Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
-
- University of Michigan Law School (21)
- William & Mary Law School (14)
- University of Colorado Law School (6)
- Emory University School of Law (5)
- Boston University School of Law (3)
-
- Columbia Law School (3)
- Saint Louis University School of Law (3)
- University of Baltimore Law (3)
- University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School (2)
- Vanderbilt University Law School (2)
- Brooklyn Law School (1)
- Florida International University College of Law (1)
- Georgia State University College of Law (1)
- The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law (1)
- UIC School of Law (1)
- University at Buffalo School of Law (1)
- University of Dayton (1)
- University of Miami Law School (1)
- University of Montana (1)
- Washington and Lee University School of Law (1)
- Wayne State University (1)
- Keyword
-
- United States Supreme Court (29)
- Supreme Court (11)
- Employment discrimination (4)
- Judicial review (4)
- Justices (4)
-
- Lawyers (4)
- Antitrust (3)
- Antitrust enforcement (3)
- Chicago School of antitrust (3)
- Civil rights (3)
- Federal agencies (3)
- Federal courts (3)
- Abortion (2)
- Barack Obama (2)
- Child welfare (2)
- Children (2)
- Congress (2)
- Decision-making (2)
- Due Process Clause (2)
- EEOC (2)
- First Amendment (2)
- Groups (2)
- Harvard School of antitrust (2)
- Law reform (2)
- Litigation (2)
- Markets (2)
- Monopolies (2)
- New York (2)
- New York State Board of Elections v. Lopez Torres (2)
- Nominations (2)
- Publication
-
- Articles (13)
- All Faculty Scholarship (8)
- Faculty Publications (7)
- Faculty Scholarship (7)
- Supreme Court Preview (7)
-
- Other Publications (6)
- Publications (6)
- Faculty Articles (5)
- Book Chapters (2)
- Scholarly Articles (2)
- Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications (2)
- Book Reviews (1)
- Faculty Law Review Articles (1)
- Faculty Publications By Year (1)
- Law Faculty Research Publications (1)
- Library Staff Publications (1)
- Management and Marketing Faculty Publications (1)
- Reviews (1)
- UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship (1)
Articles 31 - 60 of 73
Full-Text Articles in Law
A House Divided: Earl Caldwell, The New York Times, And The Quest For A Testimonial Privilege, Eric Easton
A House Divided: Earl Caldwell, The New York Times, And The Quest For A Testimonial Privilege, Eric Easton
All Faculty Scholarship
In the 1972 case of Branzburg v. Hayes, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not protect journalists who refuse to reveal their confidential sources or news gathering product in response to a federal grand jury subpoena. That decision has remained vital for 35 years and has reverberated through a number of recent high-profile cases. Despite some form of protection in nearly every state court, reporters haled before a federal judge may have no recourse save prison. Devastating as Branzburg has been for the so-called journalist's privilege, its negative impact has been far broader. Branzburg is one of …
Escobedo V. Illinois, Yale Kamisar
Escobedo V. Illinois, Yale Kamisar
Other Publications
378 U.S. 438 (1964), argued 29 Apr. 1964, decided 22 June 1964 by vote of 5 to 4; Goldberg for the Court, Harlan, Stewart, White, and Clark in dissent. When Danny Escobedo, a murder suspect, was taken to the police station and put in an interrogation room, he repeatedly asked to speak to the lawyer he had retained. Escobedo's lawyer soon arrived at the station house and repeatedly asked to see his client. Despite the persistent efforts of both Escobedo and his lawyer, the police prevented them from meeting. The police also failed to advise Escobedo of his right to …
Ex Parte Young: Sovereignty, Immunity, And The Constitutional Structure Of American Federalism, Charlton C. Copeland
Ex Parte Young: Sovereignty, Immunity, And The Constitutional Structure Of American Federalism, Charlton C. Copeland
Articles
No abstract provided.
