The Roberts Court: The Struggle for the Constitution (56 page)

13
. National Public Radio interview with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, May 2, 2002.

1
. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Nomination of Elena Kagan to Be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, June 28–30 and July 1, 2010 (available at:
http://purl.fdlp.gov/GPO/gpo12385
).

2
. Tony Mauro, “A Strong Supreme Court Term for Business,”
National Law Journal
, Aug. 1, 2012.

3
. Lee Epstein, William M. Landes, and Richard A. Posner, “Is the Roberts Court Pro-Business?” at
http://epstein.usc.edu/research/RobertsBusiness.pdf
, Dec. 17, 2010.

4
. Robin Conrad, “The Roberts Court and the Myth of a Pro-Business Bias,”
Santa Clara L. Rev
. 49, no. 4, Jan. 1, 2009.

5
. Author’s interviews with Obama administration and Department of Justice lawyers, July–August 2012.

6
. Author’s interview with Neal Katyal of Hogan Lovells, June 2012.

7
. 
Thomas More Law Center v. Obama
, 651 F.3d 529 (CA6 2011).

8
. 
State of Florida v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
, 648 F.3d 1235 (CA11 2011).

9
. 
Liberty University v. Geithner
, 671 F.3d 391 (CA4 2011);
Commonwealth of Virginia v. Sebelius
, 656 F.3d 253 (CA4 2011).

1
. Author’s interviews with Department of Justice attorneys, July–August 2012.

2
. Tony Mauro, “Paul Clement’s Second Chair,”
National Law Journal
, April 2, 2012.

3
. Marcia Coyle, “On Deck to Argue Against the Mandate: Carvin,”
National Law Journal
, March 14, 2012.

4
. 
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services v. State of Florida
, No. 11-398, Brief for Petitioners on the Minimum Coverage Provision (available at
acalitigationblog.blogspot.com/
).

5
. 
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services v. State of Florida
, No. 11-398, Brief for State Respondents on the Minimum Coverage Provision (available at
acalitigationblog.blogspot.com/
).

6
. 
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services v. State of Florida
, No. 11-398,
Brief for Private Respondents on the Individual Mandate (available at
acalitigationblog.blogspot.com/
).

7
. Joan Biskupic, “Calls for Recusal Intensify in Health Care Case,”
USA Today
, Nov. 20, 2011; Robert Barnes, “Health-care Case Brings Fight Over Which Supreme Court Justices Should Decide It,”
Washington Post
, Nov. 27, 2011.

8
. Jeff Shesol, “Should Justices Keep Their Opinions to Themselves?”
New York Times
, June 28, 2011.

9
. Ryan Malphurs and L. Hailey Drescher, “ ‘That’s Enough Frivolity’: A Not So Funny Countdown of the Supreme Court’s Affordable Care Act Oral Arguments,” June 6, 2012. “We studied the justices’ interactions within oral arguments across the four cases, and disappointingly learned the justices took a less than fair approach when questioning parties” (available at SSRN:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2079136
, or
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2079136
).

10
. 
American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock
, No. 11-1179, per curiam, decided June 25, 2012; Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, dissenting.

11
. Jan Crawford, “Roberts Switched Views to Uphold Health Care Law,” CBS News, July 1, 2012.

12
. Fund, John, “The Flip That Will Flop?” National Review Online, July 2, 2012.

13
. Marcia Coyle and Tony Mauro, “Justices Say Any Rifts Are Temporary,”
National Law Journal
, July 16, 2012.

14
. Sarah Kiff, “Neal Katyal on Defending Obamacare,”
Washington Post
, March 28, 2012.

BOOKS

Bailey, Michael A. and Forrest Maltzman.
The Constrained Court
. Princeton University Press, 2011.

Biskupic, Joan.
American Original
. Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2009.

Breyer, Stephen.
Active Liberty: Interpreting Our Democratic Constitution
. Knopf, 2005.

———.
Making Our Democracy Work
. Knopf, 2010.

