In his most recent book, “I Dissent: Great Opposing Opinions in Landmark Supreme Court Cases” (Beacon Press 2008), Professor Mark Tushnet offers an anthology of dissenting opinions, putting them in political context and examining their impact on constitutional law.
When the U.S. Supreme Court took up a landmark case on the constitutionality of Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban in March, a trio of Harvard Law students could claim modest credit for helping shape the argument. The students assisted lawyers arguing for preserving the ban in the gun-control case—D.C. v. Heller—as part of their work in a new clinical course this year, Supreme Court and Appellate Litigation.
How should judges interpret ambiguous statutes? Fourteen leading legal scholars — including U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer ’64 — took up that question in a conference at HLS yesterday, occasioned by the publication of a new book, “Statutory Default Rules: How to Interpret Unclear Legislation” (Harvard University Press, 2008) by Professor Einer Elhauge ’86.