You are here

2014-09

September 29, 2014

The court obviously can’t—and shouldn’t—take every case, and perhaps the court had good reasons for not taking these cases (and many others). But the one thing we can know for sure is the court decides not to hear lots of important cases each year, and as a result, justice is underserved for many. Court watchers are quick to criticize the court for the way it decides cases, but the court sometimes deserves criticism for the cases it doesn’t decide, as well.

September 17, 2014

Beginning this Constitution Day, and continuing through the 150th anniversary of the Fifteenth Amendment in 2020, we should work together to build a celebration that's worthy of the Second Founding's remarkable constitutional achievements — one that restores the Second Founding Amendments to their rightful place at the center of the American constitutional story.

September 17, 2014

Beginning this Constitution Day, and continuing through the 150th anniversary of the Fifteenth Amendment in 2020, we should work together to build a celebration that's worthy of the Second Founding's remarkable constitutional achievements — one that restores the Second Founding Amendments to their rightful place at the center of the American constitutional story.

September 15, 2014

The full D.C. Circuit's decision to rehear Halbig wasn't political; it was a straightforward application of Federal Appellate Rule 35, which governs when federal appeals courts should rehear cases en banc. According to your editorial, a case is of "exceptional importance" when it involves some "constitutional principle." But that's not what Rule 35 says. The rule provides that a case is of exceptional importance when "the panel decision conflicts with . . . decisions of other . . . Courts of Appeal." That standard was met here because the Fourth Circuit upheld the IRS rule.

September 2, 2014

John Roberts, the Chief Justice of the United States, grew up in Indiana. He could learn a very good lesson from the practices of his home state’s Supreme Court, which is that government functions best when those it serves can see and understand what it is doing. Clearly, the Indiana Supreme Court appreciates the value of openness in government. If Hoosiers can broadcast their oral arguments live, why can’t the U.S. Supreme Court?