Ann Althouse | |
|---|---|
 Althouse in 2005 | |
| Born | January 12, 1951 Wilmington, Delaware, U.S. |
| Education | University of Michigan (BFA) New York University (JD) |
| Occupation(s) | Retired law professor, blogger, author |
| Employer | University of Wisconsin–Madison |
| Title | Robert W. & Irma M. Arthur-Bascom Professor of Law |
| Website | althouse |
Ann Althouse (born January 12, 1951) is an American law professor and blogger.
Althouse was raised in Newark and Wilmington, Delaware (and later as a teen in Wayne, New Jersey). She obtained a Bachelor of Fine Arts from the University of Michigan in 1973 and graduated first in her class from the New York University School of Law with a J.D. in 1981. [1]
Althouse clerked for Judge Leonard B. Sand in the Southern District of New York and practiced law in the litigation department of Sullivan & Cromwell. From 1984 to 2016, Althouse taught federal jurisdiction, civil procedure, and constitutional law at the University of Wisconsin Law School, where she was tenured from 1989 until her retirement. [2] She was a visiting professor at Brooklyn Law School for the 2007–08 academic year. A "leading light" in federal courts scholarship, [3] she has written extensively on federalism (her central thesis being the normative value of federalism in protecting individual rights), sovereign immunity and other legal issues. She was the Robert W. & Irma M. Arthur-Bascom Professor of Law at the University of Wisconsin Law School.
Since 2004, she has written an eponymous blog, posting photographs and commentary on law, politics, and popular culture.
Althouse has said that she is pro-choice and opposes overruling Roe v. Wade , [4] but has said that she "do[es] in fact think abortion is wrong. I think most Americans agree with me and think it's wrong, but not the role of government to police." [5] [6]
Althouse voted for George W. Bush in 2004 and Barack Obama in 2008. [7] In January 2009, remarking about Obama, she wrote: "He really is a solid, normal person who remained grounded in the middle of all this craziness. And I like to think that, now that he's President, with his steely nerve, his intelligence, and his groundedness, he'll do the job that must be done. The trickery is over." [8]
In 2009, Althouse announced her engagement to Laurence Meade, a commenter she had met through the blog. The story attracted coverage in the blogosphere and in The New York Times . [7] Althouse and Meade were married in August 2009. [9] It is Althouse's second marriage; she has two adult sons from her first marriage. [7]
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protected a right to have an abortion. The decision struck down many abortion laws, and it sparked an ongoing abortion debate in the United States about whether, or to what extent, abortion should be legal, who should decide the legality of abortion, and what the role of moral and religious views in the political sphere should be. The decision also shaped debate concerning which methods the Supreme Court should use in constitutional adjudication.
Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (1978), is a United States Supreme Court case deciding that Indian tribal courts have no criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians. The case was decided on March 6, 1978 with a 6–2 majority. The court opinion was written by William Rehnquist, and a dissenting opinion was written by Thurgood Marshall, who was joined by Chief Justice Warren Burger. Justice William J. Brennan did not participate in the decision.
Samuel Anthony Alito Jr. is an American jurist who serves as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He was nominated to the high court by President George W. Bush on October 31, 2005, and has served on it since January 31, 2006. After Antonin Scalia, Alito is the second Italian American justice to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Reva B. Siegel is the Nicholas deB. Katzenbach Professor of Law at Yale Law School. Siegel's writing draws on legal history to explore questions of law and inequality, and to analyze how courts interact with representative government and popular movements in interpreting the Constitution. She is currently writing on the role of social movement conflict in guiding constitutional change, addressing this question in recent articles on reproductive rights, originalism and the Second Amendment, the "de facto ERA," and the enforcement of Brown. Her publications include Processes of Constitutional Decisionmaking ; The Constitution in 2020 ; and Directions in Sexual Harassment Law. Professor Siegel received her B.A., M.Phil, and J.D. from Yale University, clerked for Judge Spottswood William Robinson III on the D.C. Circuit, and began teaching at the University of California at Berkeley. She is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and is active in the American Society for Legal History, the Association of American Law Schools, the American Constitution Society, in the national organization and as faculty advisor of Yale's chapter. She was elected to the American Philosophical Society in 2018.
