Wednesday round-up
Justice Ginsburg discusses the confirmation process at SMU; Justice Sotomayor and the “empathy” standard.
August 2011 Archive
Showing 1–50 of 88 items published in August 2011, most recent first.
The Supreme Court’s one-two punch: Class actions in the wake of Wal-Mart v. Dukes and AT&T v. Concepcion
Sarah Crawford, of the National Partnership for Women and Families, argues that the Court’s recent decisions in Wal-Mart and Concepcion have weakened the rights of workers and demonstrate the need for a legislative response.
The October 2010 Supreme Court Term in review: For defendants, life returns to normal after the celebration ends
Paul Karlsgodt, of Baker Hostetler LLP, explains why, although the Court’s decisions in Wal-Mart and Concepcion have not yet had a significant effect on class action litigation, the decisions — if properly understood — can nonetheless be very useful in defending against class actions.
Reflections on a dialogue: Getting to marriage equality
Written by the University of California, Irvine’s Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, this is the final post in our online symposium on same-sex marriage. The whole symposium is available here.
Tuesday round-up
Conservatism and the Court; reliability and eyewitness testimony; unsealing Prop. 8 tapes.
Class action symposium (Updated)
SCOTUSblog’s symposium on the future of class action lawsuits begins.
Squeezing class actions
Scott Dodson, of William & Mary Law School, opens our class action symposium.
Balancing away marriage equality
University of Maryland School of Law professor Jana Singer responds to Robin Wilson as part of our same-sex marriage symposium.
Please take our reader survey
Please complete a brief survey to help us improve the blog.
Monday round-up
Reporting on the continuing impact of Citizens United, the Second Amendment decisions, and the Court’s most recent ruling in the Anna Nicole Smith case.
Collusion in the marriage cases?
Northwestern University’s Andrew Koppelman responds to posts from William Duncan and John Eastman for our same-sex marriage symposium.
A winner-takes-all approach to state same-sex marriage laws is self-defeating
Washington and Lee University School of Law’s Robin Fretwell Wilson responds to Jana Singer for our same-sex marriage symposium.
The constitutional inevitability of same-sex marriage
Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe argues that based on precedent, the Court will ultimately have to find a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
Friday round-up
The Chief Justice issues an in-chambers opinion, SCOTUSblog’s same-sex marriage symposium continues, and looking at next steps on health care.
Marriage equality: A question of equality rather than liberty
Deborah Hellman, Professor of Law at the University of Maryland and Visiting Professor of Law at the University of Virginia, responds to recent posts in our symposium by both Erwin Chemerinsky and William Eskridge. She argues that the Court should not use the Due Process Clause in ruling on the constitutionality of Proposition 8 but that the Court should instead prefer equal protection analysis for reasons of principle rather than reasons of policy.
Sri Srinivasan selected as Political Deputy to Solicitor General
O’Melveny partner and former Assistant Solicitor General Sri Srinivasan has been selected to the number two spot in the Solicitor General’s office.
Marriage equality: protect or promote?
Robert Levy, Chairman of the Cato Institute, responds to Brian Raum as part of our same-sex marriage symposium.
Thursday round-up
The ABA urges the Court to expand mitigating evidence disclosure rules; commentary on the Court and corporate speech; and more on same-sex marriage and health care.
Marriage does not consist of straw men
Brian Raum, head of marriage litigation for the Alliance Defense Fund, replies to Robert Levy as part of our same-sex marriage symposium.
The courts, the political process, and DOMA
Harvard law professor and former Solicitor General Charles Fried argues that although a legislative solution would be ideal, a narrow ruling invalidating the Defense of Marriage Act is preferable to a broad ruling in favor of a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
Academic round-up
As Golan v. Holder illustrates, academics don’t just write about the law, they sometimes make it.
Wednesday round-up
A one-month extension in the pending health-care case; minor quake damage at the Court; looking back at the Thomas confirmation hearings
The constitutionality of traditional marriage
John Eastman, professor of Law at Chapman University, questions whether the Court should hear a marriage equality case.
Why the Court can strike down marriage restrictions under rational-basis review
NYU Law School’s Kenji Yoshino argues that the Court can apply the more stringent form of “rational-basis” review to restrictions on same-sex marriage.
Tuesday round-up
The Court will revisit eyewitness identifications; Katyal heads to Hogan Lovells.
