Digital Commons Network^™

Special Justifications, Randy J. Kozel

Randy J Kozel

The Supreme Court commonly asks whether there is a “special justification” for departing from precedent. In this Response, which is part of a Constitutional Commentary symposium on Settled Versus Right: A Theory of Precedent, I examine the existing law of special justifications and describe its areas of uncertainty. I also compare the Court’s current doctrine with a revised approach to special justifications designed to separate the question of overruling from deeper disagreements about legal interpretation. The aspiration is to establish precedent as a unifying force that enhances the impersonality of the Court and of the law, promoting values the Justices …

Comparing Supreme Court Jurisprudence In Obergefell V. Hodges And Town Of Castle Rock V. Gonzales: A Watershed Moment For Due Process Liberty, Jill C. Engle

Jill Engle

“The nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times. The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed.” -- Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584, …

The Common-Law Exceptions Clause: Congressional Control Of Supreme Court Appellate Jurisdiction In Light Of British Precedent, Daniel Birk

Daniel Birk

No abstract provided.

Procedural Due Process Claims, Erwin Chemerinsky

Erwin Chemerinsky

No abstract provided.

Federalism Cases In The October 2004 Term, Erwin Chemerinsky

Erwin Chemerinsky

No abstract provided.

First Amendment Decisions From The October 2006 Term, Erwin Chemerinsky, Marci A. Hamilton

Erwin Chemerinsky

No abstract provided.

Dialogue On State Action, Martin A. Schwartz, Erwin Chemerinsky

Erwin Chemerinsky

No abstract provided.

An Overview Of The October 2006 Supreme Court Term, Erwin Chemerinsky

Erwin Chemerinsky

No abstract provided.

Absolute Immunity: General Principles And Recent Developments, Erwin Chemerinsky

Erwin Chemerinsky

No abstract provided.

Precedent And Speech, Randy J. Kozel

Randy J Kozel

The U.S. Supreme Court has shown a notable willingness to reconsider its First Amendment precedents. In recent years the Court has departed from its prior statements regarding the constitutional value of false speech. It has revamped its process for identifying categorical exceptions to First Amendment protection. It has changed its position on corporate electioneering and aggregate campaign contributions. In short, it has revised the ground rules of expressive freedom in ways both large and small.

The Court generally describes its past decisions as enjoying a presumption of validity through the doctrine of stare decisis. This Article contends that within the …

Section 1983 Cases In The October 2004 Term, Martin A. Schwartz

Martin A. Schwartz

No abstract provided.

Governance And Anarchy In The S.2(B) Jurisprudence: A Comment On Vancouver Sun And Harper V. Canada, Jamie Cameron

Jamie Cameron

The article identifies and explains a double standard in the Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence. The contrast is between the open court jurisprudence, which is a model of good constitutional governance – or principled decision making – and the Court’s s.2(b) methodology, which is “anarchistic” or capricious and undisciplined, in the sense of this article. Two landmark cases decided in 2004 illustrate the double standard: the first is Re Vancouver Sun, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 332, which dealt with the open court principle under Parliament’s anti-terrorism provision for investigative hearings, it represents a high water mark for open court and s.2(b) …

Second Thoughts About The First Amendment, Randy J. Kozel

Randy J Kozel

The U.S. Supreme Court has shown a notable willingness to reconsider — and depart from — its First Amendment precedents. In recent years the Court has marginalized its prior statements regarding the constitutional value of false speech. It has revamped its process for identifying categorical exceptions to First Amendment protection. It has rejected its past decisions on corporate electioneering and aggregate campaign contributions. And it has revised its earlier positions on union financing, abortion protesting, and commercial speech. Under the conventional view of constitutional adjudication, dubious precedents enjoy a presumption of validity through the doctrine of stare decisis. This Article …

Disparaging The Supreme Court: Is Scotus In Serious Trouble?, Brian Christopher Jones

Brian Christopher Jones

The piece argues that the Court is now subject to the widest and most sophisticated disparagement it has ever experienced, and that the tumultuous terms over the past two years have especially shown its vulnerability. Journalists and the general public are now thinking and speaking about the institution in a much different light than previously, and a deeper conversation about the proper role of the Court, especially in regard to constitutional review, has only just begun. Also, the piece argues that the justices’ disparagement of each other has contributed to this wider criticism, and that the recent health care and …

