You are here: Fairness.com > Resources > Justice Anthony M. Kennedy

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy


Self Description

December 2005: "Anthony M. Kennedy, Associate Justice, was born in Sacramento, California, July 23, 1936. He married Mary Davis and has three children. He received his B.A. from Stanford University and the London School of Economics, and his LL.B. from Harvard Law School. He was in private practice in San Francisco, California from 1961–1963, as well as in Sacramento, California from 1963–1975. From 1965 to 1988, he was a Professor of Constitutional Law at the McGeorge School of Law, University of the Pacific. He has served in numerous positions during his career, including a member of the California Army National Guard in 1961, the board of the Federal Judicial Center from 1987–1988, and two committees of the Judicial Conference of the United States: the Advisory Panel on Financial Disclosure Reports and Judicial Activities, subsequently renamed the Advisory Committee on Codes of Conduct, from 1979–1987, and the Committee on Pacific Territories from 1979–1990, which he chaired from 1982–1990. He was appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in 1975. President Reagan nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat February 18, 1988. "

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/biographiescurrent.pdf

Third-Party Descriptions

March 2012: "The 1942 decision against him, Wickard v. Filburn, is the basis for the Supreme Court’s modern understanding of the scope of federal power. It is the contested ground on which the health care case has been fought in the lower courts and in the parties’ briefs. And it is likely to be crucial to the votes of Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Antonin Scalia, who are widely seen as open to persuasion by either side."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/20/us/politics/at-center-of-health-care-fight-roscoe-filburns-1942-commerce-case.html

February 2012: "Justices Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas agreed. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the court’s swing justice, also voted to invalidate the programs. But he was less categorical, sharply limiting the role race could play in children’s school assignments but stopping short of forbidding school districts from ever taking account of race. Still, Justice Kennedy has never voted to uphold an affirmative action program."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/us/justices-to-hear-case-on-affirmative-action-in-higher-education.html

November 2011: 'Roberts suggests that a GPS is worrisome because it gives the government a massive of amount of information. Dreeben replies: “So does a pen register, so does a garbage pull. So does looking at everybody's credit card statement for a month.” But the court doesn’t deem those searches. Justice Anthony Kennedy (Salzburg, Berlin, Czechoslovakia, Russia, China, England, Greece, Wales) wonders whether the government can affix a GPS device to your overcoat. Justice Sonia Sotomayor (baseball game, Bronx, Manhattan) tells Dreeben that under his theory of the case, “You could monitor and track every person through their cellphone, because today the smartphones emit signals that police can pick up and use to follow someone anywhere they go. … They have no reasonable expectation that their possessions will not be used by you … to track them, to invade their sense of integrity in their choices about who they want to see or use their things!”'

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2011/11/lithwick_what_if_members_of_the_supreme_court_had_to_wear_gps_devices_.html

June 2011: "The justices are not bound by the federal judiciary’s conduct code, because it is enforced by a committee of judges who rank below the justices. Even so, Justices Breyer and Anthony M. Kennedy said in testimony before Congress in April that the justices followed the code."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/us/politics/19thomas.html

May 2011: 'Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority in a 5-to-4 decision that broke along ideological lines, described a prison system that failed to deliver minimal care to prisoners with serious medical and mental health problems and produced “needless suffering and death.”'

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/24/us/24scotus.html

December 2010: 'Justice Anthony Kennedy is similarly bothered by the mandatory use of the E-Verify system: "You are taking the mechanism that Congress said will be a pilot program that is optional and you are making it mandatory," he tells O'Grady. "It seems to me that's almost a classic example of a state doing something that is inconsistent with a federal requirement."'

http://www.slate.com/id/2277292

June 2010: '"Prudence counsels caution," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote, arguing that the court should not use the case of an officer who sends numerous text messages to "establish far-reaching premises that define the existence, and extent, of privacy expectations" of workers using company equipment.'

