Law Commons^™

Stuck In Ohio's Legal Limbo, How Many Mistrials Are Too Many Mistrials?: Exploring New Factors That Help A Trial Judge In Ohio Know Whether To Exercise Her Authority To Dismiss An Indictment With Prejudice, Especially Following Repeated Hung Juries, Samantha M. Cira

Cleveland State Law Review

Multiple mistrials following validly-prosecuted trials are becoming an increasingly harsh reality in today’s criminal justice system. Currently, the Ohio Supreme Court has not provided any guidelines to help its trial judges know when to make the crucial decision to dismiss an indictment with prejudice following a string of properly-declared mistrials, especially due to repeated hung juries. Despite multiple mistrials that continue to result in no conviction, criminal defendants often languish behind bars, suffering detrimental psychological harm and a loss of personal freedom as they remain in “legal limbo” waiting to retry their case. Furthermore, continuously retrying defendants cuts against fundamental …

How Big Money Ruined Public Life In Wisconsin, Lynn Adelman

Cleveland State Law Review

This Article discusses how Wisconsin fell from grace. Once a model good government state that pioneered many democracy-enhancing laws, in a very short time, Wisconsin became a state where special interest money, most of which is undisclosed, dominates politics. This Article identifies several factors as being critical to Wisconsin’s descent. These include the state’s failure to nurture and build on the campaign finance reforms enacted in the 1970s and both the state’s and the United States Supreme Court’s failure to adequately regulate sham issue ads. As evidence of Wisconsin’s diminished status, this Article describes how several of the state’s most …

Ohio's Modern Courts Amendment Must Be Amended: Why And How, Richard S. Walinski, Mark D. Wagoner Jr.

Cleveland State Law Review

A 1968 amendment to the Ohio Constitution granted the Supreme Court of Ohio the authority to promulgate “rules governing practice and procedure” for Ohio courts. The amendment also provided that “[a]ll laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force or effect after such rules have taken effect” and that no rule may “abridge, enlarge, or modify any substantive right.”

Although the amendment was explicit about automatic repeal of existing laws, it says nothing about whether the General Assembly may legislate on a procedural matter after a court rule takes effect. That silence has caused enduring confusion. …

Something's Gotta Give: Origin-Based E-Commerce Sales Tax, Juliana Frenkel

Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial & Commercial Law

How to tax interstate online purchases is a frequently debated and contentious topic in the business and tax arena. There are numerous parties affected when a transaction occurs and each affected party would like a taxation policy that benefits its own economic interests, without regard for others. Neither the legislative nor the judicial branch has successfully resolved this e-commerce taxation issue. With the growing need for tax revenue, it is prudent for Congress to finally resolve this circuit split and agree on a unifying Online Sales Tax Law. As opposed to the vast majority of proposals pending in Congress, this …

Copyright Infringement In Sound Recording: How Courts And Legislatures Can Get In Vogue In A Post-Ciccone World, Kristen B. Kennedy

Journal of Law and Policy

Music sampling is a legally complex and ambiguous area, with staggeringly high costs attached for copyright infringers. The legality of sampling frequently depends upon what jurisdiction the inquiry into the sampling takes place in, and has been guided by inconsistently applied doctrines of fair use, de minimis, and copyright infringement. The Ninth Circuit’s decision in VMG Salsoul v. Ciccone has dramatically highlighted these inconsistencies. This note suggests a four-part solution to resolve the tensions in copyrightable sound recordings magnified by the recent circuit split created by VMG Salsoul v. Ciccone. It incorporates elements of de minimis and fair use, a …

Gerrymandering And The Constitutional Norm Against Government Partisanship, Michael S. Kang

Michigan Law Review

This Article challenges the basic premise in the law of gerrymandering that partisanship is a constitutional government purpose at all. The central problem, Justice Scalia once explained in Vieth v. Jubilerer, is that partisan gerrymandering becomes unconstitutional only when it “has gone too far,” giving rise to the intractable inquiry into “how much is too much.” But the premise that partisanship is an ordinary and lawful purpose, articulated confidently as settled law and widely understood as such, is largely wrong as constitutional doctrine. The Article surveys constitutional law to demonstrate the vitality of an important, if implicit norm against …

Has Nihilism Politicized The Supreme Court Nomination Process?, Bruce Ledewitz

Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law

No abstract provided.

What Got Into The Court? What Happens Next?, Linda Greenhouse

Maine Law Review

We are now in the midst of an amazing Supreme Court term--more than half-way through on the calendar, far short of halfway through in terms of what has yet to be decided. It's been a roller-coaster term of sorts, beginning with the highly unusual early-September argument in the campaign finance case, followed by a rather quiet fall and winter, and then ending with an April sitting during which the Court will consider, in the context of the country's response to terrorism, cases that are likely to go quite far to define for the modern age the meaning of citizenship and, …

Contra Scalia, Thomas, And Gorsuch: Originalists Should Adopt A Living Constitution, R. Randall Kelso

University of Miami Law Review

Two main approaches appear in the popular literature on constitutional interpretation: originalism and non-originalism. An originalist approach refers back to some aspect of the framers’ and ratifiers’ intent or action to justify a decision. A non-originalist approach bases the goal of constitutional interpretation in part on consideration of some justification independent of the framers’ and ratifiers’ intent or action.

