Law Commons^™

Testing The Limits Of Virtual Compliance: Website Accessibility, "Tester" Plaintiffs, And Article Iii Standing Under The Ada, Ashlyn Dewberry

Georgia Law Review

Federal courts have split in determining whether “tester” plaintiffs bringing suit under the ADA assert the requisite injury in fact necessary for Article III standing. These “website accessibility testers” allege that defendants’ websites do not make certain information available to disabled persons in violation of Title III of the ADA and one of its implementing regulations. This split presents an excellent opportunity to clarify which informational and stigmatic harms qualify as injuries in fact for Article III standing purposes. This Note argues that ADA website accessibility testers cannot obtain standing under current law. Neither the text of the ADA nor …

To Trust Or Not To Trust: Native American Healthcare Improvement In The Supreme Court’S Hands, Katherine Graham

Georgia Law Review

The United States federal government’s relationship with Native American tribes has long been tenuous. Despite years of unjust and inhumane treatment of Native Americans by the government, Congress has attempted to rectify or limit the government’s harm to Native American people but has fallen short of upholding all agreements intended to improve United States-tribal relations. In particular, the government has not always followed treaties between the government and tribes, and the United States Supreme Court has failed to protect Native American rights in many cases. Central to this issue is the 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie, in which the United …

Executive Discretion And First Amendment Constraints On The Deportation State, Jennifer Lee Koh

Georgia Law Review

Given the federal courts’ reluctance to provide clarity on the degree to which the First Amendment safeguards the free speech and association rights of immigrants, the immigration policy agenda of the President now appears to determine whether noncitizens engaging in speech, activism, and advocacy are protected from retaliation by federal immigration authorities. This Essay examines two themes: first, the discretion exercised by the Executive Branch in the immigration context; and second, the courts’ ambivalence when it comes to enforcing immigrants’ rights to be free from retaliation. To do so, this Essay explores the Supreme Court’s influential 1999 decision in Reno …

No [Concrete] Harm, No Foul? Article Iii Standing In The Context Of Consumer Financial Protection, Annefloor J. De Groot

Georgia Law Review

In the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2016 decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, the Court held that a bare procedural violation of a federal consumer protection statute is not enough to satisfy Article III’s standing requirement because the alleged injury is not sufficiently concrete. This decision resulted in a sizeable circuit split regarding standing under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, with some circuit courts interpreting the holding as narrowing the scope of standing for consumer protection claims, and others maintaining a broader interpretation, allowing plaintiffs to obtain redress for violations of consumer financial protections laws.

In its 2021 ruling in …

Uzuegbunam V. Preczewski, Nominal Damages, And The Roberts Stratagem, Michael Wells

Georgia Law Review

In Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski the Supreme Court held for the first time that federal-court jurisdiction exists over a § 1983 case that presents only a claim for nominal damages. As a result, such claims remain subject to adjudication even when the plaintiff’s request for prospective relief, targeting an allegedly unlawful practice, has been mooted by the government’s discontinuance of the thus-challenged behavior. In dissent, Chief Justice Roberts maintained that the majority’s ruling clashed with Article III’s “personal stake” requirement and also unwisely permitted plaintiffs to sidestep controlling jurisdictional rules by adding a meaningless claim for nominal damages to a complaint …

The Gig Economy’S Short Reach: An Analysis Of The Scope Of The Federal Arbitration Act’S “Transportation Worker” Exemption, Emina Sadic Herzberger

Georgia Law Review

The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) governs arbitration agreements in the United States. Section 1 of the FAA provides an exemption from arbitration for “contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.” In a 2001 decision, Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the residual phrase “any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce” includes transportation workers. But, such language is ambiguous, and the Supreme Court did not expound upon what it means to be a transportation worker or to be engaged …