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/17/AR2010061705928.html

May 2010: 'Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority, said states must provide juveniles who receive lengthy sentences a "meaningful" chance at some point to show they should be released.'

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/17/AR2010051701355.html

May 2010: 'Justice Kennedy added that the majority did not pay enough heed to the 10th Amendment. Under the amendment, he wrote, “the Constitution delegates limited powers to the national government and then reserves the remainder for the states (or the people), not the other way around, as the court’s analysis suggests.”'

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/us/politics/18offenders.html

May 2010: 'In Citizens United, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority, adopted a very narrow definition of corruption. “Ingratiation and access” are not enough, he said.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/us/politics/04bar.html

April 2010: "Justices John Paul Stevens and Anthony M. Kennedy indicated that SWAT team members might be treated differently from other government employees because their records are often subject to disclosure in lawsuits or under California’s open-records law."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/20/us/politics/20scotus.html

March 2010: "None of the five justices in the Heller majority seemed moved by arguments by Chicago's attorney, James A. Feldman, that the framers would have been willing to leave it to state and local governments to decide how best to allow citizens a right to self-defense. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, one of the five, said Feldman missed the point of their ruling -- that the right to bear arms was fundamental to liberty."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/02/AR2010030203746.html

July 2009: 'The Iqbal decision now requires plaintiffs to come forward with concrete facts at the outset, and it instructs lower court judges to dismiss lawsuits that strike them as implausible. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the five-justice majority, “requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.”'

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/us/21bar.html

June 2009: '“The city rejected the test results solely because the higher scoring candidates were white,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority, adding that the possibility of a lawsuit from minority firefighters was not a lawful justification for the city’s action.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/us/30scotus.html

May 2009: 'In the decision striking down military commissions, for example, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said trials controlled by the executive alone raised constitutional concerns “of the highest order” because “concentration of power puts personal liberty in peril of arbitrary action by officials.”'

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/25/us/politics/25power.html

May 2009: "Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority in the 5-to-4 decision, said a lawsuit filed by the former detainee, Javaid Iqbal, must be dismissed at a preliminary stage because he failed to allege a plausible link between the officials’ conduct and the abuses he said he had suffered."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/us/19scotus.html

November 2008: "Justice Anthony Kennedy also wondered whether community standards have changed since the Court decided FCC v. Pacifica Foundation 30 years ago, upholding the FCC's power to ban broadcast indecency."

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202425794221

October 2008: 'In September, an appeals court found that one of the Uighurs, Huzaifa Parhat, had been labeled an "enemy combatant" and subject to indefinite detention, based on "bare assertions." The Bush administration has conceded that none of the Uighurs is an enemy combatant. Last week a federal judge in Washing-ton ordered that all 17 Uighurs be freed, immediately, into the care of American supporters. Bush administration officials managed to delay their release in a last-minute petition to the appeals court. These Uighurs didn't just steam into Guantánamo Bay off a Carnival cruise. They were brought here in error and abused in error. And now to remedy that error they will be forced to stay there indefinitely. As Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in a landmark Supreme Court decision this past summer, "The costs of delay can no longer be borne by those who are held in custody." The Justice Department managed to halt the ruling, by repeating discredited claims that the Uighurs associated with terrorists, and squawking about the perils of bringing Guantánamo to Washington. But in truth, Guantánamo has been in Washington for some time. Newly released military documents prove that two American citizens held for years as enemy combatants at Navy brigs in Virginia and Charleston, S.C., had been interrogated and incarcerated according to the Guantánamo rules, not U.S. law. According to e-mails that surfaced last week, Yaser Esam Hamdi and Jose Padilla were interrogated by the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency for months and years in the early part of the war on terror, and deprived of light, correspondence and human contact, while their nervous interrogators worried for their sanity.'

http://www.newsweek.com/id/163477

July 2008: 'The chief justice didn’t address the idea of class-based integration in his opinion. But Justice Anthony Kennedy did, in a separate concurrence. And because Kennedy cast the fifth vote for the majority, his view controls the law. Though he agreed with Roberts that public school districts should not make school assignments based on the race of individual students, he added that the court’s ruling “should not prevent school districts from continuing the important work of bringing together students of different racial, ethnic and economic backgrounds.”'

