Loyola Law School Professors Available Comment on Supreme Court Term Opinions
Loyola Law School, Los Angeles professors are available for commentary on a range of issues before the U.S. Supreme Court in its October 2017 Term, including:
APRIL 2018 SESSION
Abbott v. Perez redistricting case
Professor Jessica Levinson
Professor Jessica Levinson's NBC News op-ed, "Supreme Court's Texas Gerrymandering Decision Could Set Dangerous Precedent on Discrimination," tracked the case. "The case could help determine the political makeup of Texas’ federal and state lawmakers," she wrote.
Associate Dean for Research Justin Levitt
Associate Dean Justin Levitt, who runs the guide All About Redistricting, writes: "In many ways, this case is about Texas’s redistricting plan from 2011, and it’s remarkable that it’s still being contested today, and likely won’t be resolved until the 2020 elections (if then). Though the case ostensibly turns on the details of particular districts entwined in an exceedingly complicated procedural fight, it’s really about a state’s ability to escape liability for intentional discrimination by slightly changing the rules once it gets caught. And the outcome of this case potentially sets the stage for putting Texas back under federal supervision for voting claims, even after the Supreme Court struck the heart of the Voting Rights Act in 2013."
In an op-ed, “This Week’s Blockbuster SCOTUS Cases Share a Troublesome Common Issue,” Levitt noted that Abbott and Trump v. Hawaii, forthcoming on the opinion docket, share at least one trait. “The issue common to both cases is the staying power of a discriminatory taint.” He continued: In Trump v. Hawaii, “Five of the seven countries impacted by Proclamation 9645 were also the subject of a March 2017 Executive Order — which, according to the President, was itself the ‘watered down, politically correct version’ of a January 2017 ‘Travel Ban’ imposed largely on Muslim residents of the targeted countries. The Fourth Circuit found that the March Executive Order was motivated by anti-Muslim animus. And now the Court faces questions about the lingering impact of that March discrimination on the September proclamation. Similarly, Abbott v. Perez is about a decision that looks different on its face than it does in context.”
Levitt worked on parts of the case while serving as Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Lucia v. Securities & Exchange Commission
Professor Adam Zimmerman, an expert on administrative law, is available to discuss the repercussions of the opinion rendering SEC administrative law judges subject to the Constitution's appointments clause.
Pereira v. Sessions and Trump v. Hawaii immigration cases
Professor Kathleen Kim, faculty advisor to the Loyola Immigrant Justice Clinic and noted immigration law scholar, is available for commentary.
South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc.
Professor Ted Seto, a tax law expert who signed on to an amicus brief in support of South Dakota, is available for commentary on the opinion expanding the application of state sales tax to online retailers.
Trump v. Hawaii
MARCH 2018 SESSION
Benisek v. Lamone
Professor Jessica Levinson is available to comment on the case over gerrymandered congressional districts.
National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra
Professor Jessica Levinson has written that the "U.S. Supreme Court will make a few blockbuster decisions this term that will touch on our most controversial issues, including both abortion and First Amendment rights. One such case, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, will help define both of those rights."
FEBRUARY 2018 SESSION
- Loyola Immigrant Justice Clinic Co-Directors Marissa Montes and Emily Robinson are available for commentary on U.S. Supreme Court’s order today declining to hear an appeal to a federal judge’s injunction of President Trump’s move to rescind DACA.
Janus v. American Federation
Professor Aaron Caplan, a constitutional law scholar who specializes in First Amendment issues, has tracked the case on public-sector employee unions.
Professor Jessica Levinson, an expert who closely follows the intersection of politics and law, recently published the op-ed, “Supreme Court Decision on Janus v. AFSCME Likely to Permanently Weaken Public Unions.” In it, she writes: “The case presents not only an important legal question regarding the contours of the First Amendment, but also a significant political and policy question regarding the power of public unions in America.”
United States v. Microsoft
Professor Stan Goldman, a Fourth Amendment expert, is available for commentary. Goldman teaches Criminal Procedure, Evidence and related courses.
Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky
Professor Jessica Levinson, a campaign-finance expert who serves as president of the Los Angeles Ethics Commission, is available for commentary. In an NBC News op-ed, she wrote, "The case presents not only an important legal question regarding the contours of the First Amendment, but also a significant political and policy question regarding the power of public unions in America."
Professor Justin Levitt, a former Justice Department official overseeing voting rights, is available for commentary.
OCTOBER 2017 SESSION
Gill v. Whitford
Professor Jessica Levinson has closely followed the case, on which she wrote the NBC News op-ed, "Fight Over Gerrymandering Is Year's Most Important Court Case." On the opinion, she writes: "Given the court's conclusion in Gill, individual plaintiffs will be unable to bring partisan gerrymandering cases on a statewide basis. Instead, individual plaintiffs will have to start by bringing suits based only on their legislative districts, preventing these plaintiffs from demonstrating how a partisan gerrymander creates a statewide harm. The court's non-decision, decision on procedural grounds will allow the party controlling state legislatures to entrench their own power. This will likely harm voters, who are at the mercy of their lawmakers' extreme partisan gerrymanders.”
She continues: “However, Justice Kagan’s concurrence provides some hope for those hoping the court will step in to invalidate future cases of partisan gerrymandering. Justice Kagan suggests that perhaps a political party, and not individuals, are the proper plaintiffs for statewide suits.”