Recently in Civil Rights Law Category

Habeas corpus. It seemed so important in law school — those halcyon days when you thought you would spend your career fighting for civil liberties — but years of bankruptcy/M&A/insurance defense/family law hearings make habeas irrelevant to most lawyers. For many of us, habeas corpus remains a lofty principle rather than a part of practice.

(Because the U.S. government doesn’t just lock an American up for months without due process, right?)

After 9/11, lawyers and policy makers began debating whether the standard rights of the accused, including habeas, should apply to suspected terrorists. An increasingly vocal segment of the population championed the idea that national security trumped civil liberties. Anthony Gregory, a Research Fellow at the Independent Institute, was troubled by post 9/11 detention policy — particularly the 2006 Military Commissions Act and activity at Guantanamo — so he set out to write a policy paper on habeas corpus.

The Supreme Court disposed of two more matters on its to-do list this morning, but it only issued one opinion.

Today, we have a unanimous opinion in McBurney v. Young and a DIG in Boyer v. Louisiana.

Let’s discuss what happened.

Lewis and Clark Law School Dean Robert Klonoff has an impressive résumé. According to the school’s website, he graduated from Yale Law School, clerked for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and worked as an Assistant to the Solicitor General. He’s even argued before the Supreme Court eight times.

But he clearly doesn’t know that first thing about Supreme Court press policies.

The Supreme Court doesn't care about Internet memes or mass protests. The Justices aren't influenced by messages projected on the Court's darkened columns or Facebook profile pictures. The Court cares about standing.

And now, a lot of other people do, too.

Standing is finally a hot topic because the outcomes in the Proposition 8 and Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) cases could turn on a simple procedural issue: Can the Court even rule on the merits?

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in Hollingsworth v. Perry. In Hollingsworth, the Court is considering whether California's Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and whether the Court should even decide the case at all. Don't get your hopes up for a sweeping proclamation in favor of gay marriage; the Court seems hesitant to give such a "new" concept the go-ahead, Reuters reports.

But that's not necessarily an indication of how the Court will proceed in the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) challenge, U.S. v. Windsor .

On Wednesday, the focus will shift to Windsor, in which the Court will mull whether DOMA Section 3 is unconstitutional.

For the rest of the week, and most likely the rest of the 2012 Term, the same sex marriage cases will be the most popular legal topic in America.

Before we spend the rest of the year debating what these cases mean in the greater context of the civil rights debate, let’s review the issues that we’re going to hear on this week, starting with Hollingsworth v. Perry.

On Tuesday, March 26, the justices will hear oral arguments in Hollingsworth, also known as the Proposition 8 challenge. Prop 8 was 2008 California ballot initiative limiting marriage to one man and one woman.

Anyone who has watched 'Law & Order' can recite the Miranda rights.

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say or do can be held against you. You have a right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you...

Attorneys may get second-billing on television dramas, but the right to an attorney is pretty damn important. And Gideon v. Wainwright -- the case that established that right in state non-capital trials -- turns 50 today.

The same sex marriage cases before the Supreme Court this month feature of lot of legal star power. David Boies and Ted Olson — the attorneys who famously faced off in Bush v. Gore — are leading a bipartisan challenge to California's Proposition 8. Paul Clement, one of the leading litigators of our time, is defending the Defense of Marriage Act.

We knew these cases would be full of interesting twists and turns, but we didn't expect any twists or turns from the amicus briefs. Well, color us wrong.

Here are five surprising amicus briefs in the same sex marriage cases.

The Supreme Court ruled against Amnesty International and a delinquent debtor this morning, dispelling any misconceived notions that the plight of the little guy can melt the cold heart of justice.

In two split decisions, the Court decided journalists, lawyers and human rights groups cannot challenge a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) amendment, and that a woman who defaulted on her student loans owes court costs after bringing a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) claim against a debt collector.

The Supreme Court has a bold docket this year. Civil rights isn't a topic for the timid, but the Court has taken on several civil rights cases this term.

In October, the Court heard oral arguments about the continued need for affirmative action in public universities. In March, the justices will mull constitutional protections for same sex couples. On February 27, the Court will consider whether the Voting Rights Act is still necessary. The Court's decisions -- especially if the cases consistently rule in favor of or against extending civil rights protections -- could define the Roberts Court.