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/20/magazine/20integration-t.html

July 2008: 'In that case, decided June 25 by a vote of 5 to 4, the court ruled that the Constitution prohibits the death penalty for the rape of a child. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s majority opinion was based in part on the conclusion that because child rape was a capital offense in only six states, and not under federal law, the death penalty for the crime did not meet the “evolving standards of decency” by which the court judges capital punishment.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/us/03scotus.html

July 2008: 'This inventory of jurisdictions was a central part of the court’s analysis, the foundation for Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s conclusion in his majority opinion that capital punishment for child rape was contrary to the “evolving standards of decency” by which the court judges how the death penalty is applied.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/washington/02scotus.html

June 2008: '“The death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the court. He was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/26/washington/26scotuscnd.html

May 2008: 'Those who cite differences between juveniles and adults got a boost in 2005 from the Supreme Court. In Roper v. Simmons, a divided court ruled that the juvenile death penalty was unconstitutional, with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority, citing developmental science as one reason. Young people's "vulnerability and comparative lack of control over their immediate surroundings," he said, "mean juveniles have a greater claim than adults to be forgiven for failing to escape negative influences in their whole environment."'

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/02/AR2008050203365.html

May 2008: 'In a dissenting opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that the tax exemption laws were “protectionist” and the Court’s opinion created an “imprudent risk” to the operation of free markets by allowing such practices to flourish. He was joined by Justice Samuel Alito in the dissent.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/20/business/20bizcourt.html

March 2008: 'The federal government and 19 states have joined Indiana in urging the court to find that government should be able to set a higher standard for whether a defendant may represent himself than simply whether he has been judged competent to stand trial....Justice Anthony M. Kennedy hypothesized a defendant who was quite capable of communicating to the jury, but whose goal was to turn the trial into a farce.'

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/26/AR2008032602902.html

April 2008: 'It is true, of course, that Congress gave up its powers here voluntarily. But Justice Anthony M. Kennedy had a response to that point in his concurrence in the line-item-veto case. "It is no answer, of course, to say that Congress surrendered its authority by its own hand,” he wrote. “Abdication of responsibility is not part of the constitutional design.”'

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/08/us/08bar.html

March 2008: 'The court’s purpose in deciding the Saucier case the way it did was to avoid a situation in which the law is never clarified because its very lack of clarity entitles defendant after defendant to official immunity. Only by deciding whether a constitutional right was violated in the first place would “the process for the law’s elaboration from case to case” be preserved, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote in the Saucier majority opinion.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/washington/25scotus.html

March 2008: "Last term, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy acknowledged in his opinion upholding the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act a brief that said women who had abortions sometimes regretted them."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/08/AR2008030802243.html

February 2008: "The increasingly conservative court has said often of late that it is getting out of the business of finding a right to sue that is not explicitly stated in the law -- what lawyers call an "implied cause of action....Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wondered whether the court's respect for stare decisis should extend to cases it believes were wrongly decided, and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said he could not find a way to read the law that gave plaintiffs the right they wanted."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/23/AR2008022301915.html

February 2008: "Well-reasoned and explained as all of this is by Humphries' lawyers and the government, the tea leaves of disaster for this case are also here for the reading. Patterson is the case in which liberal lion Justice William Brennan lost swing-vote Superman Justice Anthony Kennedy, according to Closed Chambers, an account of that year on the court by then-clerk Edward Lazarus. Despite initial moves in the other direction, Lazarus recounts, Kennedy ended up as the fifth vote in Patterson for chopping off Section 1981. He also dissented from O'Connor's opinion in Jackson."

