Posts for June 26, 2015
These are the posts that are accumulated in our
newsletter which goes out every 4-6 days during the school year. The posts are
organized by the major units in our Con Law (5th ed.) student textbook.
I. Introduction to Law, the Constitution, and the Supreme Court [See TOPICS 1-10 in the 5th edition of Constitutional
Law] Here are some recent articles that are relevant to
this unit:
What Is
The Supreme Court Doing Behind The Scenes? [Nina Totenberg on NPR, 6/24/15]:
Why do all these big cases come at the
same time? What goes on behind the scenes of the Supreme Court as a session
winds down?
II. Defining the Political System: Federalism and Checks and
Balances [See
TOPICS 11-15 in the 5th edition of Constitutional Law]
Here are recent articles that are relevant to this unit:
Held: Section 36B’s tax credits are
available to individuals in States that have a Federal Exchange.
The decision in King
v. Burwell can be found in many places. One is:
A sampling of articles on
the decision:
The Roberts Court’s Reality Check [Linda Greenhouse in the NY Times, 6/25/15]: Sometimes the Supreme
Court moves in mysterious ways.
The health care decision was not one of those times.
Supreme Court's Obamacare decision
is a victory for all of us [Laurence
Tribe in the Boston Globe, 6/25/15]:
John Roberts in 2005: The ultimate goal of interpreting
a statute is “to figure out what
Congress intended [Volokh Conspiracy, 6/25/15]: “I did want to flag what Chief
Justice Roberts said about interpreting statutes during his 2005 confirmation
hearings. As I read his 2005 statement, the Burwell opinion
matches up pretty well with it.”
Four Things we learned about John Roberts [CNN, 6/25/15]:
Chief Justice John Roberts Charts
Own Path, Frustrating Right Again [WSJ, 6/25/15]: Move prompts anger from GOP lawmakers who say
John Roberts has drifted from conservative principles.
More legal challenges ahead for Obamacare [USA Today, 6/25/15]: But many said Chief Justice John Roberts sent a strong signal that those looking to
dismantle the health law should probably look elsewhere.
The Catch in the Obamacare Opinion [Bloomberg View, 6/25/15]: Writing
for the court, Roberts today entrenched that principle. His opinion upheld the
Internal Revenue Service regulation allowing subsidies for qualified people
buying health insurance on the federal exchange, but did so without giving any
deference to the IRS. He declared unambiguously that it is "our
task," and not that of the executive branch, "to determine the
correct reading."
The federalism dog that didn't bark
-- Court's ruling in King v. Burwell avoids
relying on dubious federalism arguments [Volokh Conspiracy, 6/25/15]: “As a federalism scholar, I am very happy that the
Court’s decision was not based on the extremely
dubious federalism arguments developed by some of the supporters of the federal
government’s position. Indeed, the term “federalism” does not appear even once
in either the majority or dissenting opinions, which in this case is a good
thing. Sometimes, the world is better off when a dangerous dog chooses to lie
still instead of barking.
The
American Presidency
[TOPIC 15]
Despite
This Week's Victories, Obama Has Struggled At The Supreme Court [638
bloh, 6/26/15]: The
administration has mostly struggled to win at the court, as a review of the
past six years of cases shows. Obama’s winning percentage, when the U.S. or a
federal agency is a party to a Supreme Court case, is less than 50 percent —
the lowest of any president dating back to the Truman administration.
Legacies
of Obama presidency and Roberts court are forever intertwined [Wash Post, 6/25/15]: President Obama and Chief
Justice John G. Roberts Jr. got off to a rough start from the very beginning,
when they tripped over each other’s words during a key line in the oath at
Obama’s first inauguration.
Could Obama end up on the Supreme Court after he retires from the White
House? [FoxNews.com, 6/25/15]: In eighteen months he will be an
ex-president, term-limited and out of a job. Just fifty-five, the former
leader of the free world will still be in the prime of life.
