by Lisa R. Pruitt & Ezera Miller-Walfish, Class of 2022
Although the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent voting rights decision in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee was very bad news for rural residents (and, indeed, all voters) in terms of the precedent set, there is perhaps a silver lining to be found in the dissenting opinion, written by Justice Elena Kagan and joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. That dissent took the concept of distance–rural spatiality–more seriously than any faction of the Supreme Court has ever done.
We discuss three cases from the recently wrapped Supreme Court term: California v. Texas, Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., and Lange v. California. (This episode contains explicit language – quoted from a cheerleader).
On May 20, 2021, President Joe Biden signed the COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act into law. This bill made special mention of hate crimes against Asian Americans. This was in stark contrast to his predecessor, President Donald Trump, who used racist and xenophobic terms in relation to COVID-19. What exactly are hate crimes, and what does the Constitution say about them? Listen to episode 53 of the What Trump Can Teach Us About Con Law podcast.
What can Joe Biden or any U.S. president do when it comes to reforming the approximately 18,000 locally governed police departments around the U.S.? The infamous Rodney King video showing him being graphically beaten by police officers helped catalyze a giant 1994 crime reform bill that brought the pattern and practice of local police departments under federal scrutiny. How does it work? Listen to episode 52 of What Trump Can Teach Us About Con Law.
Aristotle once observed that “the virtue of justice consists in moderation.” By any measure, he would find little to admire in America’s modern judicial landscape.
On Jan. 6, a mob stormed the U.S. Capitol to try to stop the certification of the presidential election results. Many of the insurrectionists will be tracked down and charged with crimes, in part, because their cell phones placed them in the Capitol building during the attack.
On March 22, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a seemingly minor labor-law dispute with potentially sweeping ramifications. Although the case itself concerns a mundane California agricultural regulation, a decision could threaten fundamental laws governing organized labor, child safety, nursing-home inspections — and even laws forbidding stores and restaurants from discriminating.
Following the Jan. 6 riot at the United States Capitol, the major social media platforms banned former President Donald Trump, and many accounts related to far-right conspiracy theories. In response, conservative activists have called for the repeal of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, saying it would prevent “censorship” of right-wing viewpoints in the future. But what does Section 230 actually say?
On Jan. 13, former President Donald Trump became the first person ever to be impeached twice by the House of Representatives. But with Trump out of office, it’s unclear if there will be enough votes to reach the two-thirds majority needed to convict him in the Senate. With the trial looming, we look at whether Trump has a good argument against the charge he incited a riot at the U.S. Capitol, and whether it’s constitutional to impeach a person who has left office.
