Monday’s technical hearing about the Fair Credit Reporting Act exposed one of the biggest debates about the modern Supreme Court: What should be done about precedents that rely on methodologies that have become unfavored?
The court appeared closely divided during the hour-and-a-half-long hearing, which I covered here. Unlikely to generate much media attention, the case nevertheless provided a window into the competing jurisprudential ideologies of the justices far beyond the labels of “conservative” or “liberal.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
