After it rules on the highly contested health-care debate and makes other momentous decisions this term, will the U.S. Supreme have sufficient stores of legitimacy to weather the inevitable backlash? Yes, but barely, says a professor of political science at Washington University in St. Louis.
Michael Dorf, constitutional law expert, former law clerk for Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy and professor of law at Cornell University, comments on U.S. Supreme Court deliberations on a constitutional challenge to a key provision the Affordable Care Act.
As the U.S. Supreme Court considers the constitutional issues in the Affordable Care Act, authors from the University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing examine the issues through the lens of relevant court decisions.
Public health experts to address complexities of Affordable Care Act.
Virginia Commonwealth University and the VCU Health System have three health care reform experts available to the media whose study found that the cost of caring for the uninsured population who will gain coverage through the Affordable Care Act of 2014 can be reduced by almost half once the act is implemented.
Michael Dorf, constitutional law expert, former law clerk for Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy and professor of law at Cornell University, comments on upcoming oral arguments this week before the U.S. Supreme Court on a constitutional challenge to a key provision the Affordable Care Act.
Johns Hopkins bioethicist and legal expert Leslie Meltzer Henry is co-author of an op-ed published in the Baltimore Sun on March 23, 2012, outlining the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate, to be argued before the Supreme Court beginning on Monday, March 26. Henry will deliver a seminar on the issue at the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health on March 26 and has co-authored a paper covering the topic to be published in the Georgetown Law Journal in April 2012.
Next week's U.S. Supreme Court hearings on the Affordable Care Act could result in landmark rulings, according to an Indiana University Maurer School of Law expert on constitutional law.
The Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) applauds the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling today in the case of Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories as a victory for patients and for the advancement of personalized medicine.
Lawyer and bioethicist Leslie Meltzer Henry will speak at Johns Hopkins University on the constitutionality of the individual mandate of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, on the same day that the Supreme Court begins hearing oral arguments challenging the law.
Reporters who are looking for an expert perspective on next week's Supreme Court debate about the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act should consider Joel Grossman, a professor of political science at Johns Hopkins University and an adjunct professor of law at the University of Maryland School of Law.
On the 50th anniversary of Engel v. Vitale, expert address the battle over prayer in public schools, and sets his account of the decision in the larger historical and political context, citing battles over a wide range of religious activities in public schools throughout American history.
Brian Gallini, law professor at the University of Arkansas and a national expert on juvenile sentencing, is monitoring the U.S. Supreme Court’s imminent decision on the constitutionality of life in prison without the possibility of parole for juveniles convicted of capital murder. On March 20, the Court is scheduled to hear arguments of two cases - Miller v. Alabama and Jackson v. Hobbs - that will be consolidated for the purpose of deciding whether imposing a sentence of life without the possibility of parole on an offender who was 14 at the time he committed capital murder constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
In United States v. Antoine Jones, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that police must get a search warrant before using GPS technology to track criminal suspects. Criminal law professor Brian Gallini has followed U.S. v. Jones and is available to answer questions about the Court’s decision.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Hosanna-Tabor v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is an important victory for religious liberty says First Amendment expert John Inazu, JD, associate professor of law at Washington University in St. Louis. "Hosanna-Tabor is a welcome reminder that the Court has not lost sight of ‘the text of the First Amendment itself, which gives special solicitude to the rights of religious organizations.’”
In the case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court, Texas is contesting a federal court’s redrawing of the state’s electoral district lines for the upcoming primary election. Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, Texas must get preclearance from the U.S. Department of Justice before it can institute any voting changes. “This case gives the Supreme Court an opportunity to weaken or even strike down Section 5,” says Gregory Magarian, JD, election law expert and professor of law at Washington University in St. Louis. “If Texas wins, even if the Court stops short of striking down Section 5 altogether, it will mark a major change in the law. The Supreme Court will essentially be saying that racial voting discrimination by state officials is no longer a problem that justifies a federal remedy.”
The American Civil Liberties Union and the Public Patent Foundation have petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear Association for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, a case that challenges the validity of patents on two human genes associated with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer.
