Representative John Lewis, a Democrat from Georgia, was part of the movement in the 1960s that led to Congress passing the Voting Rights Act in 1965, with President Lyndon Johnson signing the bill in an iconic photo.

Lewis, 73, spoke at attorney’s convention this week, and he said was ready to fight in Washington if the Supreme Court strikes down a provision that allows the federal government to review voting changes in states and towns with a history of voter suppression.

Lewis spoke about the need of citizens to practice civil disobedience and “get in trouble – good trouble, necessary trouble.”

Related Stories: Voting Rights Act decision expected to be an emotional moment |Key part of Voting Rights Act in peril after Supreme Court session

In 1961, Lewis volunteered to participate in the Freedom Rides, which challenged segregation at interstate bus terminals across the South. He was attacked by angry mobs and arrested nearly 40 times by police during the Civil Rights movement era.

“I think it’s time for all of us once again to get in trouble,” Lewis told the audience.

One attorney told the convention that if the court does strike down the pre-clearance provision in the act known as Section 5, the likely result is that Congress will have to re-write the law.

“If the court goes down that road – and I hope they do not – the important takeaway is that’s not the end of the game. That just puts it all back on Congress’s hands,” said Steven Shapiro, legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union.

Some court watchers see the justices—probably not in a unanimous decision—invalidating Section 5, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing the decision.

In 2009, Roberts indicated his doubts about Section 5 in another court opinion.

“The evil that (Section 5) is meant to address may no longer be concentrated in the jurisdictions singled out for pre-clearance,” Roberts wrote in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder.

So what happens if the Voting Rights Act is sent back to the House and Senate to amend?

The National Journal says congressional Republicans have kept a low profile on the issue and their public reaction is far from certain.

“We don’t know yet because Congressional Republicans haven’t weighed in on a pending case although many Democrats submitted amicus briefs on behalf of keeping the law just where it is, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid,” said the National Journal’s Matthew Cooper.

The Democrats would likely have a quick response, but changes to the Voting Rights Act would join a jammed-packed agenda in Congress that includes immigration, the budget, gun control, the sequester, the Farm Bill and more laws that have stalled in Washington.

“This Supreme Court is more and more skeptical of the root causes of, the evidence of and the consequences of discrimination,” said Senator Chris Coons last week. “And I think we need to be prepared to act legislatively to deal with the likely consequences of a federal government that may be more reigned in in terms of its ability to proactively reach out.”

The website Roll Call also has a review of three scenarios at the court: the justices uphold Section 5, strike down entirely, or strike down part of it and send the law back to Congress.

The ensuing fight within Congress would be the law almost inoperable, says Roll Call.

“Congress would probably have to come up with a new system to determine the covered jurisdictions based on current data. A contentious battle would follow on Capitol Hill as lawmakers fought to ensure their states are or aren’t burdened by federal mandate,” says Shira Toeplitz. “As a result, it’s hard to see how Congress would pass anything along these lines, rendering Section 5 unenforceable.”

Another factor is the court’s potential decision in a case about affirmative action, which it apparently decided last October, but hasn’t announced yet, in an opinion likely to be written by Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Recent Constitution Daily Stories

America’s forgotten war started on this day in 1812

Miss USA uses Supreme Court knowledge in win pageant

Constitution Check: How much power do states have to control who gets to vote?

The Next 10 Amendments: Do we need more laws to protect privacy?

Private drones. Source: Creative Commons

Mueller told a Senate committee his agency had “very few” drones, and when they are used, the unmanned aircraft are tactically deployed in a “a very minimal way and very seldom.”

CBS News reported on Wednesday that the FBI drones were more like small model airplanes and had been used up to a dozen times, including at a high-profile hostage situation this year in Alabama.

Mueller said the FBI was working on an operational policy for drone use.

“We are in the initial stages of doing that, and I will tell you that our footprint is very small,” Mueller said. “We are exploring not only the use, but the necessary guidelines for that use.”

Privacy advocates have raised questions about three types of drone use in the United States: the federal government’s use of drones in national security situations; private citizens and companies using drones for domestic purposes; and state and local law enforcement using drones for official investigations.

