Since it first appeared in 1960, The Supreme Court Review (SCR) has won acclaim for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of the implications of the Court's most significant decisions. SCR is an in-depth annual critique of the Supreme Court and its work, keeping up on the forefront of the origins, reforms, and interpretations of American law. SCR is written by and for legal academics, judges, political scientists, journalists, historians, economists, policy planners, and sociologists. This year's volume features prominent scholars assessing major legal events, including: Mark Tushnet on President Trump's "Muslim Ban" Kate Andrias on Union Fees in the Public Sector Cass R. Sunstein on Chevron without Chevron Tracey Maclin on the Fourth Amendment and Unauthorized Drivers Frederick Schauer on Precedent Pamela Karlan on Gay Equality and Racial Equality Randall Kennedy on Palmer v. Thompson Lisa Marshall Manheim and Elizabeth G. Porter on Voter Suppression Melissa Murray on Masterpiece Cakeshop Vikram David Amar on Commandeering Laura K. Donohue on Carpenter, Precedent, and Originalism Evan Caminker on Carpenter and Stability

The Supreme Court's 1919 decision in Schenck vs. the United States is one of the most important free speech cases in American history. Written by Oliver Wendell Holmes, it is most famous for saying that 'shouting fire in a crowded theater' is not protected by the First Amendment. The case itself upheld an espionage conviction, but it also created a much stricter standard for governmental suppression of speech. Over time, the standard Holmes devised made freedom of speech in America a reality rather than merely an ideal. In The Free Speech Century, two of American's leading First Amendment scholars, Geoffrey Stone and Lee Bollinger, have gathered a group of the nation's leading legal scholars (Cass Sunstein, Lawrence Lessig, Laurence Tribe, Kathleen Sullivan, Catherine McKinnon, and others) to evaluate the development of free speech doctrine since Schenk and assess where it might be headed in our post-Snowden era. Since 1919, First Amendment jurisprudence in America has been a signal development in the history of constitutional democracies-remarkable for its level of doctrinal refinement, remarkable for its lateness in coming (in relation to the adoption of the First Amendment), and remarkable for the scope of protection for free expression it has afforded since the 1960s. Since 1919, the degree of judicial engagement with these fundamental rights has grown exponentially. We now have an elaborate set of free speech laws and norms, but as Stone and Bollinger stress, the context is always shifting. New societal threats like terrorism, heightened political sensitivities, and new technologies of communication continually reshape our understanding of what sort of speech should be allowed. Publishing on the one hundredth anniversary of the decision that established free speech as we have come to understand it today, The Free Speech Century will serve as essential overview for anyone interested in how our understanding of the First Amendment transformed over time and why it continues to change to this day.

From 1953 to 1969, the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren brought about many of the proudest achievements of American constitutional law. The Warren declared racial segregation and laws forbidding interracial marriage to be unconstitutional; it expanded the right of citizens to criticize public officials; it held school prayer unconstitutional; and it ruled that people accused of a crime must be given a lawyer even if they can't afford one. Yet, despite those and other achievements, conservative critics have fiercely accused the justices of the Warren Court of abusing their authority by supposedly imposing their own opinions on the nation. As the eminent legal scholars Geoffrey R. Stone and David A. Strauss demonstrate in Democracy and Equality, the Warren Court's approach to the Constitution was consistent with the most basic values of our Constitution and with the most fundamental responsibilities of our judiciary. Stone and Strauss describer the Warren Court's extraordinary achievements by reviewing its jurisprudence across a range of issues addressing our nation's commitment to the values of democracy and equality. In each chapter, they tell the story of a critical decision, exploring the historical and legal context of each case, the Court's reasoning, and how the justices of the Warren Court fulfilled the Court's most important responsibilities. This powerfully argued evaluation of the Warren Court's legacy, in commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the end of the Warren Court, both celebrates and defends the Warren Court's achievements against almost sixty-five years of unrelenting and unwarranted attacks by conservatives. It demonstrates not only why the Warren Court's approach to constitutional interpretation was correct and admirable, but also why the approach of the Warren Court was far superior to that of the increasingly conservative justices who have dominated the Supreme Court over the past half-century.

For more than fifty years, The Supreme Court Review has won acclaim for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of the implications of the Court's most significant decisions. The Supreme Court Review is an in-depth annual critique of the Supreme Court and its work, keeping up on the forefront of the origins, reforms, and interpretations of American law. It is written by and for legal academics, judges, political scientists, journalists, historians, economists, policy planners, and sociologists.

