Law Commons^™

Roberts To America: Trust Us, Herman Schwartz, William Yeomans

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Going Rogue: Stop The Beach Renourishment As An Object Of Morbid Fascination, Mary Doyle, Stephen J. Schnably

Articles

Scholarly response to the Supreme Court's decision in Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection has focused on the plurality's strong advocacy of a judicial takings doctrine. We take a different tack. While the concept of judicial takings is worthy of serious attention, it is wrong to treat the plurality opinion as an ordinary object of analysis. It is, instead, the emanation of a Court going rogue.

Three basic symptoms of the pathology stand out. First, sleight of hand. The plurality opinion purports to be about an institutional issue-can a state court commit a taking? - …

Significant Entanglements: A Framework For The Civil Consequences Of Criminal Convictions, Colleen F. Shanahan

Faculty Scholarship

A significant and growing portion of the U.S. population is or has recently been in prison. Nearly all of these individuals will face significant obstacles as they struggle to reintegrate into society. A key source of these obstacles is the complex, sometimes unknown, and often harmful collection of civil consequences that flow from a criminal conviction. As the number and severity of these consequences have grown, courts, policymakers, and scholars have struggled with how to identify and understand them, how to communicate them to defendants and the public, and how to treat them in the criminal and civil processes. The …

How The Supreme Court And The Department Of Labor May Dispel Myths About Erisa's Family Law Provisions And Protect The Benefit Entitlements That Arise Thereunder, 45 J. Marshall L. Rev. 635 (2012), Albert Feuer

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Cruises, Class Actions, And The Court, David Korn, David Rosenberg

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform Caveat

As the Carnival Triumph debacle splashed across the national consciousness, lawyers shook their heads. Sensationalist news coverage exposed common knowledge in the legal community: cruise passengers have little recourse against carriers, and, as a result, they often bear the brunt of serious physical and financial injuries. Cruise lines, escaping legal accountability for their negligence, sail off undeterred from neglecting passenger safety on future voyages. While its previous decisions helped entrench this problem, a recently argued case presents the Supreme Court with another opportunity to address it.

Signal Lost: Is A Gps Tracking System The Same As An Eyeball?, Eric Andrew Felleman

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform Caveat

On November 8th, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in United States v. Jones. One of the primary issues in the case is whether law enforcement personnel violated Mr. Jones' Fourth Amendment right to freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures by using a GPS tracking device to monitor the location of his car without a warrant. The 7th Circuit and the 9th Circuit have both recently held that use of GPS tracking is not a search under the Fourth Amendment.

Chief Justice Roberts And The Changing Conservative Legal Movement, Joel Alicea

Scholarly Articles

At the sprightly age of 57 and less than seven years into his term as chief justice, John Roberts looks like a man whom time has left behind. The reaction among legal conservatives to the Roberts opinion in National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius (the healthcare case) has been brutal. Many have accused the chief justice of exchanging the black robes of the jurist for the trappings of the politician. The chief justice is said to have “blinked” and “failed [his] most basic responsibility.” Noted originalist scholar Mike Rappaport strongly implied that Roberts is “both a knave and a …

Unintended Consequences: The Impact Of The Court's Recent Cases On Structural Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel Claims, Lauren Sudeall Lucas

Faculty Publications By Year

The Supreme Court’s recent Sixth Amendment cases have garnered much attention for their potential impact on ineffective assistance of counsel claims asserted in the context of a criminal case. This short article explores the unintended consequences of these decisions on structural ineffective assistance of counsel claims made in the civil context alleging that systemic deficiencies are likely to lead to right to counsel violations. The article concludes that the Court’s departure from a trial-centered conception of the right to counsel, its willingness to articulate specific pre-trial duties of counsel and its more pragmatic approach towards enforcing the Sixth Amendment will …

The Rise, Decline And Fall(?) Of Miranda, Yale Kamisar

Articles

There has been a good deal of talk lately to the effect that Miranda1 is dead or dying-or might as well be dead.2 Even liberals have indicated that the death of Miranda might not be a bad thing. This brings to mind a saying by G.K. Chesterton: "Don't ever take a fence down until you know the reason why it was put up."4

Government Speech In Transition, Helen Norton

Publications

This symposium essay explores the legacy of the Supreme Court’s decision in Johanns v. Livestock Mktg. Ass’n. There the Court offered its clearest articulation to date of its emerging government speech doctrine. After characterizing contested expression as the government’s, the Court then held such government speech to be exempt from free speech clause scrutiny. In so doing, the Court solved at least one substantial problem, but created others that remain unresolved today. On one hand, Johanns marked the Court’s long overdue recognition of the ubiquity and importance of government speech, appropriately exempting the government’s own expressive choices from free …

