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

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.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia once remarked that the theory of an evolving, "living" Constitution effectively "rendered the Constitution useless." He wanted a "dead Constitution," he joked, arguing it must be interpreted as the framers originally understood it.
In The Living Constitution, leading constitutional scholar David Strauss forcefully argues against the claims of Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Robert Bork, and other "originalists," explaining in clear, jargon-free English how the Constitution can sensibly evolve, without falling into the anything-goes flexibility caricatured by opponents. The living Constitution is not an out-of-touch liberal theory, Strauss further shows, but a mainstream tradition of American jurisprudence--a common-law approach to the Constitution, rooted in the written document but also based on precedent. Each generation has contributed precedents that guide and confine judicial rulings, yet allow us to meet the demands of today, not force us to follow the commands of the long-dead Founders. Strauss explores how judicial decisions adapted the Constitution's text (and contradicted original intent) to produce some of our most profound accomplishments: the end of racial segregation, the expansion of women's rights, and the freedom of speech. By contrast, originalism suffers from fatal flaws: the impossibility of truly divining original intent, the difficulty of adapting eighteenth-century understandings to the modern world, and the pointlessness of chaining ourselves to decisions made centuries ago.
David Strauss is one of our leading authorities on Constitutional law--one with practical knowledge as well, having served as Assistant Solicitor General of the United States and argued eighteen cases before the United States Supreme Court. Now he offers a profound new understanding of how the Constitution can remain vital to life in the twenty-first 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

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

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

For forty-five years "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 presidential election, cross-burning, federalism and state sovereignty, the "United States v. American Library Association" case, and numerous First and Fourth amendment cases. Distinguished participants analyze current and previous concerns and attitudes and discuss the implications of court decisions.

Since its inception in 1960, "The Supreme Court Review" has been lauded for providing authoritative discussions of the Court's most significant decisions. Distinguished participants hereanalyze current and previous public issues and sentiments and discuss the implications of court decisions.

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.

"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.

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.

For forty-five years, "The Supreme Court Review "has been lauded for providing authoritative discussion of the Court's most significant decisions. 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.

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.