Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Oklahoma V. Castro-Huerta, Jurisdictional Overlap, Competitive Sovereign Erosion, And The Fundamental Freedom Of Sovereign Nations, Michael D.O. Rusco
Oklahoma V. Castro-Huerta, Jurisdictional Overlap, Competitive Sovereign Erosion, And The Fundamental Freedom Of Sovereign Nations, Michael D.O. Rusco
Marquette Law Review
In addition to its stunning internal flaws, the United States Supreme Court’s opinion in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta exemplifies Indian law’s broader flaws as a jurisprudence. Castro-Huerta holds that states have concurrent criminal jurisdiction with federal and tribal governments over crimes by non-Indians against Indians on reservation lands. Justice Gorsuch deftly addresses many of the glaring internal flaws in Kavanaugh’s majority opinion, but not all. He does not dissect the hollow assertion that reservations are part of the surrounding state both geographically and politically. This cannot go unaddressed, particularly given its weak analysis, misguided use of precedent, and broader consequences.
The Nagging In Our Ears And Original Public Meaning, Perry Dane
The Nagging In Our Ears And Original Public Meaning, Perry Dane
Marquette Law Review
The debate over how to understand the meaning of legal texts once pitted intentionalism against a variety of other views united by the conviction that a legal enactment takes on a meaning not reducible to anybody’s mental state. Both these approaches are supported by powerful intuitions. This Article does not try to referee between them. Instead, it takes aim at a third set of views— theories of “original public meaning”—that in recent decades has upended the traditional debate and has now become gospel for the new majority on the United States Supreme Court.