III. The Political
System: Voting and Campaigns [See TOPICS 16-20 in the 5th edition of Constitutional
Law] Here are some recent articles that are relevant to this unit:
IV. Criminal Law and Procedure (4th,
5th, 6th, and 8th amendments) [See TOPICS 21-28 in the 5th edition of Constitutional Law] Here are some recent
articles that are relevant to this unit
U.S. top court rules for white supremacist over sentencing [Reuters, 6/26/15]: The U.S.
Supreme Court on Friday threw out part of a tough federal criminal sentencing
law for being overly broad in a ruling that backed a Minnesota white
supremacist who challenged his sentence on a firearms crime.
The
case decision in Johnson v. U.S. can be found at:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-7120_p86b.pdf
When does spanking go too far? Mass.
high court weighs in; Outlines legal rules on corporal punishment [Boston Globe, 6/25/15]: The state's highest court on Thursday
expressly ruled for the first time that parents may not be held criminally
liable for the use of 'reasonable' force in disciplining their children, saying
the punishment 'remains firmly woven into our nation's social fabric.'
Read the decision at:
V. 1st Amendment (Speech, Religion, Press and
Assembly) [See TOPICS
29-33 in the 5th edition of Constitutional Law] Here are some recent articles that are relevant to
this unit:
Law and Symbolism at the Supreme Court [Linda Greenhouse in the NY Times, 6/25/15]: Last Thursday morning, as the country was just
beginning to absorb the horror of mass murder at the Emanuel A.M.E. Church in
Charleston, S.C., the Supreme
Court handed down a decision that looked more relevant than it would have a day
earlier. The subject was the Confederate flag.
Parents of student expelled for compiling a “hit
list” in his personal journal file federal court suit against Oregon district
citing First Amendment [NSBA Legal Clips, 6/24/15]: Michael and Julie McNeil have filed suit in federal
district court on behalf of their son, identified as CLM, claiming that
Sherwood School District (SSD) officials overstepped their authority when they
expelled CLM from Sherwood High School for the “hit list” he compiled in a
personal journal that he kept at home
VI. 14th Amendment, Discrimination, Privacy, Working,
Citizenship & Immigration [See
TOPICS 34-41 in the 5th edition of Constitutional Law] Here are some recent articles that are relevant to
this unit:
Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to
license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a
marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully
licensed and performed out-of-State.
The decision in Obergefell
v. Hodges can be located at many places. One is:
Opinion
analysis: Marriage now open to same-sex couples [SCOTUS blog, 6/26/15]: Putting itself back in the forefront of the gay rights
revolution, the Supreme Court ruled by the narrowest margin on Friday that same-sex couples
across the nation have an equal right to marry. The five-to-four decision
was based firmly on the Constitution, and thus could be undone only by a formal
amendment to the basic document, or a change of mind by a future Supreme
Court. Neither is predictable.
A sampling to day’s
articles:
A Gay-Rights Decision for the Ages [Bloomberg View,
6/26/15]:
Anthony Kennedy pivots left --
for now [CNN, 6/26/15]:
Justices' pointed dissents to gay
marriage ruling show unusual discord [USA Today, 6/26/15]:
Florida district’s board is poised
to ban the use of corporal punishment in schools [NSBA Legal Clips, 6/23/15]: Lake
County School Board is expected to give preliminary approval to a proposal
to do away with corporal punishment as an disciplinary option, says
the Orlando Sentinel.
Justices Back Broad Interpretation of
Housing Law [WSJ, 6/25/15]:
The Supreme Court Thursday ruled
housing-discrimination lawsuits can proceed without proof of intentional bias
against minorities, leaving in place a legal tool critics contend makes it too
easy to get a claim into court. The decision, by a 5-4 vote, endorsed a
civil-rights litigation approach few had expected to survive the justices’
scrutiny. Texas, whose housing department was fighting a fair-housing claim,
maintained that the Fair Housing Act of 1968 required that plaintiffs show
intentional discrimination, which demands a higher level of proof.
The decision in Texas
Dept. of Housing & Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc.
can be found at:
No comments:
Post a Comment