It’s the definition of “proper use” that is up in the air when it comes to drones and law enforcement.

One specific issue is the matter of law enforcement investigators obtaining a search warrant before they look into a house.

The Fourth Amendment affirms “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

There doesn’t seem to be a clear-cut answer, despite the Fourth Amendment’s message, partly because of the technology wrapped up inside higher-tech police drones. Some drones can not only see clearly into your backyard, but can also theoretically listen (in some circumstances) and take thermal-sensitive pictures. More sophisticated drones can intercept electronic communications, track GPS information, and use facial recognition technology.

Groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Privacy Information Center are pushing hard for privacy-law reforms that would require law enforcement to strictly follow the Fourth Amendment when it comes to drone surveillance.

On a federal level, Representative Ed Markey has introduced House legislation that would require search warrants for drone surveillance and the tracking of data collection efforts.

Recent Historical Stories

How much do you know about the American flag?

America’s forgotten war started on this day in 1812

10 fascinating facts about President John F. Kennedy

10 fascinating facts about President Ulysses Grant

Link: Read the entire letter

Washington’s letter. Source: Christie’s

The text of Washington’s letter to John Armstrong from April 25, 1788 has been available to scholars for years. Christie’s estimates the original letter could fetch up to $2 million on Friday. But recent interest in Washington artifacts has been very high.

Last year, Christie’s estimated that Washington’s hand-notated folio of the Constitution would sell for $3 million at auction. Instead, it sold for almost $10 million to the folks at Mount Vernon, who will make the folio a centerpiece of a new library.

Washington wrote Armstrong in 1788 at a time when the 13 states were deciding to ratify the Constitution. He had spent the prior summer presiding over the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.

His private thoughts to Armstrong showed Washington’s faith in the Framers to act in the best interests of the country—and a suspicion that special interests could try co-opt the process through requiring amendments before ratification.

“I have no doubt but (if the proposed Constitution obtains) those persons who are chosen to administer it will have wisdom enough to discern the influence which their examples as rulers and legislators may have on the body of the people,” Washington said. “And [they] will have virtue enough to pursue that line of conduct which will most conduce to the happiness of their Country.”

Related Story: Two constitutions make rare public appearances

Washington was indeed wary of forces that put conditions on ratification of the Constitution.

“To make such amendments as may be proposed by the several States the condition of its adoption would, in my opinion amount to a complete rejection of it,” he said.

The need for a Bill of Rights was much discussed during the ratification process, but James Madison’s proposed Bill of Rights was introduced in Congress in June 1789, about three months after the Constitution went into effect.

“The truth is, men are too apt to be swayed by local prejudices, and those who are so fond of amendments which have the particular interest of their own State in view cannot extend their ideas to the general welfare of the Union,” Washington added. “They do not consider that for every sacrifice which they make they receive an ample compensation by the sacrifices which are made by other States for their benefit–and that those very things which they give up will operate to their advantage through the medium of the general interest.”

Washington also welcomed public debate about the Constitution.

“Upon the whole I doubt whether the opposition to the Constitution will not ultimately be productive of more good than evil; it has called forth, in its defense, abilities (which would not perhaps have been otherwise exerted) that have thrown new lights upon the science of Government, they have given the rights of man a full and fair discussion, and have explained them in so clear and forcible a manner as cannot fail to make a lasting impression upon those who read the best publications on the subject, and particularly the pieces under the signature of Publius.”

Publius is the named used in the Federalist papers, a series of articles written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay that shaped the ratification process.

Washington also told Armstrong he understood that the anti-Federalists would put up a fierce fight when his home state of Virginia voted on ratification.

“There will be a greater weight of abilities opposed to the system in the convention of this State than there has been in any other, but notwithstanding the unwearied pains which have been taken, and the vigorous efforts which will be made in the Convention to prevent its adoption, I have not the smallest doubt but it will obtain here,” he said.

If you plan to bid at the auction, Christie’s has a lot of details on their web site.

Christie’s said it sold a similar letter in 2009 for $3.2 million.

