• Heritage Action
  • Heritage Libertad
  • More

Supreme Court

Our Research & Offerings on Supreme Court
  • Backgrounder posted March 27, 2013 by Andrew Kloster Why Congress and the Courts Must Respect Citizens’ Rights to Arbitration

    In 1925, Congress passed the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA),[1] establishing a strong federal policy in favor of arbitration. A form of alternative dispute resolution, arbitration reduces litigation costs, a savings that is passed on to consumers. Despite its advantages, however, arbitration has recently come under attack in Congress, executive agencies, and the courts.…

  • Issue Brief posted March 18, 2013 by Ryan T. Anderson Marriage Matters: Consequences of Redefining Marriage

    The Supreme Court is considering challenges to state and federal laws that define marriage as the union of a man and woman. After lower courts ruled against these marriage laws, the Supreme Court now has the opportunity to uphold the laws and return to citizens and their elected representatives the authority for answering questions about marriage policy. If marriage…

  • Issue Brief posted November 13, 2012 by John Malcolm, Jessica Zuckerman Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendments Act of 2008

    In September, the House of Representatives passed the reauthorization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendments Act of 2008 (FAA), which made key updates to the authorities granted to U.S. intelligence under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Reauthorization of the bill, which expires at the end of this year, has yet to be taken up by the Senate.…

  • Lecture posted October 10, 2012 by The Honorable Alice M. Batchelder Suppose Joseph Story Had Been Right and Brutus Had Been Wrong

    Abstract: Brutus, one of the loose-knit group of Anti-Federalists who opposed the adoption of the Constitution, was convinced that the new government would prove to be a national, not a federal, government; that the several states would cease to exist as sovereign entities; and that the judiciary would be instrumental in causing that result. Joseph Story, a proponent of a…

  • Backgrounder posted October 10, 2012 by Dominique Ludvigson Circumventing Citizens on Marriage: A Survey

    Abstract: Despite a history of consistent voter support for traditional marriage, the U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to address questions concerning this foundational social institution. The issue has been forced onto the Court’s docket by activist judges who have overruled democratically established marriage policies and by executive branch officials who have…

  • Legal Memorandum posted September 21, 2012 by Paul Larkin, Elizabeth Slattery Overview of the Supreme Court’s October Term, 2012

    Abstract: Given the excitement and importance of the recently concluded Supreme Court term, it is possible that the upcoming term will lack the same dazzling array of issues; just as not every baseball lineup is loaded with players like the 1927 Yankees Murderers Row, not every Supreme Court term is chock-full of Hall of Fame cases. Still, the next few years promise their…

  • Issue Brief posted July 11, 2012 by Nina Owcharenko The Supreme Court’s Medicaid Decision: The Obamacare Mess Just Got Messier

    If the Administration’s attempt to centralize health care decision making in Washington was unworkable, its unconstitutional imposition on the states has made its problems even worse. Long before the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the Medicaid mandate on the states as unconstitutionally coercive, opponents of the health care law argued that it would be…

  • Issue Brief posted June 27, 2012 by Matt A. Mayer, John Malcolm Childish Reaction to Supreme Court Immigration Ruling: Obama Administration Ends a Key Joint Program with Arizona

    Although both Arizona and the United States prevailed in different parts of the Supreme Court’s immigration ruling this week, the Obama Administration’s immediate response seems like a childish slap in the face of the Supreme Court, Arizona, and any other state that might challenge its authority. Justice Antonin Scalia noted in his dissenting opinion, which would…

  • Issue Brief posted June 27, 2012 by Hans A. von Spakovsky Arizona v. United States: What the States Can Do to Enforce Immigration Laws

    Since the Supreme Court issued its decision on June 25 on Arizona’s immigration law,[1] numerous news reports and commenters have mistakenly said that most of the Arizona law was struck down. That is simply wrong. The error is apparently based on the mistaken assumption that the four provisions reviewed by the Supreme Court were the entire law. But in reality, most…

  • Issue Brief posted April 20, 2012 by Elizabeth Slattery Supreme Court Immigration Showdown: Why States Can Enforce Immigration Laws

    On April 25, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case with significant implications for immigration policy and enforcement well beyond the immediate statute at issue. Arizona v. United States is a challenge to much of the state enforcement scheme of Arizona Senate Bill 1070 (S.B. 1070), which was enacted to detect and address illegal immigration in Arizona.…

