For over twenty-five years, federal courts of appeals have rebelled against every Supreme Court mandate that weakens the federal sentencing Guidelines. That rebellion has intensified since the Court dealt a blow to the Guidelines a decade ago by making them advisory, rather than mandatory.
Max Palevsky Cinema in Ida Noyes Hall, 1212 E. 59th St.
As the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to deliberate on same-sex marriage later this month, Prof. Geoffrey R. Stone, the 2015 Nora and Edward Ryerson Lecturer, will devote his talk to this contentious social and legal issue that could mark one of the high court’s most important rulings this year.
Prosecution of racially motivated hate crimes against the Roma in Eastern Europe—the region’s largest ethnic minority—is systematically hindered. Yet, members of the Roma community have themselves been charged with hate crimes, resulting from violent conflicts with the majority population and racist hate groups.
At her confirmation hearing, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan said that "we are all originalists." Is that true, and what would it mean for it to be true? In Is Originalism Our Law?, I argue that there is an important sense in which Justice Kagan was right.
The Supreme Court's federalism battleground has recently shifted from the Commerce Clause to two textually marginal but substantively important domains: the Necessary and Proper Clause and, to a lesser extent, the General Welfare Clause. For nearly a decade, these quieter, more structurally ambiguous federal powers – the “shadow powers” – have steadily increased in prominence.