Breaking Legal News & Current Law Headlines | Daily Legal Briefing
  • Home
  • Hot Topics
  • Breaking
  • Business
  • Big Law
  • Small Law
  • Law School
  • Legal Tech
No Result
View All Result
No Result
View All Result
Breaking Legal News & Current Law Headlines | Daily Legal Briefing
No Result
View All Result
Home Hot Topics

SCOTUS justices who look to ‘advocacy history’ find reasons to undermine precedent

Daily Legal Briefing by Daily Legal Briefing
December 16, 2021
in Hot Topics
0
SCOTUS justices who look to ‘advocacy history’ find reasons to undermine precedent
4
SHARES
32
VIEWS
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter


  1. Home
  2. Daily News
  3. SCOTUS justices who look to ‘advocacy history’…

U.S. Supreme Court

SCOTUS justices who look to ‘advocacy history’ find reasons to undermine precedent

By Debra Cassens Weiss

December 15, 2021, 2:33 pm CST

SCOTUS building with horizon

Image from Shutterstock.

Does the weight and meaning of a U.S. Supreme Court decision turn on the arguments presented beforehand? Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. appeared to suggest that the answer was yes during oral arguments on the constitutionality of a Mississippi abortion law that bans abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

In the Dec. 1 arguments, Roberts suggested that Roe v. Wade could be upheld without its viability dividing line for abortions protected by the Constitution.

“Was viability an issue in the case?” he asked. “I know it wasn’t briefed or argued.”

The New York Times cited that example in a Sidebar column on the increasing role of “advocacy history” in debates over whether an opinion should be overturned.

“Whatever his goal,” the New York Times said of Roberts, “shifting the analysis from the words of the opinion to the advocacy that gave rise to it is a recent development and yet another way to undermine precedents.”

The column looked at a recent article by Richard Lazarus, a professor at Harvard Law School. In a preliminary draft available online, Lazarus argued that a full understanding of a Supreme Court decision requires a look at how the parties argued the case. But he said advocacy history is being used by justices who argue that a prior decision should be overruled or accorded less weight because incomplete or poor advocacy led to a poorly reasoned decision.

Stare decisis “is on the wane at the court,” Lazarus told the New York Times. “And advocacy history plays a role.”

The New York Times provided another example of the way that justices are relying on advocacy history.

In 2008, Justice Antonin Scalia discounted precedent on the meaning of the Second Amendment when he wrote the majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, which found a constitutional right to own a gun as an individual, apart from service in a militia.

Scalia said the defendants “made no appearance in the case, neither filing a brief nor appearing at oral argument; the court heard from no one but the government (reason enough, one would think, not to make that case the beginning and the end of this court’s consideration of the Second Amendment),” citing a 1939 case, United States v. Miller.

Hat tip to How Appealing.





Click to Read Original Article

Previous Post

Do’s And Don’ts On Getting Ready For The End Of The Student Loan Forbearance

Next Post

Law Firms Shouldn’t Lay Off Workers Around The Holidays

Daily Legal Briefing

Daily Legal Briefing

Related Posts

Judge imposes default judgment against former Littler Mendelson client for ‘subversive approach to discovery’
Hot Topics

5th Circuit tells lawyer it is ‘often advisable to read the court’s orders,’ upholds $1,250 sanction

by Daily Legal Briefing
April 12, 2022
Law firm’s managing partner had a ‘fixation’ with employee surveillance, wiretap suit says
Hot Topics

Law firm’s managing partner had a ‘fixation’ with employee surveillance, wiretap suit says

by Daily Legal Briefing
April 12, 2022
Law school applicants are down, for now, for the first time since 2018
Hot Topics

Following a boost in 2021, national average score for February 2022 MBE drops

by Daily Legal Briefing
April 12, 2022
Google violated its ‘don’t be evil’ code when it fired 3 outspoken employees abiding by mandate, suit says
Hot Topics

Google’s ‘privileged’ email labeling, said to prevent lawsuit disclosure, was ‘eyebrow raising,’ judge says

by Daily Legal Briefing
April 11, 2022
New law allows this state’s judges to personally solicit campaign donations; ethics opinion adds wrinkle
Hot Topics

New law allows this state’s judges to personally solicit campaign donations; ethics opinion adds wrinkle

by Daily Legal Briefing
April 11, 2022
Next Post
Law Firms Shouldn’t Lay Off Workers Around The Holidays

Law Firms Shouldn't Lay Off Workers Around The Holidays

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Premium Content

Today's Authors Are Soft

Today's Authors Are Soft

September 2, 2022
It’s Raining In December! Salary Money, That Is

It’s Raining In December! Salary Money, That Is

December 17, 2021
A Remote Work Ethics Roundup

Should Judges And Lawyers Sometimes Violate Legal Ethics To Promote The Public Good?

June 1, 2023

Browse by Category

  • Big Law
  • Breaking
  • Business
  • Hot Topics
  • Law School
  • Legal Tech
  • Small Law

About US

Breaking Legal News & Current Law Headlines | Daily Legal Briefing.
Online coverage of breaking legal news and current law headlines from around the US. Top stories, videos, insight, and in-depth analysis.

Categories

  • Big Law
  • Breaking
  • Business
  • Hot Topics
  • Law School
  • Legal Tech
  • Small Law

Recent Updates

  • Lawyers Who Used ChatGPT To Fake Opinions Are In Real Trouble
  • Clients Should Try Not To Contact Lawyers During Odd Hours
  • Jonathan Turley Rewrites Constitution To Include ‘Congressional Backsies’ Clause

© 2021 Daily Legal Briefing | Breaking Legal News & Current Law Headlines

No Result
View All Result
  • Contact Us
  • Home

© 2021 Daily Legal Briefing | Breaking Legal News & Current Law Headlines

Are you sure want to unlock this post?
Unlock left : 0
Are you sure want to cancel subscription?