2013 U.S. Supreme
Court Preview
Sarah Edson, Esq.
Mullen High School
edson@mullenhigh.com
Agenda
• Previous term
• Background: Fisher v. University of Texas
• Background: Florida v. Jardines
• Moot Court Activity
• Classroom Materials
• Other cases to watch
Current Court
• Chief Justice John Roberts, Bush (2005)
• Antonin Scalia, Reagan (1986)
• Anthony Kennedy, Reagan (1988)
• Clarence Thomas, Bush (1991)
• Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Clinton (1993)
• Stephen Breyer, Clinton (1994)
• Samuel Alito, Jr., Bush (2006)
• Sonia Sotomayor, Obama (2009)
• Elena Kagan, Obama (2010)
Supreme Court 2011-2012
• Number of merit opinions:
• Number from state courts:
• Number from federal circuit courts:
• Of the federal courts, which circuit had the
highest number?
• http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wpcontent/uploads/2012/06/SB_scorecard_OT11_final.pdf
• Which two justices had the highest agreement rate?
• Which two justices had the lowest agreement rate?
• Of the merit opinions, how many were 9-0?
• How many were 5-4?
• Of the 5-4 decisions, which justice was in the
majority the most?
• Who authored the most opinions (total)?
• Who authored the most 9-0 decisions?
• Which majority opinion author had the fewest
number of days between argument and opinion?
• Which Justice had the highest average number
of questions?
• Which Justice had the highest frequency as the
first questioner?
Last year’s cases
• U.S. v. Jones: Unanimous decision that the use of
the GPS on a person’s car constituted a search
and unconstitutional without a warrant
• Florence v. Burlington: 5-4 decision –
suspicionless searches of inmates can be
reasonable regardless of the offense
Fisher v. University of Texas
• Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 1978
• Med School admissions policy:
• Regular admissions program
• “special” program for candidates who identified as
minority – 16 spots in program reserved
• Supreme Court said program was a race-based
classification and therefore applied strict scrutiny test
• Is the classification absolutely necessary to meet a
compelling state interest?
• Court said no – held that race can be a “plus” but can’t
be only factor and quotas are not valid
• Gratz v. Bollinger, 2003
• University of Michigan undergrad admissions policy
(1995) had number of seats reserved for minorities
• 1998 policy changed to a 150-point selection index
where various factors (including race/ethnicity)
earned a candidate points
• Court (6-3) decision held that both policies were
unconstitutional – process not individualized but
rather mechanical
• Majority: Rehnquist, O’Connor, Scalia, Kennedy,
Thomas, Breyer
• Dissent: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg
• Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003
• University of Michigan Law School admissions
policy considered race as a factor in deciding a
student’s acceptance
• Court (5-4) held that student body diversity is a
compelling state interest – a “critical mass” of
students from underrepresented groups can enrich
classroom discussion, produce cross-racial
understanding, and break down racial stereotypes
• Law school admissions policy upheld
• Majority: O’Connor, Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg,
Breyer
• Dissent: Rehnquist, Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas
Florida v. Jardines
• U.S. v. Place, 1982
• Dog sniff search of luggage at airport detected drugs
• Court (9-0) held that dog sniff is not a search
• Kyllo v. U.S., 2000
• Thermal imaging of home detected areas of home
were hotter than others, consistent with cultivation of
marijuana
• Court (5-4) held that the use of thermal imaging was
a search and therefore presumptively unreasonable
without a warrant
• Majority: Scalia, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer
• Dissent: Rehnquist, Stevens, O’Connor, Kennedy
• Illinois v. Caballes, 2004
• During a traffic stop a drug-detection dog alerted
the officer to presence of marijuana in car
• Court (6-2) upheld the search
• Majority: Stevens, O’Connor, Scalia, Kennedy,
Thomas, Breyer
• Dissent: Souter, Ginsburg
At your tables
• One case per table
• Identify Petitioner’s arguments
• Identify Respondent’s arguments
• Identify potential questions from Justices
Classroom Materials
• http://www.streetlaw.org/en/newsroom/Article/322
/2012_NCSS_Workshop_Materials
• www.landmarkcases.org
• www.oyez.org
• www.scotusblog.com
• http://www.streetlaw.org/en/programs/supreme_co
urt_summer_institute_for_teachers