Supreme Court Review 2013/2014 TERM


A weekly discussion of the U.S. Supreme Court’s most recent opinions, oral arguments and grants of certiorari.

NOW PLAYING... July 4, 2014 Decision - Contraceptive Coverage Mandate

QuickTime Required

QuickTime is required to view this media. Download Here.

Subscribe to Podcast
Download for Smartphone
Download as mp3
Decision - Contraceptive Coverage Mandate (07/04/2014)

Whether family owned for profit corporations may refuse to pay for healthcare coverage which includes coverage for certain contraceptives that may have the effect of terminating an already fertilized egg or whether such a religious accommodation would upset a compelling government interest in ensuring that woman have equal and sufficient access to healthcare.

Decision - Presidential Recess Appointments (07/02/2014)

Were President Obama's three appointments to the National Labor Relations Board in January 2012 a valid exercise of his Recess Appointments Power or was the fact that the Senate was convening every three days in pro-forma sessions enough to mean that the Senate was not in Recess, making his appointments unconstitutional?

Decision - Abortion Clinic Buffer Zones (07/01/2014)

Is a 35-foot buffer zone around abortion clinics in Massachusetts which extends onto public sidewalks and roadways and within which no person may enter who does not have business at the clinic unconstitutional?

Decision - Cell Phone Searches (06/30/2014)

Does the Fourth Amendment permits the police, without obtaining a warrant, to review the contents of a cell phone found on a person who has been lawfully arrested?

This Week at the United States Supreme Court (06/21/2014)

Were the Facebook posts of Anthony Elonis threatening people he knew with bodily harm criminal or protected by the First Amendment? Was a government employee protected by the First Amendment when he testified against a former co-worker for stealing time on the job? Is it illegal for a person buying a gun to identify themselves as the "actual buyer" of the weapon, when in fact they are buying the gun for someone else? Must a federal agency engage in notice-and-comment rulemaking before it can significantly alter the way it interprets an agency regulation?