Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
-
- University of Richmond (6)
- Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center (3)
- University of Baltimore Law (2)
- Duke Law (1)
- Duquesne University (1)
-
- Georgetown University Law Center (1)
- Maurer School of Law: Indiana University (1)
- Pace University (1)
- Roger Williams University (1)
- St. John's University School of Law (1)
- University of Cincinnati College of Law (1)
- University of Florida Levin College of Law (1)
- University of Georgia School of Law (1)
- University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law (1)
- Publication
-
- University of Richmond Law Review (4)
- Scholarly Works (3)
- All Faculty Scholarship (2)
- Faculty Scholarship (2)
- Law Faculty Publications (2)
-
- Articles by Maurer Faculty (1)
- Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications (1)
- Faculty Articles and Other Publications (1)
- Faculty Publications (1)
- Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works (1)
- Hallowed Secularism (1)
- Law Faculty Scholarship (1)
- Touro Law Review (1)
- UF Law Faculty Publications (1)
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 22 of 22
Full-Text Articles in Law
Pro-Gun Scholars Twist Constitution, Kenneth Lasson
Pro-Gun Scholars Twist Constitution, Kenneth Lasson
All Faculty Scholarship
Earlier this year, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia became the first federal tribunal to strike down a local gun-control law, holding that the Founding Fathers would have allowed all private citizens to arm themselves.
October 19, 2007: World Magazine Interview With Bruce Ledewitz, Bruce Ledewitz
October 19, 2007: World Magazine Interview With Bruce Ledewitz, Bruce Ledewitz
Hallowed Secularism
World Magazine interview with Bruce Ledewitz
Rule Of Law Conference: Global Issues And The Rule Of Law, Lord Chief Justice Nicholas Phillips Of Worth Matravers
Rule Of Law Conference: Global Issues And The Rule Of Law, Lord Chief Justice Nicholas Phillips Of Worth Matravers
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
Looking Backward: Richard Epstein Ponders The “Progressive” Peril, Michael Allan Wolf
Looking Backward: Richard Epstein Ponders The “Progressive” Peril, Michael Allan Wolf
UF Law Faculty Publications
In "How Progressives Rewrote the Constitution," Richard Epstein bemoans the growth of a dominant big government. How Progressives should receive a warm reception from the audience, lawyers and laypeople alike, who view the New Deal as a mistake of epic proportions. For the rest of us, significant gaps will still remain between, on the one hand, our understanding of the nation’s past and of the complex nature of constitutional lawmaking and, on the other, Epstein’s version of the nature of twentieth-century reform and Progressive jurisprudence.
After 150 Years, Worst Supreme Court Decision Ever Continues To Haunt, F. Michael Higginbotham
After 150 Years, Worst Supreme Court Decision Ever Continues To Haunt, F. Michael Higginbotham
All Faculty Scholarship
In 1857, the Supreme Court rendered a decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, declaring that it had no jurisdiction to hear Dred Scott's claim to freedom because he was black and, therefore, not a citizen of the United States. This article argues that not only was the decision morally reprehensible, it was also based on an erroneous interpretation of the Constitution.
Reading, Writing, And Race: The Constitutionality Of Educational Strategies Designed To Teach Racial Literacy, Michael J. Kaufman
Reading, Writing, And Race: The Constitutionality Of Educational Strategies Designed To Teach Racial Literacy, Michael J. Kaufman
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
Silenced Citizens: The Post-Garcetti Landscape For Public Sector Employees Working In National Security, Jamie Sasser
Silenced Citizens: The Post-Garcetti Landscape For Public Sector Employees Working In National Security, Jamie Sasser
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
Why Preemption Proponents Are Wrong, Brian Wolfman
Why Preemption Proponents Are Wrong, Brian Wolfman
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
The basic idea of federal preemption is easily stated: It is a constitutionally mandated principle that demands that federal law trumps state law when the two conflict or in the rare instances when a federal law is so comprehensive that there’s no role left for state law to fill. But in practice, courts have often had difficulty applying the principle.
For plaintiff lawyers, preemption is an ever-present worry. When your client has been injured by a defective car, truck, medical device, boat, tobacco product, pesticide, or mislabeled drug, or has been victimized by a bank or other lending institution, the …
Furman Fundamentals, Corinna Barrett Lain
Furman Fundamentals, Corinna Barrett Lain
Law Faculty Publications
For the first time in a long time, the Supreme Court's most important death penalty decisions all have gone the defendant's way. Is the Court's newfound willingness to protect capital defendants just a reflection of the times, or could it have come even without public support for those protections? At first glance, history allows for optimism. Furman v. Georgia, the 1972 landmark decision that invalidated the death penalty, provides a seemingly perfect example of the Court's ability and inclination to protect capital defendants when no one else will. Furman looks countermajoritarian, scholars have claimed it was countermajoritarian, and even …
The Third Death Of Federalism, A. Christopher Bryant
The Third Death Of Federalism, A. Christopher Bryant
Faculty Articles and Other Publications
Federal drug laws proved a stumbling block to the Rehnquist Court's attempted federalism revival. In its final year, the Court's fragile federalism coalition splintered in a pair of cases arising under the Controlled Substances Act ("CSA"). Missing from the emerging legal literature concerning those two decisions is any substantive discussion of the Supreme Court's much earlier, ill-fated efforts to preserve both judicial enforcement of the enumerated powers doctrine and federal narcotics laws. This article fills that gap.