Since it first appeared in 1960, The Supreme Court Review (SCR) has won acclaim for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of the implications of the Court's most significant decisions. SCR is an in-depth annual critique of the Supreme Court and its work, keeping up on the forefront of the origins, reforms, and interpretations of American law. SCR is written by and for legal academics, judges, political scientists, journalists, historians, economists, policy planners, and sociologists. This year's volume features incisive assessments of major legal events, including: Gillian E. Metzger on The Roberts Court's Administrative Law Paul Butler on Peremptory Strikes in Mississippi v. Flowers Nicholas O. Stephanopoulos on Partisan Gerrymandering Kent Greenfield on Hate Speech Jennifer M. Chacon on Department of Commerce v. New York Micah Schwartzman & Nelson Tebbe on Establishment Clause Appeasement William Baude on Precedent and Originalism Linda Greenhouse on The Supreme Court's Challenge to Civil Society James T. Kloppenberg on James Madison

Lauded for "bringing a bracing and much-needed dose of reality about the Founders' views of sexuality" (New York Review of Books), Geoffrey R. Stone's Sex and the Constitution traces the evolution of legal and moral codes that have legislated sexual behavior from America's earliest days to today's fractious political climate. This "fascinating and maddening" (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette) narrative shows how agitators, moralists, and, especially, the justices of the Supreme Court have navigated issues as divisive as abortion, homosexuality, pornography, and contraception. Overturning a raft of contemporary shibboleths, Stone reveals that at the time the Constitution was adopted there were no laws against obscenity or abortion before the midpoint of pregnancy. A pageant of historical characters, including Voltaire, Thomas Jefferson, Anthony Comstock, Margaret Sanger, and Justice Anthony Kennedy, enliven this "commanding synthesis of scholarship" (Publishers Weekly) that dramatically reveals how our laws about sex, religion, and morality reflect the cultural schisms that have cleaved our nation from its founding.

A broad explanation of the various dimensions of the problem of "bad" speech on the internet within the American context. One of the most fiercely debated issues of this era is what to do about "bad" speech-hate speech, disinformation and propaganda campaigns, and incitement of violence-on the internet, and in particular speech on social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter. In Social Media, Freedom of Speech, and the Future of our Democracy, Lee C. Bollinger and Geoffrey R. Stone have gathered an eminent cast of contributors-including Hillary Clinton, Amy Klobuchar, Sheldon Whitehouse, Newt Minow, Cass Sunstein, Jack Balkin, Emily Bazelon, and others-to explore the various dimensions of this problem in the American context. They stress how difficult it is to develop remedies given that some of these forms of "bad" speech are ordinarily protected by the First Amendment. Bollinger and Stone argue that it is important to remember that the last time we encountered major new communications technology-television and radio-we established a federal agency to provide oversight and to issue regulations to protect and promote "the public interest." Featuring a variety of perspectives from some of America's leading experts on this hotly contested issue, this volume offers new insights for the future of free speech in the social media era.

For more than fifty years, The Supreme Court Review has won acclaim for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of the implications of the Court's most significant decisions. The Supreme Court Review is an in-depth annual critique of the Supreme Court and its work, keeping up on the forefront of the origins, reforms, and interpretations of American law. It is written by and for legal academics, judges, political scientists, journalists, historians, economists, policy planners, and sociologists.

Since it first appeared in 1960, The Supreme Court Review (SCR) has won acclaim for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of the implications of the Court's most significant decisions. SCR is an in-depth annual critique of the Supreme Court and its work, keeping up on the forefront of the origins, reforms, and interpretations of American law. SCR is written by and for legal academics, judges, political scientists, journalists, historians, economists, policy planners, and sociologists. This year's volume features incisive assessments of major legal events, including: Cristina M. Rodriguez on the Political Significance of Law Martha Minow on Little Sisters of the Poor Cass R. Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule on the Unitary Executive Cary Franklin on Living Textualism David A. Strauss on Sexual Orientation and the Dynamics of Discrimination Saikrishna Bangalore Prakash on the Executive's Privileges and Immunities Reva B. Siegel on Abortion Restrictions Maggie Blackhawk on McGirt v. Oklahoma Richard J. Lazarus on Advocacy History

