Almost no one noticed when the book was quietly released this summer. It has perhaps the most benumbing title in publishing history. Yet inside this volume of previously confidential legal opinions is the story of how the surveillance state grew into a monster.
Josh Blackman talks about how the debate over the Affordable Care Act is part of a broader discussion about two modern visions of the Constitution.
Lyle Denniston looks at Tuesday’s arguments in the McCutcheon case and if there were signs the Court may act in a revolutionary way in setting campaign finance restrictions.
As politicians in Washington appear to be stuck in neutral about the shutdown and debt ceiling crises, there’s growing speculation that Halloween will be the ultimate deadline for a final deal.
The other argument before the Supreme Court on Tuesday, Burt v. Titlow, involves a sensational murder case, and a possible important precedent for defendants who get questionable advice from lawyers.
Jesse H. Rhodes from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, explains how the modern evolution of the two-party system ensures the nation will lurch toward the next crisis after the debt ceiling and government shutdown crises end.
Justice Antonin Scalia is known for his well-written Supreme Court opinions and his obscure word choices. Here’s a look at the some Scaliaisms, which may also come in handy if you’re stuck in a word-playing game.
Yes, it’s the first Monday in October, and the Supreme Court has started hearing arguments in new cases. And there are a few high-profile ones in front of the Justices immediately, including a big case involving campaign financing.
Nicole Huberfeld from the University of Kentucky explains the relationship between the federal government and the states in the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, and why state cooperation in Medicaid expansion is even more important than the ACA Exchanges for some people.
Alexander Fullman previews the upcoming Supreme Court arguments in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, a case that could lead to the spending of even more money in United States elections.