Law Commons^™

Tiers Of Scrutiny In A Hierarchical Judiciary, Tara Leigh Grove

Tara L. Grove

No abstract provided.

How Constitutional Law Casebooks Perpetuate The Myth Of Judicial Supremacy, Neal Devins

Neal E. Devins

No abstract provided.

Better Lucky Than Good, Neal Devins

Neal E. Devins

No abstract provided.

Financial Oversight And Management Board For Puerto Rico V. Aurelius Investment, Llc, Rafael Cox Alomar

Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Panel 3: Free Speech And Freedom Of Religion

Georgia State University Law Review

Moderator: Eric Segall

Panelists: Mike Dorf and Eugene Volokh

Panel 6: The Median Justice

Georgia State University Law Review

Moderator: Eric Segall

Panelists: Jonathan Adler, Lee Epstein, and Sasha Volokh

Panel 2: Justice Kennedy's Prose — Style And Substance

Georgia State University Law Review

Moderator: Eric Segall

Panelists: Eric Berger, Michael Dorf, and Jamal Greene

Panel 4: Criminal Procedure And Affirmative Action

Georgia State University Law Review

Moderator: Lauren Sudeall

Panelists: Dan Epps, Gail Heriot, and Corinna Lain

Panel 5: Federalism And Separation Of Powers

Georgia State University Law Review

Moderator: Eric Segall

Panelists: Stephen Griffin, Neil Kinkopf, and Ilya Somin

Where The Constitution Falls Short: Confession Admissibility And Police Regulation, Courtney E. Lewis

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

A confession presented at trial is one of the most damning pieces of evidence against a criminal defendant, which means that the rules governing its admissibility are critical. At the outset of confession admissibility in the United States, the judiciary focused on a confession’s truthfulness. Culminating in the landmark case Miranda v. Arizona, judicial concern with the reliability of confessions shifted away from whether a confession was true and towards curtailing unconstitutional police misconduct. Post-hoc constitutionality review, however, is arguably inappropriate. Such review is inappropriate largely because the reviewing court must find that the confession was voluntary only by …

A Gun To Whose Head? Federalism, Localism, And The Spending Clause, Daniel S. Cohen

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

President Trump’s executive order rescinding federal funds from “sanctuary jurisdictions” has brought a critical, but overlooked, question of constitutional law to the forefront of the political debate: how does the Spending Clause apply to local governments? The purpose of the Spending Clause is to empower the federal government to bargain with the states to enact policies it cannot enact itself. This power, however, is constrained within the confines of federalism. The Supreme Court has sought to restrict the Spending Clause by crafting the Dole-NFIB framework, a test to determine whether a federal grant has compromised federalism. At its …

Teacher For The Nation, Daniel Epps

Scholarship@WashULaw

In these brief remarks, delivered at the Hastings Law Journal's Symposium on the Jurisprudence of Justice Kennedy, I discuss Justice Kennedy's impact on American law. I reflect on the events that led to Justice Kennedy's appointment to the Supreme Court and discuss his vision of the Justices as teachers for the nation and how that vision seems to have informed his view of judicial review.

How To Save The Supreme Court, Daniel Epps, Ganesh Sitaraman

Scholarship@WashULaw

The consequences of Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation are seismic. Justice Kavanaugh, replacing Justice Anthony Kennedy, completes a new conservative majority and represents a stunning Republican victory after decades of increasingly partisan battles over control of the Court. The result is a Supreme Court whose Justices are likely to vote along party lines more consistently than ever before in American history. That development gravely threatens the Court’s legitimacy. If in the future roughly half of Americans lack confidence in the Supreme Court’s ability to render impartial justice, the Court’s power to settle important questions of law will be in …

Sites Of Storytelling: Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings, Patrick Barry

Indiana Law Journal

Supreme Court confirmation hearings have an interesting biographical feature: before nominees even say a word, many words are said about them. This feature—which has been on prominent display in the confirmation hearings of Judge Brett Kavanaugh—is a product of how each senator on the confirmation committee is allowed to make an opening statement. Some of these statements are, as Robert Bork remembers from his own confirmation hearing, “lavish in their praise,” some are “lavish in their denunciations,” and some are “lavish in their equivocations.” The result is a disorienting kind of biography by committee, one which produces not one all-encompassing …