GW Holds Annual Supreme Court Review

I will be again joining a distinguished panel of experts at George Washington University this morning to kick off the new Term of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court review will convene in the Jacob Burns Moot Court Room of the George Washington Law School at 9 am EDT (13:00 GMT/UTC)  We will be discussing a number of leading cases this term as well as the current Court make-up.

 A livestream will be available via the GW Law Facebook page. A link to more information is available here.

Here is the line up for Thursday morning:


Sherrilyn Ifill
, President and Director-Counsel, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

Kannon K. Shanmugam, Chair, Supreme Court and Appellate Practice and Managing Partner, Washington, DC Office, Paul Weiss

Jonathan Turley, J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law, GW Law

Mark Joseph Stern (Moderator), Legal Analyst and Supreme Court Correspondent, Slate

10 thoughts on “GW Holds Annual Supreme Court Review”

  1. I hope the issue of plaintiffs using the Federal Courts to impede the actions of elected-branch officials will come up.

    Does the Supreme Court not understand how it derails the process of policy negotiation between the House, Senate and WH for political activists to attempt to get Court Orders to interfere with policy? These plaintiffs are NOT ELECTED, nor are the Federal Judges.

  2. Slate and NAACP? Was the Communist Party of America not available?

    Turley calls out Trump weekly for demeaning the Presidency. At least Turley consistently reinfoces the dim view most have of academia.

  3. Distinguished panel? what is the criteria for being invited to join such a strong group? years of faithfully supporting the status quo and deterring progressive ideas using “liberal” interpretation of the Constitution?

  4. Amateur dog walker, lawyer and Slate author Mark Joseph Sten is quite the Leftist. “The Supreme Court has to go” as in away, he once wrote in a woke moment.. He’ll be fair. Right? Chuckle.

    1. Far too much discretion is vested in appellate judges, the federal Supreme Court most of all. The objection of people like Stern is that the appellate courts sometimes refrain from imposing the policies they want. The only notable class of disputes where the courts have actually inhibited policy measures preferred by elected officials would be a selection of measures where gun ownership was restricted. (Well, notionally, you can’t have racial quotas in hiring or college admissions, ha ha ha). It absolutely enrages liberals, even though they have no interest in containing street crime and tend to side with hoodlums contra ordinary people.

Leave a Reply