Professors Analyze 2013 U.S. Supreme Court Decisions

WASHINGTON, D.C., June 2014 - As the U.S. Supreme Court term drew to a close, American University Washington College of Law faculty were interviewed by local and national media about the high-profile decisions. Read, view, and listen to their analysis below.

In addition, the law school's Summer Program on Law and Government and Health Law and Policy Summer Institute hosted a "Review of the Supreme Court Term" on June 26. View the event webcast.

Lia Epperson

June 27, C-SPAN - Epperson participates in a review of the 2013 U.S. Supreme Court term, hosted by The American Constitution Society for Law and Policy (event pictured above) . Tom Goldstein '95, co-founder of SCOTUSblog, was also a panelist. VIDEO

Epperson on the Court's decision to uphold Michigan's ban on affirmative action: "It does not touch the merits, the constitutionality of race-conscious admissions policies across the country. Because this has been raised to the national level, because there is a spotlight on this, and because those who advocated for this type of ballot initiative in Michigan were successful, I think it does signal to voters across the country who would like to push for similar measures like the one in Michigan, the U.S. Supreme Court decision has given them more fuel to their fire to be able to do so."

Amanda Cohen Leiter

June 23, E&E - Leiter is quoted about the U.S. Supreme Court’s EPA decision. MORE

"I don't think it's unfair to say, EPA lost the power it wanted to wield."



Photograph of Professor Stephen I. Vladeck Stephen I. Vladeck

June 26, CNN - Following the U.S. Supreme Court's abortion clinic ruling, Vladeck discusses the Court's own no-protest regulations. MORE

"The justices didn't have to look too far for examples of other buffer zones raising constitutional concerns."

June 26, ABC - Vladeck breaks down the U.S. Supreme Court's abortion clinic ruling. MORE

“The key fight between the progressive and conservative justices is whether laws like these are specifically targeted at anti-abortion protestors. The compromise at the heart of the Chief Justice’s opinion is in holding that these laws are not so targeted, but that the Massachusetts law is invalid anyway because it is excessive."

June 25, The Washington Post - Vladeck weighs in on the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on cellphone privacy. MORE

“This is a cruise missile across the bow of lawyers defending warrantless search programs."

Stephen Wermiel

July 2, Washington Examiner - After a 2013-14 term with many split or unanimous rulings, Wermiel discusses whether the Court is more unified than in recent years. MORE

"Some of this may be, 'if there’s a bottom line that we can all agree on, even if we’re getting there by different road, let’s do it.'"

June 29, Tampa Bay Times' "" - Wermiel is quoted in an article examining whether the President Obama has a record of exceeding his constitutional authority, ending in rejection of such actions by the U.S. Supreme Court. MORE

"The Supreme Court struck down three of the four because they interfered with federal immigration enforcement, which was defended by the Obama administration to advocate for the laws passed by Congress." (Referring to Arizona v. U.S.)

June 27, Ebru TV - Wermiel discusses the Riley and Aereo decisions. MORE

“You know it’s always interesting when the Supreme Court deals with new technology. You wonder how much they’re going to understand about that technology. This decision sort of suggests that they get it.”

June 27, Hearst TV - Wermiel is interviewed about the Riley v. California decision.

Photograph of Professor William Yeomans William Yeomans

June 26, NPR - Professor Yeomans' comments on the U.S. Supreme Court's abortion clinic decision were featured on "All Things Considered" and "Morning Edition." MORE

"What this means is that there will be revisiting of an awful lot of buffer zones around the country. And so it's going to be more difficult for people who operate clinics."