Judging A Term By Its Media Advisories
0 Comments Published by Kedar S. Bhatia April 20th, 2009 in Constitutional Law, Court Procedure, Oral Arguments, Supreme CourtThe court issues “media advisories” in the most high-profile cases to give media outlets an opportunity to reserve seating. By that logic then, I could count the number of “media advisories” to measure the number of “high-profile” cases in a given term. The court’s website features advisories as far back as OT04.
| OT04 | 6 | Roper v. Simmons, US v. Booker, Ashcroft v. Raich, Van Orden v. Perry, Kelo v. City of New London, Arthur Anderson v. US |
| OT05 | 4 | Gonzales v. Oregon, Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood, LULAC v. Perry, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld |
| OT06 | 3 | Gonzales v. Carhart, Parents Involved v. Seattle School District No. 1, Massachusetts v. EPA |
| OT07 | 6 | Boumediene v. Bush, Crawford v. Marion County, Baze v. Rees, DC v. Heller, Exxon v. Baker, Kennedy v. Louisiana |
| OT08 | 10 | Winter v. NRDC, Altria Group v. Good, Wyeth v. Levine, FCC v. Fox, Pleasant Grove v. Summum, Philip Morris v. Williams, Ashcroft v. Iqbal, NWAMUDNO v. Holder, Ricci v. DeStefano, Safford v. Redding |
OT06 was considered a particularly contentious term, but you don’t see that from the number of media advisories. I’m surprised not to see advisories for cases like Hein, Ledbetter, and Morse from OT06 and Medellin from OT07.
I’d have to know more about the procedure for issuing these advisories before I draw any other conclusions, but the numbers are pretty interesting.
0 Responses to “Judging A Term By Its Media Advisories”
Please Wait
Leave a Reply