Supreme Court

A lead counsel in the Guantanamo Bay detainees U.S. Supreme Court case, an expert on pornography in feminism and law, and a Nobel Peace Prize nominee for his work in international criminal justice are part of the fall lineup for the School of Law’s ninth annual Public Interest Law & Policy Speakers Series.

BagenstosThe United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously on January 9 in favor of a Georgia inmate in a disability rights case, United States v. Georgia. Samuel R. Bagenstos, J.D., professor of law, argued the case on behalf of the inmate, Tony Goodman. The ruling paves the wave for Goodman to seek damages against the state of Georgia. According to the ruling, Goodman’s “more serious allegations” were that he was “confined for 23-to-24 hours per day in a 12-by-3-foot cell, in which he could not turn his wheelchair around” and that “the lack of accessible facilities rendered him unable to use the toilet and shower without assistance, which was often denied.”

EpsteinHarriet Miers withdrawal from consideration for the U.S. Supreme Court is not surprising given the fact that she ranks among the least qualified candidates since the nomination of Hugo Black in 1937, according to an analysis by authors of a new book on the politics of Supreme Court nominations. “Despite the tremendous importance of politics in Supreme Court nominations, the single most important determinant of a successful confirmation is the qualifications of the nominee,” suggests Lee Epstein, WUSTL Supreme Court expert and co-author of “Advice and Consent: The Politics of Judicial Appointments.”

As the Senate prepares to consider nominees for two Supreme Court vacancies, some liberals fear that President Bush will use the opportunity to pack the High Court with conservative-leaning justices, pushing the law of the land dramatically to the right for years to come. However, a new book on the history of America’s judicial nomination process offers compelling evidence that a president’s ability to perpetuate personal political legacies through court appointments tends to be both short-lived and unpredictable. When it comes to the politics of Supreme Court nominees, president’s don’t always get what they want, suggests WUSTL Supreme Court expert Lee Epstein.

Chief Justice Rehnquist administers the oath of office to President Bill Clinton.The death of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist marks the second major change to the membership of the Supreme Court and the end of a tremendously successful and dedicated career in public service. “As an associate justice and later Chief Justice of the United States, William Rehnquist was one of the leading figures in American law for over three decades,” says Neil M. Richards, former law clerk for Chief Justice Rehnquist and associate professor of law at Washington University in St. Louis. “He will be remembered as one of the great Chief Justices in American history, and deservedly so. He was a warm, gentle, funny, conscientious, and brilliant man and judge.”

The retirement of Sandra Day O’Connor from the Supreme Court will probably be the first of many changes in the makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court. “These changes would undoubtedly have an impact on how the Court decides its cases,” says Neil Richards, former law clerk for Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and associate professor of law at Washington University in St. Louis. “In choosing future justices, I think that it’s important to focus not just on the outcomes of cases, but on how the Court does its business more broadly.”

RichardsWhether it happens this summer or some time in the future, there will eventually be changes in the personnel of the U.S. Supreme Court. Neil Richards, former law clerk for Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and associate professor of law at Washington University in St. Louis, is available to comment on the possible retirement of current Justices and the future of the Supreme Court. “Recent speculation has centered largely on the potential effect of a retirement by one of the Justices,” he says.”The course of the Court’s jurisprudence may well be at stake depending on the justice or justices who step down from the bench.”

The U.S. Supreme Court is again considering whether it is constitutional to display the Ten Commandments on public property. An expert on the American religious experience from Washington University in St. Louis argues that the only way to allow all citizens to contribute to this country’s religious tapestry is for religion not to have a direct role in civil affairs and on government property. “If there is anything the Founding Fathers wanted to avoid, it was a repeat of the wars of religion that wracked Europe during the 16th and 17th centuries,” says Frank K. Flinn, Ph.D., adjunct professor of religious studies in Arts & Sciences.

Sandra Day O’ConnorPresident Bush’s re-election, coupled with strengthened Republican control of the Senate, has fueled speculation that the next four years could bring about dramatic shifts in political composition of the U.S. Supreme Court. While Bush may be poised to push the court in a more conservative direction, a forthcoming study suggests his ability to make dramatic ideological changes still hinges on whether he has the opportunity to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

At issue in the Kelo v. City of New London case before the Supreme Court is a redevelopment project in the downtown and waterfront areas of this economically distressed Connecticut city. Private property must be taken by condemnation in eminent domain and turned over to the developer to carry out the project. “In Kelo v. City of New London, the Supreme Court has taken a major case that will test the ability of municipalities to carry out redevelopment projects to improve their downtowns and city neighborhoods,” says Daniel Mandelker, the Howard A. Stamper Professor of Law at Washington University in St. Louis and one of the country’s leading scholars and teachers in land use law. Mandelker believes the Connecticut court properly upheld the use of eminent domain in this case, but that abuses can occur in other cases where there is no clear redevelopment objective.