While ISCOTUS is dedicated to matters that relate to the highest court in the U.S., a recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada is worthy of a few passing remarks. Last Friday the Supreme Court of Canada, in a rare advisory opinion, held that the most recent appointment to its own Bench was not qualified as a Quebec appointee. The appointee, the Honourable Marc Nadon, a semi-retired judge on Canada’s Federal Court of Appeal (a court of specialized, limited jurisdiction, similar to the Federal Circuit Court and focused exclusively on federal law), according to the Supreme Court, lacked sufficient connection to Quebec.
All posts by WordPress Admin
Weekly Roundup – March 26, 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.)
Hobby Lobby Arguments
The Court is considering whether corporations can raise religious liberty claims. But might they dodge the question?
Watch the Oyez case page on Friday for Hobby Lobby oral argument audio and transcript
Adam Liptak reports on the implications of the Hobby Lobby case: “If Hobby Lobby were to prevail, the consequences would extend far beyond the issue of contraception.”
Read the Wall Street Journal’s live blog of Hobby Lobby oral arguments
Wood v. Moss: Inside the Case
Case:
On March 26, 2014, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Wood v. Moss, a case about the First Amendment rights of protesters and qualified immunity of government officials. Professor Steven Heyman of IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law explains the background and the issues at stake in the case.
Weekly Roundup – March 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.)
Go-go dancers brought a free speech case to the Supreme Court in Barnes v. Glen Theater. The play “Arguendo” on this case stopped by Chicago last weekend and featured Professor Jerry Goldman of The Oyez Project as well as other Chicago-Kent professors leading post-show discussions
That was embarrassing… Professor Christopher Schmidt revisits some low moments for lawyers at the Supreme Court
Aereo continues expanding even while the case against their business model is before the Supreme Court – with no backup plan in sight
Last Saturday was Justice Ginsburg’s 81st birthday. Learn more about the Court’s second female Justice
The Highs and Lows of Supreme Court Advocacy
Case:
Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States
I was kind of pulling for Steven Lechner on this one. It was hard not to. Lechner was the lawyer who experienced one of the more embarrassing moments in the history of Supreme Court oral arguments.
Weekly Roundup – March 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.)
Last week, ISCOTUS and the Constitutional Rights Foundation Chicago co-hosted You(th) Decide, a program for high school students to debate and decide the outcome of Town of Greece v. Galloway. Check out the live Twitter coverage with #youthdecide, and view our Deep Dive on the issues involved in the case
Can you find the photo of Ginsburg and Scalia on an elephant on Oyez? It exists! (If you give up, several Twitter followers found the answer for you.)
The Supreme Court ruled this week on an intricate international custody dispute
Halliburton asks the Supreme Court to cut back on securities-fraud class action suits
The Supreme Court dismissed the “I Heart Boobies” case, signaling a victory for two students’ First Amendment lawsuit against their school
Weekly Roundup – March 5, 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.)
Stratosphere, Troposphere, Whatever – Looking Back at Oral Argument in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007)
The Court seemed divided along predictable lines during oral arguments in the headlining case about the powers of the Environmental Protection Agency
The death penalty is considered cruel and unusual punishment for people who are mentally retarded. But what tests decide who is mentally retarded?
Contractor employees are covered by whistleblower protections, the Supreme Court ruled this week
Last week’s audio from oral argument now available on Oyez
Weekly Roundup – February 26, 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 Chief Justice’s hate mail — fifty years ago, Earl Warren mused about his inbox during oral argument. Our director explains
Protesters aren’t allowed anywhere in or near the Supreme Court. But should they be?
Justice Scalia: We need more civics education!
Why are there no cameras in the Supreme Court? Jeffrey Toobin claims the answer is two words: Jon Stewart
Petite-sized justice warns of petite-sized 4th Amendment – Adam Liptak writes on Tuesday’s Supreme Court decisions
Stratosphere, Troposphere, Whatever – Looking Back at Mass. v. EPA (2007)
The Supreme Court today considered the scope of the Environmental Protection Agency’s power to regulate greenhouse gases. According to early reports from oral arguments—and to the surprise of no one—the more liberal justices seemed open to allowing the EPA to regulate, while at least some of the more conservative justices were skeptical of allowing the EPA to venture further down this road. Justice Scalia, as per usual, made no effort to hide his views. He came out swinging against the EPA’s authority.
Justice Scalia was similarly outspoken seven years ago in oral arguments in the case that set in motion the EPA’s regulation of greenhouse gases. In Massachusetts v. EPA, the specific issue was motor vehicle emissions (whereas today’s arguments dealt with industrial plant emissions), but the underlying question about whether the Clean Air Act applies to greenhouse gases was the same. Justice Scalia believed then, and apparently still believes today, that the Clean Air Act’s provisions regarding “air pollution” should be read to apply to the air we breathe, but not to the pollution of the stuff beyond that, up in the sky, whatever it’s called. In the following exchange from the 2007 case, we get the rare instance of a brave lawyer correcting a justice in oral argument.
Weekly Roundup – February 19, 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 does James Madison have to do with the civil rights movement? ISCOTUS director Christopher Schmidt explains
Burning effigies, attempted suicide, and a justice on the run? Welcome to the first Supreme Court
With so many amicus briefs being submitted to the Court – including two more for Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby – how useful can they be?
Chief Justice Warren talks about his hate mail
The Supreme Court released its last oral argument calendar for this term. Cases include copyright issues and cellphone privacy
Captive Audience: Inmate book club reads Justice Sotomayor’s memoir, “My Beloved World”