In Season 3, Episode 5 of Notorious, we continue to discuss the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment – from Justice Marshall’s viewpoint, as well as Justice Ginsburg’s viewpoint. This topic is broken up into two episodes, with Episode 5 focusing mostly on Justice Ginsburg’s views and how those views intersect with those of Justice Marshall.
In Season 3, Episode 4 of Notorious, we discuss the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment – from Justice Marshall’s viewpoint, as well as Justice Ginsburg’s viewpoint. This topic is broken up into two episodes, with Episode 4 focusing mostly on Justice Marshall’s views and historical context.
In Season 3, Episode 3 of Notorious, we discuss campaign finance, from legal viewpoints of Justices Ginsburg and Marshall. Among the issues discussed are what it means to participate in a fair and free election and the intersection between money and its impact on free speech during a political campaign.
In Season 3, Episode 2 of Notorious, we discuss the First Amendment and how it was addressed by Justice Ginsburg and Justice Marshall. Specifically, this episode will cover Justice Ginsburg’s and Justice Marshall’s jurisprudence concerning the religious clauses of the First Amendment, including the Establish Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.
In Season 3, Episode 1 of Notorious, we discuss Justice Thurgood Marshall’s and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s contributions to the Civil Rights Movement, and parallels and differences between their legal and judicial strategies. Guests will include Judge Joseph A. Greenway Jr., who currently sits on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and previously sat on the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey; Gregory L. Diskant, Patterson Belknap Of Counsel and former judicial clerk to Justice Marshall; Patterson Belknap Partner Michelle M. BufanoMariana Múnera-Keating
In Season 2, Episode 6 of Notorious, we discuss the 2020-2021 Supreme Court Term and look back at specific cases and instances where Justice Ginsburg’s influence is still alive and well. Specifically, we discuss the cases, FDA v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System, Tanzin v. Tanvir, and Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
In Season 2, Episode 5 of Notorious, we discuss the case of Ricci v. DeStefano, which involved the question of whether the city of New Haven, Connecticut violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act when it rejected the results of a civil service exam given to firefighters. The results of the exam showed that white candidates had out-performed minority candidates and the question was raised as to whether the exam was discriminatory.
In Season 2, Episode 4 of Notorious, we discuss the case of Adarand Construction v. Pena, which involved whether a federal statute, which provided for favor treatment to a suspect class to remedy past discrimination, violated the Equal Protection Clause as embodied in the Fifth Amendment.
In Season 2, Episode 3 of Notorious, we discuss the case of Grutter v. Bollinger, which involved the question of whether a law school admissions policy that considered race as a factor in admissions violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
In Season 2, Episode 2 of Notorious, we discuss the case of Gonzales v. Carhart which involved the Supreme Court’s consideration of the constitutionality of The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (“the Act”). In 2003, Congress passed and President Bush signed the Act into law. Dr. LeRoy Carhart and other physicians, who performed late term abortions, sued to stop the Act from going into effect. A federal district court agreed and ruled the Act unconstitutional. The government appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which upheld the lower court’s ruling.
In Season 2, Episode 1 of Notorious, we explore Justice Ginsburg’s influence on overcriminalization in our justice system. Specifically, we discuss the broad statutes passed by Congress, the latitude afforded to prosecutors under these statutes, judicial interpretations of the law and the possibility that strict literalism in interpretation can lead to unintended results.
We’re back, with a new season of Notorious, continuing our discussions of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s notable decisions and dissents. Season Two will air for six consecutive days beginning Monday, September 13th, with our final episode airing on Saturday, September 18th—the one year anniversary of Justice Ginsburg’s passing.
Featuring guest speaker, Mai Ratakonda of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
In Episode 12 of Notorious, we discussed the case of Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, which addressed issues related to reproductive freedom.
At issue was a Texas Law that placed restrictions on physicians and facilities performing abortions. As a result, the U.S. Supreme Court considered whether the provisions violated the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Featuring Guest Speaker, Professor Rick Hasen of the University of California, Irvine.
