Controversial

What in the world is “zombie precedent”?

by

The term “zombie precedent” is a fascinating concept in legal discourse, particularly in discussions surrounding judicial decisions that have outlived their original context or support. This intriguing phrase was popularized by Justice Antonin Scalia, who likened certain Supreme Court rulings to a ghoul that refuses to stay buried. Specifically, Scalia referred to the infamous Lemon test, which has haunted the court’s Establishment Clause jurisprudence for decades. The notion of a zombie precedent encapsulates the idea that some legal precedents can linger, re-emerging in legal arguments despite being largely discredited or abandoned. The Origins of Zombie … Read more

An Off-Ramp for the Court’s Next Big Gun Case

by

The upcoming case of United States v. Hemani presents a pivotal moment for the Supreme Court as it prepares to deliberate on the complexities surrounding gun ownership and the implications of drug use under federal law. The case centers on the interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), which criminalizes firearm possession by individuals deemed unlawful users of controlled substances. With the increasing legalization of marijuana in various states, the statute’s application has become controversial, raising questions about its constitutionality and the broader implications for gun rights in America. Understanding the Legal Landscape In Hemani, the … Read more

Bush v. Gore in Retrospect

by

The Supreme Court case Bush v. Gore, decided on December 12, 2000, marked a pivotal moment in American electoral politics. The decision effectively resolved one of the most contentious presidential elections in U.S. history, raising questions about judicial impartiality and the role of the judiciary in electoral processes. As we reflect on the case 25 years later, its implications extend beyond the courtroom, influencing public perception of the Supreme Court and its decisions. The Background of Bush v. Gore The events leading to Bush v. Gore began during the presidential election on November 7, 2000. … Read more

The concurrence that was really a dissent

by

The dynamics of dissent within the U.S. Supreme Court often reveal deeper complexities than a mere disagreement among justices. In cases where the majority opinion is not as clear-cut as it appears, concurring opinions can sometimes mask underlying dissent. This phenomenon was notably evident in the 2014 case of NLRB v. Noel Canning, where the implications of the ruling extended far beyond the immediate labor dispute, raising questions about the separation of powers and the role of the presidency in making recess appointments. Background of the Case In January 2012, President Barack Obama made several … Read more