Michael William McConnell is an American jurist who served as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit from 2002 to 2009. Since 2009, McConnell has been a professor and Director of the Stanford Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School. He is also a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, and Senior Of Counsel to the Litigation Practice Group at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati. In May 2020, Facebook appointed him to its content oversight board. In 2020, McConnell published The President Who Would Not Be King: Executive Power under the Constitution under Princeton University Press.
Thomas Eugene Baker is a constitutional law scholar, Professor of Law, and founding member of the Florida International University College of Law. With four decades of teaching experience, Baker has authored eighteen books, including two leading casebooks, has published more than 200 scholarly articles in leading law journals, and has received numerous teaching awards.
Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that certain interim provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act violated the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
David E. Bernstein is an American legal scholar at the George Mason University School of Law in Arlington, Virginia, where he has taught since 1995. His primary areas of scholarly research are constitutional history and the admissibility of expert testimony. Bernstein is a contributor to the legal blog The Volokh Conspiracy. Bernstein is a graduate of the Yale Law School, where he was a John M. Olin Fellow in Law, Economics and Public Policy, a Claude Lambe Fellow of the Institute for Humane Studies, and a senior editor of the Yale Law Journal. He received his undergraduate degree from Brandeis University.
Patrick Errol Higginbotham is an American judge and lawyer who serves as a Senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Mark Victor Tushnet is an American legal scholar. He specializes in constitutional law and theory, including comparative constitutional law, and is currently the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. Tushnet is identified with the critical legal studies movement.
H. L. v. Matheson, 450 U.S. 398 (1981), was a United States Supreme Court abortion rights case, according to which a state may require a doctor to inform a teenaged girl's parents before performing an abortion or face criminal penalty.
Diane Pamela Wood is an American attorney who serves as the director of the American Law Institute and a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School. She previously served as a circuit judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Burt Neuborne is the Norman Dorsen Professor of Civil Liberties at New York University School of Law and the founding legal director of the Brennan Center for Justice.
Michael Wishnie is a Clinical Professor of Law at Yale Law School.
In United States federal courts, a circuit split, also known as a split of authority or split in authority, occurs when two or more different circuit courts of appeals provide conflicting rulings on the same legal issue. The existence of a circuit split is one of the factors that the Supreme Court of the United States considers when deciding whether to grant review of a case. Some scholars suggest that the Supreme Court is more likely to grant review of a case to resolve a circuit split than for any other reason.
Louise Weinberg is an American legal scholar. She is known for her writings on legal theory, due process, and choice of law, and for her groundbreaking 1994 book, a 1200-page study on federal courts.
Harry Thomas Edwards is an American lawyer and jurist serving as a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Adam Winkler is the Connell Professor of Law at the UCLA School of Law. He is the author of We the Corporations: How American Businesses Won Their Civil Rights and Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America. His work has frequently been cited in judicial opinions, including in Supreme Court cases pertaining to the First and Second Amendments.
Jonathan Franklin Mitchell is an American lawyer, academic, and legal theorist who served as the Solicitor General of Texas from 2010 to 2015. He has argued seven cases before the Supreme Court of the United States. Mitchell has served on the faculties of Stanford Law School, the University of Texas School of Law, the George Mason University School of Law, and the University of Chicago Law School. In 2018, he opened a private solo legal practice in Austin, Texas.
Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 24, 1991. The Court held that the petitioner, convicted murderer Roger Keith Coleman, was barred from raising his claims of federal constitutional violations in a federal habeas court, because he had previously procedurally defaulted these claims in state habeas proceedings. This default had occurred because Coleman's lawyers inadvertently filed their notice of appeal three days later than required by the rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia.