Civil and Human Rights

McDonald v. Chicago: The Case and the 2nd Amendment

Details

Monday, April 5, 2010
4:00 pm
American Constitution Society

On March 2, 2010, the Supreme Court heard arguments for McDonald v. City of Chicago, on the issue of whether—and, if so, how—the Constitution protects against state infringement of the individual right to keep and bear arms recognized by the Court last year in District of Columbia v. Heller. While the case has largely been billed as a Second Amendment case, it could have broad implications for individual rights, including strengthening the foundation of cases like Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas.

The panel will feature guests Joshua Horwitz, Executive Director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Elizabeth Wydra, Chief Counsel of Constitutional Accountability Center, and Alan Gura, of Gura Possessky, who is the lead attorney for McDonald and argued the case before the Supreme Court. The panel will be moderated by Maryland Law Professor Richard Boldt.

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
April 29, 2025

Debate over transgender rights grows more fraught in new Trump era

The Christian Science Monitor
Actions by the Trump administration have been pushing back on transgender inclusion, amid sharp public...
Civil and Human Rights
March 19, 2025

Viewpoint: The North Dakota Constitution’s protections include reproductive autonomy

North Dakota's Grand Forks Herald
The Court should live up to North Dakota’s history as a state with some of...
By: Nargis Aslami
Civil and Human Rights
February 27, 2025

What You Should Know About the Right to Protection in the Trump Era

Washington Monthly
The 14th Amendment was meant to enforce the laws equally, not put vulnerable populations in...
By: David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

Shilling v. Trump

In Shilling v. Trump, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington considered whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.
Civil and Human Rights
February 19, 2025

History of the North Dakota Constitution Amicus Brief in Access Independent Health Services Inc., d/b/a Red River Women’s Clinic v. Wrigley

Center for Reproductive Rights
Amicus is the Constitutional Accountability Center, a think tank and public interest law firm dedicated...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Talbott v. Trump

In Talbott v. Trump, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia considered whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.