In recent years, there have been hundreds of academic articles and scores of books written about class action litigation. The law reviews abound with doctrinal critiques, letters to Congress, moralist manifestos, and economists’ prescriptions for optimized class action rules. Reading it all, one would certainly think that abusive class action litigation is running amok in the United States.

One year shy of the fiftieth anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, the Justices issued another equality ruling that is likely to become a historical landmark. In Lawrence v. Texas, the Court invalidated a state law that criminalized same-sex sodomy. This article contrasts these historic rulings along several dimensions, with the aim of shedding light on how Supreme Court Justices decide cases and how Court decisions influence social reform movements.

The treatment of Establishment Clause challenges to displays of religious symbolism by the Supreme Court and the lower courts is notoriously unpredictable: a crèche is constitutionally acceptable if it is accompanied by a Santa Claus house and reindeer, a Christmas tree, and various circus figures, but unacceptable if it is accompanied by poinsettias, a “peace tree,” or a wreath, a tree, and a plastic Santa Claus. A menorah may be displayed next to a Christmas tree, or next to Kwanzaa symbols, Santa Claus, and Frosty the Snowman, but not next to a crèche and a Christmas tree. A number of commentators have suggested that this disarray can be blamed largely on the chaotic state of the Supreme Court’s Religion Clauses doctrine.

In 1991, Linus Torvalds released the first version of the Linux operating system. Like many other beneficiaries of the subsequent dot-com boom, Torvalds worked on a limited budget. Clad in a bathrobe, clattering away on a computer purchased on credit, subsisting on a diet of pretzels and dry pasta, hiding in a tiny room that was outfitted with thick black shades designed to block out Finland’s summer sun, Torvalds programmed Linux.

After the excitement of getting into the college of her choice wears off, a student may soon wonder how she will pay for her newfound prize. Though higher education is almost always a sound investment given its potentially tremendous return and importance in getting a good job, the cost is daunting—sometimes even prohibitive—for many students. Public undergraduate and graduate schools are an attractive option for many students because of lower tuitions. Yet state universities deny many students the full measure of this benefit.

The central holding of Crawford v. Washington is fairly straightforward: The Confrontation Clause bars the admission of out-of-court testimonial statements unless the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the witness. Crawford, however, has an often overlooked caveat. In renouncing numerous exceptions to the confrontation right, the Court rejected only those that purport to test the reliability of testimonial statements. It left equitable exceptions undisturbed. As the Court pointed out, “[T]he rule of forfeiture by wrongdoing (which we accept) extinguishes confrontation claims on essentially equitable grounds.”