Charles Evans Hughes, Richard D. Friedman
Charles Evans Hughes, Richard D. Friedman
Book Chapters
Hughes, Charles Evans (1862-1948). Lawyer, politician, diplomat, and chief justice of the United States. Hughes was born in Glens Falls, N.Y., the son of a Baptist preacher from the English- Welsh border country who changed congregations from time to time. Young Hughes spent his earliest years in several locations in New York and New Jersey before the family settled in Brooklyn. A precocious child, he was educated both at home and in public school. At age 14, he began college at Madison (now Colgate) University, a Baptist institution. After his sophomore year, he transferred to Brown, which also had a …
Whose Eyes Are You Going To Believe? Scott V. Harris And The Perils Of Cognitive Illiberalism, Dan M. Kahan, David A. Hoffman, Donald Braman
Whose Eyes Are You Going To Believe? Scott V. Harris And The Perils Of Cognitive Illiberalism, Dan M. Kahan, David A. Hoffman, Donald Braman
All Faculty Scholarship
This paper accepts the unusual invitation to see for yourself issued by the Supreme Court in Scott v. Harris, 127 S. Ct. 1769 (2007). Scott held that a police officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment when he deliberately rammed his car into that of a fleeing motorist who refused to pull over for speeding and instead attempted to evade the police in a high-speed chase. The majority did not attempt to rebut the arguments of the single Justice who disagreed with its conclusion that no reasonable juror could find the fleeing driver did not pose a deadly risk …
Preemption By Stealth, Sandra B. Zellmer
Preemption By Stealth, Sandra B. Zellmer
Faculty Law Review Articles
By making federal law supreme to state law, the U.S. Constitution gives Congress "an extraordinary power." Perhaps the extraordinarily powerful nature of the Supremacy Clause is the reason for its checkered treatment by the Supreme Court. Recent preemption decisions give lip service to federalism concerns, but in many cases state statutes, regulations, and remedies have been struck down with little regard for either federal-state comity or institutional competence. If federal regulatory regimes always accomplished optimal regulation perfect equipoise between protecting human health and promoting economic development while fostering innovation by governments and regulated entities-preemption of state law would be far …
Remaking The United States Supreme Court In The Courts' Of Appeals Image, Chris Guthrie, Tracey E. George
Remaking The United States Supreme Court In The Courts' Of Appeals Image, Chris Guthrie, Tracey E. George
Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications
We argue that Congress should remake the United States Supreme Court in the U.S. courts' of appeals image by increasing the size of the Court's membership, authorizing panel decision making, and retaining an en banc procedure for select cases. In so doing, Congress would expand the Court's capacity to decide cases, facilitating enhanced clarity and consistency in the law as well as heightened monitoring of lower courts and the other branches. Remaking the Court in this way would not only expand the Court's decision making capacity but also improve the Court's composition, competence, and functioning.
Barack Obama, Margarita Lopez Torres, And The Path To Nomination, Ellen D. Katz
Barack Obama, Margarita Lopez Torres, And The Path To Nomination, Ellen D. Katz
Articles
Operating within these regimes, Obama was able to mount a credible--and ultimately successful--challenge to the leadership's choice for the nomination while Lopez Torres could not. This article offers an explanation why. It argues that Obama succeeded where Lopez Torres failed because the nomination process Obama traversed was more penetrable and more contestable than the one Lopez Torres faced.
Social Movements And Judging: An Essay On Institutional Reform Litigation And Desegregation In Dallas, Texas, Darren L. Hutchinson
Social Movements And Judging: An Essay On Institutional Reform Litigation And Desegregation In Dallas, Texas, Darren L. Hutchinson
Faculty Articles
This Article discusses the political and legal barriers that have surfaced to undermine the ability of courts to fashion remedies that offer justice to aggrieved individuals and to render rights-based institutional reform litigation a judicial relic. Part II examines the historical development of institutional reform litigation and examines the political factors that created the opportunity for dramatic changes in legal approaches to the issue of racial inequality. Part III examines litigation challenging segregation in Dallas public schools. It also discusses cases filed in the immediate post-Brown era and contrasts those cases with Judge Sanders's rulings on the subject. In …
How Planned Parenthood V. Casey (Pretty Much) Settled The Abortion Wars, Neal Devins
How Planned Parenthood V. Casey (Pretty Much) Settled The Abortion Wars, Neal Devins
Faculty Publications
More than twenty-one years after Robert Bork's failed Supreme Court nomination and seventeen years after Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, the rhetoric of abortion politics remains unchanged. Pro-choice interests, for example, argue that states are poised to outlaw abortion and that Roe v. Wade is vulnerable to overruling. In this Essay, I will debunk those claims. First, I will explain how Casey's approval of limited abortion rights reflected an emerging national consensus in 1992. Second, I will explain why the Supreme Court is unlikely to risk political backlash by formally modifying Casey- either by restoring the trimester test …
