U of M crowdsourcing project transcribes Supreme Court justices’ handwritten notes

If you have ever wanted to be a fly on the wall during deliberations by U.S. Supreme Court justices or travel back in time to witness Supreme Court decisions, a new crowdsourcing project led by researchers at the University of Minnesota and Michigan State University allows you to do just that.

The project, named SCOTUS Notes, is the newest citizen science project under the Zooniverse platform originated at the University of Minnesota.

Chief Justice

My understanding is that some time in the 19th century the Chief Justice's formal title changed from Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States to Chief Justice of the United States. Can anyone point me to any articles, books, etc discussing this matter?

Thank you,

Seth

Chief Justice

My understanding is that some time in the 19th century the Chief Justice's formal title changed from Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States to Chief Justice of the United States. Can anyone point me to any articles, books, etc discussing this matter?

Thank you,

Seth

Private clients of Attorney General Edmund Randolph circa 1791 to 1792

In the period 1791-1792, Attorney General Randolph had several private parties as clients. Such clients were involved in federal court cases and apparently also in state court cases. Such cases included:

Vanstophorst v MD (1791) -- Supreme Court of the United States

GA v Brailsford (1792) -- Supreme Court of the United States

Hayburn's Case (1792) -- Supreme Court of the United States

Schenck v. United States

The Supreme Court of the United States upheld the Espionage Act of 1917, sentencing Socialist activist Charles Schenck to prision for six months. Schenck had been distributing anti-war pamphlets in New York City to men eligible for the draft, encouraging them to resist conscription. He was sentence with the criminal offense of attempting to obstruct the draft. 

Image Credit: Library of Congress

Bain News Service, publisher

BARRON v. BALTIMORE (1833): Did the state or city relent and compensate Barron? (Paul Finkelman)

Paul Finkelman has asked R. B. Bernstein to post this question:
 

I recall that after Barron v. Baltimore that the city or state actually compensated him; does anyone know if that is true?

Paul Finkelman

Senior Fellow, University of Pennsylvania Program on Democracy, Citizenship, and Constitutionalism

Subscribe to RSS - U.S. Supreme Court