Lies And The Constitution, Helen Norton

Publications

Although the Supreme Court declared almost forty years ago that “there is no constitutional value in false statements of fact,” the Court in United States v Alvarez ruled that the First Amendment protects at least some -- and perhaps many -- intentional lies from government prohibition. In Alvarez, a divided Court struck down the Stolen Valor Act, a federal statute that made it a crime for any person to state falsely that he or she had received a military decoration or medal. In three separate opinions, all of the Justices agreed that the First Amendment permits the government to …

Twombly’S Seismic Disturbances, Edward D. Cavanagh

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

The Supreme Court's decision in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), has had a seismic impact on federal civil litigation. We all thought the notice pleading concept introduced un­der the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure had substantially eased the plaintiff's burden at the pleading stage. The Supreme Court in Twombly said "yes, but," and emphasized that notice pleading was never intended to dispense entirely with the need to plead facts demonstrating a right to relief. In short, facts matter: Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a statement of circumstances, events, and …

The Sky Is Still Not Falling, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

Cases since Crawford have mainly fallen into two categories. One involves accusations of crime, made by the apparent victim shortly after the incident. In Michigan v. Bryant, a majority of the Court adopted an unfortunately constricted view of the word "testimonial" in this context. That decision was a consequence of the Court having failed to adopt a robust view of when an accused forfeits the confrontation right. How the Court will deal with this situation-one mistake made in an attempt to compensate for another-is a perplexing and important question. This Essay, though, concentrates on the other principal category of post-Crawford …

Issue 2: Table Of Contents

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Lafler V. Cooper And Aedpa, Nancy J. King

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

The Supreme Court in Missouri v. Frye1 and Lafler v. Cooper2 broke new ground by holding for the first time that a defendant’s right to the effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment can be violated by the loss of a favorable plea deal. Less noted, but also worthy of attention, are Lafler’s implications for federal habeas law. Four Justices protested that the Lafler decision violated the federal habeas statute. At the least, the decision expanded habeas review in unexpected ways. Lafler presented the Supreme Court with an unusual opportunity to declare new doctrine on habeas review

Aclu Seeks Supreme Court Review In Windsor Doma Suit, Arthur S. Leonard

Other Publications

No abstract provided.

The Flight From Judgment: Reflections On Benjamin Barton’S An Empirical Study Of Supreme Court Justice Pre-Appointment Experience, Jennifer Hendricks

Publications

Discusses J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro as an example of the Supreme Court's failure to rely on practical wisdom, in connection with the historic shift toward increasingly elite credentials for the justices.

Plausibility Pleading And Employment Discrimination, Suzette M. Malveaux

Publications

No abstract provided.

Tenth Amendment Challenges After Bond V. United States, Scott G. Thompson, Christopher Klimmek

Publications

In its recent decision in Bond v. United States, the Supreme Court explained that because the Tenth Amendment "secures the freedom of the individual," private parties who otherwise satisfy Article III's standing requirements and other prudential requirements may challenge federal laws as violating the Tenth Amendment. In so doing, the Court reversed the majority of circuit courts that have addressed the issue and removed a significant categorical bar to individual Tenth Amendment challenges. This Article explains Bond's holding and explores its implications for future Tenth Amendment challenges by private parties.

Although Bond contains some expansive language regarding the role …

Bridging The Great Divide--A Response To Linda Greenhouse And Reva B. Siegel's Before (And After) Roe V. Wade: New Questions About Backlash, Lolita Buckner Inniss

Publications

This essay discusses the history of Roe v. Wade as recently addressed by Linda Greenhouse and Reva B. Siegel. Going beyond their assertions, I suggest that an additional, more encompassing inquiry focuses on what factors are implicated in the politics of abortion and how these factors relate to larger social, political, and cultural conflicts both before and after Roe. By naming party politics and the Catholic Church, Greenhouse and Siegel posit two crucial elements that shaped the abortion debate. I assert, however, that what is not discussed in their Article is the way numerous other factors have figured into …

Partiality And Disclosure In Supreme Court Opinions, Robert F. Nagel

Publications

This Essay begins by identifying the various kinds of partiality the Justices of the Supreme Court can have in the cases they decide. Although there is widespread recognition of the influence these biases might have, for the most part the Justices continue to write opinions as if they (and other judges) were entirely disinterested. This practice is often thought to be justified as a source of judicial legitimacy, but there are a number of reasons to doubt that a pretense of impersonality is actually important for maintaining respect for the Court. Consequently, the possibility has to be considered that the …

