U.S. Supreme Court 2003
Below are archived
updates on important cases at the Supreme Court affecting individual
rights.
Center
Files Amicus Brief in Pledge of Allegiance Case
Arguing
that a two-judge majority of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th
Circuit "plainly erred" in declaring the voluntary recitation
of the Pledge of Allegiance in the public schools unconstitutional,
the Center for Individual Freedom filed an amicus brief today with
the U.S. Supreme Court urging the Court to reverse the lower courts
judgment and restore the constitutionality of our official Pledge
of Allegiance nationwide...[more]
Tyranny
of the Minority: Newdows Methods Threaten Far More than the
Pledge of Allegiance
By
Erin Murphy: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit drew
criticism from both ends of the spectrum last year when it ruled
that the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance
are unconstitutional. Even Congress managed to unite on the issue,
and most Americans anxiously anticipate an overruling next year
when the case is decided by the Supreme Court. But more troubling
than the possibility of the High Court declaring us a Godless nation
is the legitimacy such a ruling would grant to the Rev. Dr. Michael
Newdow, who brought the case...[more]
Send
in the Clowns: Atheist Reverend to Argue His "Under God"
Challenge Before High Court
By
Erin Murphy: The
Court recently granted atheist Michael Newdow permission to represent
himself in his suit to remove "under God" from the Pledge.
Newdow lawyer, medical doctor and founder and reverend of
the First Amendmist Church of True Science doesnt technically
have standing to argue before the High Court because he has been
a member of the bar for less than the required three years, but
the Court agreed to let him argue anyway...[more]
Affirmative
Action Aftershocks
The
legal landscape of the Equal Protection Clause is only now beginning
to feel the aftershocks of the constitutional earthquake that shook
a generations worth of jurisprudence when a bare majority
of the U.S. Supreme Court held that an applicants race could
be a factor in college admissions despite the Fourteenth Amendment...[more]
Supreme
Court to Hear Pledge of Allegiance Case
The
U.S. Supreme Court granted review Tuesday in the case challenging
the constitutionality of including the words "under God"
in the Pledge of Allegiance. The Court will review a ruling from
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit that found the addition
of the words "under God" transformed the Pledge from being
a secular statement of patriotism into a violation of the First
Amendment right against government establishment of religion...[more]
Enacting
McCain-Feingold By Buying Time
As
the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court draft the decision that will
determine the constitutional fate of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform
Act of 2002 (BCRA), also known as McCain Feingold, they probably
wont be relying on two studies commissioned and circulated
by "reformers" as unbiased scholarly evidence of the laws
constitutionality. Indeed, the rigors of the BCRA litigation have
exposed that the two studies commissioned, conducted, and
published by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University
School of Law (Brennan Center) and submitted to and relied upon
by members of Congress when passing BCRA were little more
than misinformation fed to our elected representatives with the
goal of enacting McCain-Feingold at any cost...[more]
Nike:
Just Settling for Silence
After
five years of vigorously arguing that corporations possess the same
full First Amendment rights as individuals when it comes to speaking
on matters of public concern, Nike signed away its free speech protections
as well as those of corporations nationwide when,
on Friday, it settled a landmark case brought against the company
by anti-business activist Marc Kasky...[more]
Supreme
Reliance on Buckley: The Necessary Vote to the Chiefs
Left
To
be sure, predicting how Supreme Court justices will vote based upon
the questions asked during oral arguments is the legal equivalent
of reading tea leaves. But after four full hours of Supreme judicial
inquiry and carefully crafted responses in the constitutional challenges
to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, a.k.a. BCRA or McCain-Feingold,
the overwhelming impression left on the informed Court watcher had
to be that, once again, the single vote that mattered sat to the
immediate left of Chief Justice William Rehnquist. And that vote,
properly addressed, is Justice Sandra Day OConnor...[more]
The
Second Monday in September
It
wont be a quiet recess day at the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday.
Instead, this year on September 8th, the halls will be bustling
with attorneys, reporters, and interested Court watchers, and the
justices will have already returned to our nations capital
ready to emerge from behind the curtains for their first sitting
this fall. Monday, if you dont already know, is the day the
Court will hear four full hours of arguments in the most important
political speech case to be decided by the Court in more than a
quarter century namely the consolidated constitutional challenges
to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), popularly
known as McCain-Feingold...[more]
A
Statistical Look at the Supreme Court Term
Last
month, the U.S. Supreme Court ended another term full of high-profile
cases, controversial decisions, and a much-speculated but non-occurring
retirement. Handing down 80 decisions, the High Court issued landmark
rulings in areas such as affirmative action, the right to privacy,
free speech, federalism and punitive damages. But taken as a whole,
the Courts latest term reveals a continuing trend for the
Court to fully review fewer cases while reversing the vast majority
of those taken.