http://www.slate.com/id/2184479/

January 2008: "Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, joined by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, wrote separately to express the hope that better ways of picking jurists will evolve, and to emphasize their concern over the shabby clubhouse practices that sometimes accompany the process now."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/washington/16cnd-scotus.html

October 2007: That decision, Roper v. Simmons, was based in part on international law. Noting that the United States was the only nation in the world to sanction the juvenile death penalty, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority, said it was appropriate to look to “the laws of other countries and to international authorities as instructive” in interpreting the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/17/us/17teenage.html

August 2007: The ruling was complicated by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s concurring opinion, which said race could obliquely be applied when, for example, choosing sites for new schools. And even Chief Justice Roberts said race could be one of a mix of student attributes considered, just as it was in the admissions plan at the University of Michigan’s law school that the court upheld in 2003.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/22/education/22education.html

April 2007: Writing for the majority in Wednesday's decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy said the lack of a health exception does not automatically render the statute unconstitutional. 'Whether the act creates significant health risks for women has been a contested factual question,' he writes. 'Both sides have medical support for their position.'

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0419/p01s03-usju.html

November 2006: That much is clear from briefs submitted to the court by the abortion rights side, where many believe that their only hope of prevailing lies in persuading Justice Anthony M. Kennedy to reconsider the position he took in an emotionally laden dissenting opinion in the Nebraska case. Justice Kennedy said then that states should be able to outlaw “a procedure many decent and civilized people find so abhorrent as to be among the most serious of crimes against human life.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/05/weekinreview/05greenhouse.html

October 2006: 'Because there are no rigid benchmarks,' Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority in a case called State Farm v. Campbell, these larger ratios may be acceptable 'where a particularly egregious act has resulted in only a small amount of economic damages.'

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1031/p03s03-usju.html

October 2006: Of the three major high-court precedents dealing with the war on terror - the Hamdi and Rasul decisions announced in 2004 and the Hamdan decision in June 2006 - Kennedy voted in the majority in all three. Most important, his was the least restrictive opinion of the five-justice liberal majority that struck down Bush's military commission process in June. That is, Kennedy was reluctant to go as far as Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer in limiting Bush's options in the war on terror.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1017/p01s02-usju.html

August 2004: The court of appeals decided by a 2-1 vote to uphold the 1998 law, struck down twice by a lower court. Enforcement will begin shortly. The big fight comes down, very simply, to this: Does the Constitution protect, as a 'fundamental right,' private, consensual sexual activity that harms no one? The answer to this turns largely on how you choose to read Justice Anthony Kennedy's majestic-yet-inscrutable majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas—the gay sodomy case decided two terms ago by the Supreme Court. Because clearly, Lawrence did one of two things: It either carved out a place in America's bedrooms that is free from police scrutiny, or it simply added one more choice (in this case, sodomy) to a limited menu of constitutionally protected intimate activities.

http://www.slate.com/Default.aspx?id=2104768

Relationships

RoleNameTypeLast Updated
Student/Trainee (past or present) Harvard University Organization
Student/Trainee (past or present) London School of Economics (LSE) Organization Dec 21, 2005
Student/Trainee (past or present) Stanford University Organization
Member of (past or present) US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) Organization Jun 23, 2006
Student/Trainee (past or present) Employee/Freelancer/Contractor (past or present) University of the Pacific (UOP) Organization Jun 23, 2006
Supervisor of (past or present) Richard Cordray Esq. Person Jan 31, 2012
Supervisor of (past or present) Peter D. Keisler Esq. Person Apr 10, 2008
Supervisor of (past or present) Prof. Orin S. Kerr Esq. Person May 15, 2006
Appointed/Selected by President Ronald Wilson Reagan Person Jun 23, 2006

Articles and Resources

97 Articles and Resources. Go to:  [Next 20]   [End]

Date Fairness.com Resource Read it at:
Dec 09, 2012 Same-Sex Issue Pushes Justices Into Overdrive

QUOTE: The speed with which the court is moving has some gay rights advocates bracing for a split decision. The court could strike down the federal law, the Defense of Marriage Act, saying that the meaning of marriage is a matter for the states to decide. At the same time, it could reject the idea that the Constitution requires states to allow same-sex marriage, saying that the meaning of marriage is a matter for the states to decide....However the court rules in the California case, its very decision to consider it is a change from the caution of an earlier era.

