Basics: The Supreme Court case to follow closely and review for classes this semester is Madigan v. Levin. This is a case from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Lisa Madigan is the petitioner, and Harvey N. Levin is the respondent. The case was accepted on Monday 18 March 2013 and heard on Monday 7 October 2013. (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 of Illinois, but was then fired just under six years later on May 12, 2006. Since Levin was in his sixties, Levin believed that this firing it was because of his sex and his age. To support Levin's thesis, a lawyer in her thirties was hired in her place. 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, the State of Illinois, Lisa Madigan, the Attorney General of 'Illinois, and four other employees of the attorney general. . (OYEZ, Inc., 2013) The case was dismissed by the defendant, but the district court initially ruled that the ADEA had granted qualified immunity for the proceeding, and the case was reassigned to a different district court judge. This district court found that Levin was unable to pursue such claims because he was not an employee for the covered purposes. Some states are immune from ADEA damages, but due to discrimination, the Equal Protection Clause may be violated, leading states to be held liable for damages. (OYEZ, Inc., 2013) Ruling: After following this case for the better part of a semester, it was hard to think exactly what the Supr was......middle of paper......end, Justice Antonin Scalia stated what one might assume the entire Court was thinking: “We do not like to dismiss a case as improvidently granted, and… only when the… when the case is before us, the lawyer suddenly finds all sorts of reasons why we shouldn't" I didn't get it in the first place. You should have told us before we got him." (OYEZ, Inc., 2013), leading to the official dismissal of the Madigan v. Levin case. Before even pursuing the case, the lawyer should have done all the research he could have been done. There was a lot of information that could have been brought forward in support of both sides, as the judges said, but the lawyer kept talking in circles and apparently had no idea how to argue the Works case CitedOYEZ, Inc. (2013, September 12) . Madigan v. Levin. Retrieved from http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2013/2013_12_872#mla.