Justice Ginsburg's Dissent In Bush V. Gore, Hugh Baxter
Justice Ginsburg's Dissent In Bush V. Gore, Hugh Baxter
Faculty Scholarship
In this essay, I examine Justice Ginsburg's dissenting opinion in Bush v. Gore, the decision that ended the 2000 controversy over the winner of the presidency. I look critically at Justice Ginsburg's invocation of federalism-based deference to the Florida courts' interpretations of state election law in the recount controversy. I consider also Justice Ginsburg's criticisms of the Court's remedial decision to stop the recounts. Finally, I take up the much-debated question of how to understand Justice Ginsburg's final two words: "I dissent," rather than "I respectfully dissent." My conclusion is that the omission of "respectfully" is pointed, but not for …
Miranda V. Arizona, Yale Kamisar
Miranda V. Arizona, Yale Kamisar
Other Publications
384 U.S. 436 (1966), argued 28 Feb. 1966, decided 13 June 1966 by vote of 5 to 4; Warren for the Court, Clark, Harlan, White, and Stewart in dissent. The Warren Court's revolution in American criminal procedure reached its high point (or, depending upon one's perspective, its low point) on 13 June 1966. That day the Court handed down its opinion in Miranda, the most famous, and most bitterly criticized, confession case in the nation's history. To some, Miranda symbolized the legal system's determination to treat even the lowliest and most despicable criminal suspect with dignity and respect. But …
California V. Acevedo, Yale Kamisar
California V. Acevedo, Yale Kamisar
Other Publications
500 U.S. 565 (1991), argued 8 Jan. 1991, decided 30 May 1991 by vote of 6 to 3; Blackmun for the Court, Scalia concurring, Stevens in dissent. Until the 1991 Acevedo case was decided, two different rules governed the search of closed containers found in a motor vehicle. In United States v. Ross (1982), the Court held that if the police had probable cause to search an entire vehicle for contraband and came upon a closed container in the course of the automobile search, they could open the container without first obtaining a warrant. On the other hand, in Arkansas …
Setting The Size Of The Supreme Court, F. Andrew Hessick, Samuel P. Jordan
Setting The Size Of The Supreme Court, F. Andrew Hessick, Samuel P. Jordan
All Faculty Scholarship
As with any institutional feature, the size of the Supreme Court should be informed by a definition of functional goals. This article describes how the current size of the Supreme Court is largely untethered from any such definition, and it begins the process of understanding how size and Court performance might interact. To do so, it identifies a list of institutional goals for the Supreme Court and explores how changing the size of the Court promotes or obstructs the attainment of those goals. Given that the Court's institutional goals are numerous and occasionally in tension, there is no definitive answer …
Toward A Theory Of Persuasive Authority, Chad Flanders
Toward A Theory Of Persuasive Authority, Chad Flanders
All Faculty Scholarship
The debate about the citation of foreign authorities has become stale. One side says that citing foreign authorities means being beholden to foreign sovereigns. The other side responds that this is nonsense, as the authorities are being used only for their "persuasive value." But do we even have a good idea of what it means to be a persuasive authority? My essay is the first to focus entirely on the notion of persuasive authority and to make the first steps towards providing a general theory of it. I make two major contributions. First, I try to show that there is …
Take Two Tablets And Do Not Call For Judicial Review Until Our Heads Clear: The Supreme Court Prepares To Demolish The 'Wall Of Separation' Between Church And State, Terence Lau, William Wines
Take Two Tablets And Do Not Call For Judicial Review Until Our Heads Clear: The Supreme Court Prepares To Demolish The 'Wall Of Separation' Between Church And State, Terence Lau, William Wines
Management and Marketing Faculty Publications
In this article, we examine the issues that bring First Amendment jurisprudence to the grant of certiorari in Pleasant Grove v. Summum, scheduled for oral argument in the Supreme Court of the United States in November. We examine the historical basis for America’s religious heritage, the historical judicial treatment of the religious clauses, and the erosion of the wall of separation between church and state. We examine the Ten Commandments, finding inherent discrimination present in modern-day attempts to advance a particular version of the Ten Commandments as secular. By drawing upon Rousseau’s civic religion, we suggest alternative routes for the …
Owen J. Roberts, Richard D. Friedman
Owen J. Roberts, Richard D. Friedman
Book Chapters
Roberts, Owen Josephus (1875-1955). Lawyer and U.S. Supreme Court justice. Roberts was born in Philadelphia and graduated from the University of Pennsylvania in 1895 and from its law school in 1898. He taught there part-time beginning almost immediately until 1919, reaching the rank of full professor in 1907. While operating a profitable dairy farm, Roberts practiced law privately, punctuated by a three-year stint beginning in 1901 as first assistant district attorney of Philadelphia County. Tall and robust, he made a striking figure in both classroom and courtroom.
