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.)
Professor Martin Malin takes you Inside the Case of Harris v. Quinn, a labor case argued Monday at the Supreme Court
Try a little Supreme Court sudoku, with Justices’ names instead of the numbers!
What do pork chops have to do with the NSA’s phone-tapping? Professor Schmidt explores a colorful Supreme Court oral argument
Harris v. Quinn is a labor case out of Illinois that questions a tenet of union membership. With its potentially far-reaching consequences, Professor Martin Malin (IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law) explains the issues at stake before the Supreme Court.
Did you miss your Supreme Court news over the last few weeks? Let our Roundup help. (To stay on top of the latest Supreme Court happenings, follow ISCOTUS on Twitter.)
The Supreme Court case Noel Canning v. NLRB deals with presidential appointments when the Senate fails to confirm. Professor Shapiro takes us inside the case
Go inside the upcoming Supreme Court bankruptcy case with Professor Adrian Walters and Judge Timothy Barnes
The holiday season brings the issues involved in Town of Greece v. Galloway into the spotlight
Oral argument in an abduction case before the Supreme Court last session got personal when a lawyer revealed part of his past
Free speech or peer pressure? The Court will not hear a case about political buttons near polling places
The Court will decide what counts as a congressional recess and also a follow-up to a case involving Anna Nicole Smith
The precedent that looms over the legal challenges to the NSA’s massive phone data collection is the 1979 case of Smith v. Maryland. The issue before the Supreme Court in Smith was whether the police’s use of a pen register—a device that identifies the numbers dialed from a particular phone—constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment and therefore required a warrant. Michael Lee Smith had been convicted of robbery based on evidence from a police investigation that relied on information secured from a pen register, for which the police had no warrant. The Court held, 5-3, that because an individual had no reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to the phone numbers one dials (as opposed to the contents of the call—see Katz v. United States (1967)), the collection of these numbers was not a search for purposes of the Fourth Amendment and so no warrant was needed. Smith’s conviction was upheld.
Some observations about the oral arguments: Continue reading
In January 2014, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning. Even though this case seems technical at first glance, its wide-ranging impact could affect the political process and the functioning ability of a partisan US government.
Professor Carolyn Shapiro (IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law) explains the case and its implications.
Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison
The Supreme Court will hear Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison in January. Here to explain this layered bankruptcy case are Professor Adrian Walters of IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law and Judge Timothy Barnes of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
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.)
Professor Cesar Rosado of Chicago-Kent College of Law discusses the Supreme Court’s dismissal of Unite Here v. Mulhall
The Supreme Court’s thoughts on reindeer and Christmas displays
“On the one hand, we don’t want to encourage abduction. On the other hand, we don’t want to treat the child as a yo-yo,” said Justice Breyer of their current child abduction case
The Supreme Court building as it was being constructed 80 years ago this month
Laughtergate: The Day the Laughter Died at the Supreme Court
Unite Here Local 355 v. Mulhall
This week, the Supreme Court ruled that Unite Here Local 355 v. Mulhall had been improvidently granted and thus dismissed the case. But what does that mean for the law? The results are unclear.
Professor César F. Rosado Marzán of Chicago-Kent College of Law, who discussed Mulhall for our Inside the Case series, wrote about the Supreme Court’s non-decision in the Chicago-Kent faculty blog. You can read his analysis here.
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.) Continue reading
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.) Continue reading