It’s a modest $15 for the softcover and just $5.99 for the e-edition. As I said while singing its praises at Constitution Day recently, it’s distinguished from conventional law reviews not only by its Madisonian point of view, and by its extreme speediness (published only three or so months after the conclusion of the Court’s last term) but also by its unusual readability and style, pitched to intelligent readers whether or not they are specialists in the law. You can buy it here.
Posts Tagged ‘Supreme Court’
Forcing non-members to pay for unions’ political advocacy
Early next year the Supreme Court will hear Knox v. SEIU Local 1000, an important case about union power and individual conscience. The Cato Institute has joined several other organizations in filing an amicus brief (PDF), as my colleague Ilya Shapiro explains here.
SCOTUSblog symposium on class actions; Cato Constitution Day next week
SCOTUSblog, the eminent Supreme-Court-watching site, has been running a symposium on the future of class actions after such decisions as Wal-Mart v. Dukes, AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, and Smith v. Bayer. Contributors include many names familiar from our columns, including Ted Frank, Andrew Trask, Russell Jackson, and Paul Karlsgodt.
And a reminder to those of you who can make it to the Washington, D.C. area next Thursday: Cato’s annual Constitution Day will feature three outstanding panels reviewing the work of the high court in the past term, including a panel moderated by me and featuring Roger Pilon (Cato) on pre-emption, Andrew Trask (McGuire Woods) on Wal-Mart, and Jonathan Adler (Case Western, Volokh Conspiracy) on climate change litigation. You can register here.
Mark your calendar: Cato Constitution Day Sept. 15
Two weeks from this Thursday, on Sept. 15, Cato is holding its annual Constitution Day in Washington, D.C., just down the street from the Institute offices (which are undergoing renovation). The event will celebrate the publication of the 10th annual Cato Supreme Court Review and panelists will include familiar names like Jonathan Adler, Orin Kerr, Roger Pilon, Ilya Shapiro, Andrew Trask and many others. I’ll be moderating a panel on “Federalism, Civil Procedure, Business, and the Proper Judicial Role,” which will discuss among other topics the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Wal-Mart v. Dukes. The closing lecture will be given by Judge Alex Kozinski. How can you not plan to attend?
August 11 roundup
- Seattle’s best? Class action lawyer suing Apple, e-publishers has represented Microsoft [Seattle Times, earlier]
- “Disabled” NYC firefighter/martial arts enthusiast can go on getting checks for life [NYPost; compare]
- After the FDA enforcement action on drug manufacturing lapses come the tagalong liability claims by uninjured plaintiffs [Beck]
- “What If Lower Court Judges Weren’t Bound by Supreme Court Precedent?” [Orin Kerr]
- Fark.com settles a patent suit for $0 (rough language);
- Canadian law society to pay $100K for asking prospective lawyers about mental illness [ABA Journal]
- Self-help eviction? “Chinese Developers Accused Of Putting Scorpions In Apartments To Force Out Residents” [Business Insider]
July 15 roundup
- Dreadful “Caylee’s Law” proposals continue unabated [Balko and more, Lowering the Bar, Skenazy, Frank, Somin] Confirmed non-members of Nancy Grace fan club include Stephen Bainbridge and Scott Greenfield;
- Swedish heavy metal fan has musical preferences officially classed as disability [Cowen]
- In welcome Goodyear and Nicastro rulings, SCOTUS reins in “stream of commerce” jurisdiction [Yeary, Beck, Wasserman and more, Lahav, Fisher]
- Federal lawsuit alleges polka song infringement [Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel]
- EPA winning showdown with Texas, power plants may shutter at cost to Lone Star economy [Chron] Don’t dismiss the Texas job creation story — or the role of lawsuit reform [Rick Wartzman, L.A. Times]
- Breyer backs Thomas on recusal ethics [Adler]
- “Clashing Visions of a ‘Living’ Constitution” [William Van Alstyne on SSRN, his Cato lecture last fall]
“Cal Court of Appeal to US Supremes: ‘Oh yeah, says who?'”
On upholding consumer and employee agreements to arbitrate, as in the days before the telegraph, it can take a while for the word to get from D.C. to the West Coast. [Cal Biz Lit]
Leahy hearing pushes “SCOTUS soft on business” theme
Justices “split largely along gender lines”
The L.A. Times misses the boat when it acts as if biology — and not known judicial philosophy as expressed in earlier cases — were the factor that best explains Justices’ alignments in cases like Wal-Mart v. Dukes [Eugene Volokh]
Is the Supreme Court too “individualist”?
Some academic critics say the Wal-Mart v. Dukes decision is the latest in a string of decisions in which the Court has insisted that litigants be accorded individual rather than group or batch consideration, even though “a more collectivist view,” as Connecticut lawprof Alexandra Lahav contends, would carry with it more “potential for social reform.” I take up this charge, and defend the Court, at Cato at Liberty. More: John Steele at Legal Ethics Forum, with a link to Samuel Issacharoff’s work.