Editor’s note: The National Constitution Center will display one of the 12 surviving copies of the Bill of Rights starting in fall of 2014. The museum of “We the People” will be the first institution in the Pennsylvania to exhibit this historic document to the general public. Click here for more info.

The publicity over the U.S. government’s surveillance of its citizens and foreign nationals isn’t dying down, as former CIA analyst Edward Snowden releases new allegations daily, and members of the Obama administration and Congress express anger about Snowden’s activities.

The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board will have a rare session, behind closed doors, to discuss the classified surveillance program called PRISM and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA.

The secret court that approves surveillance requests, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, was established under FISA, and it undoubtedly will be part of the discussion.

So how do we know all of this, if it’s all secret?

The Oversight board’s meeting notices are posted in the Federal Register, and an updated notice on Monday said that the hearing will be held on Wednesday.

A previous notice about the meeting was posted last week. It mentioned that the meeting notice was published under the Government in the Sunshine Act, but the public won’t be allowed at the meeting. It will be about five blocks away from the White House.

Already, doubts are being cast on the meeting, since the Oversight board is an independent agency within the Executive Branch.

On June 12, a group of 13 senators sent an open letter, asking the board to make “to take the necessary precautions to protect the privacy and civil liberties of American citizens under the Constitution.”

The senators also acknowledged that they knew the board is newly formed and “still working toward being operational.”

The saga of the Oversight board’s development is unusual even for a place like Washington, where change can come slowly.

The board has five members who are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

Its first version goes back to July 22, 2004, when a report on terrorism let to the board’s inclusion into the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004.

The current board was created as an independent agency within the Executive Branch by the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007.

Since 2007, the White House and Congress have tussled about the five nominees to serve on the board. The final nominee, board chairman David Medine, was finally approved by the Senate in May 2013.

Without a chairman, the board couldn’t hire staffers, so it has essentially been dormant since then.

According to the Federal Register, the meeting on Wednesday will be the board’s third meeting since 2007. It met in October 2012 and March 2013, with part of the meetings open to the public.

Medine told NBC News on June 7 that he has asked the NSA for a briefing on the surveillance issue. But the NBC story illustrated some short-term problems the board faces.

Medine didn’t even have his security clearance approved when he spoke with NBC, and the board had borrowed two staffers from other agencies to help start up its operations.

It also didn’t have a web site or a permanent office in Washington.

The Congressional Research Service said last year that the board saw its proposed budget cut from $2 million in 2008 to $1 million for 2013.

Scott Bomboy is the editor-in-chief of the National Constitution Center.

Recent Constitution Daily Stories

America’s forgotten war started on this day in 1812

Miss USA uses Supreme Court knowledge in win pageant

Constitution Check: How much power do states have to control who gets to vote?

The Next 10 Amendments: Do we need more laws to protect privacy?

Today, we’re wrapping things up with a look at the top 5 constitutional moments from the show.

5. Filibusters

The West Wing staffers are initially irked at a senator who is filibustering a bill because he wants a $47 million appropriation for autism research, but when they learn that it’s because his grandson has autism, they find a way to help him. The solution lies in the Senate rules; Article I of the Constitution allows both the House and the Senate to determine their own rules of proceedings.

4. Supreme Court nominees

The show featured two different rounds of nominating Supreme Court justices. One featured an unusual choice to fill two vacancies with a very conservative and very liberal justice—one of which would become the first female chief justice of the United States.

3. The State of the Union

In the episode featuring President Bartlet’s first State of the Union address, Bartlet recites the section in Article II of the Constitution that set forth this presidential tradition. He also offers a little presidential advice to the “designated survivor”:

Other West Wing Stories

West Wing Wednesday: Top 5 constitutional mistakes

West Wing Wednesday: Top 5 political predictions

West Wing Wednesday: Top 5 constitutional zingers

2. Presidential pardons

One of President Bartlet’s final acts as president is to pardon staffer Toby Ziegler (who was charged with leaking top-secret information), using the powers granted by Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution.

But West Wing also teaches us about the constitutional (or not) process of turkey-pardoning:

1. The 25th Amendment

The most epic constitutional West Wing moment: when President Bartlet invoked the 25th Amendment, something no real-life president has done.

