My plan is to run chronologically through a series of U.S. Supreme Court cases and attempt to make them comprehensible to the intelligent layman.
While my focus will be on constitutional issues, I may deviate from that from time to time for interesting or famous cases in other fields of law. I don’t intend to be as in-depth as a law school analysis but I hope that readers will be able to understand the intellectual issues at play, build up a vocabulary of concepts for our commentariat when new legal issues arise, and maybe turn on some light bulbs for some folks.
No promises as to frequency. While a chronological approach is easy from an editorial perspective, I hope that it also builds up a feel for lawyers and laity alike of the evolution of the law over time.
I will entertain requests. I suspect I will start with Marbury v. Madison over the course of this week, unless my survey of pre-1800 cases reveals something really cool.
And I’m just going to post these here on the sub-blog, because I don’t know how much appetite there is on the front page for a project like this.
Ohh cool nerdy fun.
Lawgasm.
PLEASE do Dred Scot and Roe v. Wade. I’ll contribute to your favorite charity! Thanks.
While Dread Scot is interesting from a historical perspective, I’m not sure it’s interesting from a legal perspective. I’d rather have a case I’ve never heard of that expands my understanding of legal concepts than one that’s in the history books but is legally unimportant.
Well, thanks for the reply Allen–great to hear from you! I love tense, courtroom battles and what could top Gore v.Wade? It had everything, even the Florida Supreme Court thumbing their nose at the Supremes and devising their own odd scheme of vote counting–a scheme that neither Bush nor Gore were advocating for.
As it turns out, Bush won the state by a mere 437 votes which at the time seemed like a landslide. A few months later, three independent newspapers performed the painstaking task of counting every single ballot and every single time, Bush won.
I think there was one scenario in which Gore would have won, but it involved exhuming the 2,000
bodies who voted that day, but had since died. They wanted to match fingerprints on the ballots with the fingerprints of the dead voters. Also, the Gore camp petitioned the Court to allow only black felons and death row inmates the right to vote necause of widespread disenfranchisment and discrimination of this population throught the 1800s and 1900s.
“Gore v Wade?” I guess that’s what happens when Roe v. Wade is on the brain–obviously, meant Roe v. Wade.
Hey, why not make list of every single case that has been argued before the Supreme Court? I don’t mean in great depth, but just to give everyone a glance at how the Court has evolved over time. The very first case, (1793) Chisholm v. Georgia, ended up with the 11th Amendment which gave citizens the right to sue states–it also gave federal courts the authority to hear such cases and tossed “sovereign authority of the states” out the window. I’m guessing that since its inception, “originalism” has won the vast majority of all cases argued before the Supreme Court. That is, Originalism v. Textualism. Which is also why I think same-sex marriage will never be accepted at a federal level–it doesn’t pass the rational basis test nor has a compelling reason to overturn current laws prohibiting same-sex marriage been offered. Gays have never been looked upon as a”suspect” class regarding constitutional law. —the consequences of this severely dilutes whatever state legislatures or courts decide on this subject given the fact that marriage confers at least a thousand benefits and responsibilities that are substantially affected by one’s marital status. Equal Protection has NEVER meant people cannot be treated differently. 8 year old kids can’t drive
Greyhound buses or fly commercial jets. Gays have never been looked upon as a “suspect” class and if the 14th Amendment guarantees, sanctions, and protects gay marriage based upon sexual orientation there is absolutely no legal reason why anyone cannot also use this exact same rationale for the protection of the right to marriage. Also, the 14th Amendment has never stated that government cannot treat people differently. The Supremes have repeatedly stated that it is perfectly legal and proper for states to create different classifications and categories into the laws they adopt and even use the Lindsey test of “rational basis test” to test the fairness of such classifications. Oh well Burt, I have no doubt that whatever cases you want to scrutinize, and look into more deeply will be very worthwhile and interesting.
why I think same-sex marriage will never be accepted at a federal level–it doesn’t pass the rational basis test
You might want to re-read Romer.
And as a matter of fact, I think laws against same-sex marriage don’t pass the rational basis test. If the Prop 8 lawsuit demonstrated anything clearly, it’s that opponents of SSM couldn’t really dredge up any rational bases for the ban beyond, “but it’s always been our tradition to discriminate.”
I should add that because marriage is a fundamental right, the non-suspect class status of homosexuality does not preclude using strict scrutiny and requiring the state to have a compelling reason to ban SSM.
Oh, this will be fun. I went out and bought a book on landmark SC cases a few years ago, and now I’m trying to remember the ones I flipped to first. Certainly Dred Scott. Maybe Brown vs B.O.E.? Plessy vs. Ferguson? I made a list and stuck it in the book. If it’s still there, maybe I can overload you!
Whatever cases you choose, I am delighted to read of this project. Can’t think of a more worthwhile endeavor, or of a writer whose perspective I’d rather learn.
Ditto. This is great. Can’t wait for the first installment.
I’m sincerely hoping that you’ll do my all-time favorite case, which is McCulloch v. Maryland – certainly less well-known, perhaps, then Marbury, Dred Scott, the Slaughterhouse cases, or Lochner, but one of the most seminal and important SCOTUS cases in the history of the Republic, and certainly more topical now more than ever.
In fact, I’d even volunteer to contribute something on it (subject to approval and please, please, please) but if you’d rather do it yourself, I’ll look forward to it. (contact me if you want to know my credentials)
I’m so excited for this.
Oh, what fun. I, too, would be interested in contributing, if you wanted any contributors. Beyond that, I can think of a list of cases that would keep you busy for a very long time.
Are you looking for cases that are just highly notable, or cases that helped shape subsequent constitutional law? E.g., Korematsu would fit the notable criteria, but not the shaping criteria.
As a “short” list, I’d suggest Chadha, U.S. v. Nixon, Baker v. Carr, Youngstown, the aforementioned M’Culloch, Morrison and Lopez as a joint post, Gibbons v. Ogden, West Coast Hotel, Gideon, NYT v. Sullivan and Hustler v. Falwell jointly….
Maybe a run-through of due process cases to try to explain the to me incoherent state of the law as regards both search-and-seizure and self-incrimination.
Greetings, James! I have to hand it to you–even though we are in sharp disagreement over the SSM issue, you really debate this issue very, very well. I’ve even had a few moments when I switched sides. And that’s not easy to do. What would you do if I told you my brother is married? No big deal, right? Guess what else—he’s married to a guy. Yes, the twain have met. And what would you do if I told you I was married? To a transgender. But I was tricked–never knew about this, nor was premarital sex allowed.
OK, enough of me being a wise guy–no, no transgender. But I was tricked a few times by a transgender.
Allow me, please, one anecdote. I happen to know you are a very, very good teacher. How? Several months ago you were running around getting your things together for a trip to Asia and you actually, amidst all this frenetic activity, took the time to provide an answer, a lengthy and very well written answer, and to me of all people! So thanks. You have sincere and deep dedication–I hope all your students can appreciate this sincere and noble quality you possess. Unquestionably, if I was a student at your college, I’d sign up for every one of your classes. Of course, whether or not
I’d be accepted, well that’s a whole nother matter. Cheers!
Presumably you were writing under a different name last time? I find it more pleasant to at least know I am talking to the same person time after time, even if I don’t actually know them personally.
What would you do if I told you my brother is married?
I’d congratulate him.
And what would you do if I told you I was married? To a transgender. But I was tricked–never knew about this, nor was premarital sex allowed.
I’d decry the laws that banned premarital sex, and encourage you to sue for fraud.
Presumably indeed.
Yikes, I hope you let me read anyway! 🙂
Seriously, I’m looking forward to it.