What is often unappreciated in addressing the question of whether to adopt an originalist or non-originalist approach to constitutional interpretation is the complication that emerges if one concludes that the framing and ratifying generation believed in the model of a living …

The Expansion Of Charitable Choice, The Faith Based Initiative, And The Supreme Court's Establishment Clause Jurisprudence, Steven Fitzgerald

The Catholic Lawyer

No abstract provided.

Calling Crawford: Minnesota Declares A 911 Call Non-Testimonial In State V. Wright, Alistair Y. Raymond

Maine Law Review

In State v. Wright, 1 the State of Minnesota charged David Wright with possession of a firearm by a felon and two counts of second-degree assault against his girlfriend and her sister. A jury found Wright guilty on all charges and sentenced him to sixty months in jail for each crime, with sentences served concurrently. Wright’s girlfriend, R.R., and her sister, S.R., did not testify against him at trial. The prosecution, however, used the transcript of a 911 call placed by R.R. against Wright in the trial. Although the 911 call was hearsay, the court admitted it under Minnesota’s excited …

Parsing Personal Predilections: A Fresh Look At The Supreme Court's Cruel And Unusual Death Penalty Jurisprudence, Susan M. Raeker-Jordan

Maine Law Review

The now well-known case of Atkins v. Virginia decided that the execution of those with mental retardation constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. The more recent case of Roper v. Simmons decided that execution of those who were under the age of eighteen when they committed their crimes also constituted cruel and unusual punishment. Both decisions changed the law that had existed since 1989, when the Court held in Penry v. Lynaugh and Stanford v. Kentucky that executions of members of both classes were not unconstitutional. Writing for the Court in Atkins v. Virginia, Justice Stevens was …

Kelo V. City Of New London-Wrongly Decided And A Missed Opportunity For Principled Line Drawing With Respect To Eminent Domain Takings, Orlando E. Delogu

Maine Law Review

No eminent domain taking case in the last twenty-five years has excited the level of interest, attention, and debate as has Kelo v. City of New London. The Supreme Court’s decision has not quelled that debate. If anything the stridency, the emotional tenor, of the debate has increased. And in the few months since the decision came down, several dozen states (in the absence of any meaningful federal limitation on what constitutes “public use”) have proposed statutes or constitutional amendments that would limit their exercise of eminent domain (taking) powers. There is even talk of federal legislation to temper, to …

The Supreme Court And Religious Liberty, Douglas Laycock

The Catholic Lawyer

No abstract provided.

United States V. Pho: Defining The Limits Of Discretionary Sentencing, John G. Wheatley

Maine Law Review

In the consolidated case of United States v. Pho, the government appealed two district court rulings that imposed criminal sentences outside of the range provided in the Federal Sentencing Guidelines Manual (Guidelines). At separate trials, both defendants pied guilty to the crime of possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of cocaine base (commonly known as crack). Rejecting the Guidelines' disparate treatment of crack and powder cocaine, the district court imposed sentences that were below the Guidelines' range, but above the statutory mandatory minimum. The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit vacated both sentences and remanded the …

Trinko: A Kinder, Gentler Approach To Dominant Firms Under The Antitrust Laws?, Edward D. Cavanagh

Maine Law Review

Section 2 of the Sherman Act prohibits monopolization, attempted monopolization and conspiracy to monopolize. The § 2 prohibitions are rooted in concerns "that possession of unchallenged economic power deadens initiative, discourages thrift and depresses energy; that immunity from competition is a narcotic, and rivalry is a stimulant, to industrial progress; that the spur of constant stress is necessary to counteract an inevitable disposition to let well enough alone." At the same time, courts have recognized that size alone cannot be the basis of condemnation under § 2, for as Learned Hand observed in Alcoa, "[t]he successful competitor, having been urged …

Education Funding In Maine In Light Of Zelman And Locke: Too Much Play In The Joints?, Sarah M. Lavigne

Maine Law Review

The United States Supreme Court has struggled with the countervailing directives of the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause for decades. One area in which this battle has been particularly contentious is the issue of public funding of religious schools. On one hand, opponents argue that such funding is an impermissible co-mingling of church and state, thereby violating the Establishment Clause. Meanwhile, proponents of public funding of religious schools argue that, to withhold funding from religious schools would place a burden on those wishing to send their children to religious schools, thereby impermissibly preventing individuals from practicing their faith …

How Elonis Failed To Clarify The Analysis Of "True Threats" In Social Media Cases And The Subsequent Need For Congressional Response, Jessica L. Opila

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

Social media and other internet communications have altered the way people communicate with one another, including the way people threaten one another. In 2015, the United States Supreme Court decided Elonis v. United States, which imposed a heightened mental state requirement for federal prosecutions of threats issued in interstate commerce. Although the statute, 18 U.S.C. § 875(c), has no mental state requirement, the Supreme Court held that, consistent with the principles of criminal law, only those with guilty minds should be convicted and thus some showing of subjective intent is required. The opinion did not name the requisite mental …

