Every post published in July 2015, most recent first.
Richard L. Hasen is a Chancellor’s Professor of Law at the University of California, Irvine School of Law. He blogs at Election Law Blog. It is tempting to think of the plaintiffs in Evenwel v. Abbott as conservatives.
Richard H. Pildes is the Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law at NYU. As soon as the Court decided to hear Evenwel, a barely suppressed anger emerged in many quarters, on grounds of both process and substance.
UPDATED Monday 6:14 p.m. This case has been docketed as 15-137. —————- Seeking to overturn a major setback in its power to punish trading of stocks based on insider tips, the Obama administration on Thursday asked the Supreme Court to revive one of the highest-profile prosecutions in years on Wall Street.
Ilya Shapiro is a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute. He filed an amicus brief supporting the jurisdictional statement in Evenwel and will be filing another at the merits stage. Shapiro became a U.S. citizen just last year.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday released the schedule of oral arguments for the opening session of its next Term, beginning on Monday, October 5. The daily schedule, with a brief description of the issues involved in each hearing, follows the jump. Arguments begin each morning at 10 a.m.
Evenwel v. Abbott may wind up being the most important voting case in sixty years. Its political ramifications could rival those of Reynolds v. Sims, the 1964 case that established the principle of “one person, one vote” under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued the final order in the same-sex marriage cases, a document which formally puts that decision into effect. The four-page order can be read here.
Editor’s note: This post examines two cases the Supreme Court will review at its next Term: Evenwel v. Abbott, and Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. This post will be followed this week by a symposium on Evenwel.
A federal appeals court, arguing that the Supreme Court’s abortion rights rulings leave too little room for states to limit the procedure to protect fetal life, has urged the Justices to reconsider a basic idea behind Roe v. Wade.
Briefly: In The Washington Times, Tom Howell Jr. reports that, “[r]oughly a week after its loss before an appeals court in Denver, a group of nuns who objected to Obamacare‘s birth-control mandate have taken their case to the Supreme Court.” David Lightman of McClatchyDC reports on an exchange between Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum and television host Rachel Maddow on the role of the Supreme Court.