Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Bowen v. Roy (1)
- Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1)
- Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith (1)
- Freedom of speech (1)
- John Marshall (1)
-
- John Roberts (1)
- Johnson v. M'Intosh (1)
- Judicial minimism (1)
- Land (1)
- Lyng v. Northwest Cemetery Protective Association (1)
- Marshall trilogy (1)
- Mental distress (1)
- Native American (1)
- Property (1)
- Religious freedom (1)
- Reservation (1)
- Snyder v. Phelps 131 S. Ct. 1207 (2011) (1)
- Supreme Court (1)
- United States Constitution (1)
- Worcester v. Georgia (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Territory, Wilderness, Property, And Reservation: Land And Religion In Native American Supreme Court Cases, Kathleen Sands
Territory, Wilderness, Property, And Reservation: Land And Religion In Native American Supreme Court Cases, Kathleen Sands
American Indian Law Review
In two trilogies of Supreme Court Decisions, both involving Native Americans, land is a key metaphor, figuring variously as property, territory, wilderness, and reservation. The first trilogy, written by Chief Justice John Marshall, comprises Johnson v. M'Intosh (1823), Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831), and Worcester v. Georgia (1832). The second trilogy concerns Native American claims for religious freedom under the First Amendment and includes Bowen v. Roy (1986), Lyng v. Northwest Cemetery Protective Association (1988), and Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith (1990). The Marshal cases attempted to legitimate the transformation of land from wilderness to territory and property, and …
Too Narrow Of A Holding? How—And Perhaps Why—Chief Justice John Roberts Turned Snyder V. Phelps Into An Easy Case, Clay Calvert
Too Narrow Of A Holding? How—And Perhaps Why—Chief Justice John Roberts Turned Snyder V. Phelps Into An Easy Case, Clay Calvert
Oklahoma Law Review
This article analyzes the United States Supreme Court’s March 2011 decision in Snyder v. Phelps. Specifically, it demonstrates the narrow nature of the holding, and argues that while narrow framing, in the tradition of judicial minimalism, may have been a strategic move by Chief Justice John Roberts to obtain a decisive eight-justice majority, the resulting opinion failed to advance First Amendment jurisprudence significantly. Instead, the outcome simply—even predictably—fell in line with an established order of decisions. This article examines four tactics employed by the Chief Justice to narrow the case in such a way that its outcome was essentially …