Latest Stories from ISCOTUSnow

Mon 21 Apr, 2014

By Professor Christopher Schmidt. This post is part of ISCOTUS Director Schmidt's "Drama in the Court" series.

Tomorrow the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, a First Amendment challenge to an Ohio law that prohibits intentionally false statements about political candidates. The case itself presents the basic free speech question only obliquely. The central issue before the Court is a technical one: whether a party can even go to court to challenge this kind of law prior to being prosecuted for violating that law. This is a question, in other words, of whether the plaintiff has “standing” to make the First Amendment challenge. But the underlying constitutional question—whether the First Amendment permits the regulation of blatant lies in political campaigns—will surely be part of the tomorrow’s oral argument.

Fri 18 Apr, 2014

Did you miss your Supreme Court news this week? Let our Weekly Roundup help. (To stay on top of the latest Supreme Court happenings, follow ISCOTUS on Twitter.)

The Court decided not to hear another case against the NSA's phone record collection, leaving key legal issues unresolved

A conversation with Supreme Court sketch artist Art Lien

In all of Supreme Court history, only one case that shaped American history has stemmed from chickens. Join author Amity Shlaes at Chicago-Kent College of Law on April 22 as she discusses the famous "sick chicken" New Deal case

With the New Mexico photography case turned away from the Supreme Court, ISCTOUS director Christopher Schmidt considers the Court's history with these kinds of "right to discriminate" claims

Wed 9 Apr, 2014

By Professor Christopher Schmidt

Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in a New Mexico case involving a photography business that refused to take pictures at a same-sex commitment ceremony. This act of discrimination, according to the state human rights commission, ran afoul of the New Mexico public accommodations law. The couple who owned the photography company claimed that a legal requirement to serve same-sex customers in this context infringed their First Amendment rights. Their argument, in essence, was that in certain circumstances they had a right to discriminate.

Wed 9 Apr, 2014

Did you miss your Supreme Court news this week? Let our Weekly Roundup help. (To stay on top of the latest Supreme Court happenings, follow ISCOTUS on Twitter.)

What does the campaign finance McCutcheon decision actually mean? Professor Sanford Greenberg of Chicago-Kent College of Law explains

Listen to oral arguments from McCutcheon on Oyez

Goldberg's swing and miss - ISCOTUS Director Chris Schmidt continues his Drama in the Court series with a former Justice's embarrassing return to the Court in Flood v. Kuhn

After McCutcheon, what other challenges could arise to campaign contribution limits? Lyle Denniston analyzes

Supreme Court declines early look at NSA surveillance case

Fri 4 Apr, 2014

By Professor Christopher Schmidt. This post is part of ISCOTUS Director Schmidt's "Drama in the Court" series.

To celebrate the opening of a new baseball season, let’s look back to 1972 when baseball had its day (its third day, actually) in the Supreme Court.