Law Commons^™

Supreme Court Review: Legalistic Argle-Bargle, Molly Mcburney, Kristen Barnes, Bernadette Genetin, Wilson Huhn, William Jordan, Marge Koosed, Rich Lavoie, Brant Lee, Elizabeth Reilly, Bill Rich, Kalyani Robbins, Jeff Samuels, Tracy Thomas, Katharine Van Tassel

Akron Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Originalism’S Pretenses, Eric Berger

Nebraska College of Law: Faculty Publications

When conservatives in the 1980s offered originalism as a constitutional methodology that could limit perceived judicial excesses, they touted its ability to constrain judges to follow the Constitution’s fixed, original meaning. Though originalism has changed many times since, its proponents still generally preach these related virtues of fixation and constraint. This symposium contribution reviews recent scholarly developments in originalism and contends that originalism’s capacity to fix constitutional meaning and constrain judicial decision making is overstated in both practice and theory. In practice, originalism’s many variants provide the ostensibly originalist justice great interpretive flexibility. Originalist justices are methodologically inconsistent, offering an …

Understanding The Establishment Clause: A Revisit, Robert A. Sedler

Law Faculty Research Publications

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court Leaks And Recusals: A Response To Professor Steven Lubet’S Scotus Ethics In The Wake Of Nfib V. Sebelius, 47 Val. U. L. Rev. 925 (2013), Kevin Hopkins

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

As Professor Steven Lubet notes in his article, Stonewalling, Leaks, and Counter-Leaks: SCOTUS Ethics in the Wake of NFIB v. Sebelius, the ethical conduct of Supreme Court Justices has once again gained national attention. This time, however, the context for public outcry is due to actions of an in-house source who released confidential information to a member of the press concerning the voting behavior and the overall sentiments of members of the Court's minority in one of the most significant and controversial rulings of the year: NFIB v. Sebelius (the "Affordable Care Act"). Professor Lubet uses this leaking of significant …

Florida V. Jardines: The Wolf At The Castle Door, Timothy C. Macdonnell

Scholarly Articles

The purpose of this article is to examine the controversy regarding the application of the contraband exception to the home and the potential impact of the Florida v. Jardines decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. The article will begin by examining the cases that make up the Supreme Court's contraband exception and some of the Court's precedent regarding the home and warrantless searches. Next, the article will examine the Florida Supreme Court's holding in Jardines and discuss how the Florida court arrived at the conclusion that the canine sniff in that case was a search. This section will compare the …

Second Amendment Challenges To Student Housing Firearms Bans: The Strength Of The Home Analogy, Michael L. Smith

Faculty Articles

Public colleges and universities or state governments often ban the possession of firearms on public university or college property. These bans typically extend to student housing. While much has been written about campus bans on the carrying of concealed firearms, the topic of gun bans in the student housing context has been largely unaddressed in Second Amendment literature. This Comment seeks to fill that gap by evaluating potential student challenges to firearms bans in the student housing context in light of potential standards of review courts may apply and in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in District of …

Remarks Of David H. Getches: Federal Bar Association Indian Law Conference (April 7, 2011), David H. Getches

Publications

No abstract provided.

Effective Trial Counsel After Martinez V. Ryan: Focusing On The Adequacy Of State Procedures, Eve Brensike Primus

Articles

Everyone knows that excessive caseloads, poor funding, and a lack of training plague indigent defense delivery systems throughout the states, such that the promise of Gideon v. Wainwright is largely unfulfilled. Commentators have disagreed about how best to breathe life into Gideon . Many disclaim any possibility that federal habeas corpus review of state criminal cases could catalyze reform give n the many procedural obstacle s that currently prevent state prisoners from getting into federal court. But the Supreme Court has recently taken a renewed interest in using federal habeas review to address the problem of ineffective attorneys in state …

A Rejoinder To Professor Schauer's Commentary, Yale Kamisar

Articles

It is quite a treat to have Professor Frederick Schauer comment on my Miranda article.1 Professor Schauer is a renowned authority on freedom of speech and the author of many thoughtful, probing articles in other areas as well, especially jurisprudence. I am pleased that in large measure, Schauer, too, laments the erosion of Miranda in the last four-and-a-half decades2 and that he, too, was unhappy with the pre-Miranda due process/“totality of circumstances”/“voluntariness” test.3 I also like what Schauer had to say about “prophylactic rules,” a term that has sometimes been used to disparage the Miranda rules.4 As Schauer observes, the …

A Cure Worse Than The Disease?, Ellen D. Katz

Articles

The pending challenge to section 5 of the Voting Rights Act insists the statute is no longer necessary. Should the Supreme Court agree, its ruling is likely to reflect the belief that section 5 is not only obsolete but that its requirements do more harm today than the condition it was crafted to address. In this Essay, Professor Ellen D. Katz examines why the Court might liken section 5 to a destructive treatment and why reliance on that analogy in the pending case threatens to leave the underlying condition unaddressed and Congress without the power to address it.

