This week’s argument audio
| Friday, March 1st, 2013 5:59 pm
The Oyez Project at Chicago-Kent has posted transcript-aligned audio for this week’s oral arguments. The Court heard arguments this week in: Trevino v. Thaler McQuiggin v. Perkins Maryland v. King Peugh v. United States Shelby County v. Holder American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant
Shelby County v. Holder: The original understanding of Congress’s enforcement powers
| Friday, March 1st, 2013 1:55 pm
Shelby County v. Holder, one tiny Alabama county’s monumental challenge to the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act’s “preclearance” requirement, forces the Court to grapple directly with some fundamental questions about the scope of Congress’s authority to enforce by “appropriate legislation” the constitutional guarantees in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. What exactly counts as “appropriate” [...]
Friday round-up
| Friday, March 1st, 2013 9:15 am
Yesterday evening, the Obama administration filed its long-awaited amicus brief in Hollingsworth v. Perry, the challenge to California’s Proposition 8. The brief urges the Court to rule that that Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because the state is simultaneously extending all of the “substantive rights and responsibilities of marriage” to same-sex [...]
Commentary on Shelby County v. Holder
| Thursday, February 28th, 2013 5:46 pm
Abigail Thernstrom is the vice-chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, an adjunct scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, and the author of two books on the Voting Rights Act. She has submitted an amicus brief in Shelby County v. Holder. The lawyers have spoken; it is now the Court’s turn. What is it [...]
Post-argument commentary: Dismissing deference
| Thursday, February 28th, 2013 1:37 pm
The blog is pleased to have reactions to yesterday’s oral arguments from supporters of both sides. This post has reactions from Ellen D. Katz, Professor of Law at The University of Michigan Law School. Her work focuses on voting rights and anti-discrimination law and includes a detailed empirical study of the Voting Rights Act. She [...]
Academic highlight: Amar on the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act
| Thursday, February 28th, 2013 11:09 am
The Voting Rights Act (VRA) requires that certain states with a history of discrimination in voting obtain preapproval from federal officials before making changes in their voting procedures. The VRA’s supporters argue that this preclearance provision is a lawful exercise of Congress’s powers under the Reconstruction Amendments, while its opponents claim that targeting some states [...]
Comments on the oral argument in Shelby County v. Holder
| Thursday, February 28th, 2013 10:11 am
The blog is pleased to have reactions to yesterday’s oral arguments from supporters of both sides. This post has reactions from Roger Clegg, president and general counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity, which joined an amicus brief filed by Pacific Legal Foundation and supporting the plaintiff. More commentary is forthcoming. I’ll begin with the [...]
Thursday round-up
| Thursday, February 28th, 2013 9:46 am
Coverage of yesterday’s argument in Shelby County v. Holder continues to pour in, with reporting on the argument coming from Nina Totenberg of NPR, Bill Mears of CNN, Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor, Marcia Coyle at the Blog of Legal Times, the PBS NewsHour, Ari Berman of The Nation, and Jeremy Leaming of ACSblog. Commentary on the argument comes from the [...]
Afternoon round-up: Shelby County v. Holder
| Wednesday, February 27th, 2013 5:30 pm
This morning, the Court heard oral argument in Shelby County v. Holder, which ran for an additional seventeen minutes beyond the scheduled hour. Early reports on the argument overwhelmingly agree that the Court is poised to strike down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, likely in a five-to-four decision. Lyle Denniston covered the oral [...]
Post-argument commentary: Voting rights are an American entitlement
| Wednesday, February 27th, 2013 4:18 pm
The blog is pleased to have reactions to today’s oral arguments from supporters of both sides. This post has reactions from Elizabeth Wydra, the Constitutional Accountability Center’s Chief Counsel and author of the CAC’s amicus brief supporting the respondents. More commentary is forthcoming. Predictions based on oral argument are a risky business, but after this morning [...]





