• Summary
  • Contents
  • Subject index

Acclaimed by researchers, students, and general readers, this informative, lively, and easy-to-use volume fills the public need for information about key recent and historical cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. Now significantly updated, this new edition includes all the new major cases-over twenty five in total-handed down by the Court since the first edition was published in 2000. The new entries include many high-profile cases that have stirred public controversy, including: Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000), granting the right to exclude homosexuals from leadership positions in the Boy Scouts; Bush v. Gore (2000), ceasing ballot recounts in the 2000 presidential election; PGA Tour v. Martin (2001), obliging the PGA to accommodate a disabled golfer; Lawrence v. Texas (2003), stating that a law criminalizing same-sex sodomy violates due process; Gratz/Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), stating that an affirmative action program to achieve diversity in universities may or may not violate the equal protection clause, depending on how it's implemented. In each of the over 100 cases summarized, author Tony Mauro succinctly describes the decision, provides background and facts of the case, the vote and highlights of the decision with verbatim excerpts, and, in conclusion, discusses the long-term impact of the decision on United States citizens and U.S. society. Topic search aids let readers easily trace the evolution and impact of rulings in particular issue areas. Added features also enhance the volume, including many new portraits, political cartoons, and drawings, a comprehensive bibliography and an easy-to-access case/subject index. A perfect starting point for research on Supreme Court decisions, this newly updated volume is an essential addition to every public, high school, and college library.

Introduction
Introduction

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor spoke with little emotion on June 28, 2004, when she announced the Supreme Court's historic decision in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. “A state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation's citizens,” O'Connor stated matter-of-factly in one of four decisions issued that day stemming from the United States’ “war on terror.”

The decision made headlines worldwide and no doubt confounded foreign readers. How could the United States’ highest court, in the middle of a war, repudiate the position of the commander-in-chief on the detention of so-called “enemy combatants”? Not many of the world's governments would have tolerated such second-guessing in wartime.

But for O'Connor and the Supreme Court, it was all in ...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles