The most recent posts from our recurring columns.
A conservative Supreme Court justice broadly condemning progressive ideas, and claiming they are responsible for the worst atrocities of the last century, is the antithesis of helping to find common ground.
The New York Times is correct that the court’s ruling – to halt such a pivotal executive action on its emergency docket – was something new. But the emergency docket was long in effect – and the nature of the court’s deliberations on it were hardly unprecedented.
Immigration Matters is a recurring series by César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández that analyzes the court’s immigration docket, highlighting emerging legal questions about new policy and enforcement practices.
In Chiles v. Salazar, the Supreme Court held that Colorado’s law prohibiting licensed counselors from seeking to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of minors was subject to strict First Amendment scrutiny – a victory for opponents of the law.
Empirical SCOTUS is a recurring series by Adam Feldman that looks at Supreme Court data, primarily in the form of opinions and oral arguments, to provide insights into the justices’ decision making and what we can expect from the court in the future.
ScotusCrim is a recurring series by Rory Little focusing on intersections between the Supreme Court and criminal law. It’s always a wonder to me how some of the most important cases of the Supreme Court’s term receive the shortest amount of time to decide.
Over the last two months, we have laid out in detail our ideas about the key issues in the birthright citizenship case, Trump v. Barbara. Today, we compare our arguments and analysis to what the justices asked and said at oral argument on April 1.
The Supreme Court justice memoir, so lucrative for its authors, tends to be a less than illuminating genre. Justice Neil Gorsuch’s A Republic, If You Can Keep It reiterated the case for originalism and attempted to illustrate why he was a worthy successor to Justice Antonin Scalia.
Clear Statements is a recurring series by Abbe R. Gluck on civil litigation and the modern regulatory and statutory state. Rumors of the textualist triumph over legislative history have been greatly exaggerated.
Courtly Observations is a recurring series by Erwin Chemerinsky that focuses on what the Supreme Court’s decisions will mean for the law, for lawyers and lower courts, and for people’s lives.
Civil Rights and Wrongs is a recurring series by Daniel Harawa covering criminal justice and civil rights cases before the court. I have written before about the Supreme Court’s troubling habit of summarily closing the courthouse doors on those with the least power in our legal system.
While I have written multiple posts for SCOTUSblog on birthright citizenship, a substantial part of my practice is litigating Second Amendment claims.