Bartlet decided that he was temporarily incapacitated in his presidential duties by the kidnapping of his daughter, and so signed a letter delegating the presidency to the next in line.

But because the vice president had resigned due to a scandal, it wasn’t so simple—constitutionally and politically. Constitutionally, Bartlet wasn’t invoking only the 25th Amendment—that part of the Constitution primarily focuses on the succession from the president to the vice president and appointing a new vice president when a vacancy occurs. As this article explains, the law that really would come into play is the Presidential Succession Act; according to that law, the first in line after the president and vice president is the speaker of the House. And politically, the move meant handing over the presidency to a political opponent.

A staffer for the political opponent sums up Bartlet’s move this way:

“You don’t get it, do you? Republicans are in awe of Bartlet. He recused himself in the only way he could. In the way envisioned by the Constitution. … The whole notion of the 25th Amendment is that the institution matters more than the man. Bartlet’s decision was even more self-sacrificing because he willingly gave power to his opposition. … We try to use this to our advantage, it’ll blow up in our faces. We’d seem callous and unfeeling, in contrast to Bartlet’s extraordinary gesture of courage and patriotism.”

Holly Munson is the assistant editor of Constitution Daily. Special thanks to West Wing experts Jenna Winterle and Nora Quinn for contributing to this series.

Last weekend, the African American Museum in Philadelphia celebrated its 37^th anniversary. This is an important milestone for our institution, but the dates on which we celebrate – June 18^th and 19^th – have a poignant meaning that reaches back to much further than our own founding.

It was on these days in 1865 that the Union Army brought news of emancipation to African Americans in one of the farthest corners of the Confederate States, Galveston, Texas, effectively marking the death-knell of slavery in the United States.

Many of us were taught in school that the American Civil War was fought solely to end slavery in the United States. In truth, while this may have been the case for some sympathetic whites in the North, and was certainly the case for many African Americans, enslaved and free, who foresaw the implications of this conflict on their status within the nation, it wasn’t until the middle years of the war that ending slavery took on any real sense of urgency for the federal government and its troops.

In September 1862, watching his Union Army suffer heavy casualties in conflict, unsure of the outcome of the war, and coming to understand that the South was greatly benefiting from its enslaved labor force, Lincoln penned a warning to the rebel states: Lay down your arms by January 1, 1863, or federal forces will emancipate your slaves.

Enslaved Africans and African Americans had long been agents of their own freedom. Some were able to purchase their freedom and that of their families. Others simply stole away, using the complex network of the Underground Railroad to reach safety, or, during the Civil War, traveled to Union camps where they sought both shelter and ways to aid the Union cause. Others were lucky enough to be manumitted, through state actions or directly by the individuals who claimed ownership of them.

But prior to the ratification of the 13^th Amendment in 1865 – which banned slavery and involuntary servitude except as punishment for a crime – there was no greater enforceable demand for freedom than that given by the president when he followed through on his threat by issuing the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863.

The proclamation did not free all enslaved people. Rather, it freed slaves in only those areas of the country that Lincoln identified as being in rebellion. The status of those enslaved in slave-owning Union states – Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, Missouri – remained unchanged. Still, as Union troops pushed south and west, enforcing Lincoln’s edict as they traveled, they further weakened the institution of slavery in every corner of the country.

It took over two years for the news of emancipation to officially reach Galveston, Texas. When it arrived on June 19th, it was a time of celebration for the African Americans who had longed for this day to arrive, and who remembered those who had not lived to see it come. While there would be a world of change awaiting them, this day – remembered each year as Juneteenth – was and continues to be a day for celebrating the end of slavery, the beginning of a new chance at life, and the remembrance of all those who made it happen.

Painting in Capitol marks its burning by the British

Today, most Americans recall the war because of two events: the British occupation of the United States’ capital of Washington, and Andrew Jackson’s victory in the Battle of New Orleans. To many other, the war remains forgotten.

Madison was known as the Father of the Constitution, and he succeeded Thomas Jefferson as president in 1809.

