For fifty 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, keeping up on the forefront of the origins, reforms, and interpretations of American law. Recent volumes have considered such issues as post-9/11 security, the 2000 presidential election, cross burning, federalism and state sovereignty, failed Supreme Court nominations, the battles concerning same-sex marriage, and numerous First and Fourth amendment cases.

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.

For fifty years, "The Supreme Court Review" has been lauded for providing authoritative discussion of the court's most significant decisions. The Review is an indepth annual critique of the Supreme Court and its work, keeping up on the forefront of the origins, reforms, and interpretations of American law. Recent volumes have considered such issues as post-9/11 security, the 2000 presidential election, cross-burning, federalism and state sovereignty, failed Supreme Court nominations, and numerous First and Fourth Amendment cases.

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.

For forty-nine 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, one that strives to keep on the forefront 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.

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.

For more than fifty years, The Supreme Court Review has been lauded for providing authoritative discussion of the Courts' most significant decisions. With an in-depth annual critique of the Supreme Court and its work, The Supreme Court Review keeps at the forefront of the reforms and interpretations of American law. The recent volumes have considered such issues as post-9/11 security, the 2000 presidential election, cross burning, federalism and state sovereignty, failed Supreme Court nominations, the battles concerning same-sex marriage, and numerous First and Fourth Amendment cases.

"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.

In two opinions last term, the Supreme Court rewrote the lay of free exercise. In Jimmy Swaggart Ministries v. Board of Equalization, the Court held that the dissemination of religious messages may be taxed under generally applicable laws.

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.

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 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.