A timely defense of affirmative action policies that offers a more nuanced understanding of how centuries of invidious racism, discrimination, and segregation in the United States led to and justifies such policies from both a moral and constitutional perspective. Since 1961, the issue of "affirmative action" has been a hotly contested legal and political issue. Intended to address our nation's often horrifying discrimination against Black Americans and other minorities, affirmative action has led over the past sixty years to far greater minority representation across a vast range of industries, government positions, and academic institutions. Nonetheless, affirmative action policies in the United States continue to fall under assault. In A Legacy of Discrimination, Lee C. Bollinger and Geoffrey R. Stone, two of America's leading constitutional scholars, trace the policy's history and the legal challenges it has faced over the decades. They argue that in order to fully comprehend affirmative action's original intent and impact, we must re-acquaint ourselves with the era in which it arose, beginning with the most important Supreme Court decision of the 20th century, 1954's Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. Assessing this history, Bollinger and Stone introduce subsequent, and evolving, affirmative-action case law that had the intent and effect of constraining social, educational, and economic progress for Black people and other minority groups. They demonstrate how and why affirmative action policies stand on firm legal ground and must remain protected. Further, they explain why Americans must view affirmative action as a long-term moral commitment to secure justice, especially for Black Americans, after three and a half centuries of grave injustice that violates the most essential aspirations of our nation. A timely and robust overview of the history of our nation's historical and continuing racial discrimination and of the advent of affirmative action as a critical means to address this history, this book will serve as a powerful defense of a policy that has accomplished more than most people realize in making America a fairer and more inclusive country.

For forty-eight years, "The Supreme Court Review "has been lauded for providing authoritative discussion of the Court's most significant decisions. The" Review" is an in-depth annual critique of the Supreme Court and its work, at the forefront of studies of the origins, reforms, and interpretations of American law. Recent volumes have considered such issues as the 2000 presidential election, cross burning, federalism and state sovereignty, the "United States v. American Library Association "case, failed Supreme Court nominations, and numerous First and Fourth amendment cases.

Winner of eight national awards for his magisterial work "Perilous Times," Geoffrey R. Stone has now created a condensed, updated, and more accessible history of civil liberties in wartime. With an in-depth examination of how our constitutional rights have fared during the presidency of George W. Bush, Stone reveals how the federal government has suppressed civil liberties in times of war throughout American history. A sparkling historical narrative, "War and Liberty" is the perfect book for any reader who wants to understand the current national debate and assess the state of our freedoms.

"We cannot discount the risk, in light of the lessons of our own history, that at some point in the future, high-level government officials will decide that this massive database of extraordinarily sensitive private information is there for the plucking. Americans must never make the mistake of wholly 'trusting' our public officials."--The NSA Report This is the official report that is helping shape the international debate about the unprecedented surveillance activities of the National Security Agency. Commissioned by President Obama following disclosures by former NSA contractor Edward J. Snowden, and written by a preeminent group of intelligence and legal experts, the report examines the extent of NSA programs and calls for dozens of urgent and practical reforms. The result is a blueprint showing how the government can reaffirm its commitment to privacy and civil liberties--without compromising national security.

The latest volume in the Supreme Court Review series. Since it first appeared in 1960, the Supreme Court Review has won acclaim for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of the implications of the Court's most significant decisions. SCR is an in-depth annual critique of the Supreme Court and its work, analyzing the origins, reforms, and modern interpretations of American law. SCR is written by and for legal academics, judges, political scientists, journalists, historians, economists, policy planners, and sociologists.

While freedom of speech has been guaranteed us for centuries, the First Amendment as we know it today is largely a creation of the past eighty years. "Eternally Vigilant" brings together a group of distinguished legal scholars to reflect boldly on its past, its present shape, and what forms our understanding of it might take in the future.
Contributors:
Lillian R. BeVier
Vincent Blasi
Lee C. Bollinger
Stanley Fish
Owen M. Fiss
R. Kent Greenawalt
Richard A. Posner
Robert C. Post
Frederick Schauer
Geoffrey R. Stone
David A. Strauss
Cass R. Sunstein

"Some of the best researched and most thoughtful criticisms of recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court."--Ethics
Since it first appeared in 1960, The Supreme Court Review has won acclaim for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of the implications of the Court's most significant decisions. Consisting of diverse essays by distinguished lawyers, historians, and social scientists, each volume presents informed analyses of past and present opinions and discusses important public law issues that have come under Court consideration.

