Regents of Univ. of Calif.: Trump Administration Held Accountable by the APA but a Missed Opportunity for the Constitution
With this case, the Court’s discomfort with directly confronting race and racial animus was on full display.
Bostock, Zarda, and R.G & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes: Affirming Equality and Challenging Textualism
If the Justices cannot agree on the meaning of “because of sex” in a statute enacted or amended in their lifetimes, then it is difficult to conclude that textualism can resolve legal disputes.
U.S. Forest Service v. Cowpasture River Preservation Association: A Limited—and Perhaps Hollow—Victory for a Pipeline
The Supreme Court took up a brainteaser of statutory construction involving the jurisdictional boundaries between the U.S. Forest Service and the National Park Service.
On the Docket’s Preview of the May Supreme Court Arguments
This month’s oral arguments are truly historic. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Court will not be meeting in person, but rather... Read More
RNC v. DNC: Absentee Voters and the Partisan Pandemic
As it happened, the election results, when released April 13, surprised most observers. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court’s decision in RNC v. DNC is, to put it politely, paradoxical.
Kansas v. Glover: Just Common Sense?
We have no idea why Officer Mehrer decided to check on Glover’s license plate. Might it matter after all? Can a jurisdiction instruct its officers to run the license plate of every automobile they come across and to assume that any owner whose license has been suspended or revoked should be stopped to see if the owner is driving? What is the common-sense answer?
It Could Have Been Worse, But a Statute Designed to “Break Down All Discrimination” Against African Americans Deserves Better than Comcast Corporation v. National Association of African American-Owned Media
The year after the Civil War, the federal government made a commitment to Black people in this country. In simple but sweeping language, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 mandates that “[a]ll persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right . . . to make and enforce contracts . . . as is enjoyed by white citizens.”
Kahler v. Kansas: Narrowing the Insanity Defense
Could a state now abolish both prongs of the M’Naghten standard (or any variants thereof)? Could a state reject any formulation of an insanity defense and bar evidence of insanity at trial entirely?