This book presents comprehensive summaries and clearly focused analyses of virtually all U.S. Supreme Court decisions on libel and privacy since 1964. The author goes beyond the obligatory outline and review of each case and presents the full arguments, often verbatim, of the justices. He presents each case in a broad based yet comprehensive summary allowing the reader to review and understand not just isolated and disjunctive points of law, but the case in its entirety. Covering such cases as the landmark Times v. Sullivan (1964) and the provocative and timely flag burning case of Texas v. Johnson (1989) this book is ideal for students of journalism, especially as a reference for courses in media law. Anyone interested in privacy and First Amendment issues will find The Supreme Court and the Mass Media a source of stimulating ideas. The case summaries are divided into six sections: historical background and legal context; immediate circumstances; narrative summary of the Court's opinion; ruling; narrative summary of concurring and dissenting opinions; significance of the case. The book places each case in its historical and legal context, often connecting particular issues to past and future decisions. More often than not the summaries of the decisions include the Court's own words allowing the reader an objective review.

These essays discuss US policy in regulating the media and the reconciliation of the First Amendment.

The U.S. Supreme Court is a public policy battleground in which organized interests attempt to etch their economic, legal, and political preferences into law through the filing of amicus curiae ("friend of the court") briefs. In Friends of the Supreme Court: Interest Groups and Judicial Decision Making, Paul M. Collins, Jr. explores how organized interests influence the justices' decision making, including how the justices vote and whether they choose to author concurrences and dissents. Collins presents theories of judicial choice derived from disciplines as diverse as law, marketing, political science, and social psychology. This theoretically rich and empirically rigorous treatment of decision-making on the nation's highest court, which represents the most comprehensive examination ever undertaken of the influence of U.S. Supreme Court amicus briefs, provides clear evidence that interest groups play a significant role in shaping the justices' choices.

In The Supreme Court and Local Public Opinion, Valerie Hoekstra looks at reactions to Supreme Court decisions in the local communities where the controversies began. She finds considerable media coverage of these cases and a highly informed local populace. While the rulings did not have a significant impact on how citizens felt about the issues in these cases, the rulings did have an important effect on how citizens felt about the Court. The evidence Hoekstra uses comes from a series of two-wave panel studies conducted prior to and following the Supreme Court's decisions. This book provides important insights into how the public learns about Supreme Court decisions and how support for the Court is incrementally gained and lost as it announces its decisions.

In The Supreme Court and Constitutional Democracy John Agresto traces the development of American judicial power, paying close attention to what he views as the very real threat of judicial supremacy. Agresto examines the role of the judiciary in a democratic society and discusses the proper place of congressional power in constitutional issues. Agresto argues that while the separation of congressional and judicial functions is a fundamental tenet of American government, the present system is not effective in maintaining an appropriate balance of power. He shows that continued judicial expansion, especially into the realm of public policy, might have severe consequences for America's national life and direction, and offers practical recommendations for safeguarding against an increasingly powerful Supreme Court. John Agresto's controversial argument, set in the context of a historical and theoretical inquiry, will be of great interest to scholars and students in political science and law, especially American constitutional law and political theory.

Examines the relationship between the president and the Supreme Court, including how presidents view the norm of judicial independence.