.
For more on this case, please visit the Oyez Project/ISCOTUS Deep Dive.
Patent Cases Before the Court
This week, the Supreme Court heard arguments on two important patent cases: Limelight v. Akamai and Nautilus v. Biosig. In addition to this week’s video from Professor David Schwartz on these cases, the Chicago-Kent Faculty Blog has argument analysis and predictions on these two cases. The analyses are written by Professor Christi Guerrini, and the predictions come from Professor Edward Lee. Click the links below to read the posts.
In Nautilus, the Court will decide on the requirement in Section 112 of the Patent Code, which requires patentees to describe their patent claims with sufficient “definiteness”.
In Limelight, the Court considers whether a defendant may be held liable for inducing patent infringement when there has been no direct patent infringement.
Nautilus & Limelight: Inside Two Cases
On April 28, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., and two days later, the Court heard argument in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc. These two patent cases have important implications for intellectual property law. Professor David Schwartz (IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law) explains the issues and background of both cases.
Weekly Roundup – April 30, 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.)
Director Schmidt offers some perspective on Justice Sotomayor’s first oral dissent
How much free speech protection do public employees have? Professor Sheldon Nahmod explains the importance of this week’s arguments in Lane v. Franks
Can the police search your cell phone without a warrant on arrest? Professor Kim Bailey takes you Inside the Case of this week’s Riley v. California
Professors Christi Guerrini and Ed Lee analyze and predict the winner of the patent case Nautilus v. Biosig
Riley v. California: Inside the Case
On April 29, 2014, the Supreme Court hears oral argument in Riley v. California. This case raises a complicated question about technology: Can the police search your cell phone upon arrest without a warrant? Professor Kimberly Bailey (IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law) discusses the background of the case and the issues at stake.
Lane v. Franks: Inside the Case
On April 28, 2014, the Supreme Court hears oral argument in Lane v. Franks. This case questions the extent of free speech against qualified immunity. Professor Sheldon Nahmod (IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law) explains the background and issues at stake in the case.