Since it first appeared in 1960, the "Supreme Court Review" has won acclaim for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of the implications of the Court's most significant decisions. Individual essays in the 1994 volume include articles by Craig M. Bradley on RICO and the first amendment; Bernard Schwartz on clear and present danger versus advocacy of unlawful action; William P. Marshall and Susan Gilles on the Supreme Court, the first amendment, and bad journalism; Paul Finkelman on "Prigg v. Pennsylvania"; Richard H. Fallon, Jr. on sexual harassment, content neutrality, and the first amendment; Lea Brilmayer on federalism, state authority, and the preemptive power of internal law; and C. Edwin Baker on Turner Broadcasting and content-based regulation of persons and presses.

Since it first appeared in 1960, the "Supreme Court Review" has won acclaim for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of the implications of the Court's most significant decisions. Individual essays in the 1994 volume include articles by Craig M. Bradley on RICO and the first amendment; Bernard Schwartz on clear and present danger versus advocacy of unlawful action; William P. Marshall and Susan Gilles on the Supreme Court, the first amendment, and bad journalism; Paul Finkelman on "Prigg v. Pennsylvania"; Richard H. Fallon, Jr. on sexual harassment, content neutrality, and the first amendment; Lea Brilmayer on federalism, state authority, and the preemptive power of internal law; and C. Edwin Baker on Turner Broadcasting and content-based regulation of persons and presses.

Since its inception in 1960, "The Supreme Court Review" has been lauded for providing authoritative discussion of the Court's most significant decisions. Recent volumes have considered issues such as the 2000 elections in Florida, Federalism and state sovereignty, the Boerne v. Flores case, and numerous Fourth Amendment issues. Distinguished participants analyze current and previous public issues, sentiments, and the implications of Court decisions.

Since it first appeared in 1960, the "Supreme Court Review" has won acclaim for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of the implications of the Court's most significant decisions. Individual essays in the 1994 volume include articles by Craig M. Bradley on RICO and the first amendment; Bernard Schwartz on clear and present danger versus advocacy of unlawful action; William P. Marshall and Susan Gilles on the Supreme Court, the first amendment, and bad journalism; Paul Finkelman on "Prigg v. Pennsylvania"; Richard H. Fallon, Jr. on sexual harassment, content neutrality, and the first amendment; Lea Brilmayer on federalism, state authority, and the preemptive power of internal law; and C. Edwin Baker on Turner Broadcasting and content-based regulation of persons and presses.

Which Question? Which Lie? Reflections on the Physician-Assisted Suicide Cases Martha MinowThe Value of Seeing Things Differently: Boerne v Flores and Congressional Enforcement of the Bill of Rights David ColeCongressional Power and Religious Liberty after City of Boerne v Flores Christopher L. Eisgruber, Lawrence G. Sager.Freedom of Speech, Shielding Children, and Transcending Balancing Eugene VolokhPrintz, State Sovereignty, and the Limits of Formalism Evan H. CaminkerO'Hagan's Problems Victor BrudneyTraffic Stops, Minority Motorists, and the Future of the Fourth Amendment David A. SklanskyEntrenching the Duopoly: Why the Supreme Court Should not Allow the States to Protect the Democrats and Republicans from Political Competition Richard L. Hasen"The Ideal New Frontier Judge" Dennis J. HutchinsonThe Court and the Corporation: Jurisprudence, Localism, and Federalism Gregory A. MarkDo not Go Gently into that Good Right: the First Amendment in the High Court of Australia Gerald N. Rosenberg, John M. Williams.

"Some of the best researched and most thoughtful criticism of recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court."--"Ethics"
"The Supreme Court Review" keeps you at the forefront of the Court's most significant decisions by surveying its origins, reforms, and interpretations of American law and compelling you to consider the impacts of legal institutions and judicial opinion. Diverse essays of informed analyses of past and present opinions document the complexities of the Court and relevant public law issues. Legal scholars, lawyers, judges, historians, political scientists, economists, and journalists have won acclaim for their contributions to each volume.

"The Supreme Court Review" receives accolades for providing authoritative discussion of the Court's most significant decisions and their resonating impacts. Recent scholarship addresses school vouchers via Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, Federalism and state sovereignty, the current state of political parties, and judicial passivity. Distinguished participants across the field of Law analyze current and previous public issues, sentiments, and implications addressed under Court consideration.