Law Commons^™

Supreme Court Repeaters, Jason Iuliano, Ya Sheng Lin

Vanderbilt Law Review

A case that receives cert once is special. A case that receives cert twice is truly exceptional. This Article is the first to examine the phenomenon of "Supreme Court Repeaters." Although Repeaters may seem like mere curiosities, they are actually a valuable part of the Supreme Court's docket. Our analysis reveals that the Justices use Repeaters in three ways: (1) to set up important substantive questions that could not be addressed on the first pass, (2) to supervise lower courts, and (3) to address different substantive issues that arise at distinct points in litigation. In this Article, we investigate Supreme …

Normalizing "Erie", Suzanna Sherry

Vanderbilt Law Review

This Article argues that the Erie doctrine should be normalized by bringing it into line with ordinary doctrines of federalism. Under ordinary federalism doctrines-such as the dormant commerce clause, implied preemption, federal preclusion law, and certain special "enclaves" of federal common law courts will displace state law to protect federal interests even when neither Congress nor the Constitution clearly articulates those interests. But under the Eric doctrine, the Supreme Court has mandated exactly the opposite approach: state law trumps federal interests unless those interests have been legislatively codified. This striking anomaly has not been noticed, in part because the voluminous …

Rethinking Judicial Minimalism: Abortion Politics, Party Polarization, And The Consequences Of Returning The Constitution To Elected Government, Neal Devins

Vanderbilt Law Review

This Article will argue that now is the time for the Court to decisively intervene in the abortion controversy by issuing a maximalist Roe-like decision; today's politics do not support an indeterminate standard like Casey's undue burden test. In other words, assuming that there is a constitutional right to abortion, today's Court should assume the heroic role Erwin Chemerinsky embraces in The Case Against the Supreme Court and other writings; specifically, the Court should "protect the rights of minorities who cannot rely on the political process." For Chemerinsky, protecting the rights of minorities is the "primary reason for having a …

The Broken-Hearted Lover: Erwin Chemerinsky's Romantic Longings For A Mythical Court, Gerald N. Rosenberg

Vanderbilt Law Review

Erwin Chemerinsky is broken hearted. "Almost forty years ago," he writes, "I decided to go to law school because I believed that law was the most powerful tool for social change and that the Supreme Court was the primary institution in society that existed to stop discrimination and to protect people's rights.' Smitten by the Court, Chemerinsky was blind to its historical role as a protector of privilege, and its structural limitations as an agent of progressive social change. Placing the Court on a pedestal, he abstracted it from the culture and the society in which it operates. For decades …

The Supreme Court In Context: Conceptual, Pragmatic, And Institutional, Edward L. Rubin

Vanderbilt Law Review

Is it possible to decide whether a constitutional decision is right or wrong? Legal scholars respond with an enthusiastic 'Yes!" but their reasons for this answer are generally based on what philosophers call formal arguments. These arguments, as opposed to substantive arguments, focus on internal coherence, rather than external standards. Originalism, textualism, structural analysis, and evolving meaning are all formal arguments. Their appeal lies precisely in their independence from external issues-that is, from the sort of issues that generate political and social controversy. If one can demonstrate by formal argument that a particular constitutional decision is correct, then one can …

Introduction: Is The Supreme Court Failing At Its Job, Or Are We Failing At Ours?, Suzanna Sherry

Vanderbilt Law Review

It is a pleasure and a privilege to write an introduction to this Symposium celebrating Dean Erwin Chemerinsky's important new book, The Case Against the Supreme Court. Chemerinsky is one of the leading constitutional scholars of our time and a frequent advocate before the U.S. Supreme Court. If he thinks there is a case to be made against the Court, we should all take it very seriously indeed. Chemerinsky's thesis may be stated in a few sentences. The primary role of the Supreme Court, in his view, is to "protect the rights of minorities who cannot rely on the political …

Thinking About The Supreme Court's Successes And Failures, Erwin Chemerinsky

Vanderbilt Law Review

The Supreme Court often has failed at its most important tasks and at the most important times. I set out this thesis at the beginning the book:

To be clear, I am not saying that the Supreme Court has failed at these crucial tasks every time. Making a case against the Supreme Court does not require taking such an extreme position. I also will talk about areas where the Court has succeeded in protecting minorities and in enforcing the limits of the Constitution. My claim is that the Court has often failed where and when it has been most needed. …

Three Supreme Court "Failures" And A Story Of Supreme Court Success, Corinna B. Lain

Vanderbilt Law Review

The Supreme Court is not the institution that I once revered," writes Erwin Chemerinsky in The Case Against the Supreme Court-a provocative, important work that also happens to be a great read. Chemerinsky's claim is that the Supreme Court ought to be protecting vulnerable minorities from repressive majorities, but it has not done so. "The Court has frequently failed, throughout American history, at its most important tasks, at its most important moments," he argues.' This is Chemerinsky's case against the Supreme Court, and it is a sweeping indictment. Of the cases Chemerinsky cites to prove his point, three stand out …

Letter To Supreme Court (Erwin Chemerinsky Is Mad. Why You Should Care), Barry Friedman

Vanderbilt Law Review

Whatever else you want to say about Erwin Chemerinsky, he's sincere. Chemerinsky is nothing if not sincere. As anyone who knows him will tell you so. And Chemerinsky is in pain. He informs us: "This book was far harder to write than I could have imagined." The question is why Chemerinsky is in pain? You'd think this would be the easiest thing in the world for him, going after a Court he sees as overly conservative. Like shooting fish in a barrel. The reason is because deep in his heart-despite his beefs with the outcomes of cases-Chemerinsky has always been …