Scott Lemieux

Scott Lemieux is an assistant professor of political science at the College of Saint Rose. He contributes to the blogs Lawyers, Guns, and Money and Vox Pop.

Recent Articles

The Supreme Court v. Civil RIghts

The disturbing failure to prosecute alleged rapists in Maryville, Missouri, represents an all-too-common failure of American legal systems. In The Nation , Jill Filipovic has a must-read article highlighting another part of the problem: the Supreme Court. The Court's conservative justices have taken a federal remedy away from sexual-assault victims, in a case that represents a pattern in the Republican war on civil-rights enforcement. As Filipovic details, U.S. v. Morrison resulted from a case in which Virginia Tech student Christy Brzonkala was allegedly raped by two members of the school's football team, one of whom for all intents and purposes conceded that he had nonconsensual sex with Brzonkala. One alleged assaulter was acquitted entirely by the school's disciplinary process. Morrison had a one-year suspension for sexual assault lifted, and then had a one-year suspension under Virginia Tech's Abusive Conduct policy (after the alleged assault he had told Brzonkala "you better not...

The Inevitable Elimination of Affirmative Action in Michigan

Yesterday, the Court heard oral arguments in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action. The case involves a decision by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals to strike down a Michigan constitutional amendment banning the use of racial preferences in higher education. The oral argument did nothing to dispel the nearly universal assumption of court-watchers that the decision will be reversed, although the argument against the amendment has a stronger basis in precedent than it's sometimes been given credit for. Like Slate 's Emily Bazelon , I was skeptical of the 6th Circuit ruling. I very strongly believe that most affirmative-action programs do not violate the Constitution. But arguing that Michigan is constitutionally required to use affirmative-action programs already in place would obviously not be right. The constitutional question is more complex than that, however. There are circumstances in which it is unconstitutional for a state to use a constitutional amendment to...

McCutcheon, the Next Victory for the 1 Percent

AP Photo/Susan Walsh
(AP Photo/J. David Ake) S tarting with Buckley v. Valeo in 1976 and continuing up to the Citizens United decision in 2010, the Supreme Court has repeatedly found that attempts by Congress to restrict campaign finance violate the Constitution. In 2011, a bare majority of the Court found that a public-finance law that didn't suppress speech violated the First Amendment . Based on today's oral argument in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, it is overwhelmingly likely that the Supreme Court will further restrict the ability of Congress to pass campaign-finance restrictions. McCutcheon is a potentially new frontier in constitutional law because it involves campaign donations. In Buckley , the Court held that restrictions on campaign spending faced a high level of First Amendment scrutiny, but legislatures had more leeway to regulate campaign donations . Congress has limited both the size of individual donations (with $2,600 being the current maximum) and the aggregate amount of...

No, Really, Blame John Roberts on Medicaid

The Prospect 's Paul Waldman has a terrific piece noting the terrible effects of states refusing the Medicaid expansion contained in the Affordable Care Act. Slate 's Matt Yglesias notes who should get the blame for this: John Roberts and the other conservative Republican justices who—in an unprecedented decision—ruled that making existing Medicaid money from the federal government contingent on accepting the expansion was unconstitutional. Kevin Drum of Mother Jones , however, argues that we shouldn't blame John Roberts because he was right : I think this is unfair. In fact, there were only two justices who upheld the Medicaid expansion (Ginsburg and Sotomayor). All the rest, including the liberals Breyer and Kagan, struck it down. So it wasn't even a close call. The vote against the Medicaid provision was 7-2. And as much as I dislike the result, I can't find a lot of fault with this. The basic holding was simple: given our federalist structure, states can't be forced to help fund...

How the Shutdown Will Affect the Federal Courts

The government shutdown that began on Monday will have substantial effects on our country's justice system that will escalate over time. For the most part, the basic functions of the federal judiciary will continue during the Republican crusade against affordable health insurance. The Antideficiency Act permits the government's "essential services" to be funded during a shutdown. The Supreme Court, which accepted eight new cases this week, will remain open barring unforeseen circumstances. Since criminal justice is generally considered an essential service, circuit and district courts will remain open and continue to hear criminal cases as well. (The Sixth Amendment's requirement that defendants be given a "speedy and public trial" would mean serious potential problems should the prosecution of criminal cases be suspended for any significant length of time.) So federal judges will generally maintain employment, and courthouse doors will remain open. With respect to other basic...

Pages