• Home
  • About
  • Features
  • UM Carey Law Professors Offer Insight on Recent Supreme Court Decisions
Print this page      E-mail this story      Bookmark and Share

UM Carey Law Professors Offer Insight on Recent Supreme Court Decisions

The Supreme Court has had a busy session, drawing increased media attention on its rulings.

UM Carey Law Professors have examined several of the decisions the Court has handed down.

[Watch Professor Mark Graber discuss the outcomes of several cases on WBAL]


Fisher v. University of Texas - Austin

“We dodged a bullet,” said Dean Phoebe Haddon, after the Supreme Court ruled, 7 -1,  in Fisher v. University of Texas - Austin that a lower court must reconsider its decision to uphold the race-based admissions criteria used by the University of Texas.

[Read Haddon’s full comments on Fisher v. University of Texas – Austin]

[See Haddon on MTP's Direct Connection with Jeff Salkin discussing Fisher v. University of Texas – Austin]


University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. NassarVance v. Ball State University and Mutual Pharmaceuticals v. Bartlett cases

"The Court again demonstrated that the conservative majority’s real friend is business, which went 3-3 today on a variety of statutory and preemption issues," wrote  Professor Mark Graber, commenting on the Court's decisions in the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. NassarVance v. Ball State University and Mutual Pharmaceuticals v. Bartlett cases.  "On social issues, Justice Kennedy and sometimes other conservatives will bend and even break, but business has not had such friends on the court since the 1910s."

[Read Graber’s full comments on the court’s bias towards business]

[Graber's comments quote in National Journal article "The Supreme Court Goes Small on Affirmative Action"]


Shelby County v. Holder

Professor Graber also weighed in on the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision to strike down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder.

“"What is most remarkable about the Chief Justice's opinion is the near complete absence of any reference to the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments,” said Graber.

[Read Graber’s full comments on Shelby County v. Holder]


Hollingsworth v. Perry and Windsor v. United States

"Before today, it's as if the states invited gay couples onto the porch but not into the house of marriage," commented law professor Martha Ertman on the Court's marriage equality decisions.

[Ertman quoted in CBS 21 article "With Supreme Court decisions, the next battles will be among the states"]

[Ertman mentioned in Baltimore Sun article "Supreme Court reshapes same-sex marriage debate"]

"Am I the only one who thinks all nine justices collectively wrote both opinions in Hollingsworth v. Perry and then drew straws to see which five would be in the majority and which four in the dissent," said Graber about the Supreme Court's decion on California's Prop 8. 

[Read Graber's full comments on Hollingsworth v. Perry and Windsor v. United States]

 


Print this page      E-mail this story      Bookmark and Share

Back To Top

500 W. Baltimore Street, Baltimore, MD 21201-1786 PHONE: (410) 706-7214 FAX: (410) 706-4045 / TDD: (410) 706-7714
Copyright © 2014, University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law. All Rights Reserved.

Hotline Hotline



UM | About This Site | Site Map | Contact Us


500 W. Baltimore Street, Baltimore, MD 21201-1786 PHONE: (410) 706-7214 FAX: (410) 706-4045 / TDD: (410) 706-7714

Copyright © 2014, University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law. All Rights Reserved