The news that progressives dreaded for years came to pass last night: Justice Ginsburg died. An icon of the liberal wing of the Court, her passing hands President Trump another seat on the Supreme Court. To progressives, this signals the end of the Court as a bastion of justice and defender of minority rights for…
Category: US Supreme Court
Do we really have to ask, What is Puerto Rico?
Does it really take 61 pages to answer such a simple question? The legal question in the recent Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Aurelius Investment, LLC was not explicitly over the constitutional status of Puerto Rico, of course. The question was over the constitutionality of the PROMESA Board, a body established…
What do North Carolina Judges Know that Supreme Court Justices Do Not?
Last week, a three-judge court in North Carolina did the unthinkable: it struck down a state redistricting plan on partisan gerrymandering grounds. This plucky little court held, in light of the overwhelming factual record chock-full of crass and extreme examples of partisan behavior, that the plan violated the law. Doing the heavy lifting was a…
Justice Kennedy Retires, and I feel . . . fine?
The unthinkable has happened: Justice Anthony Kennedy, super median on the US Supreme Court, announced his retirement from the Court. Liberals worried about this moment for years, and it has finally arrived. I am ambivalent, at worst. I don’t think this is the end of the Republic. It is not ideal, to be sure, but…
World Cup refereeing as constitutional interpretation
The World Cup is underway in Russia, and not a game goes by when I am not reminded of our very own US Supreme Court and how it interprets the Constitution. This cartoon from the Guardian neatly captures why: This is constitutional interpretation in a nutshell. (If you don’t believe me, read yesterday’s Gill v. Whitford decision…
Initial thoughts on Gill v. Whitford, the Wisconsin Gerrymandering Case
The US Supreme published its long-awaited decision in the Wisconsin gerrymandering case, Gill v. Whitford. Gill could have been a landmark decision about American Democracy. But the Court declined the invitation and sent the case back to the lower court to give plaintiffs the chance “to prove concrete and particularized injuries using evidence . ….
The intelligent man on the street takes a look at the travel ban
The US Supreme Court held oral arguments yesterday on President Trump’s travel ban. Under the ban, nationals from five predominantly Muslim countries (Iran, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Syria) as well as North Korea, Venezuela and Chad are restricted from entering the United States. The lower courts have been generally skeptical of the ban. Commentators generally…
Looking for Consistency in Chief Justice Roberts’ Chambers
Something is going on in the chambers of Chief Justice Roberts. Last October, in the oral argument for Gill v. Whitford, the Wisconsin political gerrymandering case, the Chief Justice provocatively explained that “if you’re the intelligent man on the street,” you will know that the case will come down to the fact that the Court…
