Justice Brennan,Justice Harlan and New York Times co. v. Sullivan: A case study in supreme court decision making

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan is arguably the most important free speech case ever decided by the Supreme Court. This case, the Court's first substantive treatment of libel law, delineated a new approach toward the treatment of free speech. Because the Court attempts to present a unified front when it cuts broad swaths in the law, a unanimous or near‐unanimous opinion was very important in Times v. Sullivan.For a time in the deliberations, however, it appeared that Justice William Brennan would not win even a bare majority for his propositions. This article examines the deliberations in the case, providing not only a renewed understanding of the importance of Times v. Sullivan, but also giving a rare glimpse of how the Court operates and how process affects result.     

Lochner v. New York and the Challenge of Legal Historiography

This essay reviews three works addressing the famous case Lochner v. New York: David E. Bernstein, Rehabilitating Lochner: Defending Individual Rights Against Progressive Reform (2011); Howard Gillman, The Constitution Besieged: The Rise and Demise of Lochner Era Police Powers (1992); and Victoria Nourse, “A Tale of Two Lochners: The Untold History of Substantive Due Process and the Idea of Fundamental Rights” (2009). The author argues that a comparison of these three works raises historiographic issues relating to legal historians’ deployment of assumptions about the continuity of legal development, the role of key actors or social forces, and the autonomy of legal development in relation to other societal events. Further, the essay argues that there is a tendency toward “law school historiography,” referring to the selection of historiographic approach to suit a preconceived jurisprudential narrative that appears when the subject is the history of legal and, especially, constitutional doctrine.     

Anatomy of an ADA case. Chatoff v. City of New York

This article addresses plaintiff and defense strategies in the context of an ADA case and is intended to serve as a ready reference to employer's counsel when faced with ADA litigation. In an ADA case, it is essential that counsel humanize the employer by keeping the "Our Business Supports Diversity" theme before the trier of facts at all times. This theme should be accompanied by the proposition that plaintiff's demands are not reasonable because they impose an undue burden on the employer or a risk to the safety of the employee or others in the workplace. It is also crucial for defense counsel to become familiar with the plaintiff's attorney's strategic considerations. ADA litigation strategy is illustrated by reference to Chatoff v. City of New York, a landmark ADA case instituted on behalf of the approximately 200,000 hearing-impaired residents of the City of New York, demanding equal and direct access to Emergency 911 services.