Digital Commons Network^™

Against The Mainstreaming Of The Term Sex Work: Advocacy With India's Supreme Court, Pravin Patkar

Dignity: A Journal of Analysis of Exploitation and Violence

No abstract provided.

The False Promise Of Jurisdiction Stripping, Daniel Epps, Alan M. Trammell

Scholarship@WashULaw

Jurisdiction stripping is seen as a nuclear option. Its logic is simple: by depriving federal courts of jurisdiction over some set of cases, Congress ensures those courts cannot render bad decisions. In theory, it frees up the political branches and the states to act without fear of judicial second-guessing. To its proponents, it offers the ultimate check on unelected and unaccountable judges. To critics, it poses a grave threat to the separation of powers. Both sides agree, though, that jurisdiction stripping is a powerful weapon. On this understanding, politicians, activists, and scholars throughout American history have proposed jurisdiction stripping measures …

After Miller V. Alabama: A Content Analysis Of Juvenile Sentencing Decisions Across The United States, Kristen H. Williams

Honors College Theses

In 2012 a Supreme Court ruling (Miller v. Alabama) determined that life without parole for juveniles was unconstitutional based on the eighth amendment. However, the Supreme Court decision only applied to ongoing and future cases. The objective of this thesis was to conduct a policy analysis on new sentencing laws (i.e., state level) and subsequent Supreme Court decisions (i.e., federal level) that impacted the juvenile court after Miller v. Alabama (2012). Furthermore, it examined differences across states as a result of newly implemented legislative actions. A search of all 50 states and federal actions was conducted to gather …

Against Capital Punishment, Zac Bright, Ben Austin (Editor)

Brigham Young University Prelaw Review

Capital punishment has a strong legal precedence in the United States. Capital punishment has been a penal option for those who commit conspicuously wrong acts. For such acts, the punishment seems to be proportional to the crime. In addition to the punishment’s adherence to proportionality, capital punishment mitigates problematic outcomes.

This paper advocates, however, that capital punishment should be classified as “cruel and unusual punishment.” Such violation of the eighth amendment delegitimizes capital punishment. Consequently, The Federal Death Penalty Act of 1994 should no longer be considered a valid law because of its constitutional violation.

The Endgame Of Court-Packing, Kyle Rozema, Daniel Epps, Adam Chilton, Maya Sen

Scholarship@WashULaw

At several points in history, politicians and commentators have proposed adding seats to the Supreme Court to accomplish partisan ends. We explore the incentives for a political party to initiate “court-packing” and what the Supreme Court would look like in a world where political parties engage in repeated partisan court- packing. To do so, we use an Agent-Based Model and different data sources to calibrate the behaviors of Presidents, Congresses, and Supreme Court justices. We then simulate the future composition of the Court in worlds with and without court-packing. The simulations suggest that a political party with an initial minority …

The Commonalities And Contrasting Features Of English And American Law, Abigail Job

Senior Honors Theses

The English and American legal systems and law are founded under the Common Law System. However, there are staunch differences and similarities that work to define the individual legal features of each nation, such as the law's interpretation, making, and role. This paper aims to analyze the qualities that comprise each legal system and analyze their commonalities and contrasting features. The features that will be analyzed are the Common Law systems, Supreme Court, Judicial system Structure, and Legislative Process. It is imperative when exploring the law of a nation to understand the foundational philosophy, creation, interpretation, and application of the …

Elucidation Strategies: A Case Study Of The U.S Supreme Court, Gordon Carroll

Belmont University Research Symposium (BURS)

The research encompassed a study on the consistency in judicial interpretations and factors that influenced U.S. Supreme Court decisions. To do this, the study explored literature and theoretical perspectives relating to judicial interpretations and decisions. The target population entailed officers in the Office of the Solicitor General for their experience in Court rulings. Interviews were conducted among ten respondents, with data collected, coded, and analyzed. The study results were then presented, discussed, and conclusions derived from them. Generally, the study found serious inconsistencies in interpretations not only between justices but also in almost similar cases. Decisions by justices were conflicting …

Court Legitimacy & The Shadow Docket, Colton Tilley

Honors Theses

No abstract provided.

