Jack Epstein's Blog

I've just finished reading several more accounts of the oral arguments that took place today in the Trump v. Hawaii case.  This includes reviews from the good people at SCOTUSblog and a few accounts posted on the online version of The Hill. The broad consensus in these accounts, which confirms my post from this morning, is that the outlook looks really good for the Trump Administration's travel ban.  Amy Howe, over at SCOTUSblog,  predicts a likely "solid majority" in favor of upholding the ban, based on the tenor of the Q+A during arguments.  That prediction appears to fall within the general consensus among reporters and other observers who were present. One interesting observation from a prolific left-leaning blogger on legal issues - Michael Dorf - was that the spirit of Korematsu v. United States should have supported the arguments against the travel ban's constitutionality.  Korematsu , of course, is the Supreme Court case from the World War II era tha...

Today is the final day of oral arguments before the Supreme Court for the October 2017 term.  This term promises to be one of the most eventful in recent memory, with a lot of high profile - and probably controversial - decisions set to come down between now and late June/early July, which is when the Court traditionally begins its summer recess.  So its only fitting that the Court ended oral argument sessions for this term by considering this morning a high-profile, hot-button case dealing with President Donald Trump's September 2017 ban on foreign travel from eight countries.   This is the third such order coming from the Trump White House; it is a more nuanced attempt to protect the nation's national security interests than two earlier travel bans - issued in January and March 2017 - that met considerable resistance from the public ... and the lower federal courts. When the Court finally does issue its decision I'll provide more in-depth analysis of the holdings...

Betsy Devos, President Trump's Secretary of Education, in late September 2017 made the announcement that she was revoking the policies of the Obama Administration regarding sexual harassment on college campuses throughout the nation.  These were interpretations by President Obama's Department of Education regarding Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, a law that prohibits sexual discrimination in any educational activity or program receiving federal funds.  Obama officials made the determination, based on a long history of case law, that sexual harassment equaled sexual discrimination, if it creates a hostile environment that makes it impossible for women to enjoy the same kinds of educational activities and programs as men. The specifics of this interpretation put forth by the Obama Administration meant in effect that aggressive efforts would be waged to stop sexual harassment on sexual campuses.  The orders became a real cultural and political hot-button ...

In the last several months there has been occasional, yet intense, speculation in the media over whether Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller might charge President Trump with violations of a federal statute called the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO.  Congress passed RICO in 1970 as part of a larger law called the Organized Crime Control Act (OCCA).  The entire package of legislation was the culmination of a series of investigations in both Congress and the Executive Branch that dated back to the early 1950s.  Those investigations revealed the inner workings of a nation-wide criminal syndicate called the Mafia or Cosa Nostra.  RICO and the OCCA, in short, was fashioned to provide the Federal Government with the tools necessary to stop the Mob. RICO turned out to be the key element in the Federal Government's effort to wipe out the mob from the 1980s to the opening years of the twenty first century.  Federal prosecutors, including Robe...

In the coming weeks and months we can expect some blockbuster decisions from the Supreme Court on a range of important constitutional and pubic policy issues.  Unlike last year's term, the October 2017 term could not be more exciting for constitutional scholars, observers of the nation's highest tribunal, and public policy junkies.  The Court has agreed to hear an unusual number of high-profile cases, probably in part because it now has the full compliment of 9 justices for a full term for the first time since the death of the conservative judicial lion, Antonin Scalia.     None of the Court's determinations will be more important and significant than the one it renders in United States v. Microsoft .  Oral arguments were held February 27th and the announcement of the Court's opinion will likely come near the end of the term in late June.  The core issue in Microsoft is the power of the Department of Justice to compel Microsoft to release the emails of a ...