The transcript is here. 1. What keeps an indivisible statute from becoming a divisible statute? (And vice versa?) My point is -- doesn't the use of a modified categorical imperative always become a lively, almost X-factor when being used in relation to a state statute? And I ...read more
In yesterday’s New York Times, Louis Seidman -- a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown -- made his case for abandoning the Constitution of the United States. He makes this observation after noting that “observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of ...read more
You're probably heard about it by now -- a dentist fired a woman who had worked for him for a decade because she was 'irresistible.' He asked her about her sex life. He talked about her clothing. We know this now thanks to a decision rendered by the Iowa Supreme Court. For a ...read more
With oral arguments in Shelby County v. Holder set for February 27th of next year, an interesting item popped up on my radio this past Friday, the press release of which I'll quote here -- The Justice Department announced today that it has reached an agreement with the State of ...read more
While this is a blog devoted to the courts in this country and the people who make up the courts in this country -- as well as how the law reflects and refracts itself within the context of that -- I hope you'll forgive me for continuing the conversation on guns and posting ...read more
I want to talk about the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals overturning the Illinois ban on ‘conceal and carry’ on December 11th. With any luck, I hope you all have been able to avoid seeing the kind of television coverage Roger Ebert and Charlie Brooker have talked about and have -- ...read more
When the Supreme Court returns to hear arguments on January 7th, it will hear four cases that day -- Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles, Alleyne v. United States, Boyer v Louisiana, and Descamps v. United States, the latter of which I wanted to touch on. A modified categorical ...read more
Let’s start with the beginning. Before the building that houses those nine robes today was built, we had the Merchants Exchange Building in New York City and Old City Hall in Philadelphia as the ‘seat’ of the court. (Though there’s the circuit riding Jay and co. had to do for a ...read more
There are bits in the entirety of Robert H. Jackson’s opening statement at Nuremberg -- a portion of which is excerpted above -- that remind me a bit of Roberto Bolaño’s The Part About the Crimes. After I finished reading Jackson’s opening statement, I was convinced that Bolaño ...read more
Is Hollingworth v. Perry as narrow a decision as the pundit class is saying? In reviewing the decision, I see what I see whenever I read anything written by a judge: case histories. In re Coordination Proceeding, In re Marriage cases, Lawrence v. Texas, Everson v Board of ...read more
What if everything's going to be fine? News broke on Friday that the Supreme Court will consider both Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act in the context of US v. Windsor and Hollingworth v. Perry. This -- in part -- brought Iowa’s Varnum v. Brien back to my mind, ...read more
The general strategy and outline for covering law on TDB is going to be broken into three basic components -- and, parenthetically, let me just say: you’ll be hearing more about SCOTUS, Prop 8, and DOMA Monday -- one of which is this: in tackling local courts, you often get to ...read more
Oyez, oyez: the first blog post of Juris Dispatch is in session. If you are at work, reading this from your phone on a train, or seeing this in a coffee shop, please rise for the “honorable” Evan Fleischer, who shall hold forth on matters concerning the United States of America ...read more
