- The Latest
- Our Blog
There is a new website: Today in Civil Liberties History, which has five or six events for each day. Each event includes learning materials: books, reports, web sites, Youtube videos, and more. It covers the full range of civil liberties issues: First Amendment, racial justice, reproductive rights, lesbian and gay rights, national security, and more.
Follow: Previous Post FAN 29.1 (First Amendment News) — Florida Bar Joins Petitioner in Urging Court Review of Judicial Elections Case Our Books Recent PostsRecent Comments Current Events Tim Wu for Lt. Governor Constitutional Law FAN 29.
Barry Richard, counsel for Florida Bar As difficult as it is to obtain review in the Supreme Court, sometimes a case comes along that makes it hard for the clerks and their bosses to ignore. Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar may be just such a case as the stars seem to be aligning in favor of the Petitioner, Lanell Williams-Yulee, having her case ruled upon by the Justices.
As I’ve argued in pedantic detail, Prof. Salaita’s hypothetical promissory estoppel claim against the University of Illinois is weak. In the Illinois Court of Claims, even if one can assert estoppel against a state instrumentality, the claim should fail unless the undiscovered facts are radically different from those publicly known.
[W]e decline to carve out from the First Amendment any novel exception. – Chief Justice John Roberts (2010) When we talk about exceptions to the First Amendment’s guaranty of freedom of expression, Justice Frank Murphy’s famous 1942 dictum in Chaplinsky v.
Since my post on Halbig and originalism drew several great comments (including a response by Larry Solum here), I thought would add some clarifying thoughts. My point is that recovering the original public meaning of a legal text is often much harder than people care to admit. Historians are more likely than lawyers to say that the meaning of a past event is indeterminate.
One of the most curious provisions in federal law is 28 U.S.C. Sec. 44(c), which states the following: “While in active service, each circuit judge of the Federal judicial circuit . . . and the chief judge of the Federal judicial circuit, whenever appointed, shall reside within fifty miles of the District of Columbia.
One criticism of originalism in constitutional law is that we cannot always determine with reasonable certainty what the Framers of the 1787 Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the Fourteenth Amendment intended or what the public understood those provisions to mean. Nonsense, say defenders of originalism.
The DC Circuit is considering a petition for rehearing en banc in Halbig (the Affordable Care Act case). I have no opinion on what the Court should do, and I think that it’s silly for outsiders to advise judges on a discretionary matter. (In other words, there is no “expertise” on whether to go en banc.
This is beyond anything we’ve seen. – Chuck Hagel, Aug. 21, 2014 The Threat → Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told reporters at the Pentagon: “They are an imminent threat to every interest we have, whether it’s in Iraq or anywhere else.” Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel “Asked if the hardline Sunni Muslim organization posed a threat to the United States comparable to that of the attacks of Sept.
Fans of federalism and/or sports-betting were likely disappointed to see the Supreme Court deny cert last month in Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Association.
I was rereading the Constitution the other day, and two things stuck out this time that I had not thought about before. 1. Article I, Section 3 says “each senator shall have one Vote.” But Article I never says that each Representative shall have one vote. I wonder why. Perhaps because the Senate was new, the Framers felt the need to clarify the role of a Senator.
Professor Randy Kozel Start here: “Under the conventional view of constitutional adjudication, dubious precedents enjoy a presumption of validity through the doctrine of stare decisis.” Okay, so much for the gospel regularly taught in law schools. But there is another gospel — the one actually practiced by judges. (Somewhere the old Florentine grins.
Imagine that, rather than because of his speech, but for no reason at all, University of Illinois Chancellor Wise decided not to present Prof. Salaita’s appointment to the Board of Trustees.
The Law, the Universe, and Everything