The Road from Janus to Roe: What the Supreme Court’s Disregard of Precedent Could Mean for All of Us

07/17/18 • 57 min

Hours before Justice Kennedy announced his retirement, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Janus v. AFSCME, overturning a 40-year-old precedent that had served as the bedrock of American labor law and demonstrating what Justice Kagan described in her dissent as “little regard for the usual principles of stare decisis.” What does this disregard for stare decisis mean as we evaluate President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee? Join ACS for a briefing that will provide an overview of the Janus decision, forecast what’s next for American workers, and place the decision in the larger context of what the decision may mean for other long-established precedents that Americans have come to rely upon, including Roe v. Wade.

Previous Episode

The Special Counsel, Executive Power, and the Nomination of Brett Kavanaugh

As the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election continues, its critics have levied a number of constitutional claims against it that are highly disputed, increasing the likelihood that the Supreme Court will ultimately have to resolve such legal disagreements. Questions of executive power therefore must play a central role in the evaluation of the qualifications and suitability of President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. On Thursday, July 12, 2018, the American Constitution Society held a briefing addressing the legality of the special counsel’s investigation, the constitutional scope of executive power, and how to thoroughly question the nominee’s views on these subjects. Speakers: Prof. Victoria Nourse, Georgetown Law Prof. Neil Kinkopf, Georgia State Law Debra Perlin, American Constitution Society

Next Episode

Game Changer: Brett Kavanaugh, Presidential Power, and the Mueller Investigation

On August 23, ACS held a conference call on the new publication authored by Professor Neil Kinkopf and released by ACS and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), The Implications for the Mueller Investigation of Confirming Judge Brett Kavanaugh, which addresses: (1) Can a President commit obstruction of justice with impunity?; (2) Can a President defy a grand jury subpoena for testimony?; (3) May the President terminate a Department of Justice investigation of the President himself?; (4) May the President fire Special Counsel Robert Mueller; (5) May the President pardon himself? The conviction of President Trump’s former campaign manager and the guilty plea of his former lawyer that directly implicated Trump in criminal activity, several Senators appropriately called for a delay in the confirmation hearings of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, who has expressed some concerning views of executive power. Featured Speakers: Caroline Fredrickson, President, American Constitution Society Neil Kinkopf, Professor of Law, Georgia State University