The British issue had plagued Madison since he took over from Jefferson. Britain and France, the United States’ two biggest trading partners, had been at the center of a war that dominated the European continent for decades.

As part of the conflict, the British Royal Navy had forced as many as 6,000 Americans into its service through the practice of “impressing” American merchant sailors.

The British also openly supported Native Americans on the western frontier, which was seen as a threat by the Americans. The British also knew factions in the United States had eyed Canada as a possible addition to the Union.

Canadians also had strong feelings about remaining in the empire. More than a few had left the United States for Canada  as loyalists to the crown.

Another factor was the influence of the War Hawks, a group of young Democratic-Republican congressmen led by 33-year-old Henry Clay, who pushed for war with Britain.

The War Hawks were also concerned with the activities of two Native American leaders, Tecumseh and his brother, The Prophet, who put together an alliance to oppose expansion into Indian-held lands.

The war vote passed in Congress, but not by a huge majority. The Federalists in the Northeast were opposed to the war, and mockingly called it “Mr. Madison’s War.” It was the closest war vote in congressional history and it was along party lines.

Recent Historical Stories

How much do you know about the American flag?

10 interesting facts on President Ronald Reagan’s birthday

10 fascinating facts about President John F. Kennedy

10 fascinating facts about President Ulysses Grant

The United States struggled to make any headway into Canada. Madison had assumed that the British, who were occupied fighting Napoleon in Europe, couldn’t effectively defend Canada. Instead, American troops failed in its attempted invasions as they were met by British troops, Canadian militia and Native American fighters.

The United States fared better at the Battle of Lake Erie, where it defeated British naval forces. Tecumseh died in a subsequent battle, weakening the ability of the Native American coalition to help the British.

However, the British were able to mount a naval blockade of the East Coast.  They invaded and burned Washington in August 1814. Dolley Madison helped to rescue the Gilbert Stuart portrait of George Washington in the White House dining room before the British arrived.

But at that point, the war was winding down. Napoleon had abdicated months earlier and the French threat had diminished for the British.

Peace talks had actually started shortly before the attack on Washington. The sides came to an agreement with the Treat of Ghent in Belgium, with a tentative deal reached on December 24, 1814.

British troops attacking New Orleans were unaware of the peace deal, which still had to be ratified by both governments.

On January 8, the American troops, led by Jackson, routed the British troops in New Orleans. The treaty was ratified by the U.S. Senate on February 15, 1815.

In the end, the war was considered a stalemate and the Americans didn’t secure a promise from the British to stop the practice of impressment.

But two immediate consequences became apparent: The United States had seen the last attempt by the British to impose its military will on its former colonies, and Canada had seen the end of the annexation threat from the United States.

The Native American coalition that sided with the British lost much. Aside from Tecumseh’s death, it lost the British as an ally to slow or stop expansion in the west.

THE STATEMENT AT ISSUE:

“Arizona is correct that the [Constitution’s] Election Clause empowers Congress to regulate how federal elections are held, but not who may vote in them….Surely nothing [in the Constitution] lends itself to the view that voting qualifications in federal elections are to be set by Congress.”

 – Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the Supreme Court majority on Monday, in the course of a ruling that Arizona contradicted an act of Congress when it required voters in that state to provide specific proof that they were U.S. citizens before they could register to vote or actually vote.  The decision, however, gave Arizona an option on how it might yet implement and enforce such a requirement.

WE CHECKED THE CONSTITUTION, AND…

The Constitution speaks in fairly simple terms about how Congress and the states divide up the power to write election laws.   The states have the initial authority – especially for elections to Congress and the presidency – to decide the qualifications that voters must have, but Congress has a kind of back-up veto power.   But the extent of the powers of each level of government were left in some doubt on Monday as the Supreme Court decided a major test case on how to draw that line.  Both Congress and the states came away with something.

If the lineup of the Justices remains the same when future test cases arrive from states that have recently attempted to restrict voters’ eligibility, such as the requirement to show a photo ID at the polling station, the states may emerge as the ultimate winners.   Arizona did, in fact, lose this particular case, but that was the result of the way the dispute had unfolded in the courts.  Arizona’s proof-of-citizenship requirement failed, because it conflicted with a 1993 law that led to creation of a national voter registration form that states were ordered to accept.  The federal form requires a would-be voter to swear they are citizens, but it does not require them to prove it.

