How Has the Supreme Court Reshaped American Law?

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-april-3-2012/tom-goldstein Thomas Goldstein has been repeatedly recognized as a leading member of the bar. In 2010, [i]The National Law Journal[/i] named him one of the 40 most influential lawyers of the decade. [i]Legal Times[/i] named him one of the "90 Greatest Washington Lawyers of the Last 30 Years" and praised him for transforming the practice of law before the Supreme Court. He is also included in the [i]National Law Journal[/i]'s current list of the nation's 100 most influential lawyers. He has been repeatedly recognized as one of the nation's top appellate advocates. [i]GQ[/i] Magazine named him one of the 50 most powerful people in Washington, D.C. Mr. Goldstein is an elected Fellow of the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers. He is involved with a number of professional organizations. He serves as the vice chair of the Amicus Committee of the ABA's Intellectual Property Section and previously served for two years on the ABA's Standing Committee on Amicus Curiae Briefs. In those capacities, he has authored several Supreme Court amicus briefs for the ABA. In addition, Tom serves on the boards of advisors of the Washington Legal Foundation and the Georgetown University Supreme Court Institute. Before founding Goldstein & Howe in 1999, he practiced law at Boies & Schiller, LLP and at Jones Day Reavis & Pogue. He left the firm he founded in 2006 to create the Supreme Court Practice at Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, where he also was a partner and principal co-chair of the firmwide litigation practice. He returned to what is now Goldstein & Russell in 2011. He clerked for the Honorable Patricia M. Wald of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. [b]Supreme Court Arguments[/b] Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., April 16, 2011 Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, October 12, 2011 Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., April 26, 2011 Hamilton v. Lanning, June 7, 2010 Republic of Iraq v. Beaty; Republic of Iraq v. Simon, April 20, 2009 Cone v. Bell, December 9, 2008 Jimenez v. Quarterman, November 4, 2008 Virginia v. Moore, January 14, 2008 KSR International v. Teleflex, November 28, 2006 Georgia v. Randolph, November 8, 2005 IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez, October 3, 2005 National Cable and Telecomm. Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Services, March 29, 2005 Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd., February 28, 2005 Smith v. City of Jackson, Miss., November 3, 2004 F. Hoffman-LaRoche, Ltd. v. Empagran S.A., April 26, 2004 Central Laborers' Pension Fund v. Heinz, April 19, 2004 Lamie v. United States Trustee, November 10, 2003 Clay v. United States, January 13, 2003 United States v. Bean, October 16, 2002 Devlin v. Scardelletti, March 16, 2002 Bartnicki v. Vopper, December 5, 2000 Egelhoff v. Egelhoff, November 8, 2000 Norfolk Southern R. Co. v. Shanklin, March 1, 2000 Los Angeles Police Dept. v. United Reporting Publishing Corp., October 13, 1999 Cunningham v. Hamilton County, OH, April 19, 1999 [b]US high court looks at race in college admissions[/b] 10:41 PM, Oct. 8, 2012 Written by MARK SHERMAN Associated Press WASHINGTON Nine years after the Supreme Court said colleges and universities can use race in their quest for diverse student bodies, the justices have put this divisive social issue back on their agenda in the middle of a presidential election campaign. Nine years is a blink of the eye on a court where justices can look back two centuries for legal precedents. But with an ascendant conservative majority, the high court in arguments Wednesday will weigh whether to limit or even rule out taking race into account in college admissions. The justices will be looking at the University of Texas program that is used to help fill the last quarter or so of its incoming freshman classes. Race is one of many factors considered by admissions officers. The rest of the roughly 7,100 freshman spots automatically go to Texans who graduated in the top 8 percent of their high school classes. A white Texan, Abigail Fisher, sued the university after she was denied a spot in 2008. The simplest explanation for why affirmative action is back on the court's calendar so soon after its 2003 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger is that the author of that opinion, Sandra Day O'Connor, has retired. Her successor, Justice Samuel Alito, has been highly skeptical of any use of racial preference. Justice Anthony Kennedy, a dissenter in the 2003 decision, probably holds the deciding vote, and he, too, has never voted in favor of racial preference. "As a result," said Supreme Court lawyer Thomas Goldstein, "No matter what the court does, it is quite likely that the UT program is going to be in big trouble." The challenge to the Texas plan has gained traction in part because the university has produced significant diversity by automatically offering about three-quarters of its spots to graduates in the top 10 percent of their Texas high schools, under a 1990s state law signed by then-Gov. George W. Bush. The program since has been changed so that now only the top 8 percent gain automatic admission. More than eight in ten African-American and Latino students enrolled in Austin last year were automatically admitted, according to university statistics.