Law Commons^™

The Supreme Court's Love-Hate Relationship With Miranda, Kit Kinports

Kit Kinports

In recent years, the Supreme Court has enjoyed a love-hate relationship with its landmark decision in Miranda v. Arizona. While the Court has not hesitated to narrow Miranda’s reach, it has also been wary of deliberate efforts to circumvent it. This pragmatic approach to Miranda can be doctrinally unsatisfying and even incoherent at times, but it basically maintains the core structure of Miranda as the police have come to know and adapt to it. Last Term provided the first glimpse of the Roberts Court’s views on Miranda, as the Court considered three Miranda cases: Maryland v. Shatzer, Florida v. Powell, …

Constitutional Law In Social Choice Perspective, Maxwell Stearns

Maxwell L. Stearns

Constitutional scholars do not typically employ spatial reasoning in their work. And yet, constitutional jurisprudence implicitly rests on a set of assumptions that can best be cast in spatial terms. This includes assuming that debated positions respecting constitutional issues, along with the views of Supreme Court justices, rest along a common liberal-to-conservative ideological dimension. Political scientists who embrace the Attitudinal Model are more explicit in this framing, which is itself a premise of those who code the Supreme Court Database upon which much quantitative work in the field of Judicial Politics takes place.

The assumption of a single analytical dimension …

Janus Capital Group, Inc. V. First Derivative Traders: The Culmination Of The Supreme Court’S Evolution From Liberal To Reactionary In Rule 10b-5 Actions, Charles W. Murdock

Charles W. Murdock

“Political” decisions such as Citizens United and National Federation of Independent Business (“Obamacare”) reflect the reactionary bent of several Supreme Court justices. But this reactionary trend is discernible in other areas as well. With regard to Rule 10b-5, the Court has handed down a series of decisions that could be grouped into four trilogies. The article examines the trend over the past 40 years which has become increasingly conservative and finally reactionary.

The first trilogy was a liberal one, arguably overextending the scope of Rule 10b-5. This was followed by a conservative trilogy which put a brake on such extension, …

Janus Capital Group, Inc. V. First Derivative Traders: The Culmination Of The Supreme Court’S Evolution From Liberal To Reactionary In Rule 10b-5 Actions, Charles W. Murdock

Charles W. Murdock

“Political” decisions such as Citizens United and National Federation of Independent Business (“Obamacare”) reflect the reactionary bent of several Supreme Court justices. But this reactionary trend is discernible in other areas as well. With regard to Rule 10b-5, the Court has handed down a series of decisions that could be grouped into four trilogies. The article examines the trend over the past 40 years which has become increasingly conservative and finally reactionary.

The first trilogy was a liberal one, arguably overextending the scope of Rule 10b-5. This was followed by a conservative trilogy which put a brake on such extension, …

Janus Capital Group, Inc. V. First Derivative Traders: The Culmination Of The Supreme Court’S Reactionary Rule 10b-5 Jurisprudence Which Protects Fraud At The Expense Of Investors, Charles W. Murdock

Charles W. Murdock

Summary: Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First Derivative Traders: The Culmination of the Supreme Court’s Reactionary Rule 10b-5 Jurisprudence Which Protects Fraud at the Expense of Investors

“Political” decisions such as Citizens United and National Federation of Independent Business (“Obamacare”) reflect the reactionary bent of several Supreme Court justices. But this reactionary trend is discernible in other areas as well. With regard to Rule 10b-5, the Court has handed down a series of decisions that could be grouped into four trilogies. The article examines the trend over the past 40 years which has become increasingly conservative and finally reactionary.

