Articles tagged as Supreme Court
-
“Conservative Jurisprudence Resorts to Relativism”–Professor Hadley Arkes in First Things
Writing at First Things, Professor Arkes weighs in on the decision of the Supreme Court in Masterpiece Cakeshop. The majority opinion has been described as a “narrow” decision to vindicate a Colorado baker in his refusal to supply a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage ceremony. At stake were the defendant’s rights to free expression […] -
“The True Meaning of the Pentagon Papers”- Professor Hadley Arkes in City Journal
Writing in City Journal, Professor Hadley Arkes debunks the now-iconic narrative–championed most recently in Steven Spielberg’s film The Post–that the Pentagon Papers case (1971) presents a high-water mark for the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence concerning the First Amendment. The per curiam opinion of the Court vindicated the Washington Post’s right to publish classified government documents prior to an executive […] -
“If walls could talk, would they advertise abortions?” by Catherine Glenn Foster ’16
Catherine Glenn Foster, a 2016 James Wilson Fellow, offers commentary on the pending case on the rights of NIFLA v. Becerra before the Supreme Court with her piece, “If walls could talk, would they advertise abortions?” Foster, who serves as president of Americans United for Life, summarizes the background of the case and argues why the […] -
Free Speech and Religious Liberty at the Supreme Court
Jack Phillips, Barronelle Stutzman, Blaine Adamson, and the Larsen Family: each are blessed with extraordinary creativity and faith along with success in their private businesses. Jack bakes personalized cakes, Barronelle designs unique floral arrangements, Blaine prints custom shirts, and the Larsen’s videography captures the intimate stories of others. Each take pride in their faith and […] -
“Natural Justice and the Amistad”–Professor Justin Dyer in Starting Points
Justin Dyer, Professor of Political Science at the University of Missouri and an Affiliated Scholar of JWI, recalls the oral argument of John Quincy Adams in the historic Supreme Court case of United States v. Amistad (1841). In a piece published at Starting Points, a journal of the Kinder Institute, Dyer explains Adams’s use of arguments based […] -
“The Moral Turn”–Hadley Arkes in First Things
We share with you Prof. Arkes’s latest piece in the May 2017 print edition of First Things titled, “The Moral Turn.” “The argument in the piece is largely drawn from an ongoing topic of discussion in one of our JWI programs, our biannual Senior Seminar. A year ago, our core attendees of judges and law professors contrasted the dissent from conservative justices Rehnquist […] -
“The Ninth Circuit’s Astounding Reasoning” –Garrett Snedeker in the Library of Law and Liberty
In his piece, “The Ninth Circuit’s Astounding Reasoning,” Garrett Snedeker discusses the complicated state of affairs as the Ninth Circuit has challenged the authority of President Trump’s executive order to temporarily restrict entry of immigrants from certain high-risk countries. Mr. Snedeker analyzes this controversy in light of two different SCOTUS opinions written by Justice George […] -
“The Conservative Lawyers Versus the Never Trumpers” -Hadley Arkes in First Things
We invite you to read Prof. Arkes writing for First Things, in which he addresses the grave matters at stake if Hillary Clinton is elected president. “At a recent gathering in Washington, D.C., a conservative lawyer, active in the bar of the Supreme Court, turned furious when he heard the declarations of a Never Trumper: […] -
“The Shell Game of ‘Tiers of Scrutiny’ Exposed, Once and for All” –Prof. Arkes in the Library of Law and Liberty
We invite you to read Prof. Arkes’s essay, “The Shell Game of ‘Tiers of Scrutiny’ Exposed, Once and for All,” in the Library of Law and Liberty. In the piece, Prof. Arkes offers commentary on the 2016 Texas abortion case, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, drawing upon the reasoning contained in Justice Thomas’s dissent. Prof. Arkes joins Justice […] -
“Pro-Lifers Discover Again the Perils of Indirection” –Prof. Arkes in The Catholic Thing
After the terrible loss at the Supreme Court for the state of Texas in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, Prof. Arkes provides an analysis of the weakness of the argument from the pro-life side in the case with his piece in The Catholic Thing “Pro-Lifers Discover Again the Perils of Indirection.” “We run the risk now of sounding […]