An Unacknowledged Constitutional Crisis: United States V. Shipp Ii (1909), Leslie F. Goldstein

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

Understanding Nautilus's Reasonable-Certainty Standard: Requirements For Linguistic And Physical Definiteness Of Patent Claims, Gary M. Fox

Michigan Law Review

Patent applicants must satisfy a variety of requirements to obtain a patent from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The definiteness requirement forces applicants to describe their inventions in unambiguous terms so that other inventors will understand the scope of granted patent rights. Although the statutory provision for the definiteness requirement has been stable for many years, the Supreme Court’s decision in Nautilus v. Biosig Instruments altered the doctrine. The Court abrogated the Federal Circuit’s insoluble-ambiguity standard and replaced it with a new reasonable-certainty standard. Various district courts have applied the new standard in different ways, indicating the need …

Justice Scalia’S Bankruptcy Jurisprudence: The Right Judicial Philosophy For The Modern Bankruptcy Code?, Megan Mcdermott

Utah Law Review

This Article surveys an area of Justice Scalia’s legacy that is often overlooked by scholars who write broadly about the Supreme Court: his many contributions to the field of bankruptcy law. The Bankruptcy Code is rife with statutory interpretation questions that demand clear and predictable answers, due to the efficiency interests at stake and the absence of any intermediate interpretive forces, such as administrative agencies. Justice Scalia arrived on the high court at the outset of the modern bankruptcy era and this Article argues that his brand of rulebased textualism is a particularly good fit for bankruptcy law.

Specifically, four …

How A Court Becomes Supreme: Defending The Constitution From Unconstitutional Amendments, Richard Albert

Maryland Law Review

High courts around the world have increasingly invalidated constitutional amendments in defense of their view of democracy, answering in the affirmative what was once a paradoxical question with no obvious answer: can a constitutional amendment be unconstitutional? In the United States, however, the Supreme Court has yet to articulate a theory or doctrine of unconstitutional constitutional amendment. Faced with a constitutional amendment that would challenge the liberal democratic values of American constitutionalism—for instance an amendment restricting political speech or establishing a national religion—the Court would be left without a strategy or vocabulary to protect the foundations of constitutional democracy. In …

The Cessation Of Innovation: An Inquiry Into Whether Congress Can And Should Strip The Supreme Court Of Its Appellate Jurisdiction To Entertain Patent Cases, Catherine Taylor

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Collateral Order Doctrine In Disorder: Redefining Finality, Matthew R. Pikor

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

Analyzing The Roles Of Law And Politics In Judicial Decision Making: Predicting U.S. Supreme Court Justices’ Votes On A Case Of Affirmative Action, Ashley Renkor

The Eastern Illinois University Political Science Review

This study seeks to study relevant precedent cases concerning affirmative action, the 14th Amendment equal protection clause, the 5th Amendment equal protection clause, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, with the goal of predicting how certain justices will vote in the affirmative action case, Fisher vs. the University of Texas at Austin. I conclude that justices will debate numerous aspects at play, such as original intent, plain meaning, precedent, policy preferences, public opinion, personal experience, the federal government, and interest groups in order to take positions in the Fisher case for the second time around with an intent …

Do Women Justices Matter?, Ashley Shula

The Eastern Illinois University Political Science Review

In recent years, women have started to have a considerable impact on the political process. While literature exists on women in Congress and in district court settings, little research exists on the role played by female Supreme Court Justices. The author attempts to shed light on the impact of female justices by assessing statements made by the justices, in addition to their voting records. The author finds that the new women Supreme Court Justices have had little impact so far, but offers that perhaps as time goes on, this will change.

Supreme Court Review: Church/State Jurisprudence, William Bentley Ball

The Catholic Lawyer

No abstract provided.

The Enforcement Of Irs Summonses And Section 7609, Madeline Tusa

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

This Note argues that because the Tenth Circuit decision ignores important policy concerns dealing with the efficiency of the IRS, failing to comply with notice requirements under Section 7609(a) should be analyzed under the totality of the circumstances standard. Part I discusses the history and development of Section 7609(a) and notice requirements for third-party summonses in IRS investigations. Part II outlines the general requirements for the enforcement of an IRS summons and how Section 7609(a) is analyzed in light of those requirements. Part III discusses the current circuit split and the significance of each respective court’s holdings and reasoning. …

The Intelligible Principle: How It Briefly Lived, Why It Died, And Why It Desperately Needs Revival In Today's Administrative State, Meaghan Dunigan

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

This Note addresses the flaws in the current intelligible principle standard and proposes a new three-part standard that would better revitalize the intelligible principle as it was first articulated almost a century ago. This Note concedes that while legislative delegation in any form is a violation of the original meaning of the nondelegation doctrine, our society and the growth of administrative agencies removed any chance of having our laws created solely by Congress. What can happen, and what this Note proposes, is for the Supreme Court to adopt a new intelligible principle standard that scales back the amount of …

Unequal Law, Unequal Burden: The All-Male Selective Service Act, Civilian Rights, And The Limits Of Military Deference In Modern Supreme Court Jurisprudence, Amy Mccarthy

Florida State University Law Review

No abstract provided.