Burns, James MacGregor.
Packing the Court
. Penguin, 2009.

The Cato Institute.
Cato Supreme Court Review 2009–10
. 2010.

Greenburg, Jan Crawford.
Supreme Conflict
. Penguin, 2007.

Klarman, Michael J.
From Jim Crow to Civil Rights: The Supreme Court and the Struggle for Racial Equality
. Oxford University Press, 2004.

Powe Jr., Lucas A.
The Supreme Court and the American Elite
. Harvard University Press, 2009.

Rehnquist, William H.
The Supreme Court
. Knopf, 2001.

Rosen, Jeffrey.
The Supreme Court: The Personalities and Rivalries that Defined America
. Holt, 2007.

Savage, David G.
Turning Right: The Making of the Rehnquist Supreme Court
. John Wiley, 1993.

Scalia, Antonin.
A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law
. Princeton University Press, 1997.

Schwartz, Bernard.
A History of the Supreme Court
. Oxford University Press, 1993.

Stevens, John Paul.
Five Chiefs
. Little, Brown, 2011.

Toobin, Jeffrey.
The Nine
. Doubleday, 2007.

Tushnet, Mark.
A Court Divided
. Norton, 2005.

ARTICLES

“Civil Rights: The Heller Case,” 4 NYU J.L. & Liberty 293 (Minutes from a Convention of the Federalist Society, 11-20-08)

Balkin, Jack M., and Sanford Levinson. “Understanding the Constitutional Revolution,” 87
Va. L. Rev
. 1045 (2001)

Barnett, Randy E. “Scalia’s Infidelity: A Critique of Faint-Hearted Originalism,” 75
U. Cin. L. Rev
. 7 (2006)

———, Don B. Kates, “Under Fire: The New Consensus on the Second Amendment,” 45
Emory L.J
. 1139 (1995)

Biskupic, Joan. “The Alito/O’Connor Switch,” 35
Pepp. L. Rev
. 5 (2008)

Charles, Patrick J. “The Right of Self-Preservation and Resistance: A True Legal and Historical Understanding of the Anglo-American Right to Arms,”
Cardozo Law Review De Novo
, Vol. 18, 2010

Chen, Jim. “The Story of
Wickard v. Filburn:
Agriculture, Aggregation, and Commerce,”
Constitutional Law Stories
(Michael C. Dorf ed., 2d ed., Foundation Press, 2009)

Conrad, Robin S. “The Roberts Court and the Myth of a Pro-Business Bias,” 49
Santa Clara L. Rev
. 997 (2009)

Cornell, Saul “Originalism on Trial: The Use and Abuse of History in District of Columbia v. Heller,” 69
Ohio St. L. J
. 625 (2008)

Epstein, Lee, William M. Landes, Richard A. Posner. “Is the Roberts Court Pro-Business?” Dec. 17, 2010, at:
http://epstein.usc.edu/research/RobertsBusiness.pdf

Gerken, Heather K. “Justice Kennedy and the Domains of Equal Protection,” 121
Harv. L. Rev
. 104 (2007)

Goldstein, Joel K. “Not Hearing History: A Critique of Chief Justice Roberts’s Reinterpretation of Brown,” 69
Ohio St. L.J
. 791 (2008)

Hasen, Richard L. “Citizens United and the Illusion of Coherence,” 109
Mich. L. Rev
. 581 (2011)

———. “No Exit? The Roberts Court and the Future of Election Law,” 57
S. C. L. Rev
. 669 (2006)

Howell, Larry. “Once Upon a Time in the West: Citizens United, Caperton, and the War of the Copper Kings,” 73
Mont. L. Rev
. 25 (2012)

Moses, Margaret L. “Beyond Judicial Activism: When the Supreme Court is No Longer a Court,” 14
U. Pa. J. Const. L
. 161 (2011)

Ryan, James E. “The Supreme Court and Voluntary Integration,” 121
Harv. L. Rev
. 131 (2007)