The Supreme Court will hear several states’ legal challenges to the Affordable Care Act, ensuring that the court — in late June 2012 — will deliver a momentous statement about the ever-contentious constitutional balance between federal and state power. “The key element of the states’ lawsuits targets the act’s requirement that everyone in the country must purchase commercial health insurance,” says constitutional law expert Gregory P. Magarian, JD, professor of law at Washington University in St. Louis.
The Supreme Court announced today that it will hear a challenge to the health care reform law. U.Va. experts can comment on this issue.
Criminal law professor Brian Gallini, an expert on the Fourth Amendment, federal sentencing, sentencing of juveniles, criminal discovery, immigration profiling, DNA sample evidence and interrogation, is available to answer questions and provide expert commentary regarding United States v. Antoine Jones, in which the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether police must get a warrant from a judge before they can attach a GPS tracking device to a car to monitor a suspect’s movement for an indefinite period of time.
On Nov. 8, Mississippi voters will cast their ballots on Initiative 26, which would make every “fertilized egg” a “person” as a matter of law. “Many have rightly condemned this so-called ‘personhood’ initiative as an attack not only on abortion rights, but also on the ability to practice widely used methods of birth control, to attempt in vitro fertilization, and to grieve a miscarriage in private, without a criminal investigation by the state,” says Susan Appleton, JD, family law expert and the Lemma Barkeloo and Phoebe Couzins Professor of Law at Washington University in St. Louis. “But these criticisms fail to identify another flaw in the reasoning of the initiative’s proponents,” she says.
The U.S. Supreme Court will make decisions on a number of hotly debated cases this term, and a diverse group of Vanderbilt University experts is available to give their opinions about those cases.
Internet law and copyright expert Ned Snow is available to comment on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision yesterday to not review the appeal of a lower court’s ruling that downloading sound recording does not constitute public performance of the recorded work under federal copyright law.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) recently filed a lawsuit against the Camdenton, Mo. school district for using filtering software to block websites targeted to the gay and lesbian community. "The Supreme Court has made clear that school districts have great latitude in choosing what educational materials they make available to their students," says Gregory P. Magarian, JD, constitutional law expert and professor of law at Washington University In St. Louis. "However, in a case in 1982, a plurality of the Court suggested that schools may not have the authority to remove materials from school libraries based on viewpoint discrimination."
The Supreme Court ruled this week against a California law requiring parental approval before selling violent video games to kids. Two video games researchers advise parents to not misinterpret the ruling in their op-ed.
The Supreme Court's decision striking down a California law restricting the sale or rental of violent video games to minors presents an unusual alignment of justices, according to an Indiana University Maurer School of Law expert on the First Amendment.
Civil procedure expert Justin Buehler is available to comment on Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, et al. Buehler, professor at the University of Arkansas School of Law and a former clerk for Judge Alfred Goodwin on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, has followed the case closely through trial and appellate stages. He has spoken extensively to the media and given several presentations on the case.
A High Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in Iowa sparked an uncharacteristically heated judicial retention vote, resulting in the ousting of three justices last year. With another justice up for retention in 2012, a University of Iowa Hawkeye Poll indicates that 87 percent of Iowans intend to vote on the matter – but nearly half haven't decided how they'll vote.
Researchers used a U.S. Supreme Court case to weigh the evidence for and against the assertion that exposure to video game violence can harm teens.
On April 19, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut. American University professor Daniel Jacobs’s experience leading high-profile environmental cases qualifies him to provide analysis. Bill Snape, an AU law professor and a member of the President’s Trade and Environment Committee, is also available.
Peter Blanck, chairman of the Burton Blatt Institute (BBI) at Syracuse University, and Claudia Center, a leading disability rights lawyer at The Legal Aid Society–Employment Law Center, have filed an amicus brief requesting a rehearing of Lopez v. Pacific Maritime Association, a case heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
This summer, the Supreme Court will rule whether to allow the district court certification of the class action gender bias case against Wal-Mart. While much of the attention has focused on the enormous size of the class, the impact of the case is likely to be felt across a range of class action and employment discrimination cases, says Pauline Kim, JD, the Charles Nagel Professor of Law at Washington University in St. Louis and employment law expert.
