Contributors: Why everyone should worry about the Hobby Lobby ruling By Larry Sager and Frederick Mark Gedicks The country rounded a new and dangerous corner with the recent Supreme Court ruling in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. By holding that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA, excuses for-profit employers from providing contraceptive coverage under the […]
The War on Workers: The Supreme Court Ruling on Harris v. Quinn Is a Blow for Unions By William E. Forbath and Cynthia Estlund Unions have never been uncontroversial in American society, but the battles over labor have grown fiercer in recent years: Witness the fight over public-employee unions in Wisconsin, or the 2012 decision […]
Jordan Steiker, Judge Robert M. Parker Chair in Law and Co-Director of the Capital Punishment Center, has written a preview of McQuiggin v. Perkins, a federal habeas case scheduled to be argued the week of February 25, 2013, at the Supreme Court, at SCOTUSblog.
Professor Linda Mullenix previews American Express class-action appeal before Supreme Court arguments
Professor Linda Mullenix, Morris & Rita Atlas Chair in Advocacy, has written an article in the American Bar Association’s Preview of United States Supreme Court Cases previewing the issues and arguments in American Express Corp. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, et al. (PDF link), for which the Supreme Court will hear arguments on February 27, 2013.
Professor Linda Mullenix has written a commentary on Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles—argued before the Supreme Court on January 7, 2013—in Preview of Supreme Court Cases. The case concerns the removal of a state class action into federal court and addresses the issue of whether state court plaintiffs may stipulate to damages below the federal jurisdictional threshold to evade removal under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).
On November 5, 2012, the United States Supreme Court will hear oral argument in two cases dealing with appeals in class action litigation: Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds, and Comcast Corp. v. Behrend. Professor Linda Mullenix has written analyses of each of these appeals for the ABA Preview of Supreme Court Cases.
Opinion: Professor Lino Graglia writes two op-ed pieces on the Supreme Court’s pending decision in Fisher v. University of Texas
Professor Lino A. Graglia, A. W. Walker Centennial Chair in Law, has written two recent op-ed pieces discussing the issues at stake in the Supreme Court’s pending decision on Fisher v. University of Texas, a controversial case involving the use of race as a criterion in college admissions.
Oral Arguments in Supreme Court Clinic case Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida heard Monday, October 1, 2012
Faculty and eight students from the University of Texas School of Law’s Supreme Court Clinic will travel to Washington, D.C., to hear oral arguments in one of their current cases, Fane Lozman v. The City of Riviera Beach, Florida, on Monday, October 1, 2012, the opening of the United States Supreme Court’s current term. The case will be argued by David C. Frederick, ’89, codirector of the Supreme Court Clinic and partner at Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel PLLC, in Washington, D.C. This will be Frederick’s thirty-eighth argument before the Court.
Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens reviews Professor Sanford Levinson’s new book, Framed: America’s Fifty-one Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance, in the New York Review of Books
John Paul Stevens, who retired in 2010 after serving as an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court for thirty-four years, , has written an extensive review of Professor Sanford Levinson’s latest book, Framed: America’s Fifty-one Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance (Oxford University Press, 2012), in the October 11, 2012, edition of The New York Review of Books.
The University of Texas School of Law will host a symposium entitled “Countermajoritarianism and the Courts” on March 30–31, 2012. The symposium will be the first systematic reexamination in years of the extent to which the United States Supreme Court can meaningfully be described as a “countermajoritarian institution” in American political life.