Leigh Ann Benson

January 11, 2018 | The Legal Intelligencer

The Supreme Court has again been asked to resolve a closely watched dispute involving discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The court heard oral argument in December in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which, unlike prior challenges in this area, involves the First Amendment.

By Stephen A. Miller and Leigh Ann Benson

5 minute read

November 09, 2017 | The Legal Intelligencer

The Supreme Court is preparing to make a ruling that could effectively open the doors to legalized sports gambling. In Christie v. NCAA, the court will decide whether a federal statute that requires states to prohibit sports gambling violates the anti-commandeering doctrine of the Tenth Amendment.

By Stephen A. Miller and Leigh Ann Benson

5 minute read

December 07, 2016 | The Legal Intelligencer

Imagine that a church in your ­neighborhood caught fire. Could anyone seriously argue that it would violate the Establishment Clause to allow city firefighters to fight the blaze? Would it, in fact, ­violate the Free Exercise and Equal Protection Clauses not to offer such assistance simply because the burning building in question was a church? That is the powerful analogy employed by a Missouri church—which luckily was not engulfed in flames—in a case to be heard by the Supreme Court in the coming months.

By Stephen A. Miller 
and Leigh Ann Benson

8 minute read

April 26, 2016 | The Legal Intelligencer

Police officers often ask drivers suspected of drunken driving to submit to a Breathalyzer test. In Minnesota and 12 other states, however, a driver's ­refusal to submit to that test is an independent criminal offense. The U.S. Supreme Court is set to decide this spring whether those laws violate the Fourth Amendment by depriving individuals of their right to be protected from unlawful searches and seizures.

By Stephen A. Miller
and Leigh Ann Benson

12 minute read

November 12, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

Article III of the Constitution is the gatekeeper of the federal courts. One of Article III's limitations on federal jurisdiction is the standing doctrine—in short, the requirement that any litigant be able to demonstrate that he or she has been injured in some way. Under longstanding U.S. Supreme Court precedent, a plaintiff must have suffered a harm that is actual, distinct and concrete in order to have standing. An attenuated or hypothetical injury is insufficient and does not constitute an "injury-in-fact."

By Stephen A. Miller and Leigh Ann Benson

5 minute read

November 11, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

Article III of the Constitution is the gatekeeper of the federal courts. One of Article III's limitations on federal jurisdiction is the standing doctrine—in short, the requirement that any litigant be able to demonstrate that he or she has been injured in some way. Under longstanding U.S. Supreme Court precedent, a plaintiff must have suffered a harm that is actual, distinct and concrete in order to have standing. An attenuated or hypothetical injury is insufficient and does not constitute an "injury-in-fact."

By Stephen A. Miller and Leigh Ann Benson

5 minute read

June 30, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

By now, everyone has heard or read or about the unfortunate cyberhack involving the movie "The Interview." Starring one of Hollywood's favorite comedic duos, James Franco and Seth Rogen, the movie turned out to be anything but a laughing matter.

By David J. Walton and Leigh Ann Benson

8 minute read

June 29, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

By now, everyone has heard or read or about the unfortunate cyberhack involving the movie "The Interview." Starring one of Hollywood's favorite comedic duos, James Franco and Seth Rogen, the movie turned out to be anything but a laughing matter.

By David J. Walton and Leigh Ann Benson

8 minute read

February 12, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

The U.S. Supreme Court has an opportunity to overhaul its First Amendment jurisprudence in a case involving street signs in Arizona. For many years, the court has applied the First Amendment's protection—"Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech"—with different levels of rigor depending on the type of speech involved.

By Stephen A. Miller and Leigh Ann Benson

6 minute read

February 12, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

The U.S. Supreme Court has an opportunity to overhaul its First Amendment jurisprudence in a case involving street signs in Arizona. For many years, the court has applied the First Amendment's protection—"Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech"—with different levels of rigor depending on the type of speech involved.

By Stephen A. Miller and Leigh Ann Benson

6 minute read