Basics: The Supreme Court case that will be closely followed and reviewed for class this semester is Madigan v. Levin. This is a case from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Lisa Madigan is the petitioner and Harvey N. Levin is the respondent. On Monday, March 18, 2013, the case was granted and on Monday, October 7, 2013, it was argued. (OYEZ, Inc., 2013) Facts of the Case: This is an age discrimination case. On September 5, 2000, Harvey N. Levin was hired as an assistant district attorney in Illinois, but was then fired just under six years later on May 12, 2006. Since Levin was over sixty years old , Levin believed this dismissal was because of her gender and age. To support Levin's point of view, a lawyer in her thirties was hired to replace him. This led Levin to sue under the Age Discrimination Employment Act (ADEA), the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, against the State of Illinois, Lisa Madigan, Illinois Attorney General, and four other attorney general employees. . (OYEZ, Inc., 2013)The defendant moved to dismiss the case, but the district court had initially ruled that the ADEA granted qualified immunity for the proceedings and the case was assigned to another judge of the district court. This district court held that Levin was unable to pursue these claims because he was not an employee for the covered purposes. Some states are immune from damages caused by the ADEA, but due to discrimination, the Equal Protection Clause could be violated, which could lead to states being held liable for damages. (OYEZ, Inc., 2013)Judgment:After following this case for most of the semester, it was difficult to think exactly what the Supr...... middle of paper ...... end, Judge Antonin Scalia said what one might assume the entire Court was thinking: "We do not like to dismiss a case as being granted unexpectedly, and... only when -- when the case is before us, the lawyer suddenly finds all kinds of reasons why we should "I didn't take it in the first place. You should have told us before you took it. (OYEZ, Inc., 2013), which led to the official dismissal of the Madigan v. Levin case Before even presenting the case, the lawyer should have done all the research possible. Plenty of information could have been presented to support both sides, as the judges stated. , but the lawyers continued to go around in circles and apparently had no idea how to make their case. Works Cited OYEZ, Inc. (September 12, 2013). Madigan v. Levin. HEAR. Retrieved from http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2013/2013_12_872#mla