The Origins Of Article Iii "Arising Under" Jurisdiction, Anthony J. Bellia

Anthony J. Bellia

Article III of the Constitution provides that the judicial Power of the United States extends to all cases arising under the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States. What the phrase arising under imports in Article III has long confounded courts and scholars. This Article examines the historical origins of Article III arising under jurisdiction. First, it describes English legal principles that governed the jurisdiction of courts of general and limited jurisdiction--principles that animated early American jurisprudence regarding the scope of arising under jurisdiction. Second, it explains how participants in the framing and ratification of the Constitution understood arising …

The Conflict Between Stare Decisis And Ov Erruling In Constitutional Adjudication, Steven J. Burton

steven J. burton

This article argues that the Constitution constrains the Supreme Court's power to overrule its constitutional precedents. It bases this argument on the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause and the conjunction of Marbury v. Madison, Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, Cohens v. Virginia, and the "case or controversy" limit on federal court jurisdiction.

Constitutional Litigation Under Section 1983 And The Bivens Doctrine In The October 2008 Term, Martin A. Schwartz

Martin A. Schwartz

Section 1983 is the major enforcer of individual federal constitutional rights. It authorizes individuals to enforce their constitutional rights against state and local officials; for example,prison officers and police officers, and against municipalities. It is the most important civil statute in American law. To its credit, the United States Supreme Court understands the significance of § 1983. For the past three decades, in virtually every single Term of theCourt, it has decided a substantial number of cases dealing with different facets of § 1983 litigation. Last Term, there was anunusual number of § 1983 decisions rendered by the United States …

Washington Was Right: The Supreme Court Could Have Intervened To Interpret French Treaties, Kevin P. Chapman

Kevin P. Chapman

In the early days of his presidency, George Washington faced his first international crisis when French Ambassador Genet demanded that the United States honor its treaty obligations and provide support to the new French Republic in its ongoing war with Great Britain. Concerned about the legal effect that the French Revolution had on the viability of these obligations, Washington asked the Supreme Court to render an opinion. Chief Justice John Jay replied that the Constitution did not authorize the Supreme Court to render advisory opinions.

If Jay was correct, why did Washington, who presided over the very convention that produced …

Conservative Justices Fail To See Corrupting Influence Of Money, Alan E. Garfield

Alan E Garfield

No abstract provided.

Original Habeas Redux, Lee Kovarsky

Lee Kovarsky

This article explores what is perhaps the Supreme Court’s most exotic appellate power— its authority to issue (inaptly-named) “original” writs of habeas corpus. Although I have been working on Original Habeas Redux for some time, the Troy Davis case has recently thrust this topic into the national spotlight. In Davis (2009), the Supreme Court exercised, for the first time in over forty years, its power to transfer an original habeas petition to a district court for merits adjudication. Having collected and tabulated two decades of new data, I argue that Davis is not a blip in an otherwise constant state …

Don't Expect Kagan To Change Court Dynamic, Alan E. Garfield

Alan E Garfield

No abstract provided.

Court's Campaign-Financing Decision Endangers Democracy, Alan E. Garfield

Alan E Garfield

No abstract provided.

Justice Thomas In Grutter V. Bollinger: Can Passion Play A Role In Judicial Reasoning?, Mary Kate Kearney

Mary Kate Kearney

No abstract provided.

State Laws And The Independent Judiciary: An Analysis Of The Effects Of The Seventeenth Amendment On The Number Of Supreme Court Cases Holding State Laws Unconstitutional, Donald J. Kochan

Donald J. Kochan

In recent years, the Seventeenth Amendment has been the subject of legal scholarship, congressional hearings and debate, Supreme Court opinions, popular press articles and commentary, state legislative efforts aimed at repeal, and activist repeal movements. To date, the literature on the effects of the Seventeenth Amendment has focused almost exclusively on the effects on the political production of legislation and competition between legislative bodies. Very little attention has been given to the potential adverse effects of the Seventeenth Amendment on the relationship between state legislatures and the federal courts. This Article seeks to fill part of that literature gap, applying …

A Study In Judicial Sleight Of Hand: Did Geier V. American Honda Motor Co. Eradicate The Presumption Against Preemption?, Susan Raeker-Jordan

Susan Raeker-Jordan

No abstract provided.

A Pro-Death, Self-Fulfilling Constitutional Construct: The Supreme Court’S Evolving Standard Of Decency For The Death Penalty, Susan Raeker-Jordan

Susan Raeker-Jordan