On Estimating Disparity And Inferring Causation: Sur-Reply To The U.S. Sentencing Commission Staff, Sonja B. Starr, M. Marit Rehavi

Articles

In this Essay, Professors Starr and Rehavi respond to the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s empirical staff’s criticisms of their recent article, which found, contrary to the Commission’s prior work, no evidence that racial disparity in sentences increased in response to United States v. Booker. As Starr and Rehavi suggest, their differences with the Commission perhaps relate to differing objectives. The Commission staff’s reply expresses a lack of interest in identifying Booker’s causal effects; in contrast, that is Starr and Rehavi’s central objective. In addition, Starr and Rehavi’s approach also accounts for disparities arising throughout the post-arrest justice process, extending beyond the …

The Individual Mandate As Health Care Regulation: What The Obama Administration Should Have Said In Nfib V. Sebelius, Abigail R. Moncrieff

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

There was an argument that the Obama Administration's lawyers could have made—but didn't—in defending Obamacare 's individual mandate against constitutional attack. That argument would have highlighted the role of comprehensive health insurance in steering individuals' healthcare savings and consumption decisions. Because consumer-directed healthcare, which reaches its apex when individuals self-insure, suffers from several known market failures and because comprehensive health insurance policies play an unusually aggressive regulatory role in attempting to correct those failures, the individual mandate could be seen as an attempt to eliminate inefficiencies in the healthcare market that arise from individual decisions to self-insure. This argument would …

Introduction: Trial By Jury Or Trial By Motion? Summary Judgment, Iqbal, And Employment Discrimination, Arthur S. Leonard

Articles & Chapters

No abstract provided.

Antitrust And The Judicial Virtues, Daniel A. Crane

Articles

Although commentators frequently debate how judges should decide antitrust cases substantively, little attention has been paid to theories of judicial virtue in antitrust decision making. This essay considers four pairings of virtues: (1) striving for substantive purity versus conceding to institutional realism; (2) incrementalism versus generalism; (3) presenting a unified face versus candidly conceding differences among judges on an appellate panel; and (4) adhering strictly to stare decisis versus freely updating precedents to reflect evolving economic learning or conditions. While recognizing the complexities that sometimes pull judges in the opposite direction, this Article gives the nod to institutional realism, incrementalism, …

Plata V. Brown And Realignment: Jails, Prisons, Courts, And Politics, Margo Schlanger

Articles

The year 2011 marked an important milestone in American institutional reform litigation. That year, a bare majority of the U.S. Supreme Court, in an opinion in Brown v. Plata by Justice Anthony Kennedy, affirmed a district court order requiring California to remedy its longstanding constitutional deficits in prison medical and mental health care by reducing prison crowding. Not since 1978 had the Court ratified a lower court's crowding-related order in a jail or prison case, and the order before the Court in 2011 was fairly aggressive; theoretically, it could have (although this was never a real prospect) induced the release …

Federalism By Waiver After The Health Care Case, Samuel Bagenstos

Book Chapters

The Supreme Court's Spending Clause holding in National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius (NFIB) is likely to be consequential for many reasons. It will have a direct effect on the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which relied on the expansion of Medicaid-now made voluntary by the Court-to obtain health care coverage for more than fifteen million previously uninsured people. At this writing, it remains unclear how many states will participate in the expansion. The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that, as a result of the Court's decision, three million fewer people will obtain new Medicaid coverage under …

The Solicitor General And Confession Of Error, Neal K. Katyal

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Confessions of error have a long history. From the very beginning of the Solicitor General's position, we have had confessions of error.

All Solicitors General-it doesn't matter whether they are appointed by a Republican or a Democrat-have confessed error, roughly at the pace of two to three times per Supreme Court term.

Prometheus Rebound: Diagnostics, Nature, And Mathematical Algorithms, Rebecca S. Eisenberg

Articles

The Supreme Court’s decision last Term in Mayo v. Prometheus left considerable uncertainty as to the boundaries of patentable subject matter for molecular diagnostic inventions. First, the Court took an expansive approach to what counts as an unpatentable natural law by applying that term to the relationship set forth in the challenged patent between a patient’s levels of a drug metabolite and the indication of a need to adjust the patient’s drug dosage. And second, in evaluating whether the patent claims add enough to this unpatentable natural law to be patent eligible, the Court did not consult precedents concerning the …

What Was Wrong With The Record?, Ellen D. Katz

Articles

Shelby County v. Holder offers three reasons for why the record Congress amassed to support the 2006 reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) was legally insufficient to justify the statute's continued regional application: (1) the problems Congress documented in 2006 were not as severe as those that prompted it to craft the regime in 1965; (2) these problems did not lead Congress to alter the statute's pre-existing coverage formula; and (3) these problems did not exclusively involve voter registration and the casting of ballots.

