X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

The justices’ argument sessions this term—top heavy with major cases—seem to be whizzing by nearly as fast as the revolving door at the White House. The March session begins on the 19th and we take a look at a rare Minnesota case that day involving the nearly moribund contract clause. With two high-powered veteran advocates, the case offers the justices a legal pu pu platter of federalism, originalism, and sex discrimination.

This premium content is locked for
Supreme Court Brief subscribers only.

  • Subscribe now to enjoy unlimited access to Supreme Court Brief content,
  • 5 free articles* across the ALM Network every 30 days,
  • Exclusive access to other free ALM publications
  • And exclusive discounts on ALM events and publications.

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?
Interested in customizing your subscription with Law.com All Access?
Contact our Sales Professionals at 1-855-808-4530 or send an email to groupsales@alm.com to learn more.

Tony Mauro

Tony Mauro, based in Washington, covers the U.S. Supreme Court. A lead writer for ALM's Supreme Court Brief, Tony focuses on the court's history and traditions, appellate advocacy and the SCOTUS cases that matter most to business litigators. Contact him at tmauro@alm.com. On Twitter: @Tonymauro

More from this author ›

Marcia Coyle

Marcia Coyle, based in Washington, covers the U.S. Supreme Court. Contact her at mcoyle@alm.com. On Twitter: @MarciaCoyle

More from this author ›

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2018 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.