On April 2, 2014, the Supreme Court decided McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, ruling that aggregate limits on campaign contributions were unconstitutional. Professor Sanford Greenberg of IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law explains the facts of the decision.
Category Archives: OT 2013
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.
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.
Hypotheticals Gone Wild – A Look Back at Oral Arguments in Navarette v. California
Case: Prado Navarette v. California By Professor Christopher Schmidt This one was a bit crazy from the start. One just senses that Chief Justice Roberts was sitting there as the first lawyer kicked off oral argument, tapping his foot impatiently, counting the seconds before a respectable amount of time had passed so he could pounce … Continue reading Hypotheticals Gone Wild – A Look Back at Oral Arguments in Navarette v. California
Constitutional First Principles on Display: A Look Back at Oral Arguments in NLRB v. Noel Canning
Case: National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning Last week’s Supreme Court oral arguments on the President’s recess appointment power was absolutely fascinating. National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning might seem on the surface a rather dry, technical case. But it has potentially dramatic implications. (Here is my colleague Carolyn Shapiro’s excellent summary of … Continue reading Constitutional First Principles on Display: A Look Back at Oral Arguments in NLRB v. Noel Canning
Inside the Case: Harris v. Quinn
Case:
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.
Inside the Case: NLRB v. Noel Canning
Case:
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.
Inside the Case: Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison
Case:
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.
Unite Here v. Mulhall Dismissal
Case: 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 … Continue reading Unite Here v. Mulhall Dismissal
November Session Recap
Many important cases were argued in front of the Supreme Court in the previous two-week session. Refresh your knowledge of each case and what was argued with these articles – and not just the ones about poisonous love triangles and the definition of clothing.