 New York Times
Mar 19, 2012 At Heart of Health Law Clash, a 1942 Case of a Farmer’s Wheat

QUOTE: Mr. Filburn sued to overturn a 1938 federal law that told him how much wheat he could grow on his family farm and made him pay a penalty for every extra bushel. The 1942 decision against him, Wickard v. Filburn, is the basis for the Supreme Court’s modern understanding of the scope of federal power.

 New York Times
Feb 21, 2012 Justices Take Up Race as a Factor in College Entry

QUOTE: In a 2003 decision that the majority said it expected would last for 25 years, the Supreme Court allowed public colleges and universities to take account of race in admission decisions...By agreeing to hear a major case involving race-conscious admissions at the University of Texas, the court thrust affirmative action back into the public and political discourse after years in which it had mostly faded from view.

 New York Times
Jan 23, 2012 Justices Say GPS Tracker Violated Privacy Rights

QUOTE: The Supreme Court on Monday ruled unanimously that the police violated the Constitution when they placed a Global Positioning System tracking device on a suspect’s car and monitored its movements for 28 days. A set of overlapping opinions in the case collectively suggested that a majority of the justices are prepared to apply broad privacy principles to bring the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches into the digital age...

 New York Times
Nov 08, 2011 Which Way Privacy? The Supreme Court asks whether the government can put a GPS device on your car without a warrant.

QUOTE: The warrant expired after 10 days, but the police nevertheless used the GPS to monitor everywhere he drove, every 10 seconds, for 28 days....Jones tried to have his conviction set aside, arguing that warrantless GPS surveillance violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable government searches and seizures. The government replied that GPS tracking is no different from police observing activity in public spaces and roadways, which is not protected under the Constitution.

 Slate
Jun 18, 2011 Friendship of Justice and Magnate Puts Focus on Ethics

QUOTE: The publicity-shy friend turned out to be Harlan Crow, a Dallas real estate magnate and a major contributor to conservative causes. Mr. Crow stepped in to finance the multimillion-dollar purchase and restoration of the cannery, featuring a museum about the culture and history of Pin Point that has become a pet project of Justice Thomas’s. The project throws a spotlight on an unusual, and ethically sensitive, friendship that appears to be markedly different from those of other justices on the nation’s highest court.

 New York Times
May 23, 2011 Justices, 5-4, Tell California to Cut Prisoner Population

QUOTE: Conditions in California’s overcrowded prisons are so bad that they violate the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday, ordering the state to reduce its prison population by more than 30,000 inmates.

 New York Times
Apr 20, 2011 Juvenile Killers in Jail for Life Seek a Reprieve

QUOTE: Teenagers deserved more lenient treatment than adults because they are immature, impulsive, susceptible to peer pressure and able to change for the better over time… Tammy Lotts said race figured in her stepson’s trial.

 New York Times
Dec 08, 2010 LAWA Land: The Supreme Court hears about Arizona's other controversial immigration law.

QUOTE: The Supreme Court busies itself today with that law's Mini-Me, the 2007 Legal Arizona Workers Act, which goes much further than federal immigration law in sanctioning state employers who hire illegal workers. Both today's case and the one the court will inevitably hear about SB 1070 test the same general proposition: Does federal immigration law pre-empt—or preclude—the states from passing their own, tougher immigration laws?

 Slate
Jun 24, 2010 Justices Limit Use of ‘Honest Services’ Law Against Fraud

QUOTE: The justices were unanimous in calling a broad interpretation of the law, which makes it a crime “to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services,” unconstitutionally vague.