Find more work on Supreme Court
  • Issue Brief posted March 18, 2013 by Ryan T. Anderson Marriage Matters: Consequences of Redefining Marriage

    The Supreme Court is considering challenges to state and federal laws that define marriage as the union of a man and woman. After lower courts ruled against these marriage laws, the Supreme Court now has the opportunity to uphold the laws and return to citizens and their elected representatives the authority for answering questions about marriage policy. If marriage…

  • Report posted June 20, 2011 by John Yoo, James C. Ho The Sword and the Purse (Part 2); The President as Commander in Chief

    Under the Articles of Confederation, all war power was vested in a Congress and the United States lacked a formal executive. This arrangement proved unworkable as America’s foreign policy and defense, deprived of executive guidance, floundered. Recognizing the need for an executive to act with swiftness and dispatch in response to foreign threats, the Framers of the…

  • Commentary posted June 13, 2008 by Charles "Cully" Stimson Gitmo Inmates' Constitutional 'Rights'

    In a sweeping decision that will have myriad consequences -- foreseen and unforeseen --the Supreme Court found that the right of habeas corpus under the U.S. Constitution applies to terrorist detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.  In a controversial 5-4 decision written by Justice Kennedy that is already being reported as a major loss for the…

  • Legal Memorandum posted September 21, 2012 by Paul Larkin, Elizabeth Slattery Overview of the Supreme Court’s October Term, 2012

    Abstract: Given the excitement and importance of the recently concluded Supreme Court term, it is possible that the upcoming term will lack the same dazzling array of issues; just as not every baseball lineup is loaded with players like the 1927 Yankees Murderers Row, not every Supreme Court term is chock-full of Hall of Fame cases. Still, the next few years promise their…

  • WebMemo posted July 19, 2005 by John McGinnis Advice and Consent: What the Constitution Says

    Editor's Note: Between various presidential nominations now bottled up in the U.S. Senate, and now the intense focus on a nomination to the United States Supreme Court, there have been numerous musings about presidential nominations, the advice and consent of the Senate, and the appointment of judges of the Supreme Court and other officers of the United States. This…

  • Backgrounder posted October 10, 2012 by Dominique Ludvigson Circumventing Citizens on Marriage: A Survey

    Abstract: Despite a history of consistent voter support for traditional marriage, the U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to address questions concerning this foundational social institution. The issue has been forced onto the Court’s docket by activist judges who have overruled democratically established marriage policies and by executive branch officials who have…

  • Backgrounder posted March 22, 2012 by Robert Alt, Edmund F. Haislmaier The Obamacare Challenge: The Questions Before the Supreme Court and Their Portents for Congress

    Abstract: Next week, the Supreme Court will hear challenges to Obamacare (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) centered on the constitutionality of the legislation’s individual mandate and Medicaid expansion. From a legal perspective, the Court’s decision will serve as a significant precedent with respect to what limits, if any, still apply to…

  • Legal Memorandum posted June 15, 2010 by Robert Alt, Hans A. von Spakovsky The Liberal Mythology of an “Activist” Court: Citizens United and Ledbetter

    Abstract: Liberals are currently engaged in a concerted effort to redefine judicial activism. Rather than accepting the true definition of judicial activism—when a judge applies his or her own policy preferences to uphold a statute or other government action which is clearly forbidden by the Constitution—liberals now apply the term anytime a statute is struck…

  • Issue Brief posted March 20, 2012 by Charles "Cully" Stimson, Elizabeth Slattery Juvenile Life Sentences: Constitutionality of Life Without Parole for Teenage Murderers

    On Tuesday, March 20, the Supreme Court hears oral argument in two cases involving the constitutionality of sentences of life without parole (LWOP) for teenage murderers. The real issue before the Court is this: Will the Court again “find” or “invent” a heretofore undiscovered constitutional prohibition and thus strike an entire category of sentences for the most violent…

  • Testimony posted December 14, 2011 by Andrew M. Grossman Judicial Reliance on Foreign Law

    Testimony before the Subcommittee on the Constitution,Committee on the Judiciary,United States House of Representatives December 14, 2011 My name is Andrew Grossman. I am a Visiting Legal Fellow in the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation. The views I express in this testimony are my own, and should not be construed as representing…

