Law Commons^™

Three Observations About Justice Alito's Draft Opinion In Dobbs - Commentary, John M. Greabe

Law Faculty Scholarship

[Excerpt] "There is much to say about Justice Samuel Alito's draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which was leaked from the United States Supreme Court on May 2 [2022].

Obviously, the most significant direct consequence of the proposed decision, which overrules Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) while upholding the constitutionality of a Mississippi law that outlaws most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, would be the restriction or elimination of abortion services throughout much of the nation. This will have all sorts of attendant consequences, large and smaller, many of which …

Five Takeaways From High Court's Term, John M. Greabe

Law Faculty Scholarship

[Excerpt] Last month, the Supreme Court wrapped up it 2019-2020 term with a flurry of significant rulings.

The court confirmed that Congress and state attorneys general may subpoena third parties for evidence when legitimately investigating a sitting president; held that the executive branch must engage in reasoned decision-making when rescinding administrative protections for a vulnerable population (i.e., beneficiaries of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program); and defined the scope of the president's power to remove officials from high office.

The court also clarified that federal anti-discrimination employment protections extend to LGBTQ workers; held that states may punish members …

Judicial Review And Governmental Bad Faith, John M. Greabe

Law Faculty Scholarship

[Excerpt] This column is the third and final installment of a series considering some potential implications of June Medical Services v. Russo, a case involving a constitutional challenge to a Louisiana law regulating access to abortion services. The United States Supreme Court heard arguments in the case on March 4. A decision is expected shortly.

The first column sought to place June Medical Services in context by describing the history of constitutional abortion-rights litigation at the Supreme Court. The second explained what the case is likely to tell us about the respect the court will show to prior constitutional …

The Supreme Court And Constitutional Stare Decisis, John M. Greabe

Law Faculty Scholarship

[Excerpt] This column is the second in a series of three considering some potential implications of June Medical Services v. Russo, a case involving a constitutional challenge to a Louisiana law regulating access to abortion services. The United States Supreme Court heard arguments in the case on March 4, 2020. A decision is expected by the end of June. More on the case below.

Supreme Court Struggles To Define 'Searches' As Technology Changes, Behzad Mirhashem

Law Faculty Scholarship

[Excerpt] "What the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution means when it protects citizens agains an unreasonable search by government agents isn't entirely clear. It certainly includes police physically entering a person's home, but for almost 100 years, the Supreme Court has tried to define what else might qualify, including keeping the law up-to-date with new technologies - as a recent case illustrates."

Abortion Rights And The Kavanaugh Nomination, John M. Greabe

Law Faculty Scholarship

[Excerpt] "Last week, President Trump nominated federal appeals court judge Brett Kavanaugh to fill the Supreme Court seat opened by the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy. Immediately, coverage of the nomination focused on abortion and whether Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation would spell the end of the constitutional right recognized in Roe v. Wade. Let's explore why."

Mirabile Dictum! The Case For 'Unnecessary' Constitutional Rulings In Civil Rights Damages Actions, John M. Greabe

Law Faculty Scholarship

This article contends that, for purposes of settling the law, courts entertaining civil rights lawsuits doomed to fail on grounds of qualified immunity should presumably address the question whether the complaint pleads a viable claim that the defendant caused a violation of the plaintiff's federal rights. The article also contends that such "unnecessary" threshold rulings are not dicta.