A judicial temperament involves many qualities. For Merrick Garland, patience is one of them.
On April 1, Harvard Law School hosted a conference on ‘Presidential Power in an Era of Polarized Conflict,’ a daylong gathering in which experts from both sides of the aisle debated the president’s power in foreign and domestic affairs, and in issues of enforcement or non-enforcement.
Merrick Garland ’77—President Obama’s pick for the Supreme Court—has been very much involved in the life of Harvard Law School since receiving his degree from HLS nearly four decades ago. Dean Martha Minow described as “an outstanding, meticulous, and thoughtful judge with a superb career of public service.”
In a debate hosted by the Harvard Federalist Society, two constitutional scholars—Harvard Law School Professor Laurence Tribe and Professor Jack Balkin of Yale Law School—debated whether Cruz’s birth in Calgary, Alberta, to a Cuban father and an American mother disqualifies him to serve as president.
Since his 3L year, Wolfson has been arguing for a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
Since at least 1983, when Harvard Law student Evan Wolfson ’83 wrote a third-year paper exploring a human rights argument for same-sex marriage, Harvard Law School has participated in anticipating, shaping, critiquing, analyzing and guiding the long path toward marriage equality.
“Uncertain Justice: The Roberts Court and the Constitution,” an assessment of the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. ’79, written by Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe ’66 and Joshua Matz ’12, has been recognized by the American Bar Association, earning the ABA 2015 Gavel Award Honorable Mention.
Fifty years after the Supreme Court kicked off its line of “right to privacy” cases with Griswold v. Connecticut, which declared unconstitutional a state statute prohibiting couples from using contraceptives, a panel of three Harvard Law professors met to discuss the impact and legacy of the landmark case.
In previous exchanges with my colleagues Jody Freeman and Richard Lazarus, I have explained why EPA’s Clean Power Plan lacks statutory authority and raises serious constitutional questions that would in fact eliminate any claim by EPA to deference for its revisionist reading of the Clean Air Act. In their most recent post, Freeman and Lazarus […]