Caren Goldberg, a management professor at American University’s Kogod School of Business and an expert on sex discrimination in the workplace, is available to discuss the Dukes v Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., from a management perspective.
In the second of two articles on the current Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), a leading public health authority provides a comprehensive review and predicts the outcome of the case from a public health perspective in the current issue of Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, published by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, a Wolters Kluwer Health business.
The Supreme Court’s decision March 2 that a military funeral protest by Fred Phelps’ Westboro Baptist Church is protected by the First Amendment is a free speech victory, but “there is one note of concern for free speech advocates, which is the opinion’s toleration of ‘free speech zone’ theory,” says Neil Richards, JD, constitutional law expert and professor of law at Washington University in St. Louis.
The Supreme Court should affirm the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, says law professor Greg Magarian, JD, because the act fits comfortably within a proper understanding of the federal-state balance of power. Magarian, a constitutional law expert, weighs in on the challenge to the health care bill.
Angela B. Cornell, professor of law and director of the Labor Law Clinic at Cornell University, comments on the Supreme Court ruling in Thompson v. North American Stainless LP, which strengthens workplace anti-retaliation protections.
U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor will preside over the final arguments of Berkeley Law's honors moot court competition on Wednesday, Feb. 2.
Steven H. Shiffrin, First Amendment expert and professor of Law at Cornell University, comments on the Oct. 6 oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in the Snyder v Phelps case.
Monday, Oct. 4, the opening day of the Supreme Court term, marks Elena Kagan’s first day behind the bench as a Supreme Court justice. Gregory Magarian, JD, professor of law at Washington University In St. Louis and former clerk for retired Justice John Paul Stevens, says that the experience of oral argument from the other side of the bench will be entirely new to Kagan. “There is no formal or conventional restriction on new arrivals’ participation in argument, but in all likelihood, Justice Kagan will display a bit of reserve at first while she gets used to the rhythm of questioning by nine justices,” Magarian says.
Fourteen Washington University in St. Louis School of Law faculty, led by Gregory Magarian, JD, professor of law, played a prominent role in vetting new U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan.
The Senate’s approval of Elena Kagan as a U.S. Supreme Court justice marks the first time three women will serve together and gives the court its youngest member, among other shifts.
Reporters who are looking for a expert perspective on Justice Elena Kagan should consider Johns Hopkins University Professor Joel Grossman.
Wondering how Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan performed under Senate scrutiny? UK political science professor Justin Wedeking has the answers and analysis to back it up.
For expert comment on the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, I offer you Dr. Bruce Peabody, Chair of the Department of Social Sciences and History and associate professor of American Politics and the Judicial Process at Fairleigh Dickinson University in Madison, NJ.
Education law expert Todd DeMitchell at the University of New Hampshire is available to discuss today’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in Christian Legal Society Chapter v. Martinez that finds that public colleges and universities may require religious organizations that seek recognition or funds as campus groups to comply with anti-bias rules.
Faculty experts from the University of Maryland School of Law will be available to comment on the hearings, and on what Kagan’s confirmation (or rejection) might mean.
A University of Iowa law professor and expert in evidence collection and suspect rights said the Miranda Rights are becoming increasingly threatened after Monday's ruling by the United States Supreme Court.
As the Supreme Court is set to rule in two cases involving juveniles sentenced to life imprisonment with no chance of parole, a Baylor Law School professor makes the case on why the practice should end.
President Barack Obama’s choice of Solicitor General Elena Kagan as his nominee for U.S. Supreme Court justice suggests that he is looking to the court to maintain current policies rather than to “transform” society, says a University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) expert in judicial behavior and the politics of judicial regimes.
RSS
Medicine keyboard_arrow_right
Sciencekeyboard_arrow_right
Life keyboard_arrow_right
Business keyboard_arrow_right
Journal News keyboard_arrow_right
By Location keyboard_arrow_right
Meetings, Grants, and Events keyboard_arrow_right