Assessing Affirmative Action's Diversity Rationale, Kyle Rozema, Adam Chilton, Justin Driver, Jonathan S. Masur

Scholarship@WashULaw

Ever since Justice Lewis Powell’s opinion in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke made diversity in higher education a constitutionally acceptable rationale for affirmative action programs, the diversity rationale has received vehement criticism from across the ideological spectrum. Critics on the right argue that diversity efforts lead to “less meritorious” applicants being selected. Critics on the left charge that diversity is mere “subterfuge.” On the diversity rationale’s legitimacy, then, there is precious little diversity of thought. In particular, prominent scholars and jurists have cast doubt on the diversity rationale’s empirical foundations, claiming that it rests on an implausible …

News Treatment Of The Supreme Court: Language Selection, Ideological Directions, And Public Support, Alexander Denison

Theses and Dissertations--Political Science

In an increasingly diverse media landscape, how much of the ideological trends seen in current news reporting affect coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court? This work examines two different aspects of the Court's activities, their decisions and the confirmation hearings of Court nominees, analyzing what factors, if any, lead to differences in coverage language. Finally, through the use of a survey experiment, I analyze whether these differences in language, in combination with positive symbolic imagery, affect attitudes toward the institution. This work provides a novel consideration of whether the Court is subject to the same ideological slant found in coverage …

The Return Of A Judicial Artifact? How The Supreme Court Could Examine The Question Of The Nondelegation Doctrine’S Place In Future Cases, Dalton Davis

Helms School of Government Undergraduate Law Review

No abstract provided.

Self-Determination In American Discourse: The Supreme Court’S Historical Indoctrination Of Free Speech And Expression, Jarred Williams

Honors Theses

Within the American criminal legal system, it is a well-established practice to presume the innocence of those charged with criminal offenses unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Such a judicial framework-like approach, called a legal maxim, is utilized in order to ensure that the law is applied and interpreted in ways that legislative bodies originally intended.

The central aim of this piece in relation to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution is to investigate whether the Supreme Court of the United States has utilized a specific legal maxim within cases that dispute government speech or expression regulation. …

Supreme Court Reform And American Democracy, Daniel Epps, Ganesh Sitaraman

Scholarship@WashULaw

In "How to Save the Supreme Court," we identified the legitimacy challenge facing the Court, traced it to a set of structural flaws, and proposed novel reforms. Little more than a year later, the conversation around Supreme Court reform has only grown louder and more urgent. In this Essay, we continue that conversation by engaging with critics of our approach. The current crisis of the Supreme Court is, we argue, inextricable from the question of the Supreme Court’s proper role in our democracy. For those interested in reform, there are three distinct strategies for ensuring the Supreme Court maintains its …

Designing Supreme Court Term Limits, Kyle Rozema, Adam Chilton, Daniel Epps, Maya Sen

Scholarship@WashULaw

Since the Founding, Supreme Court justices have enjoyed life tenure. This helps insulate the justices from political pressures, but it also results in unpredictable deaths and strategic retirements determining the timing of Court vacancies. In order to regularize the appointment process, a number of academics and policymakers have put forward detailed term limits proposals. However, many of these proposals have been silent on many key design decisions and there has been almost no empirical work assessing the impact that term limits would have on the composition of the Supreme Court.

The Evolution Of Substantive Due Process Throughout Time, Vitoria Olivo Factor

Honors Undergraduate Theses

Substantive due process has been of great importance to the decision of many Supreme Court cases since its beginning. Since its inception in Lochner v. New York,[1] the Supreme Court has used the theory of substantive due process in order to grant numerous rights to individuals and this theory has been interpreted differently by each Justice that has crossed its path.

This thesis will explain how recent changes in the composition of the United States Supreme Court make it likely that judicial opinions involving substantive due process will be decided differently. The United States Supreme Court’s future substantive …

Keeping Faith With Nomos, Steven L. Winter

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Necessary And Convenient: The Effect Of Commerce And Necessary And Proper Clause Jurisprudence, Janis Olkowicz

Honors Undergraduate Theses

While reading a news article about the upcoming presidential election one day, I noticed a trend. The vast majority of political articles discuss what the federal government should do, but almost never cover what it could do. In elementary school, American children are taught that the Constitution, a 4,543-word document, is the place from which all federal power is derived; but the Constitution says nothing about the regulation of travel, narcotics, or the vast majority of other areas that affect the way we live our daily lives, so where does that power come from? After some preliminary research, I discovered …

The Defender General, Daniel Epps, William Ortman

Scholarship@WashULaw

The United States needs a Defender General—a public official charged with representing the collective interests of criminal defendants before the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court is effectively our nation’s chief regulator of criminal justice. But in the battle to influence the Court’s rulemaking, government interests have substantial structural advantages. As compared to counsel for defendants, government lawyers—and particularly those from the U.S. Solicitor General’s office—tend to be more experienced advocates who have more credibility with the Court. Most importantly, government lawyers can act strategically to play for bigger long-term victories, while defense lawyers must zealously advocate …

Telling The Story Of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, Susan Frelich Appleton

Scholarship@WashULaw

Appearing as part of the WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF LAW and POLICY’s celebration of the sesquicentennial of the first women law students, this brief review critically examines FIRST: SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR, a biography by Evan Thomas. The review follows two themes highlighted by the book, intimacy and gender, and finds the author's treatment of the latter especially problematic. (A shorter version of the review appeared under the title How One Glass Ceiling Was Broken, COMMON READER (Nov. 20, 2019).

Oral Argument Tactics On The Supreme Court Bench: A Comparative Analysis Of Verbal Tools Used By Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, And Gorsuch, Corinne Cichowicz

Politics Honors Papers

Oral argument scholars like Adam Feldman have categorized the Supreme Court justices’ behavior during oral argument using the approach-based method, labeling each as one-sided, even-handed, or restrained. This approach is too narrowly constructed. Scholars sometimes categorize justices in terms of the tools they use, which include questions, hypotheticals, declarations, interruptions, tone of voice, and silence (Feldman 2018a). Neither of these methods alone produce a nuanced analysis of each justice’s actions during an individual case or across a Term. As the Court’s composition and dynamics are continuously changing, scholarship on oral argument needs to adapt to …

Autonomy Isn't Everything: Some Cautionary Notes On Mccoy V. Louisiana, W. Bradley Wendel

St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics

The Supreme Court’s May 2018 decision in McCoy v. Louisiana has been hailed as a decisive statement of the priority of the value of a criminal defendant’s autonomy over the fairness and reliability interests that also inform both the Sixth Amendment and the ethical obligations of defense counsel. It also appears to be a victory for the vision of client-centered representation and the humanistic value of the inherent dignity of the accused. However, the decision is susceptible to being read too broadly in ways that harm certain categories of defendants. This paper offers a couple of cautionary notes, in response …

Judicial Conflicts And Voting Agreement: Evidence From Interruptions At Oral Argument, Kyle Rozema, Tonja Jacobi

Scholarship@WashULaw

This Article asks whether observable conflicts between judges in a case—interruptions between Supreme Court justices during oral arguments—are associated with future breakdowns in voting agreement among the judges in the case. To do so, we built a dataset containing justice-to-justice interruptions in cases between 1960 to 2015, and employ a framework for measuring case outcomes that treats the outcomes as a set of agreements and disagreements between pairs of justices. We find that on average a judicial pair is 7 percent less likely to vote together in a case for each interruption that occurs in the case between the judicial …

Finding The Jury: State Legislative Responses To Blakely V. Washington, Don Stemen, Daniel F. Wilhelm

Don Stemen

No abstract provided.

