Illuminating continuity and change in Supreme Court decisions

Evolving Constitutional Rights: The Roberts Court and Criminal Justice offers a compelling and in-depth analysis of how the U.S. Supreme Court has reshaped constitutional protections under Chief Justice John Roberts. Authors Christopher E. Smith, Michael A. McCall, and Madhavi M. McCall examine the Court’s significant decisions from 2005 to Justice Breyer’s retirement in 2022, revealing a complex judicial landscape where traditional doctrines are revised and fundamental rights are redefined.

The Roberts Court played a decisive role in some of the most contentious issues in American law. Due to several justices’ application of originalist interpretations, its rulings have reconfigured key constitutional protections—often in ways that expand the authority of law enforcement while constraining legislative power over criminal statutes. The trajectory of the Court’s conservative supermajority raises pressing questions about the future of constitutional rights.

Taking a rigorous yet accessible approach, Evolving Constitutional Rights breaks down the Court’s influence across the full spectrum of criminal justice issues, from sentencing and trial rights to search-and-seizure protections, Miranda warnings, and corrections policies. Using both legal and empirical analysis, the authors track patterns in judicial ideology, uncovering how the Roberts Court has not only reinforced conservative principles but also unexpectedly broadened rights in areas such as digital privacy and defense counsel obligations.

This timely and insightful book goes beyond historical rulings to offer a forward-looking perspective on the Supreme Court’s role in shaping public safety, legal precedent, and the balance of power in American government. Essential reading for legal scholars, policymakers, and anyone concerned with the future of constitutional rights, this new volume provides a clear and authoritative examination of the Roberts Court’s lasting impact on American law.

A highly original account of the role that fear plays in key First Amendment cases ruled on by the Roberts Supreme Court

In Fear and the First Amendment, Kevin A. Johnson and Craig R. Smith offer a deeply considered examination of the ways fear figures in First Amendment questions ruled on by the contemporary Supreme Court. Bringing together literature on theories of fear in rhetorical and philosophical traditions, Johnson and Smith focus on the rulings from the Roberts Court, which form a pivotal era of dramatic precedents. Each chapter in this book analyzes one or more First Amendment cases and a variety of related fears—whether evidentiary or not—that pertain to a given case.

These cases include Morse v. Frederick, which takes up the competing fears of school administrators’ loss of authority and students’ loss of free speech rights. The authors touch on corporate funding of elections in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, from the fear of corporate influence on electoral politics to corporate fears of alienating their consumers by backing political candidates. They explore religious freedom and fears of homosexuality in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez. Similarly, in Snyder v. Phelps, the authors delve further into fears of God, death, emotional distress, failing as a parent, and losing one’s reputation. Next, they investigate parents’ anxieties about violence in video games in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association. Finally, Johnson and Smith examine the role of fear in indecent, obscene, and graphic communication in three cases: FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, and United States v. Stevens.

Together these cases reveal fear to be an endemic factor in the rhetoric of First Amendment cases. This fascinating and original work will appeal to current legal practitioners and students of law, rhetoric, philosophy, and the First Amendment.