Ninety-odd years ago the Court arrived at the same jurisprudential juncture it now confronts. In the early decades of the twentieth century, the …
Gender And Justice: Parity And The United States Supreme Court, Paula A. Monopoli
Gender And Justice: Parity And The United States Supreme Court, Paula A. Monopoli
Faculty Scholarship
There is a deep concern among many American women that only one woman remains on the United States Supreme Court. When Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was sworn in on September 25, 1981, most people never imagined that twenty-five years later there would still be only one woman on the Court. It appears that it will be many more years before there is a critical mass of women sitting on the high court. Given its central role, the Court should better represent the gender balance in American society. In a number of other countries, voluntary or involuntary parity provisions have been …
Deciding Death, Corinna Barrett Lain
Deciding Death, Corinna Barrett Lain
Law Faculty Publications
When the Supreme Court is deciding death, how much does law matter? Scholars long have lamented the majoritarian nature of the Court's Eighth Amendment "evolving standards of decency" doctrine, but their criticism misses the mark. Majoritarian doctrine does not drive the Court's decisions in this area; majoritarian forces elsewhere do. To make my point, I first examine three sets of "evolving standards" death penalty decisions in which the Court implicitly or explicitly reversed itself, attacking the legal justification for the Court's change of position and offering an extralegal explanation for why those cases came out the way they did. I …
An Empirical Analysis Of The Confirmation Hearings Of The Justices Of The Rehnquist Natural Court, Jason J. Czarnezki
An Empirical Analysis Of The Confirmation Hearings Of The Justices Of The Rehnquist Natural Court, Jason J. Czarnezki
Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications
Despite the importance of this question, surprisingly little work has been done comparing the statements made by nominees at their confirmation hearings with their subsequent behavior on the Supreme Court. If the hearings reveal substantively valuable information about nominees' views, then we would expect to find a relationship between the Justices' statements and their judicial decisions. This Article is an initial look at that relationship. Specifically, we examine statements involving the nominees' views on stare decisis, originalism and legislative history, and also statements involving their views on the rights of criminal defendants. We then rank order the nominees' confirmation hearings …
Art As Speech, Edward J. Eberle
Bruce Ledewitz, American Religious Democracy: Coming To Terms With The End Of Secular Politics, Thomas A. Schweitzer
Bruce Ledewitz, American Religious Democracy: Coming To Terms With The End Of Secular Politics, Thomas A. Schweitzer
Scholarly Works
No abstract provided.
The "Federalism Five" As Supreme Court Nominees, 1971-1991, John Q. Barrett
The "Federalism Five" As Supreme Court Nominees, 1971-1991, John Q. Barrett
Faculty Publications
This article looks back at the Senate confirmation hearing testimonies of five Supreme Court nominees. Following their appointments to the Court, these justices—Chief Justice Rehnquist and Associate Justices O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas—generally voted together in path-breaking federalism cases. They reinvigorated constitutional law limits or decreed new ones on national legislative power, supported the "sovereignty" of state governments, and thus came to be known in some circles as the Rehnquist Court's "Federalism Five." As nominees testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, however, these "federalism" justices did not announce, or for the most part even much hint at, what came to …
The Double Standard In Judicial Selection, Edwin Meese Iii
The Double Standard In Judicial Selection, Edwin Meese Iii
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
Storm In A Teacup: The U.S. Supreme Court’S Use Of Foreign Law, Austen L. Parrish
Storm In A Teacup: The U.S. Supreme Court’S Use Of Foreign Law, Austen L. Parrish
Articles by Maurer Faculty
In this Article, Professor Parrish explores the legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court's use of foreign law in constitutional adjudication. In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court has used foreign law as persuasive authority in a number of highly contentious cases. The backlash has been spirited, with calls for foreign law to be categorically barred from constitutional adjudication, and even for Justices to be impeached if they cite to foreign sources. Last year, the condemnation of comparative constitutionalism reached a high note, as a barrage of scholarship decried the practice as illegitimate and a threat to our national sovereignty. The …
Section 1983 Civil Rights Litigation In The October 2005 Term, Martin Schwartz
Section 1983 Civil Rights Litigation In The October 2005 Term, Martin Schwartz
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Clerks, Peter B. Rutledge
Clerks, Peter B. Rutledge
Scholarly Works
Book Review of Sorcerers' Apprentices: 100 Years of Law Clerks at the United States Supreme Court, Artemus Ward and David L. Weiden. NYU, 2006. Pp xiv, 337. and Courtiers of the Marble Palace: The Rise and Influence of the Supreme Court Law Clerk, Todd C. Peppers. Stanford, 2006. Pp xv, 301
The Federal Judicial Power And The International Legal Order, Curtis A. Bradley
The Federal Judicial Power And The International Legal Order, Curtis A. Bradley
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Death Penalty And Right To Counsel Decisions In The October 2005 Term, Richard Klein
Death Penalty And Right To Counsel Decisions In The October 2005 Term, Richard Klein
Scholarly Works
No abstract provided.