No one, including Arizona, had contended in this case that such a law was beyond Congress’s constitutional powers.   Arizona, rather, had simply insisted that in using its own registration form with its proof-of-citizenship requirement, it actually was complying with the federal law, which gave it the option of having its own requirements.  That, though, was the key point on which the state lost.

As long ago as 1932, the Supreme Court said Monday, it had ruled that the Constitution allows Congress to draft a complete election code for choosing member of Congress, including registration requirements.   Using that power, it noted, Congress told states in 1993 that they must accept and use a federal form that potential voters fill out when they seek to register.   Arizona cannot reject that form when a voter submits it, the decision said.  “The federal form,” the opinion added, “guarantees that a simple means of registering to vote in federal elections will be available.”

In enacting that form, the court said further, Congress meant to override conflicting requirements imposed under state law.

So far, then, Congress’s powers over who could register to vote, and how, would seem to have emerged triumphant.

But there was a second part of the opinion, and after reading that, state officials in Arizona said in public statements that the court had pointed the way toward ultimate victory for their proof requirement.

The back half of Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion in the case of Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council provided a sturdy defense of the power of states to decide who gets to vote.   The partial quotation cited at the top of this article is contained in that second part.

The states, that part of the ruling said, may ultimately be able to impose a proof-of-citizenship requirement – and, by implication, other voter qualification obligations – as a matter of their constitutionally assured powers as the primary drafters of election law.

If Arizona wishes to establish a binding requirement of proof of citizenship, the court said, it simply needs to go to the federal agency assigned the task of regulating registration requirements and ask it to add to the federal form Arizona’s own, state-specific requirement of hard evidence that one is a citizen.   If the request is granted, that is the form that would be distributed and used in Arizona.

But, if the federal agency should neglect to respond, or actually turn down the state, Justice Scalia wrote, that would be the point at which the state would be free to file a lawsuit in federal court “to assert a constitutional right to demand concrete evidence of citizenship,” entirely apart from what is or is not required on a federal registration form.

Because those statements were embraced without qualification by seven members of the court, they would seem to be very promising for states’ rights as future cases move through the courts.

The two parts of Monday’s opinion were not easy to reconcile, except to say that, for the short term, Arizona cannot on its own enforce its proof of citizenship requirement.  But the way appears to remain open for it to do so – and for other states to impose other voter qualifications – so long as they press those requirements independently of what a federal registration law specifies.

It would then be up to federal judges to decide which parts of Monday’s opinion seemed to be the most binding.

Lyle Denniston is the National Constitution Center’s adviser on constitutional literacy. He has reported on the Supreme Court for 55 years, currently covering it for SCOTUSblog, an online clearinghouse of information about the Supreme Court’s work.

Recent Constitution Daily Stories

Miss USA uses Supreme Court knowledge to win pageant

House takes up the Postal Service debate again

The Supreme Court’s 2013 grand finale: Three big decisions

The Next 10 Amendments: Do we need more laws to protect privacy?

In Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council, the court sided with the federal government, saying that Arizona’s evidence-of-citizenship requirement for voting is pre-empted by the federal National Voter Registration Act.

Link: Read The Decision

In a 7-2 majority decision, Justice Antonin Scalia said the Arizona’s voter-approved Proposition 200 interfered with the national “Motor Voter law,” which was designed to make voter registration easier.

Under the Motor Voter law, applicants attest to the fact that they are citizens, under penalty of perjury, by checking a box on a form.

Link: Detailed Case Preview

Arizona argued that Proposition 200 was a “sensible precaution” to prevent voter fraud and guarantee the sanctity of elections. Civil rights groups said the proof of citizenship requirement was a barrier to voting, particularly for lower-income groups.

And in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, the court ruled in a 5-3 decision that financial deals between drug makers that hold patents and potential generic competitors could be challenged in court—but one case at a time.

