BU Now » Supreme Court

Obama vs. SCOTUS

Dick Taffe — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 16:47:10 +0000

Many legal experts foresee a collision coming between President Obama’s progressive agenda and the Supreme Court’s conservative majority. Republican attorneys general in 20 states, for example, have already sued the federal government over the healthcare reform act, arguing that the law’s mandate to buy health insurance tramples states’ rights and exceeds Congress’ power. Political science Professor Graham Wilson, author of “Only in America? American Politics in Comparative Perspective,” says a Constitutional crisis may be coming.

“It would be an extraordinary expansion of judicial power without precedent since 1937 if the Supreme Court intervened in the health care issue. It should provoke a Constitutional crisis were it to happen.”

Contact Graham Wilson, 617-353-2540, gkwilson@bu.edu

Ban on “soft money” reaffirmed

Dick Taffe — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 21:55:14 +0000

The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the ban on political parties being able to raise unlimited amounts of “soft money” contributions, despite the high court’s ruling in January which removed restrictions on corporate and union spending in federal elections. The Republic Party had appealed to the court to undo the ban. Political science Professor Graham Wilson, author of “Business and Politics,” says whether soft money was really used as originally intended for “party building” rather than helping candidates, it’s reasonable to presume that corruption could be linked to soft money contributions.

“But the GOP is right to say that if you allow unfettered spending by corporations and ban soft money contributions to political parties, you are going to disadvantage parties and have more of the action coming from special interests. Whether that is good for democracy can be questioned.”

Contact Graham Wilson, 617-353-2540, gkwilson@bu.edu

Gun rights apply to local laws

Dick Taffe — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 22:31:36 +0000

The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is a fundamental right that states cannot abridge. The 5-4 ruling will require a lower court to overturn laws in Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park., Ill., that limited handgun possession. Political science Professor Graham Wilson, author of “Only in America? American Politics in Comparative Perspective,” says the conservative majority of the court tilted away from a historic conservative position that states and cities should be able to adapt policies to local conditions and circumstances.

“Not since 1937 have we seen such conservative judicial activism and it makes complaints about liberal justices ‘making law from the bench’ ring more than a little hollow.”

Contact Graham Wilson, 617-353-2540, gkwilson@bu.edu

SCOTUS on the “honest services” law

Dick Taffe — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 19:41:40 +0000

The Supreme Court restricted a favorite tool for pursuing corrupt politicians and self-dealing corporate chiefs, ruling that the law that makes it a crime to deprive the public or one’s employer of the “intangible right of honest services” can only be used where they could prove defendants accepted bribes or kickbacks. It means, for instance, that Enron ex-CEO Jeff Skilling’s conviction on the “honest services” law is thrown out – but not the other charges he was convicted of. Law Professor Elizabeth Nowicki, both a former SEC attorney and Wall Street lawyer, says the opinion finally gives some insight into newly appointed Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s view on business fraud.

“Surprisingly, she sided with the justices who struck down the ‘honest services’ doctrine for vindicating cases of overt fraud. This is a troubling blow for those who care about protecting investors and business integrity.”

Contact Elizabeth Nowicki, 518-867-5355, enowicki@bu.edu

SCOTUS slaps down NFL

Dick Taffe — Mon, 24 May 2010 21:30:46 +0000

In a unanimous vote, the Supreme Court denied the National Football League its goal of broad protection from antitrust suits. The high court ruled on a case involving a license for making souvenir caps and sent to back to a lower court to further consideration allegations by a smaller company that challenged the league’s 10-year exclusive deal with Reebok. Law Professor Keith Hylton, an authority on antitrust law, says it is understandable that the court would be reluctant to expand the “single entity” concept to include the NFL. Meantime, Sports Journalism Professor Frank Shorr says this could be the “watershed moment.”

Keith Hylton:

“‘Single entity’ status implies exemption from Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and the Court is reluctant to create broad exemptions to Section 1 when the effects may not be entirely clear.”

Contact: Keith Hylton, 617-353-8959, knhylton@bu.edu

Frank Shorr:

“It will be interesting to see if the court now expands it’s view of the National Football League’s long-standing policies. Today it’s hats. Tomorrow, who knows — uniforms, helmets, wrist bands — anything that they can make a profit on and not have to share. We could be looking back on this decision in the not-to-distant future and saying, that was the watershed moment.”

Contact: Frank Shorr, 617-353-5163, fshorr@bu.edu

Law professor Jack Beermann on Elena Kagan’s Supreme Court nomination

Jenny Mackintosh — Thu, 13 May 2010 16:56:29 +0000

Pondering Stevens’ SCOTUS exit

Dick Taffe — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 20:02:17 +0000

The White House is reportedly considering possible candidates to nominate for the Supreme Court seat which may soon be vacated by 89-year-0ld Justice John Paul Stevens. Political Science Professor Graham Wilson says political reality dictates that the ability of the GOP minority in the Senate to delay or block nominations must be taken into serious consideration.

“Obama might need to nominate a candidate with a safer record and someone where opposition to them would seem to display political animus against the group – women, Hispanics, African Americans – from which they come.”

Contact Graham Wilson, 617-353-2540, gkwilson@bu.edu

Interracial pair denied marriage license

Dick Taffe — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 18:40:16 +0000

A Louisiana justice of the peace is raising legal eyebrows for denying an interracial couple a marriage license because he doesn’t think it would be good for any child the couple might have. Law Professor Linda McClain, a family law authority, says the J.P. is flat-out wrong legally, based on a long-ago U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

“The reason the Louisiana justice of the peace story is so startling is that it states an attitude that seems as if it belongs to another era.”

Contact Linda McClain, 617-358-4635, lmcclain@bu.edu

Senate debates Sotomayor bid

Dick Taffe — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 15:02:37 +0000

With her historic nomination in the balance, the Senate is debating whether to approve Sonia Sotomayor as the first Hispanic justice of the Supreme Court — though the outcome is not in doubt. School of Law Professor Jack Beermann, an expert on the high court, can discuss the possible legal trajectory of the SCOTUS with Sotomayor onboard.

Contact Jack Beermann, 617-353-2577, beermann@bu.edu

Sotomayor closer to SCOTUS

Dick Taffe — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 18:40:08 +0000

On a 13-6 vote, with only one Republican siding with her, Sonia Sotomayor has been endorsed by the Senate Judiciary Committee to become an associate justice of the Supreme Court. Full Senate debate on the nomination is expected next week. School of Law Professor Jay Wexler, who clerked for the current court’s only female justice, can discuss Sotomayor’s likely impact on the SCOTUS.

Contact Jay Wexler, 617-353-3174, jaywex@bu.edu