Categories & Search

Episode 10: A Tale of “Hanging Chads”: A Discussion of Bush v. Gore

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.

Go

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.

Go

Episode 7: “The Ballot is Stronger than the Bullet”1: A Discussion of Shelby County v. Holder

Featuring guest speakers, Kerry AbramsGuy-Uriel Charles, and Neil Siegel of Duke University School of Law. 

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.

Go

Episode 6: Let’s Get Personal: A Discussion of Daimler v. Bauman

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.

Go

Episode 5: Finding Religion in Unexpected Places: A Discussion of the Establishment Clause

Featuring guest speaker, Sandra S. Baron, Visiting Clinical Lecturer in Law at Yale Law School.

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.

Go

Episode 4: Leading the Way to Equal Pay: A Discussion of Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc.

Featuring guest speaker, Kathleen Boozang, of Seton Hall University School of Law.

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.

Go

Episode 3: Underneath the Corporate Veil: A Discussion of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

Featuring guest speaker, Lindsey Kaley of the American Civil Liberties Union.

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. 

Go

Episode 2: With Equality, A Glorious Asset: A Discussion of United States v. Virginia

Featuring guest speaker, Galen Sherwin of the American Civil Liberties Union

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”).

Go

Episode 1: In the Beginning . . . A Discussion of Reed v. Reed

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.

Go