To read more, visit the Center
for Individual Freedom Foundation
U.S.
Supreme Court Keeps a Watchful Eye on the 9th Circuit
Long
considered the federal court breeding ground for judicial activism,
the 9th Circuit has been the federal appeals court most often overturned
by the U.S. Supreme Court in recent years. And, as shown by statistics
compiled by the Center for Individual Freedom Foundation, the High
Courts recently completed October Term, 2002, proved to be
no exception to the 9th Circuits disfavored place amongst
the justices.
To read more, visit the Center
for Individual Freedom Foundation
�A
25-Year License to Violate the Constitution�
The
U.S. Supreme Court has spoken, and according to a slim five justice
majority in Grutter v. Bollinger, No. 02-241, �race unfortunately
still matters.�� In fact, despite constitutional and statutory prohibitions
to the contrary � namely, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 � apparently
race matters enough that a majority of the High Court is willing
simply to �take [colleges and universities] at [their] word� that
they need to discriminate on the basis of skin color and ethnic
heritage in order to admit and enroll racially diverse student bodies...[more]
McCain-Feingold
Challengers File Opening Briefs in Supreme Court
The
first shots in the High Court battle over the constitutionality
of the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002 were fired
Tuesday when attorneys for Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), the Center
for Individual Freedom and the other plaintiffs challenging the
law filed their opening briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court...[more]
Nike
v. Kasky:�The Supreme Court Won�t Just Do It
The
five-letter word of the day for Nike, Inc. is �rerun.�� That�s because,
in just nine words (�The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently
granted�), the United States Supreme Court effectively told Nike
that it would see it again at least three years from now, after
the California Supreme Court takes another look at the seminal commercial
speech case of Nike v. Kasky...[more]
Filtering
the First Amendment
On
Monday, the Supreme Court held that the Children�s Internet Protection
Act (CIPA) does not violate the First Amendment Free Speech Clause.�
The decision, United States v American Library Association, No.
02-361, paves the way for the Act to be enforced against public
libraries across the nation...[more]
Benign
�Strict Scrutiny�?
Monday
morning, the U.S. Supreme Court issued the two most anticipated
rulings of this term � decisions resolving, at least for now, the
constitutionality of race-conscious affirmative action programs
at institutions of higher education.� In split decisions, the Court
ruled that colleges and universities can consider an applicant�s
race as a �plus� factor supporting admission, but, at the same time,
such racial preferences must be flexibly used �in the context of
individualized consideration of each and every applicant� and should
be part of a broader admissions policy that considers ��all pertinent
elements of diversity.��...[more]
McCain-Feingold�s
High Court Opening Act
Back
on March 25, when the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in
Federal Election Commission v. Beaumont, No. 02-403, High Court
watchers and campaign finance wonks took notice not because they
thought the decision would dramatically alter the landscape of federal
campaign finance law, but because of the much anticipated headline
act still waiting in the wings � namely, the constitutional challenges
to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), popularly known as
McCain-Feingold...[more]
Three-Judge
Panel Blocks Its Own Campaign Finance Ruling, Supreme Court Will
Decide McCain-Feingold�s Fate
The
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) is once again the �law of
the land� in its entirety thanks to the same federal court that
struck down and upheld portions of the law in a ruling that took
the three judges four separate opinions and 1575 pages to explain.�
The stay issued Monday means that the decision of the three-judge
panel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia will
be suspended until the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality
of McCain-Feingold, likely to be as late as next fall or winter...[more]
High
Court Refuses to Block McCain-Feingold Ruling on Issue Ads
The
Supreme Court refused to intervene on an emergency basis Tuesday
to stay parts of a lower court�s ruling upholding federal restrictions
on advocacy groups that wish to air political issue advertisements...[more]
The
Bijudicial Campaign Reform Act of 2003
Late
last Friday, a specially appointed panel of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia issued its ruling in the consolidated
constitutional challenges brought against the Bipartisan Campaign
Reform Act of 2002, popularly known as McCain-Feingold...[more]
First
Amendment Issues Surround Term�s Last Day of Arguments
The
First Amendment dominated at the U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday as
the justices heard the last scheduled arguments of the current term.