 New York Times
Jun 18, 2010 Supreme Court rules on employer monitoring of cellphone, computer conversations

QUOTE: A hesitant Supreme Court waded cautiously into a question that arises daily in workplaces and offices across the country: whether employers have the right to look over the shoulders of workers who use company computers and cellphones for personal communication. In the first ruling of its kind, the justices said they do, as long as there is a "legitimate work-related purpose" to monitor them.

 Washington Post
May 18, 2010 Supreme Court restricts life without parole for juveniles

QUOTE: Juveniles may not be sentenced to life in prison without parole for any crime short of homicide, the Supreme Court ruled yesterday, expanding its command that young offenders must be treated differently from adults even for heinous crimes.

 Washington Post
May 17, 2010 Extended Civil Commitment of Sex Offenders Is Upheld

QUOTE: In a broad endorsement of federal power, the Supreme Court on Monday ruled that Congress has the authority under the Constitution to allow the continued civil commitment of sex offenders after they have completed their criminal sentences. The 7-to-2 decision touched off a heated debate among the justices on a question that has lately engaged the Tea Party movement and opponents of the new health care law: What limits does the Constitution impose on Congress’s power to legislate on matters not specifically delegated to it in Article I?

 New York Times
May 04, 2010 Free Speech Through the Foggy Lens of Election Law (Sidebar)

QUOTE: Corporate contributions to candidates are still banned, but corporations may now spend freely in candidate elections. The distinction between contributions and spending has not been popular in the legal academy.

 New York Times
Apr 19, 2010 Justices Get Personal Over Privacy of Messages

QUOTE: The question in a case argued Monday in the Supreme Court sounded both irresistible and important: Did a California police department violate the Constitution by reading sexually explicit text messages sent by an officer on a department-issued pager?

 New York Times
Mar 04, 2010 Somali official's immunity case raises legal, policy issues

QUOTE: The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) protects foreign states and their "agencies and instrumentalities" from lawsuits, with a few limited exceptions. But the Torture Victim Protection Act authorizes lawsuits, and was passed specifically to ensure that those "who avail themselves of the protections and privileges of residency in the United States also bear responsibility for their actions, especially actions as significant as torture," according to a brief filed by its congressional sponsors.

 Washington Post
Mar 03, 2010 Supreme Court does more wrangling with gun laws

QUOTE: The same members of the Supreme Court who ruled two years ago that the Second Amendment provides an individual right to own a firearm seemed ready Tuesday to ensure that state and local gun-control laws do not interfere with it. But a majority also indicated that the states may have "broader interests" in restricting gun ownership than the federal government.

 Washington Post
Jul 20, 2009 9/11 Case Could Bring Broad Shift on Civil Suits (Sidebar)

QUOTE: The [Supreme Court] Iqbal decision now requires plaintiffs to come forward with concrete facts at the outset, and it instructs lower court judges to dismiss lawsuits that strike them as implausible.“In my view,” Justice [Ruth Bader] Ginsburg said, “the court’s majority messed up the federal rules” governing civil litigation.

 New York Times
Jul 15, 2009 Lab Analyst Decision Complicates Prosecutions: High Court Requires Scientists to Testify

QUOTE: Legal experts and prosecutors are concerned about the results of last month's U.S. Supreme Court ruling that requires lab analysts to be in court to testify about their tests.

 Washington Post
Jun 29, 2009 Supreme Court Finds Bias Against White Firefighters

QUOTE: The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that white firefighters in New Haven were subjected to race discrimination when the city threw out a promotional examination on which they had done well and black firefighters poorly....The new standards announced by the court will make it much harder for employers to discard the results of hiring and promotion tests once they are administered, even if they have a disproportionately negative impact on members of a given racial group.

 New York Times

97 Articles and Resources. Go to:  [Next 20]   [End]