Round-Up

Tony Mauro of Legal Times recently commented on the rise in Supreme Court Litigation Clinics at top law schools (the principals of this blog are affiliated with the clinics at both Stanford and Harvard). His article can be found here, and the WSJ Law Blog also mentions the phenomenon here.

At the Volokh Conspiracy, David Bernstein announces an upcoming article he authored which looks back on the 100 years following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Lochner v. New York Paper. His blog post is here, and the full text of the article can be found here.

There has been an ongoing discussion at multiple blogs about how the Supreme Court’s docket affects the ebb and flow of legal scholarship. At Concurring Opinions, Nate Oman (in a post here) thinks that times are hard for con law scholars since “with fewer cases to work on, con law professor have to find something else to do.” Orin Kerr, in a post that can be found here, begs to differ. He does not believe that the shrinking size of the docket is having any significant effect; rather, his take is that “relative to most periods, the last few years have been a pretty boring period for the Supreme Court.” Both posts are certainly worth a look.