Find more work on Supreme Court
  • Backgrounder posted March 27, 2013 by Andrew Kloster Why Congress and the Courts Must Respect Citizens’ Rights to Arbitration

    In 1925, Congress passed the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA),[1] establishing a strong federal policy in favor of arbitration. A form of alternative dispute resolution, arbitration reduces litigation costs, a savings that is passed on to consumers. Despite its advantages, however, arbitration has recently come under attack in Congress, executive agencies, and the courts.…

  • Issue Brief posted March 18, 2013 by Ryan T. Anderson Marriage Matters: Consequences of Redefining Marriage

    The Supreme Court is considering challenges to state and federal laws that define marriage as the union of a man and woman. After lower courts ruled against these marriage laws, the Supreme Court now has the opportunity to uphold the laws and return to citizens and their elected representatives the authority for answering questions about marriage policy. If marriage…

  • Issue Brief posted November 13, 2012 by John Malcolm, Jessica Zuckerman Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendments Act of 2008

    In September, the House of Representatives passed the reauthorization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendments Act of 2008 (FAA), which made key updates to the authorities granted to U.S. intelligence under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Reauthorization of the bill, which expires at the end of this year, has yet to be taken up by the Senate.…

  • Backgrounder posted October 10, 2012 by Dominique Ludvigson Circumventing Citizens on Marriage: A Survey

    Abstract: Despite a history of consistent voter support for traditional marriage, the U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to address questions concerning this foundational social institution. The issue has been forced onto the Court’s docket by activist judges who have overruled democratically established marriage policies and by executive branch officials who have…

  • Legal Memorandum posted September 21, 2012 by Paul Larkin, Elizabeth Slattery Overview of the Supreme Court’s October Term, 2012

    Abstract: Given the excitement and importance of the recently concluded Supreme Court term, it is possible that the upcoming term will lack the same dazzling array of issues; just as not every baseball lineup is loaded with players like the 1927 Yankees Murderers Row, not every Supreme Court term is chock-full of Hall of Fame cases. Still, the next few years promise their…

  • Issue Brief posted July 11, 2012 by Nina Owcharenko The Supreme Court’s Medicaid Decision: The Obamacare Mess Just Got Messier

    If the Administration’s attempt to centralize health care decision making in Washington was unworkable, its unconstitutional imposition on the states has made its problems even worse. Long before the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the Medicaid mandate on the states as unconstitutionally coercive, opponents of the health care law argued that it would be…

  • Issue Brief posted June 27, 2012 by Matt A. Mayer, John Malcolm Childish Reaction to Supreme Court Immigration Ruling: Obama Administration Ends a Key Joint Program with Arizona

    Although both Arizona and the United States prevailed in different parts of the Supreme Court’s immigration ruling this week, the Obama Administration’s immediate response seems like a childish slap in the face of the Supreme Court, Arizona, and any other state that might challenge its authority. Justice Antonin Scalia noted in his dissenting opinion, which would…

  • Issue Brief posted June 27, 2012 by Hans A. von Spakovsky Arizona v. United States: What the States Can Do to Enforce Immigration Laws

    Since the Supreme Court issued its decision on June 25 on Arizona’s immigration law,[1] numerous news reports and commenters have mistakenly said that most of the Arizona law was struck down. That is simply wrong. The error is apparently based on the mistaken assumption that the four provisions reviewed by the Supreme Court were the entire law. But in reality, most…

  • Issue Brief posted April 20, 2012 by Elizabeth Slattery Supreme Court Immigration Showdown: Why States Can Enforce Immigration Laws

    On April 25, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case with significant implications for immigration policy and enforcement well beyond the immediate statute at issue. Arizona v. United States is a challenge to much of the state enforcement scheme of Arizona Senate Bill 1070 (S.B. 1070), which was enacted to detect and address illegal immigration in Arizona.…

  • Backgrounder posted March 22, 2012 by Robert Alt, Edmund F. Haislmaier The Obamacare Challenge: The Questions Before the Supreme Court and Their Portents for Congress

    Abstract: Next week, the Supreme Court will hear challenges to Obamacare (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) centered on the constitutionality of the legislation’s individual mandate and Medicaid expansion. From a legal perspective, the Court’s decision will serve as a significant precedent with respect to what limits, if any, still apply to…

Find more work on Supreme Court
Find more work on Supreme Court