The Cato Institute Center for Constitutional Studies announces the release of the Cato Supreme Court Review 2006 — 2007. Now in its sixth year, this acclaimed annual publication presents a comprehensive critique by leading national practitioners of the Supreme Court’s most important decisions from the term just ended, and a preview of the year ahead.
Cases critiqued in the 2006 – 2007 edition include major Court decisions pertaining to First Amendment challenges, protections for corporations targeted by punitive damage awards, the constitutionality of the federal partial birth abortion ban, global warming, and public school education.
The Cato Supreme Court Review is unlike any other publication that follows the work of the Court, for three key reasons:
- It is timely and in‐depth review, as it appears less than three months after the Court’s term ends and before the new term begins.
- While directed to legal experts, its articles are accessible to non‐attorneys interested in the work of the Court.
- Crucial to its exceptional coverage, the Review takes a Madisonian perspective‐favoring federalism, limited government, and individual liberty.
Topics and contributors in the Cato Supreme Court Review 2006 — 2007
- Campaign Finance — FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. — How a new majority on the Court put the brakes on campaign finance ‘reform,’ “revived Buckley, and thus breathed life into the First Amendment.” By Lillian R. BeVier
- Speech — Washington v. WEA & Davenport v. WEA — In what should have been an easy First Amendment case, the Court ended up harming speech rights by arriving at the right conclusion for the wrong reasons. By Erik S. Jaffe
- Speech — Morse v. Frederick — Concluding that despite the Court’s “zeal to give the government a win in the War on Drugs,” the decision “has two bright spots for free speech advocates.” By Hans Bader
- Constitutional Remedies — Wilkie v. Robbins — How the Court dealt a “severe and unjustifiable blow to individual rights,” leaving the Bivens doctrine “on life support with little chance of recovery.” By Laurence H. Tribe
- Federalism — Gonzales v. Cahart — “The majority opinion that might have been” if the parties had objected to the federal partial birth abortion ban as exceeding Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause. By Brannon P. Denning.
- Federalism — Massachusetts v. EPA — Arguing that while the states won, standing doctrine lost, accelerating the “trend toward regulation through litigation.” By Andrew P. Morriss
- Federalism — Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation — Why the Court has created a road map “by which the Executive may circumnavigate judicial standing in Establishment Clause cases altogether, simply by supporting religious institutions on its own initiative.” By Robert Corn‐Revere
- Equal Protection — Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 — Why the Court’s latest affirmative action ruling “will prove deeply unsatisfying” and “future jurisprudence difficult to predict.” By Samuel Estreicher
- Markets and the Law — Watters v. Wachovia Bank — Arguing that “the interests of freedom‐are advanced by federal control of banking regulation.” By G. Marcus Cole
- Markets and the Law — Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc. & Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Ross‐Simmons Hardwood Lumber Co. — Why despite the notoriety of the Leegin decision, which overruled the “much maligned” Dr. Miles case, the Court’s less noticed ruling in Weyerhaeuser Co. may prove to be more important in the long run. By Thomas A. Lambert
- Markets and the Law — Philip Morris v. Williams — How the Court missed a chance to clarify the due process constraints on excessive punitive damages, proving once again that the Court has “no coherent view of punitive damages.” By Michael I. Krauss
Special Features Include:
- Rule of Law — Hon. Danny J. Boggs, Chief Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth District, examines the Court’s existing record from a consideration for “rule of law” values.
- Looking Ahead — Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Beauchamp Brogan Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Tennessee, examines the trends in the Court’s caseload, surveys the Supreme Court term to come, and makes some predictions about the hotly watched cases likely to be reviewed.