"Created Equal: Clarence Thomas in His Own Words," which tells the story of Clarence Thomas's journey from poverty and segregation in the South to the Supreme Court, debuted on national television last week. To mark the occasion, our panelists—former law clerks for Justice Thomas and the author of Understanding Clarence Thomas: The Jurisprudence of Constitutional Restoration—discuss his nearly thirty years on the Court, his approach to the law, and how his earlier life has shaped his jurisprudence.
On Thursday, May 21, at 1:00 p.m. EDT, the Committee for Justice will host a virtual panel on Justice Clarence Thomas and the interplay between his early life and judicial philosophy, in time for this week’s national TV release of the documentary “Created Equal: Clarence Thomas in His Own Words.” Committee for Justice President Curt Levey will moderate the discussion, led by Erik Jaffe of Schaerr Jaffe, Ralph Rossum of Claremont McKenna College and Carrie Severino of the Judicial Crisis Network.
Ashley Baker discusses the impact of two recent Supreme Court decisions that have produced a “sea change in intellectual property litigation” as well as a “a serious challenge to software patentability” on the issue of exposing confidential trade secrets.
In a Federalist Society podcast, Ashley Baker and Jennifer Huddleston discuss the implications of [Carpenter v. United States], in which the Supreme Court decided that the warrant-less seizure of the plaintiff’s cell phone records violated his Fourth Amendment rights.
At the Committee for Justice, Craig Trainor urges the court to hear Asaro v. United States, which asks whether basing a defendant’s sentence on conduct underlying a charge for which the defendant was acquitted violates the Constitution.
At The Federalist Society blog, Ashley Baker remarks that Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s opinion in Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, the court held that a private nonprofit that runs a public-access TV channel is not a “state actor” and therefore cannot be sued for violating the First Amendment, "notably declined — despite clear opportunities — to opine on online speech."
In an op-ed for Fox News, Curt Levey suggests that progressives may be “aggressively pushing restructuring schemes” for the Supreme Court in order to motivate Chief Justice John Roberts “to distance himself from the Supreme Court’s conservative bloc in an attempt to alleviate the pressure coming from the left.”
At The Committee for Justice blog, Ashley Baker writes that "many of the initial reactions" to Monday’s decision in Apple v. Pepper, in which the court held that a lawsuit against Apple by iPhone users who allege that Apple is violating federal antitrust laws by requiring them to buy apps only from the company’s App Store can go forward...