Aggravated Sentencing: Blakely V. Washington, Jon Wool, Don Stemen

Don Stemen

No abstract provided.

Examining The Civil-Military Divide Through New (Institutional) Lenses: The Influence Of The Supreme Court, Allen Linken

Doctoral Dissertations

Civil-military relations have existed for as long as there has been a military, but only in the last sixty years has research in the field began to examine the relationships between civilian elites and the military. Who controls the military? What level of influence by the military is acceptable in a liberal society, such as the United States? What is the appropriate role of the military? Who serves in the military? What pattern of civil-military relations best ensures the effectiveness of the military instrument? The study of these questions began with examining relationships between the military and the President, and …

The Law Book: From Hammurabi To The International Criminal Court, 250 Milestones In The History Of Law (Sterling), Michael Roffer

Books

The Law Book explores 250 of the most significant legal issues, cases, trials, and events that have profoundly changed our world. Although the heaviest emphasis is on American law it also touches on more than a dozen countries and the European Union, laws relating to Antarctica and Outer Space, and principles of international law. Among the topics it explores are the earliest legal codes, the role of juries, slavery and emancipation, civil rights, Native Americans, copyright, the press and free speech, immigration, censorship and obscenity, the environment, war and international relations, war crimes and trials, the insanity defense, taxation, prohibition, …

The Homicide Survivors’ Fairness-For-Victims Manifesto, Lester Jackson

LESTER JACKSON

Murderer advocates place a far greater value on the lives of the most savage murderers than on the lives of their victims. Let them deny it; their words and deeds conclusively give the lie to that denial. The critical question is this: Whose concept of justice is going to prevail? The concept of a small but vocal well-financed minority with influence and power out of all proportion to its numbers, or that of the large but poorly financed and disorganized majority. In recent decades, the former have dominated. Tragically, compared to media-dominant murderer advocates, victims have been virtually voiceless. Yes, …

Equality Arguments For Abortion Rights, Neil S. Siegel, Reva B. Siegel

Faculty Scholarship

Roe v. Wade grounds constitutional protections for women’s decision wheth­er to end a pregnancy in the Due Process Clauses. But in the four decades since Roe, the U.S. Supreme Court has come to recognize the abortion right as an equality right as well as a liberty right. In this Essay, we describe some distinctive features of equality arguments for abortion rights. We then show how, over time, the Court and individual Justices have begun to employ equal­ity arguments in analyzing the constitutionality of abortion restrictions. These arguments first appear inside of substantive due process case law, and then as claims …

Plea Bargaining, Sentence Modifications, And The Real World, Julian A. Cook

Scholarly Works

This article examines the 2011 Supreme Court decision in United States v. Freeman. At issue was whether defendants, such as Freeman, who enter a guilty plea pursuant to a binding plea agreement, are entitled to seek a modification of their sentence when the guideline range applicable to their offense has subsequently been lowered by the United States Sentencing Commission. By a five-to-four vote, the Court found that Freeman was eligible to seek a sentence reduction. However, as the article explains, the concurring and controlling opinion of Justice Sotomayor may ultimately prove to be problematic for criminal defendants generally and for …

Foreword: Academic Influence On The Court, Neal K. Katyal

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The months leading up to the Supreme Court’s blockbuster decision on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) were characterized by a prodigious amount of media coverage that purported to analyze how the legal challenge to Obamacare went mainstream. The nation’s major newspapers each had a prominent story describing how conservative academics, led by Professor Randy Barnett, had a long-term strategy to make the case appear credible. In the first weeks after the ACA’s passage, the storyline went, the lawsuit’s prospects of success were thought to be virtually nil. Professor (and former Solicitor General) Charles Fried stated that he would “eat a …