Loyola professors available for commentary on October 2013 Supreme Court term

Professors at Loyola Law School, Los Angeles are available for commentary on a range of cases to be heard in the Supreme Court’s October 2013 term, including:


Burt v. Titlow
"This is a really important case because so many defendants are now claiming that they were denied effective assistance of counsel because their lawyer did not tell them about a plea offer or gave bad advice regarding the offer. This case will determine the practical effect of Lafler v. Cooper and Missouri v. Frye. My guess is that the Court will give as much deference to the state judges as possible to resolve these issues." 
– Prof. Laurie Levenson

Faculty experts:

Kansas v. Cheever
"A Fifth Amendment case that will affect the scope of the privilege against self-incrimination."
– Prof. Laurie Levenson

Faculty expert: Laurie Levenson

Kaley v. United States
"This is an important case because the issue has been bouncing around so long and the circuits are really split. Some (like the 9th Circuit) require a hearing before assets are frozen in criminal cases. Other courts do not. This decision will have an impact on whether defendants who face forfeitures have funds to hire the lawyers of their choice." 
Prof. Laurie Levenson

Faculty expert: Laurie Levenson


DaimlerChrysler AG v. Bauman
Whether it’s proper for a court to exercise general personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation based solely on fact that indirect corporate subsidiary performs services in forum state.

Faculty experts:

Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v. USDS WD TX
Review of forum-selection clauses in contracts

Faculty experts:


AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: Schuette v. Coalition to Defend, Et. Al.

Challenge to Michigan law amending constitution to ban preferential treatment in public-university admissions decisions. 

Faculty experts:

Whether aggregate limits on campaign contributions are constitutional

"McCutcheon is about aggregate caps on contributions to federal candidates, party committees, and PACs that donate to candidates and parties. There are limits on what I can give to any individual federal candidate.  And then there are limits on what I can give to all federal candidates, total. The same is true for parties and PACs. This case is about the totals." [Read more.] 

--Excerpt from Associate Professor Justin Levitt’s contribution to the SCOTUSblog online symposium on McCutcheon, “Aggregate limits and the fight over frame 

"The breadth of McCutcheon's likely victory will determine whether individual contribution limits across the country are called into question. At that point the court would have dismantled the majority of the campaign finance restrictions implemented in the wake of Watergate. We would be in an era of restricting the flow of money in politics by disclosing it, but not by limiting the amount given and spent."

--Excerpt from Associate Clinical Professor Jessica Levinson's op-ed, "Much Ado About McCutcheon."

Faculty experts:


Chadbourne & Parke LLP v. Troice, Willis of Colorado Inc. v. Troice, Proskauer Rose LLP v. Troice
Whether Securities Litigation Uniform Standard Act precludes certain types of state class actions

Faculty expert: Michael Guttentag