2943 SMU Boulevard
Dallas, TX 75205
- Prof. Elise Boddie, Rutgers School of Law-Newark
- Prof. Gail Heriot, University of San Diego Law School
- Jeffrey Rosen, President and Chief Executive Officer, National Constitution Center
In July of 2015, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) announced its final rule on Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing. HUD touts the rule, promulgated under the Fair Housing Act of 1928, as a critical tool to help communities “take significant actions to overcome historic patterns of segregation, achieve truly balanced and integrated living patterns, promote fair housing choice, and foster inclusive communities that are free from discrimination.” Critics charge that the program is a power grab that improperly applies disparate impact analysis and incorrectly views geographic clustering of racial and ethnic minorities as evidence of discrimination and segregation. Our experts discussed the merits of the rule from both law and policy perspectives.
On March 21, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Caetano v. Massachusetts without oral argument.
Jamie Caetano was convicted of violating a Massachusetts law prohibiting possession of stun guns. On appeal, she claimed this law violated the Second Amendment, by infringing her right to possess a stun gun in public for the purpose of self-defense from an abusive ex-boyfriend. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirmed Caetano’s conviction, ruling that stun guns are not eligible for Second Amendment protection.
By a vote of 8-0, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a per curiam opinion vacating the judgment of the Massachusetts court and remanding the case. Citing its 2008 precedent District of Columbia v. Heller, and its 2010 precedent McDonald v. Chicago, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the Massachusetts court’s decision as contradictory of Supreme Court precedent. Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Thomas joined.
To discuss the case, we have Nelson Lund, who is University Professor at George Mason University School of Law.
On Monday, April 18, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in United States v. Texas, which will examine the constitutionality of the President's executive actions on immigration. In addition to complex questions about standing and administrative law, the Court has added a Take Care Clause question to the argument. Our expert attended the oral arguments and offered a summary as well as his analysis.