The right to marry, and the right to remain married
Steve Sanders, visiting assistant professor at University of Michigan Law School, reminds us that if the Supreme Court agrees to decide the question of same-sex marriage, it will also affect the lives of many couples who are already married.
Monday round-up
Justice Ginsburg “finds history out of order” in historic women’s rights case; Justice Alito and Native Americans; more on health care and recusals.
Balancing marriage equality with other social goods
Robin Wilson, Professor of Law at Washington and Lee, argues that a decision from the Court should take care to accommodate individual states’ legislation.
Friday round-up
Over the objections of Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor, the Court declines to stay a Virginia inmate’s execution. Justice Kennedy speculates about the Court’s changing docket, and an op-ed writer scrutinizes the fallout from Brown v. Plata.
Why the Supreme Court will strike down DOMA
Northwestern Law School’s Andrew Koppelman argues that the Supreme Court will probably declare the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional.
The time for marriage equality has finally arrived
Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean and Professor of Law at University of California, Irvine, predicts a narrow same-sex victory at the Court.
The true marriage divide
Bob Barr, former Congressman and DOMA author argues that individuals should not need the government’s permission to marry.
Thursday round-up
More commentary on health care and the Court; the Court decides whether to stay today’s scheduled execution of Virginia inmate Jerry Terrell Jackson; and a follow-up to Lewis v. City of Chicago.
If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em
Brian Raum, Senior Counsel and head of marriage litigation at the Alliance Defense Fund, argues that the litigation strategy of those supporting same-sex marriage should pay heed to the narrow scope of the Court’s decision in Lawrence v. Texas.
Perry as Politics
Dale Carpenter, Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota Law School, considers the political costs of litigating same-sex marriage state by state, starting with California’s Proposition 8.
What’s rational about rational basis review?
Ruthann Robson, Professor of Law at the City University of New York, discusses the legitimate interests at stake in cases involving DOMA or Proposition 8.
Why timing is crucial in the ongoing same-sex marriage cases
Rutgers law professor Carlos Ball argues that it would be better for marriage equality supporters if the Supreme Court hears a DOMA case before it considers Perry v. Schwarzenegger.
Wednesday round-up
More on health care and the Court; a new Second Amendment petition; and a date of execution set for Hank Skinner.
Same-sex marriage: The tortuous road to the Supreme Court
The Marriage Law Foundation’s William Duncan describes obstacles to U.S. Supreme Court review of the constitutional claim for same-sex marriage and explores the implications of the way these cases seem likely to be presented to the Court.
Tuesday round-up
Continued coverage of ACA; gun rights post-Heller; closing the courthouse door; firefighter discrimination in New Haven after Ricci; the ethics of recusal; an upcoming SCOTUS IP Review
Free riding on benevolence: Why the mandate is within the scope of the commerce power
Drawing from a forthcoming article, Duke Law School’s Neil S. Siegel argues that the individual mandate is within the scope of the commerce power because it addresses an economic problem of collective action among the states.
Responding to the Eleventh Circuit and to Richard Epstein
Written by Harvard Law School’s Laurence H. Tribe, this is the final post in our online symposium on the Court and the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. The whole symposium is available here.
Monday round-up
Coverage of the Eleventh Circuit’s decision on the individual mandate; commentators discuss the odds and timing of a potential cert. grant.
Announcing symposium on same-sex marriage
In our third symposium of the summer, guest bloggers will examine the future of the Defense of Marriage Act and Proposition 8 at the Court.
Second summer orders list
Orders in pending cases and rehearings denied.
Marriage equality state by state
William Eskridge, Professor of Law at Yale, explains why the Court should tread lightly if it considers the merits of a constitutional right to same sex marriage.
Marriage equality: religious freedom, federalism, and judicial activism
Robert Levy, Chairman of the Cato Institute, refutes thematic objections commonly made against same-sex marriage.
The Constitutional challenges to the PPACA: Why dont we go back to first principles
New York University School of Law’s Richard A. Epstein analyzes the relationship between the “internally flawed” logic of Wickard v. Filburn and the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act.
Commentary on DOJ’s Brief in United States v. Jones
Applying the “four models of Fourth Amendment protection” to GPS tracking case.
Friday round-up
The Court may hear a human rights case soon, continuing coverage of Arizona’s SB 1070 petition.
12