Withdrawal: The Roberts Court And The Retreat From Election Law, Ellen D. Katz
Withdrawal: The Roberts Court And The Retreat From Election Law, Ellen D. Katz
Articles
Last Term the Supreme Court handed down four decisions that upheld diverse efforts by state governments to regulate the electoral process. The Court turned back challenges to New York’s method for nominating judicial candidates, Washington’s modified blanket primary system, Indiana’s voter identification requirement, and Alabama’s use of gubernatorial appointment to fill county commission vacancies in Mobile County. Unlike other recent election decisions, these were not close cases. All nine Justices supported the New York holding, while supermajorities voted in favor of the result in the others. This consensus, moreover, emerged even as the Court voted to reverse unanimous decisions by …
From Bush V. Gore To Namudno: A Response To Professor Amar, Ellen D. Katz
From Bush V. Gore To Namudno: A Response To Professor Amar, Ellen D. Katz
Articles
In his Dunwody Lecture, Professor Akhil Amar invites us to revisit the Bush v. Gore controversy and consider what went wrong. This short essay responds to Professor Amar by taking up his invitation and looking at the decision through a seemingly improbable lens, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last June in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. One (NAMUDNO) v. Holder. Among its many surprises, NAMUDNO helps illuminate the Court’s fundamental error nine years ago. Professor Amar forcefully argues that the mistrust with which the Justices in the Bush v. Gore majority viewed the Florida Supreme Court was both unjustified …
Limits Of Interpretivism, Richard A. Primus
Limits Of Interpretivism, Richard A. Primus
Articles
Justice Stephen Markman sits on the Supreme Court of my home state of Michigan. In that capacity, he says, he is involved in a struggle between two kinds of judging. On one side are judges like him. They follow the rules. On the other side are unconstrained judges who decide cases on the basis of what they think the law ought to be. This picture is relatively simple, and Justice Markman apparently approves of its simplicity. But matters may in fact be a good deal more complex.
Remaking The United States Supreme Court In The Courts' Of Appeals Image, Tracey E. George, Chris Guthrie
Remaking The United States Supreme Court In The Courts' Of Appeals Image, Tracey E. George, Chris Guthrie
Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications
We argue that Congress should remake the United States Supreme Court in the U.S. courts' of appeals image by increasing the size of the Court's membership, authorizing panel decision making, and retaining an en banc procedure for select cases. In so doing, Congress would expand the Court's capacity to decide cases, facilitating enhanced clarity and consistency in the law as well as heightened monitoring of lower courts and the other branches. Remaking the Court in this way would not only expand the Court's decision making capacity but also improve the Court's composition, competence, and functioning.
