Cato Supreme Court Review: 2008–2009
Now in its eighth year, this acclaimed annual publication, which comes out every September, brings together leading national scholars to analyze the Supreme Court’s most important decisions from the term just ended and preview the year ahead.
About the Editor
Ilya Shapiro is a senior fellow in constitutional studies and editor‐in‐chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review. Before joining Cato he was Special Assistant/Advisor to the Multi‐National Force‐Iraq on rule of law issues; practiced international, political, commercial, and antitrust litigation at Patton Boggs LLP and Cleary Gottlieb LLP; and clerked on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Mr. Shapiro has written for a wide variety of publications and regularly appears on TV and radio to comment on legal issues. Mr. Shapiro holds degrees from Princeton University, the London School of Economics, and the University of Chicago Law School, and has been an adjunct professor at the George Washington University Law School.
Topics & Contributors
REVERSE RACIAL DISCRIMINATION – Ricci v. DeStefano – White and Hispanic firefighters’ challenge to New Haven’s decision not to certify the results of a race‐neutral exam whose result was that no African‐Americans qualified for promotion.
By Kenneth Marcus
SEARCH AND SEIZURE – Herring v. United States; Arizona v. Gant; Pearson v. Callahan; Arizona v. Johnson; Safford USD No.1 v. Redding – The Roberts Court’s jurisprudence in a variety of Fourth Amendment cases.
By Erik Luna
SEARCH AND SEIZURE – Herring v. United States; Arizona v. Gant; Pearson v. Callahan; Arizona v. Johnson; Safford USD No.1 v. Redding – A second view on the Roberts Court’s jurisprudence in a variety of Fourth Amendment cases.
By Michael O’Neill
REGULATORY PREEMPTION – Wyeth v. Levine – Controversial split decision allowing claims under state product liability law in an area (pharmaceutical drugs) the federal government regulates.
By Roger Pilon
VOTING RIGHTS – NAMUDNO v. Holder and Bartlett v. Strickland – Considers the abyss between two sections of the Voting Rights Act and the important but precise constitutional guarantee of the Fifteenth Amendment.
By Roger Clegg
SIXTH AMENDMENT – Oregon v. Ice; Melendez‐Diaz v. Massachusetts; Montejo v. Louisiana; Kansas v. Ventris – Important cases interpreting trial rights to counsel, to a jury trial, and to confront witnesses.
By Mark Chenoweth
GOVERNMENT SPEECH AND RELIGION – City of Pleasant Grove v. Summum – Quixotic case in which a small religious sect wanted to place its monument in a public park that already displayed the Ten Commandments.
By Patrick Garry
REGULATION OF OBSCENTIY – FCC v. Fox – A split Court found that the FCC has the power to punish the broadcasting of “fleeting expletives” without getting into the First Amendment issues attending these actions.
By Robert Corn‐Revere
ANTITRUST – PacBell v. linkLine – A unanimous Court looks at the relationship between regulation and antitrust in the telecommunications industry and limits “price squeeze” claims.
By Daniel Crane
JUDICIAL ELECTIONS – Caperton v. Massey Coal – Examines whether a judge’s failure to recuse himself from a case in which one of the parties had made large independent expenditures supporting his campaign violates the due process rights of the other party.
By Bradley Smith and Stephen Hoersting
SPECIAL FEATURES INCLUDE
IS THE CONSTITUTION LIBERTARIAN? – In the annual B. Kenneth Simon Lecture, Randy Barnett of the Georgetown University Law Center explains that the Constitution is libertarian to the extent that its original meaning respects and protects the five fundamental rights that are at the core of both classical liberalism and modern libertarianism.
LOOKING AHEAD – Jan Crawford Greenburg, ABC News legal correspondent and author of the critically acclaimed Supreme Conflict, offers analysis and predictions for the 2009-10 term.