Limiting Principles And Empowering Practices In American Indian Religious Freedoms, Kristen A. Carpenter

Publications

Employment Division v. Smith was a watershed moment in First Amendment law, with the Supreme Court holding that neutral statutes of general applicability could not burden the free exercise of religion. Congress's subsequent attempts, including the passage of Religious Freedom Restoration Act and Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, to revive legal protections for religious practice through the legislative and administrative process have received tremendous attention from legal scholars. Lost in this conversation, however, have been the American Indians at the center of the Smith case. Indeed, for them, the decision criminalizing the possession of their peyote sacrament was …

State Amici, Collective Action, And The Development Of Federalism Doctrine, Michael E. Solimine

Georgia Law Review

State attorneys general (SAGs) have been individually
and collectively active on many legal and regulatory fronts
in recent years. One of those activities has been the filing
of amicus curiae briefs in the United States Supreme

Court, especially in cases impacting the states and
federalism doctrine. Frequently SAGs will join in one
amicus brief, and briefs signed by forty or more states are
not uncommon. This phenomenon has been the subject of
attention by legal scholars and political scientists, but the
normative jurisprudential significance of such briefs has
not. In their opinions, the Justices vary in how much legal
weight, …

Beyond Separation In Federalism Enforcement: Medicaid Expansion, Coercion, And The Norm Of Engagement, Charlton C. Copeland

Articles

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius may be known, in both the popular and academic commentaries, as the case about the Affordable Care Act's Individual Mandate provision. History may record it as one of the most significant cases in the jurisprudence of cooperative federalism. In invalidating part of the Medicaid Expansion provision, the Roberts Court became the first to invalidate a federal spending statute as unconstitutionally coercive of state governments. This decision has the potential to impact federal-state cooperative arrangements such as No Child Left Behind, and others far beyond the health care context.

This Article argues that lack …

Review Of Labor And Employment Law Decisions From The United States Supreme Court's 2010-11 Term, Eric Schnapper

Articles

In the 2010-11 term, the U.S. Supreme Court decided nine significant labor and employment cases. Although some of these cases affected only the construction of a specific statute or constitutional provision, several of them addressed issues likely to affect the interpretation and implementation of a wide range of federal employment laws. Most of these decisions, rather than definitively resolving a question, raise a range of new issues likely to be litigated for years to come. Thus, for practitioners and academics alike, recognizing the new questions that have now been raised is at least as important as understanding what matters the …

Crosses And Culture: State-Sponsored Religious Displays In The Us And Europe, Mark L. Movsesian

Faculty Publications

This article compares the recent jurisprudence of the US Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights on the question of state-sponsored religious displays. Both tribunals insist that states have a duty of religious “neutrality,” but each defines that term differently. For the Supreme Court, neutrality means that government may not proselytize, even indirectly, or appear to favor a particular church; neutrality may even mean that government must not endorse religion generally. For the ECtHR, by contrast, neutrality means only that government must avoid active religious indoctrination; the ECtHR allows government to give “preponderant visibility” to the symbols of …

Obligatory Health, Noa Ben-Asher

Faculty Publications

The Supreme Court will soon rule on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed in March 2010. Courts thus far are divided on the question whether Congress had authority under the Commerce Clause to impose the Act's "Individual Mandate" to purchase health insurance. At this moment, the public and legal debate can benefit from a clearer understanding of the underlying rights claims. This Article offers two principal contributions. First, the Article argues that, while the constitutional question technically turns on the interpretation of congressional power under the Commerce Clause, underlying these debates is a tension between …

The Anti-Injunction Act, Congressional Inactivity, And Pre-Enforcement Challenges To § 5000a Of The Tax Code, Kevin C. Walsh

Scholarly Articles

Section 5000A of the Tax Code is one of the most controversial provisions of federal law currently on the books. It is the minimum essential coverage provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("ACA" or "Act")-a provision more popularly known as the individual mandate. Opponents challenged this provision immediately upon its enactment on March 23, 2010. The Supreme Court is poised to hear arguments about its constitutionality in one of these challenges, just over two years later.

Foreword: The Past, Present, And Future Of Supreme Court Jurisprudence On Erisa, 45 J. Marshall L. Rev. Xxv (2012), Colleen E. Medill

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Supreme Court Fills A Gaping Hole: Cigna Corp. V. Amara Clarifies The Scope Of Equitable Relief Under Erisa, 45 J. Marshall L. Rev. 767 (2012), Susan Harthill

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.