Response, Frames Of Reference And The "Turn To Remedy" In Facial Challenge Doctrine, Kevin C. Walsh
Response, Frames Of Reference And The "Turn To Remedy" In Facial Challenge Doctrine, Kevin C. Walsh
Scholarly Articles
This Symposium on Facial Challenges in the Roberts Court provides an opportunity to chart a path toward greater doctrinal coherence in light of the Court's most recent uses of the distinction between facial and as-applied challenges. In his contribution to this Symposium, David Faigman makes two claims that I address in this response. The first of Professor Faigman's claims is descriptive: "the debate over facial versus as-applied challenges is merely a subcategory of the pervasive issue concerning defining the proper frame of reference for empirical questions arising under the Constitution.'"' As Professor Faigman uses the term, a "frame of reference" …
Massiah V. United States, Yale Kamisar
Massiah V. United States, Yale Kamisar
Other Publications
377 U.S. 201 (1964), argued 3 Mar. 1964, decided 18 May 1964 by vote of 6 to 3; Stewart for the Court, White in dissent. Massiah was decided at a time when the Warren Court's “revolution in American criminal procedure” was accelerating. According to Massiah, after the initiation of adversary judicial proceedings (by indictment, as in Massiah's case, or by information, preliminary hearing or arraignment), the Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the right to rely on counsel as the “medium” between himself and the government. Thus, once adversary proceedings have begun, the government cannot bypass the defendant's lawyer and …
Justice Ginsburg's Footnotes, Jay D. Wexler
Justice Ginsburg's Footnotes, Jay D. Wexler
Faculty Scholarship
In this short article written for the New England School of Law's March Symposium on Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, I report on what happened when I embarked on a project of trying to read every single footnote Justice Ginsburg has ever written as a justice on the Supreme Court. As the article relates, this project was impossible to complete because Justice Ginsburg, it turns out, has written a lot, lot, lot of footnotes. Instead, I ended up reading all of Justice Ginsburg's footnotes from three of her terms. In the article, I develop a nine-part taxonomy of Supreme Court footnotes …
Why The United States Supreme Court Got Some [But Not A Lot] Of The Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel Analysis Right, Paul Marcus
Why The United States Supreme Court Got Some [But Not A Lot] Of The Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel Analysis Right, Paul Marcus
Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
Is It The "Real Thing"? How Coke's One-Way Binding Arbitration May Bridge The Divide Between Litigation And Arbitration, Suzette M. Malveaux
Is It The "Real Thing"? How Coke's One-Way Binding Arbitration May Bridge The Divide Between Litigation And Arbitration, Suzette M. Malveaux
Publications
Although the scholarly literature is replete with discussion of the pros and cons of mandatory arbitration and civil litigation, relative to one another, there has been no examination of one-way binding arbitration as a potential bridge between these procedural poles. The goal of this article is to fill that void. One-way binding arbitration requires an employee to use arbitration to resolve workplace disputes, but also gives the employee, but not the employer, the option of rejecting the arbitrator’s decision. In the event the employee is not satisfied with the outcome of arbitration, she can still pursue her claim in court. …
The Courts Under President Obama, Scott A. Moss
If It Is Broken, Then Fix It: Needed Reforms To Employment Discrimination Law: 2009 Annual Meeting Of The Association Of American Law Schools Section On Employment Discrimination Law, Melissa Hart, Minna Kotkin, Roberto Corrada, Deborah Widiss
If It Is Broken, Then Fix It: Needed Reforms To Employment Discrimination Law: 2009 Annual Meeting Of The Association Of American Law Schools Section On Employment Discrimination Law, Melissa Hart, Minna Kotkin, Roberto Corrada, Deborah Widiss
Publications
No abstract provided.
Procedural Extremism: The Supreme Court's 2008-2009 Labor And Employment Cases, Melissa Hart
Procedural Extremism: The Supreme Court's 2008-2009 Labor And Employment Cases, Melissa Hart
Publications
It has become nearly a commonplace to say that the Supreme Court under the leadership of Chief Justice John Roberts is a court of “incrementalism.” The 2008 Term, however, featured several opinions that showcase the procedural extremism of the current conservative majority. In a series of sharply divided decisions, the Court re-shaped the law that governs the workplace - or more specifically the law that governs whether and how employees will be permitted access to the courts to litigate workplace disputes. At least as important as the Court’s changes to the substantive legal standards are the procedural hurdles the five …
Constitutional Limits On Punitive Damages Awards: An Analysis Of Supreme Court Precedent, Dorothy S. Lund
Constitutional Limits On Punitive Damages Awards: An Analysis Of Supreme Court Precedent, Dorothy S. Lund
Faculty Scholarship
Over the last fifteen years, the Supreme Court has formulated new constitutional principles to constrain punitive damages awards imposed by state courts, invoking its authority under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This intervention has been controversial from the start, generating dissents from several Justices asserting that the actions of the Court are unwarranted and amount to unjustified judicial activism. Over the ensuing years lower courts and commentators have criticized the Court’s prescription of procedural and substantive limitations, finding them to be vague and unnecessarily restrictive of state common law prerogatives. Some observers with an economic orientation have …