Confronting The Myth Of State Court Class Action Abuses Through An Understanding Of Heuristics And A Plea For More Statistics, Patricia W. Moore

Faculty Articles

The Supreme Court heard six cases involving class actions this term. One of these cases, Standard Fire Insurance Company v. Knowles, brought the Class Action Fairness Act to the Court for the first time. Petitioner insurance company and its numerous business-interest amici repeatedly claimed before the Court that "state court class action abuses" justified removal of the case (which was based on state law and filed in state court) to federal court.

The charge of a "flood" of "abusive state court class actions" echoed the same rhetoric that CAFA's supporters used a decade ago in their ultimately successful efforts to …

Never Construed To Their Prejudice: In Honor Of David Getches, Richard B. Collins

Publications

This article reviews and analyzes the judicial canons of construction for Native American treaties and statutes. It discusses their theoretical justifications and practical applications. It concludes that the treaty canon has ready support in contract law and the law of treaty interpretation. Justification of the statutory canon is more challenging and could be strengthened by attention to the democratic deficit when Congress imposes laws on Indian country. Applications of the canons have mattered in disputes between Indian nations and private or state interests. They have made much less difference, and have suffered major failings, in disputes with the federal government. …

Heed Not The Umpire (Justice Ginsburg Called Nfib), Nicole Huberfeld

Faculty Scholarship

A bad reading of the facts in NFIB v. Sebelius has led to new limitations on Congress’s Commerce, Necessary and Proper, and Spending Clause powers. The decision appeared to use healthcare as a vehicle for constitutional change, leading to interpretive gymnastics that invite further litigation. This essay highlights the factual errors in Chief Justice Roberts’s and the joint dissent’s opinions and explains why Justice Ginsburg’s more fact-attuned opinion was the correct analysis of the case.

Supreme Court Strikes Down Doma’S Key Provision, Ducks On Prop 8, Arthur S. Leonard

Other Publications

No abstract provided.

Prop 8, Doma Defenders Rely On Federalism, Arthur S. Leonard

Other Publications

No abstract provided.

Protecting Elites: An Alternative Take On How United States V. Jones Fits Into The Court's Technology Jurisprudence, Tamara Rice Lave

Articles

This Article argues that the Supreme Court's technology jurisprudence can be best understood as protecting the privacy interest of elites. After providing an overview of the major technology cases from Olmstead to Kyllo, the Article focuses on the recent case of United States v Jones. The Article does not contend that the Court intended to protect elites, but instead posits that this motive likely operated at a more unconscious level because of the Justices' greater relative affluence and elevated social position.

Everyman's Exclusionary Rule: The Exclusionary Rule And The Rule Of Law (Or Why Conservatives Should Embrace The Exclusionary Rule), Scott E. Sundby

Articles

No abstract provided.

The Roberts Court And The Law Of Human Resources, Matthew T. Bodie

All Faculty Scholarship

The rise of human resources departments parallels the increase in the myriad statutory and regulatory requirements that govern the workplace. The Supreme Court's decisions in labor and employment law cases are largely monitored and implemented by HR professionals who must carry out these directives on a daily basis. This article looks at the Roberts Court's labor and employment law cases through the lens of human resources. In adopting an approach that is solicitous towards HR departments and concerns, the Roberts Court reflects a willingness to empower these private institutional players. Even if labor and employment law scholars do not agree …

Religious Freedom In The United States: ‘When You Come To A Fork In The Road, Take It', Charles J. Russo

Educational Leadership Faculty Publications

As expansive as the Supreme Court’s view of the First Amendment religion clauses has been, its jurisprudence has demonstrated that its rulings do not always achieve the outcomes desired by proponents of religious freedom.³ From the perspective of supporters of religious freedom, this realization lends credence to the preceding wry comment by Justice Scalia. This article details the Court’s inconsistent treatment of Christianity, and people of faith broadly, especially in educational settings. These inconsistent judicial outcomes run the risk of increasingly marginalizing matters of faith and conscience in the public square.⁴ As discussed in this article, disputes over …

The Virtue Of Obscurity, Colin Starger

All Faculty Scholarship

The critics have panned Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in United States v. Windsor. Supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage have together bemoaned what may be called Kennedy’s “doctrinal obscurity” in Windsor. Doctrinal obscurity describes the opinion’s failure to justify striking down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) using any discernable accepted test for substantive due process or equal protection. Specifically, Kennedy does not ask whether DOMA burdens a right “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” nor does he identify sexual orientation as a suspect or semi-suspect classification, nor does he subject DOMA to explicit rational …

Supra Synopses, Ryan W. Dumm, Laura Turczanski

Seattle University Law Review Online

No abstract provided.