Link: Read The Decision

The decision from Justice Stephen Breyer is a partial victory for each side. The FTC wants to eliminate deals that allow patent-holding companies to pay competitors to keep cheaper, generic versions of their drugs off the market for a fixed period of time.

In turn, the court’s ruling doesn’t completely eliminate reverse payments, or “pay for delay” deals.

“A reverse payment, where large and unjustified, can bring with it the risk of significant anticompetitive effects,” Breyer said. The court said “pay for delay” deals can be evaluated in court under a test known as the “rule of reason.”

Link: Detailed Case Preview

The rule of reason concept dates back to the court’s ruling in Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States from 1911, and it says that courts should consider the circumstances under which a potential anti-trust action is committed.

Recent Constitution Daily Stories

Miss USA uses Supreme Court knowledge in win pageant

House takes up the Postal Service debate again

The Next 10 Amendments: Do we need more laws to protect privacy?

How much do you know about the American flag

Constitution Daily will update this list as decisions are announced. You can also use this list to go directly to decisions on the court’s website.

Arizona v. ITCA – decided 6/17/2013
Subject: Proof of citizenship, voter ID laws
Description: The court will consider Arizona’s decision to require voters to furnish proof of citizenship as it relates to the federal National Voter Registration Act, in a question of state versus federal jurisdiction over voting qualifications.
Outcome: In Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council, the court sided with the federal government, saying that Arizona’s evidence-of-citizenship requirement is pre-empted by the federal National Voter Registration Act.
Supreme Court link (after decision is announced): http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinions.aspx

Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis – decided 6/17/2013
Subject: Generic drug payments
Description:  The court will decide if brand-name drug companies can legally make payments to keep generic competitors’ products off the market for a limited time.
Outcome: The court ruled in a 5-3 decision that financial deals between drug makers that hold patents and potential generic competitors could be challenged in court—but one case at a time.
Supreme Court link (after decision is announced): http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinions.aspx

Association for Molecular Pathology  v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office – decided 6/13/2013
Subject: Gene patents
Description: Can a company hold a patent on human genes? This potential landmark decision involves BRCA genes, the ones used in the tests that diagnosed actress Angelina Jolie’s propensity to develop breast cancer.
Outcome: The Court says a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated, but synthetic cDNA is patent eligible because it is not naturally occurring.
Supreme Court opinion: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-398_8njq.pdf

Maryland v. King – decided 6/3/2013
Subject: DNA evidence
Description:  Can states collect and analyze DNA from people arrested for, but not convicted of, crimes? The court will decide the ability to collect DNA versus a person’s right against unreasonable searches as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment.
Outcome: A divided court allows warrantless DNA swabbing for people arrested under probable cause in felony crimes.
Supreme Court opinion: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-207_d18e.pdf

Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin
Subject: Affirmative action
Description: The Supreme Court will decide if a public university violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment by considering race in its admissions process. Decision could update or overturn parts of the historic 2003 Grutter v. Bollinger decision.
Outcome: To be announced
Supreme Court link (after decision is announced): http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinions.aspx

Windsor v. U.S.
Subject: Defense of Marriage Act, same-sex marriage
Description: Does the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) violate the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection for people of the same sex who are legally married under the laws of their state? Decision may be announced at the same time as the decision on California’s law that bars same-sex marriage.
Outcome: To be announced
Supreme Court link (after decision is announced): http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinions.aspx

Hollingsworth v. Perry
Subject: Proposition 8, same-sex marriage
Description:  The justices will decide if the state of Californian can define marriage as the union of only a man and a woman without violating the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Outcome: To be announced
Supreme Court link (after decision is announced): http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinions.aspx

Shelby County v. Holder
Subjects: Voting rights, voter ID laws
Description: The Supreme Court will decide if parts of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 are still needed, which require states and local governments with a history of discrimination to get pre-clearance from the federal government before making any changes to voting laws.
Outcome: To be announced
Supreme Court link (after decision is announced): http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinions.aspx

Recent Constitution Daily Stories

How to judge the Supreme Court’s upcoming equality rulings
Two congressmen insist you aren’t guaranteed a right to vote
Yes, reality TV is talking about the Constitution
The current media leak situation and the echoes of Watergate