Eric Schnapper

Photo of Eric  Schnapper
Betts, Patterson & Mines P.S. Endowed Professorship in Trial Advocacy

Phone: (206) 616-3167

Curriculum Vitae |

  • Nov 28, 2014

    Source: SCOTUSblog

    Stories from a career of Supreme Court advocacy; what one learns about necessary skills and the value of experienced counsel; and just how hard it is to explain how different Supreme Court advocacy is from anything else a lawyer does. (11/28/14)
  • Nov 19, 2014

    Source: SCOTUSblog

    From Yale to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund to legal academe; the value and relation of teaching in class and arguing in court; and a focus on employment law cases. (11/19/14)
  • Nov 12, 2014

    Source: NPR

    The election may be over, but at the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday, the justices grappled with an Alabama case that may have a big impact on the next one. The case tests what kinds of gerrymandering are and are not acceptable under the Constitution. In the past, the court has said that if the primary motive for drawing legislative lines is to limit a race's influence, that's unconstitutional — but if it's to create a partisan advantage, that's OK. The trouble is, it's often hard to tell the difference. (11/12/14)
  • Nov 12, 2014

    Source: The National Law Journal

    Race and voting once again appeared to badly divide the U.S. Supreme Court as it struggled on Wednesday over what to do with an Alabama legislative redistricting plan challenged as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. Read more: (11/12/14)
  • Nov 12, 2014

    Source: C-SPAN

    The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in two consolidated cases, Alabama Democratic Conference v. Alabama and Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, challenging state’s legislative redistricting plan as relying too heavily on racial gerrymandering. The black and Democratic officeholders argued that the new plan packed black voters into existing majority-black voting districts diluting their overall voting power in the state. (11/12/14)
  • Oct 06, 2014

    Source: Bloomberg

    Jesse Busk spent a 12-hour shift rushing inventory through an Inc. (AMZN) warehouse in Nevada to meet quotas. His day wasn’t over, though. After clocking out, Busk and hundreds of other workers went through an airport-style screening process, including metal detectors, to make sure they weren’t stealing from the Web retailer. Getting through the line often took as long as 25 minutes, uncompensated, he and others employed there say. “They did it on my time,” Busk, 37, of Henderson, Nevada, said in an interview. “If people are stuck in your building and they’re not allowed to leave, why don’t you go ahead and pay them?”

    Those allegations are now before the U.S. Supreme Court in a case that could help redefine companies’ reach over hourly workers. On Wednesday, the top court will hear arguments related to a suit brought by Busk seeking compensation for his time in the security lines.
  • Sep 24, 2014

    Source: Law360

    A pending U.S. Supreme Court case that turns on whether former warehouse workers must be paid for time spent on anti-theft security screenings could invite businesses to impose “all kinds of mandatory off-the-clock work” on employees, veteran Supreme Court advocate Eric Schnapper, who represents the plaintiffs, told Law360 in a recent interview.  (9/24/14)

Connect with us:

© Copyright 2015, All Rights Reserved University of Washington School of Law

4293 Memorial Way Northeast, Seattle, WA 98195