Constitutional law expert Greg Magarian, of Washington University and a former clerk for retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, said Stevens makes a compelling historical and legal case for amending the Constitution. At the same time, he warns that the path Stevens advocates would present distinctive challenges and hazards.
Neil Gorsuch, President Donald Trump’s nominee to fill the vacant seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, has a strong commitment to rule of law values and is the best possible choice among the potential nominees that Trump circulated before the election, says a Supreme Court scholar at Washington University in St. Louis.
By a 4-4 vote, a short-handed U.S. Supreme Court today let stand a lower court’s 2-1 decision to block President Barack Obama’s executive actions on immigration. The decision is “deeply regrettable,” said Stephen Legomsky, a noted expert on immigration law at Washington University in St. Louis.
John Paul Stevens, who served as a Supreme Court associate justice from 1975 to 2010, will speak at 1:30 p.m. Monday, April 25, in Graham Chapel. Afterward, he will take part in a panel discussion on the Second Amendment.
President Barack Obama’s nomination to the Supreme Court, Judge Merrick Garland, could make Senate Republicans think twice about stonewalling the nomination process, especially as the presidential election nears, said Greg Magarian, constitutional law expert at the School of Law.
In the wake of the unexpected death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, much speculation has arisen about who should be nominated to replace him, with Republicans vowing to block any nomination until after the November presidential election. That may not be the wisest course of action, according to a legal expert at Washington University in St. Louis.
Three experts on the Supreme Court from the School of Law will discuss the recent death of Antonin Scalia, his legacy and how his vacancy will be filled. The talk, “Justice Antonin Scalia: The Legacy and the Vacancy,” will be held from 12:05-1 p.m. Wednesday, Feb. 17. It is free and open to the public.
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Jan. 19 to hear United States v. Texas, the challenge brought by 26 states to President Barack Obama’s executive actions on immigration. The stakes could not be larger, and they are not limited to immigration, said immigration law expert Stephen Legomsky.
As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to announce its decision in a lawsuit that threatens federal health insurance subsidies for more than 6 million Americans, health care economist Timothy D. McBride, PhD, professor in the Brown School at Washington University in St. Louis, is confident the high court will side with the Obama administration. If the court decides otherwise, low-income residents in many states will have little access to affordable healthcare, he warns.
Does a recently upheld Texas abortion law impose an “undue burden” if it forces some women to drive as much as 600 miles to obtain an abortion at a state-approved clinic? That’s a question the U.S. Supreme Court may be asked to decide, suggests legal experts at Washington University in St. Louis.