Siegel, Neil S. “Umpires at Bat: On Integration and Legitimation,” 24
Constitutional Commentary
701 (2008)

Siegel, Reva B. “Dead Or Alive: Originalism As Popular Constitutionalism in
Heller
,” 122
Harv. L. Rev
. 191 (2008)

———. “
Heller
& Originalism’s Dead Hand—In Theory and Practice,” 56
U.C.L.A. L. Rev
. 1399 (2009)

Wilkinson III, J. Harvie. “Of Guns, Abortions, and the Unraveling Rule of Law,” 95
Va. L. Rev
. 253 (2009)

The following decisions raised the most controversial and significant issues during the first seven terms of the Roberts Court.

Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England
(2006): 9–0 decision by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. A New Hampshire law requiring parental notification when minors seek abortions was ruled unconstitutional because it lacked an exception for the health of the mother, but the entire law did not have to be struck down; lower courts may be able to find a narrower remedy.

League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) v. Perry
(2006): 5–4 decision by Justice Anthony Kennedy. The Texas Legislature’s redistricting plan did not violate the Constitution, but part of the plan that diluted Latinos’ votes violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Majority: Kennedy, Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer; Dissent: Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito.

Hudson v. Michigan
(2006): 5–4 decision by Justice Antonin Scalia. The Fourth Amendment does not require the exclusion of evidence when police violate the “knock and announce” rule before executing a search warrant. Majority: Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito; Dissent: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer.

Garcetti v. Ceballos
(2006): 5–4 decision by Justice Anthony Kennedy. Public employees have no First Amendment protection for statements
made in the course of their official duties. Majority: Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito; Dissent: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer.

Kansas v. Marsh
(2006): 5–4 decision by Justice Clarence Thomas. Kansas law that imposes the death penalty when mitigating and aggravating circumstances are equally balanced does not violate the Eighth Amendment. Majority: Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito; Dissent: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer.

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld
(2006): 5–3 decision by Justice John Paul Stevens. Military commissions established by the George W. Bush administration violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions. Majority: Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer; Dissent: Scalia, Thomas, Alito. (Roberts recused).

Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District; Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education
(2007): 5–4 decision by Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. The use of race in the assignment of students to public schools violates the 14th Amendment. Majority: Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito; Dissent: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer.

Gonzales v. Carhart
(2007): 5–4 decision by Justice Anthony Kennedy. The federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 is not unconstitutional because it lacks an exception to protect the health of the woman. Majority: Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito; Dissent: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer.

Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency
(2007): 5–4 decision by Justice John Paul Stevens. The Environmental Protection Agency has authority under the federal Clean Air Act to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Majority: Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer; Dissent: Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito.

Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co
. (2007): 5–4 decision by Justice Samuel Alito Jr. Workers bringing Title VII pay discrimination claims must file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within 180 days of the discriminatory pay-setting decision or be time-barred, even if they were unaware of the discrimination at that time or the effects continued to the present. Majority: Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito; Dissent: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer.

Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation
(2007): 5–4 decision by Justice Samuel Alito Jr. Citizens do not have standing as taxpayers to bring establishment clause challenges to Executive Branch religious-related programs if they are funded by general appropriations instead of by specific congressional grants. Majority: Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito; Dissent: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer.

Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life
(2007): 5–4 decision by Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act’s ban on the use of corporate treasury funds for political advertisements in the sixty days before an election is unconstitutional as applied to ads that do not explicitly endorse or oppose a candidate. Majority: Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito; Dissent: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer.

Morse v. Frederick
(2007): 5–4 decision by Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. School officials do not violate the First Amendment when they prohibit pro-drug messages, such as a student sign saying Bong Hits for Jesus at a school-supervised event. Majority: Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito; Dissent: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer.

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
(2007): 7–2 decision by Justice David Souter. An antitrust lawsuit alleging a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act must allege facts that plausibly suggest an illegal conspiracy.
Majority: Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Breyer, Alito; Dissent: Stevens, Ginsburg.