In Episode 10 of Notorious, we discussed the case of Bush v. Gore, which involved one of the closest presidential elections in United States history at that time. This case concerned the 2000 presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore. After Gore won the popular vote, the election’s outcome was contingent upon Florida and its twenty-five electoral votes. After Gore requested a recount of votes, the Florida Supreme Court held that the recount procedures were constitutional.
Episode 8: No Ordinary Piece of Cake: A Discussion of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colo. Civil Rights Comm’n
In Episode 8 of Notorious, we discuss the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The U.S. Supreme Court addressed whether the actions of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (CCRC), under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, in assessing a cakeshop owner’s reasons for declining to make a cake for a same-sex couple’s wedding celebration, violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
In Episode 7 of Notorious, we discuss the case of Shelby County v. Holder. The U.S. Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of two provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The provisions at issue were Section 5, which requires certain states and local governments to receive federal preclearance prior to implementing changes to their voting laws or practices; and Section 4(b), which provides the coverage formula for determining which state and local governments are subjected to preclearance due to histories of discrimination in voting.
Featuring guest speaker, the Honorable Helen E. Freedman (Ret.), who served 36 years on the New York State Court bench.
In Episode 6 of Notorious, we discuss the case of Daimler A.G. v. Bauman. This case addressed the issue of personal jurisdiction. A German corporation, Daimler A.G., was being sued in California federal court for injuries allegedly caused by Daimler’s conduct that took place entirely outside the United States.
In Episode 5 of Notorious, we mix up the format a bit and discuss the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment in the context of several cases. No issue under the Establishment Clause reached the U.S. Supreme Court until 1947. Thus, our discussion starts with Everson v. Board of Education, a landmark decision that applied the Establishment Clause in the country's Bill of Rights to state law. We conclude with an analysis Justice Ginsburg’s dissent in the 2019 case of American Legion v. American Humanist Association.
Episode 4: Leading the Way to Equal Pay: A Discussion of Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc.
In Episode 4 of Notorious, we address the case of Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. Decided in 2007, Ledbetter addressed the issue of gender discrimination in the context of equal pay. Writing for a 5-4 majority of the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Alito found that employers cannot be sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 over race or gender pay discrimination if the claims are based on decisions made by the employer 180 days ago or more. Thus, the Court rejected Ledbetter’s argument that her lack of equal pay was cumulative over her career at Goodyear.
In Episode 3 of Notorious, we address the case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. Decided in 2014, Hobby Lobby addressed the contraceptive requirement in a regulation adopted in conjunction with the Affordable Care Act. Hobby Lobby, and other closely held corporations, argued that the requirement was unconstitutional because it violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
A 5-4 majority of the United States Supreme Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Alito, struck down the contraceptive requirement. The Court found that closely held for profit corporations are exempt from a regulation that its owners objected to based on the ground of religious freedom. In so holding, the Court determined that there was a less restrictive means of furthering the government’s interest in providing universal contraception.
In the second episode of Notorious, we discuss the 1996 case of United States v. Virginia, also known as the VMI case. This case, like Reed v. Reed from Episode 1, addressed the issue of gender equality under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The majority opinion, written by Justice Ginsburg, reviewed the policy under a heightened scrutiny judicial standard and struck down the all-male admissions policy at the Virginia Military Institute (“VMI”).
Featuring guest speaker, Corey Brettschneider, a professor at Brown University and editor of Decisions and Dissents of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: A Selection.
In this inaugural episode of Notorious: The Legal Legacy of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, we discuss the 1971 case of Reed v. Reed. The case addressed an Idaho statute, which favored males over females as administrators of estates. Petitioner Sally Reed sought to be named administrator of her deceased son’s estate in lieu of her estranged husband. The brief on behalf of Sally Reed was co-authored by then Rutgers Law School Professor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the American Civil Liberties Union, among others.