The …

Janus Capital Group, Inc. V. First Derivative Traders: The Culmination Of The Supreme Court’S Reactionary Rule 10b-5 Jurisprudence Which Protects Fraud At The Expense Of Investors, Charles W. Murdock

Charles W. Murdock

Summary: Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First Derivative Traders: The Culmination of the Supreme Court’s Reactionary Rule 10b-5 Jurisprudence Which Protects Fraud at the Expense of Investors

“Political” decisions such as Citizens United and National Federation of Independent Business (“Obamacare”) reflect the reactionary bent of several Supreme Court justices. But this reactionary trend is discernible in other areas as well. With regard to Rule 10b-5, the Court has handed down a series of decisions that could be grouped into four trilogies. The article examines the trend over the past 40 years which has become increasingly conservative and finally reactionary.

The …

Limited Government And The Bill Of Rights, Patrick Garry

Patrick M. Garry

No abstract provided.

"Presiding Bishop Of The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter-Day Saints V. Amos, 483 U.S. 327 (1987): Addressing Tensions Between The Free Exercise And Establishment Clauses, Elizabeth Clark

Elizabeth A. Clark

No abstract provided.

Oral Dissenting On The Supreme Court, Carolyn Shapiro, Christopher Schmidt

Carolyn Shapiro

In this Article we offer the first comprehensive evaluation of oral dissenting on the Supreme Court. We examine the practice in both historical and contemporary perspective, take stock of the emerging academic literature on the subject, and suggest a new framework for analysis of oral dissenting. Specifically, we put forth several claims. Contrary to the common assumption of scholarship and media coverage, oral dissents are nothing new. Oral dissenting has a long tradition, and its history provides valuable lessons for understanding the potential and limits of oral dissents today. Furthermore, not all oral dissents are alike. Dissenting Justices may have …

Corporate Corruption And The Complicity Of Congress And The Supreme Court - The Tortuous Path From Central Bank To Stoneridge Investment Partners, Llc V. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc.., Charles W. Murdock

Charles W. Murdock

This article asserts that Congress and the federal courts are complicit in the widespread corporate corruption that has come to light this past decade. It begins by exploring the notion of bias and then chronicles judicial developments which have protected corporate officials, who have engaged in securities fraud and other wrongful conduct, at the expense of innocent shareholders and investors. It also analyzes the public policy in favor of corruption embodied in the Private Litigation Securities Reform Act, and the actions of federal courts in expanding the protection of PLSRA even beyond that dictated by the language of the statute. …

Wrestling With God: The Courts' Tortuous Treatment Of Religion, Patrick Garry

Patrick M. Garry

The relationship between church and state is both controversial and unsettled. For decades, the courts have vacillated dramatically in their rulings on when a particular governmental accommodation rises to the level of an impermissible state establishment of religion. Without a comprehensive theory of the First Amendment establishment clause, religion cases have devolved into a jurisprudence of minutiae. Seemingly insignificant occurrences, such as a student reading a religious story or a teacher wearing a cross on a necklace, have led to years of litigation. And because of the constant threat of judicial intrusion, a pervasive social anxiety exists about the presence …

Justice Stephen Field: Frontier Justice Or Justice At The Natural Rights Frontier?, John Eastman

John C. Eastman

Produced for a conference by the Claremont Institute commemmorating the 150th Anniversary of California statehood, this article explores the jurisprudential philosophy of one of California's great jurists, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Field. From his decisions dealing with property rights, government regulation, and Chinese exclusion statutes, Justice Field consistently demonstrated a deep understanding of the natural law principles that provide the foundation of legitimacy for republican government.

Framers' Intent And Military Power: Has Supreme Court Deference To The Military Gone Too Far?, Kalyani Robbins

Kalyani Robbins

One of the sources of the Court's inability to conduct proper constitutional analysis in military cases is its lack of access to complete and unbiased information upon which to base that analysis. In Part III, I will make an effort to suggest methods for addressing this problem alternative to simply letting the military use its special knowledge as a source of power over the Court. Part IV will demonstrate a modern example of where the problem of excessive deference can lead, and present the Court with a suggestion to use this as a context for change. Finally, the Article will …

Swan Song For The Burger Court, Robert Hayman, C. Ramarui

Robert L. Hayman

No abstract provided.