In the courtroom, the justices heard the case of Virginia v. Hicks,
No. 02-371, which raises the issue whether a policy of Richmond,
Virginia, making the streets and sidewalks around a crime-ridden
public housing project off-limits to non-residents infringes upon
the First Amendment rights of those who may wish to use such a traditionally
public space for speech, demonstrations, and leafleting...[more]
Nike
v. Kasky: The Argument that Just Didn�t Do It for Me
By
Erik
S. Jaffe: Oral argument yesterday in Nike v. Kasky was
both more and less interesting than expected. On
the plus side, several Justices seemed to be considering either
substantially narrowing or shunting to the side the commercial speech
doctrine, a position strongly supported by the Center for Individual
Freedom in its amicus brief...[more]
High
Court Cracks Down on Punitive Damage Awards
The
U.S. Supreme Court on Monday struck down a $145 million punitive
damages verdict against the nation�s largest automobile insurance
company ruling that such an award was �neither reasonable, nor proportionate
to the wrong committed, and � was an irrational and arbitrary deprivation
of property of the [corporate] defendant.��...[more]
Burning
to Say Something
Monday,
the Supreme Court partly upheld and partly rejected a Virginia ban
on cross-burning.� It's tempting to see this case as a victory for
those who want to restrict "hate speech" � tempting but
incorrect...[more]
Will
High Court Eliminate Race Factor in Admissions?
Justices� Questions Suggest Perhaps Not
The
U.S. Supreme Court heard vigorous arguments Tuesday challenging
the affirmative action admissions policies employed by the University
of Michigan�s undergraduate and law schools, but the questions asked
by the two likely swing votes, Justices Anthony Kennedy and Sandra
Day O�Connor, seemed to signal their unwillingness to make race
wholly off-limits in the college admissions process...[more]
The
Not So Little Secret of Statutory Language
The
U.S. Supreme Court taught the owners of well-known trademarks the
basics of legal reading and writing last week.� (Make that �statutory
construction and drafting� for all the licensed attorneys out there.)...[more]
What
Do Harry Potter, Captain Underpants and Huck Finn Have in Common?
Still
three months away from the scheduled release of the fifth in the
best-selling series by J.K. Rowling, Harry Potter is back in the
news and topping the charts.� But this time it�s not The New York
Times Bestseller List or the weekend box office numbers.� According
to the American Library Association�s (ALA) Office for Intellectual
Freedom, Harry Potter tops the list of books most challenged in
2002...[more]
�Three
Strikes� Sentences Ruled Safe by High Court
The
highest umpire in the land declared on Wednesday that the criminal
justice system may impose stiff sentences, including life imprisonment,
for repeat offenders under so-called �three strikes� laws without
violating the constitutional prohibition against �cruel and unusual
punishments� contained in the Eighth Amendment...[more]�
Law
School Admissions to the University of Michigan� By the Numbers
100% � the percentage of African-American, Hispanic, and Native
American applicants admitted in 2000 with grade point averages between
3.00 and 3.24 (B) and LSAT scores between 156-158 (between the 70th
and 80th percentiles nationally) 0%
� the percentage of Asian and Caucasian applicants admitted in 2000
with grade point averages between 3.00 and 3.24 (B) and LSAT scores
between 156-158 (between the 70th and 80th percentiles nationally)...[more]
Legacies:
The �Where�s Waldo� of Constitutional Law
Having
filed what we believe is a fairly cogent brief against the University
of Michigan�s unconstitutional admissions policies, we have a modicum
of interest in the public debate that is as inevitable as the sun
rising...[more]
Undergraduate
Admissions to the University of Michigan� By the Numbers
100�
the minimum number of points an applicant needs to be guaranteed
admission 20�
the number of points an applicant receives for being African-American,
Hispanic, or Native American 0� the number of points
an applicant receives for being Arab, Asian, or Caucasian...[more]
Supreme
Court to Decide Whether Nike Can Just Do It
The
United States Supreme Court last Friday granted Nike�s petition
to review Nike, Inc. v. Kasky, a seminal commercial speech case
with broad implications for corporations across America...[more]
Supreme
Court Extends Disney Magic into Never Land;
The Constitutionality of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension
Act
Like the
immortal Peter Pan, copyrights may never grow old or expire following
the United States Supreme Court�s ruling this week that gave Congress
the right to repeatedly extend copyright protection.� In a big victory
for Walt Disney Company and other copyright holders of characters,
songs, books and creations, the Supreme Court ruled that the Sonny
Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 was neither overreaching
by Congress, nor a violation of free-speech rights...[more]
Center
Files Amicus Brief on Affirmative Action in U.S. Supreme
Court
Arguing that
affirmative action admissions programs violate both Title VI of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the Center for
Individual Freedom filed an amicus brief on January 16 urging the
U.S. Supreme Court to strike down the racial and ethnic preferences
used by the University of Michigan�s undergraduate and law schools
in their admissions...[more]
To
subscribe to our e-mail list for periodic updates on
important litigation and legislation affecting your individual
freedoms, click here.
The
Archives
Supreme
Court 2001 Supreme
Court 2002 Supreme
Court 2003
|