Next Monday morning, the Supreme Court Institute at the Georgetown University Law Center is convening a press briefing on the leading cases of the upcoming Term.
Here’s a description of the program:
Welcome: Professor Richard Lazarus, Co-Director, Supreme Court Institute, Georgetown University Law Center
Introduction: Professor Susan Low Bloch, Georgetown University Law Center
Professor Randy Barnett, Georgetown University Law Center
Topic: Birth and End of Life Decisions
Cases: Gonzales v. Carhart
Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood
Professor Barnett will discuss the two cases that raise the question of whether the federal Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003 is constitutional. Both lower courts struck down the federal statute on its face. These cases are especially significant because in 2000 the Court in Stenberg v. Carhart struck down a state statute that prohibited what the state law defined as “partial birth abortion†by a five to four vote, and Justice O’Connor supplied the fifth vote for the majority. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito have since joined the Court.
Professor James Forman, Georgetown University Law Center
Topic: Equal Protection and Educational Placement
Cases: Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District #1
Meredith v. Jefferson County Bd. of Education
Professor Forman will comment on the two cases that concern the constitutionality of public schools using race as a factor in assigning students to specific public schools. Both lower federal courts of appeals upheld the school district assignment policies. These cases provide the Roberts Court with its first opportunity to consider the use of race in public education in general and, particularly, to consider the applicability of the Court’s recent decisions in Gruter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger, both of which were sharply divided, outside the context of higher education and admissions.
Professor Lisa Heinzerling, Georgetown University Law Center
Topic: Environmental Law
Cases: Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corp.
Professor Heinzerling will discuss the two environmental law cases scheduled for argument this fall. Both cases raise questions of statutory interpretation under the federal Clean Air Act and, significantly, the Court granted review in both cases over the opposition of the federal government. Indeed, the Court’s grant in Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy, represents the first time that the Court has granted certiorari in response to an exclusive request of an environmental group in 35 years. It is, however, the Massachusetts v. EPA case that is likely to garner the greatest public attention, injecting the Court into the controversy concerning the Bush administration’s policies regarding global climate change, particularly its decision not to regulate carbon dioxide emissions.
Professor Jay Thomas, Georgetown University Law Center
Topic: Patent Law
Cases: KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.
MedImmune v. Genentech
Professor Thomas will focus on the two patent cases now before the Court. These cases represent the latest in a series of patent law cases that the Court has granted in recent years, defying the Court’s longstanding tradition of steering away from patent law. Both cases are potentially significant, but it is KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., that is generating the most attention. It concerns one of the most fundamental issues of patent law, the meaning of “obviousness†in determining whether a claimed invention is patentable, and the Court’s ruling could accordingly have significant implications for patents.
Professor Michael Gottesman, Georgetown University Law Center
Topic: Torts
Cases: Philip Morris USA v. Williams
Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Sorrell
Professor Gottesman will discuss the two tort law cases that will be argued this October and November. Both cases arise out of efforts by advocates of tort reform to persuade the Justices to embrace statutory and constitutional limits on tort liability and remedies. Philip Morris USA v. Williams concerns the applicability of constitutional limits on the award of punitive damages imposed on tobacco companies. Norfolk Southern Railway v. Sorrell is the latest in a series of cases that the Court has granted at the request of railroads to limit their tort liability under the Federal Employer Liability Act.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY