Digital Commons Network^™

Quit Using Acquittals: The Unconstitutionality And Immorality Of Acquitted-Conduct Sentencing, Brenna Nouray

Pepperdine Law Review

This Comment examines the phenomenon of acquitted-conduct sentencing—a practice that allows a sentencing judge to enhance a criminal defendant’s sentence due to conduct for which he has already been acquitted. Seventeen-year-old Dayonta McClinton is one of many criminal defendants who have unjustly suffered at the hands of this practice when he received a thirteen-year enhancement because of conduct for which he already received a verdict of not guilty from a jury. This Comment argues that acquitted-conduct sentencing is unconstitutional, as it violates both the reasonable doubt standard required under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the jury …

The Supreme Court, Article Iii, And Jurisdiction Stuffing, James E. Pfander

Pepperdine Law Review

Reflecting on the state of the federal judiciary in the aftermath of the Biden Commission report and subsequent controversies, this Article identifies problems with the current operation of both the Supreme Court and the lower courts that make up the Article III judicial pyramid. Many federal issues have been assigned to non-Article III tribunals, courts poorly structured to offer the independent legal assessment that such Founders as James Wilson prized as they structured the federal judiciary. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court devotes growing attention to a slice of highly salient public law questions, including those presented on the shadow docket, thereby …

Administrative Law Judges And The Erosion Of The Administrative State: Why Jarkesy May Be The Straw That Breaks The Camel's Back, Nicholas D'Addio

Catholic University Law Review

The Trump-era unitary executive movement sought to expand presidential

power and shrink the influence of the administrative state through deregulation.

This movement ripples into the present moment, as Trump’s overhaul of the

federal judiciary installed a comprehensive system to delegitimize

administrative agency action— a system that is certain to endure. The

independence and role of administrative law judges (ALJs) has proven a key

target of the movement. Most recently, in the 2022 case of Jarkesy v. Securities

and Exchange Commission, the Fifth Circuit held that the dual-tiered for-cause

removal protections of SEC ALJs violated the Take Care Clause of Article …

Willfully Forgetting Miranda's True Nature: Vega V. Tekoh Severs The Warnings Requirement From The Constitution, George M. Dery Iii

Marquette Law Review

This Article analyzes Vega v. Tekoh, in which the Supreme Court ruled that

a violation of Miranda was not a violation of the Fifth Amendment privilege

against self-incrimination. This Article examines the original language of the

Miranda opinion, the statements and intentions of the members of the Miranda

Court, and subsequent precedent to determine Miranda’s true nature. Further,

this Article examines the reasoning of Vega and the dangers created by its

pronouncements, especially in light of the Court’s earlier characterization of

Miranda as a constitutional rule in Dickerson v. United States. This Article

asserts that the Justices who …

Lost In The Thicket, Brad Snyder

Touro Law Review

As part of a symposium on his biography of Felix Frankfurter, Democratic Justice, Brad Snyder revisits Baker v. Carr and explores the contrasts between Justice William Brennan’s judicially supremacist majority opinion and Frankfurter’s departmentalist dissent and unheeded warnings about empowering the judiciary. As Frankfurter wrote in his Baker dissent, he placed more faith in the U.S. Congress, as opposed to the judiciary, to protect democracy.

The Mad Hatter’S Quip: Looking For Logic In The Independent State Legislature Theory, Nicholas Maggio, Foreword By Brendan Buschi

Touro Law Review

The Supreme Court is set to hear a case that threatens the bedrock of America’s democracy, and it is not clear how it will shake out. The cumbersomely named “Independent State Legislature Theory” is at the heart of the case Moore v. Harper, which is before the Supreme Court this term. The theory holds that state legislatures should be free from the ordinary bounds of state judicial review when engaged in matters that concern federal elections. Despite being defeated a myriad of times at the Supreme Court, the latest challenge stems from a legal battle over North Carolina’s redistricting maps. …

Abortion And Affirmative Action: The Fragility Of Supreme Court Political Decision-Making, William E. Nelson

Indiana Journal of Law and Social Equality

This Article shows, on the basis of new evidence, that the canonical case of Marbury v. Madison has been grossly misinterpreted and that as a result of the misinterpretation we cannot understand what is wrong with contemporary cases such as Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College.

The Article will proceed as follows. Because Marbury cannot be properly understood without understanding the eighteenth-century background against which it was decided, Part I will examine legal practices in colonial and post-Revolutionary America, focusing on cases in which judicial review emerged …

Three Stories: A Comment On Pritchard & Thompson’S A History Of Securities Laws In The Supreme Court, Harwell Wells

Seattle University Law Review

Adam Pritchard and Robert Thompson’s A History of Securities Laws in the Supreme Court should stand for decades as the definitive work on the Federal securities laws’ career in the Supreme Court across the twentieth century.1 Like all good histories, it both tells a story and makes an argument. The story recounts how the Court dealt with the major securities laws, as well the agency charged with enforcing them, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the rules it promulgated, from the 1930s into the twenty-first century. But the book does not just string together a series of events, “one …

Subjectively Speaking, The Applicable Standard For Deficient Medical Treatment Of Pretrial Detainees Should Be One Of Objective Reasonableness, Benjamin R. Black

Touro Law Review

There is no uniformity amongst the circuits when it comes to pretrial detainees claims for inadequate medical care. The circuits are currently grappling with this problem, applying two separate tests to pretrial detainees’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims depending on the jurisdiction in which the incident arose. The test that should be applied across all circuits is one of objective reasonableness. However, some circuits do not see it that way, applying the deliberate indifference standard, also known as the subjective standard test. The circuits applying the subjective standard are relying on case law that does not properly analyze the rights …

The Pioneers, Waves, And Random Walks Of Securities Law In The Supreme Court, Elizabeth Pollman

Seattle University Law Review

After the pioneers, waves, and random walks that have animated the history of securities laws in the U.S. Supreme Court, we might now be on the precipice of a new chapter. Pritchard and Thompson’s superb book, A History of Securities Law in the Supreme Court, illuminates with rich archival detail how the Court’s view of the securities laws and the SEC have changed over time and how individuals have influenced this history. The book provides an invaluable resource for understanding nearly a century’s worth of Supreme Court jurisprudence in the area of securities law and much needed context for …

Students For Fair Admissions: Affirming Affirmative Action And Shapeshifting Towards Cognitive Diversity?, Steven A. Ramirez

Seattle University Law Review

The Roberts Court holds a well-earned reputation for overturning Supreme Court precedent regardless of the long-standing nature of the case. The Roberts Court knows how to overrule precedent. In Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (SFFA), the Court’s majority opinion never intimates that it overrules Grutter v. Bollinger, the Court’s leading opinion permitting race-based affirmative action in college admissions. Instead, the Roberts Court applied Grutter as authoritative to hold certain affirmative action programs entailing racial preferences violative of the Constitution. These programs did not provide an end point, nor did they require assessment, review, periodic expiration, or revision for greater …