Josh Blackman’s Supreme Court history series at Reason marks 12 June 1967 as a date of constitutional consequence. The recurring feature, authored by Blackman in his role as constitutional law professor at South Texas College of Law Houston, invites legal readers to revisit pivotal decisions at their annual milestones.
The specific ruling associated with that date is not confirmed in the available research materials. Without a verified source for the citation, no case name or holding is attributed here.
Blackman’s Role in Constitutional Education
Josh Blackman brings considerable academic weight to the series. Beyond his South Texas professorship, he serves as an Adjunct Fellow at the Manhattan Institute and has testified before Congress, advising federal and state lawmakers on constitutional questions.
His scholarly output spans more than seven dozen law review articles, cited more than a thousand times in legal literature. His book An Introduction to Constitutional Law reached the top five on Amazon’s bestseller list, reflecting an audience well beyond law school seminar rooms.
Blackman founded the Harlan Institute, which runs the Virtual Supreme Court competition, giving students a structured arena to argue constitutional issues before simulated judicial panels. He also founded FantasySCOTUS, billed as the internet’s premier Supreme Court fantasy league, in which participants predict case outcomes across an entire court term.
The Supreme Court History Series in Context
The ‘Today in Supreme Court History’ feature fits squarely within that educational mission. By anchoring constitutional reflection to specific calendar dates, it builds a cumulative record of how the court’s jurisprudence has developed across successive generations of justices.
For practitioners and law students, anniversary features of this kind carry practical value. They prompt reconsideration of whether a ruling’s reasoning has aged well, whether subsequent decisions have refined or undermined its authority, and what live constitutional questions remain unresolved in its wake.
The next instalment in the series will carry the same purpose: a prompt, not a lecture, inviting readers to locate the judgment, read it, and reach their own conclusions.
