Former Panamanian general and “chief executive officer” Manuel Noriega will forever be associated with the “war on drugs”: After the US invaded Panama and removed him from power in 1989, he was convicted of federal drug trafficking charges and he has been in prison ever since. But it appears that he has come to the […]
Archive | Supreme Court
Looking Forward After Pottawattamie County
Yesterday the Supreme Court granted petitioners’ motion to dismiss the writ of certiorari pursuant to Rule 46 in the spellcheck-challenging Pottawattamie County v. McGhee, 08-1065, which involved whether prosecutors who try a case are entitled to immunity when sued for allegedly procuring before trial false evidence to frame a criminal defendant. The motion, which petitioners […]
Welcome (Back) Jan Crawford
Jan Crawford (fka Jan Crawford Greenburg), author of Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the United States Supreme Court, has returned to the legal blogosphere with “Crossroads,” a new legal blog at CBSNews.com. Crawford left ABC News several months ago to join CBS News as their new Chief Legal Correspondent, […]
Why is the Second Half of the Supreme Court Term More Interesting Than the First Half?
Michael Doyle has an essay on the second half of the Supreme Court term noting that most of the really fascinating cases are still ahead. I’ve noticed the backloading before. It seems that in most Terms, the more interesting and important cases are more often argued near the end of the Term. In contrast, the […]
Constitutionality of the “Nebraska Compromise”
By David Kopel on December 23, 2009 2:02 pm in Congress, Constitutional History, Necessary and Proper, Originalism, Supreme Court
The original “Nebraska Compromise” (the Kansas-Nebraska Act) was an attempt to compromise a contentious national issue. At least arguably, the abortion spending restrictions in the Senate health care bill fits in this broad description, and like the KNA, the new abortion provision includes an element of state-based choice. However, another provision of the Senate bill […]
U.S. Supreme Court Correspondence From March 6, 1865
A few months ago I bought an interesting 1865 letter on U.S. Supreme Court stationery: Here is what it says, as best I can tell: OFFICE SUPREME COURT U.S. Washington City Mar 6th 1865 Curtis & Scribner, Esqs Gentlemen, Your favor of the 25th ult, is received. The case of Sam R. Curtis et. al., […]
In Defense of Supreme Court Law Clerk Polarization
Adam Liptak’s New York Times article on Supreme Court law clerks suggests that there is something troubling about the fact that the career paths of conservative and liberal Supreme Court justices’ clerks have diverged over the last 20 years. Liptak is a knowledgeable and generally fair-minded legal reporter. In this case, however, I think he […]
Privileges or Immunities Extravaganza
By David Kopel on December 21, 2009 3:45 pm in Constitutional History, Constitutional Theory, Fourteenth Amendment, Guns, Supreme Court
On March 2, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in McDonald v. Chicago, a challenge to the handgun bans in Chicago and Oak Park. The Question Presented by the Court asked if the bans should be considered unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process clause, or under the Privileges or Immunities clause. There’s been […]
Justice Ginsburg: Supreme Court may eventually overrule Heller
On Thursday, Dec. 17, Justice Ginsburg spoke at a luncheon of the Harvard Club of Washington, D.C. I was not present at the luncheon, but I have heard, third-hand, that she spoke on the value of dissenting opinions. She said that sometimes a dissent can become the majority of a “future, wiser court.” As an […]
The Right to Arms in the Living Constitution
By David Kopel on December 19, 2009 1:55 pm in Congress, Constitutional History, Fourteenth Amendment, Guns, Popular Culture, Registration, Supreme Court
That’s the topic of my new article, for a forthcoming issue of Cardozo Law Review de Novo (the on-line supplement to Cardozo’s printed journal). The article will be part of a symposium issue on McDonald v. Chicago. Here’s the abstract for my Cardozo article: This Article presents a brief history of the Second Amendment as […]
Stephen Halbrook Christmas Special
By David Kopel on December 17, 2009 6:34 pm in Constitutional History, Criminal Law, Fourteenth Amendment, Guns, Supreme Court
A fifty-three minute podcast interview with Stephen Halbrook. Over the last three decades, Halbrook has been the greatest legal champion of Second Amendment rights. As a scholar, as an attorney (with a 3-0 record in the Supreme Court), and as a public advocate, Halbrook has done tremendous work in saving the Second Amendment from nullification, and in putting the […]
Where is Citizens United?
Three new grants but no new opinions today from the Supreme Court. Of particular note, the Court is still ruminating on Citizens United, the election speech case argued back on September 9. It has now taken the Court longer to address the one as-applied challenge in Citizens United than it did to address the slew […]
Senator Hatch & Stuart Taylor on the Constitutionality of an Individual Health Insurance Mandate
By Randy Barnett on December 14, 2009 10:00 am in Commerce Clause, Constitutional Theory, Health Care, Supreme Court
On Friday, Senator Hatch gave a major speech on the floor of the Senate on the unconstitutionality of a federal health insurance mandate that readers may find very interesting. Although the Senator favorably mentions my Heritage legal memorandum and introduced it into the Congressional record, his presentation of the constitutional problems with a mandate is […]
Bush v. Gore was rightly decided
Nelson Lund explains why in this new article, from the Florida Law Review. Lund is responding an article by Akhil Amar, which does not appear to be available on the public Internet. Readers who want even more on the subject may enjoy Lund’s 2002 article in the Winter 2002 issue of Constitutional Commentary, responding to a […]
A Tradition Of Unanimity For Debut Supreme Court Opinions?
Over at Faculty Lounge, Eric Muller has a post on Justice Sotomayor’s debut opinion in Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, noting Justice Thomas’s concurrence in part and in the judgment, and stating that “The Rehnquist Court tradition was to give a new Justice a unanimous opinion for his or her first assignment.” And he notes […]