The Lost History Of Delegation At The Founding, Christine Chabot

Georgia Law Review

The new Supreme Court is poised to bring the administrative state to a grinding halt. Five Justices have endorsed Justice Gorsuch’s dissent in Gundy v. United States—an opinion that threatens to invalidate countless regulatory statutes in which Congress has delegated significant policymaking authority to the Executive Branch. Justice Gorsuch claimed that the “text and history” of the Constitution required the Court to replace a longstanding constitutional doctrine that permits broad delegations with a more restrictive one. But the supposedly originalist arguments advanced by Justice Gorsuch and like-minded scholars run counter to the understandings of delegation that prevailed in the Founding …

State Of The Unions: The Impact Of Janus On Public University Student Fees, Jonathan Kaufman

Georgia Law Review

In Janus v. American Federation of State, County,
and Municipal Employees, Council 31, the U.S.
Supreme Court overruled forty-one years of precedent
that had allowed public-sector unions to collect
agency-shop fees from nonmembers. The Court ruled this
mandatory fee collection unconstitutional as a violation
of nonmember First Amendment rights. This decision
may pose problems for other public entities, such as
public universities, who also collect mandatory fees that
support political speech.

The Other Hobbs Act: An Old Leviathan In The Modern Administrative State, Jason N. Sigalos

Georgia Law Review

The Hobbs Administrative Orders Review Act is a
little-known statute, one that is often mistaken for a
federal criminal statute with a similar name.
The lesser-known Hobbs Act requires aggrieved parties
to challenge certain agency orders in a federal court of
appeals within sixty days of the order’s promulgation.
However, if no party does so, are later parties bound by
a potentially unlawful agency order in subsequent
enforcement actions? The U.S. Supreme Court recently
dodged this question in PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton
& Harris Chiropractic, Inc. That case concerned a suit
between two private parties under the Telephone
Consumer …

Sinking The Island Of Constitutional Tax Immunity: A Uniform Approach To State Taxes On Goods In Transit Under The Import-Export Clause, Warren F. Smith

Georgia Law Review

The Framers of the U.S. Constitution adopted the
Import-Export Clause to prohibit the states from
interfering in international relations, to preserve import
revenue for the federal government, and to ensure
harmony between the states. The purposive inquiry
established by Michelin and Washington Stevedoring is
applied for all imports and exports except one category:
export goods in transit. The pre-Michelin decision,
Richfield Oil, provides complete constitutional tax
immunity for export goods in transit. This island of
constitutional tax immunity forces local taxpayers to
subsidize exporters and foreign consumers and unfairly
burdens coastal states with the regulatory,
administrative, and environmental costs of …

Intergovernmental Federalism Disputes, Lochlan F. Shelfer

Georgia Law Review

Constitutional litigation is increasingly being waged
between governments, in both suits between a state and
the United States, and suits between two or more states.
The jurisdictionof the Federalcourts to hear such suits,
however, is disputed. The Supreme Court's cases are
famously difficult to reconcile, with some denying
jurisdiction and other seemingly identical cases
addressing the merits without discussing jurisdiction.
Some scholars have argued that intergovernmental
disputes over political jurisdiction historically are not
justiciableand that it is constitutionally illegitimate for
the Court to hear them. Recently, some scholars have
argued that the Court should hear such cases, but have
assumed …

Talking Textualism, Practicing Pragmatism: Rethinking The Supreme Court's Approach To Statutory Interpretation, Robert J. Pushaw Jr.

Georgia Law Review

The Supreme Court's general approach to statutory
interpretation is analytically incoherent. On the one
hand, the Court has expressly endorsed "textualism":
enforcing the plain meaning (i.e., ordinary usage) of a
statute's words, and therefore refusing to consider non-
textual evidence unless the language is unclear. On the
other hand, the Court has implicitly applied
'oragmatism"-reaching the best practical result after
examining not only a statute's text but also Congress's
intent (as revealed by legislative history), its overall
purposes, precedent, and policy.
The two cases upholding the Affordable Care Act (ACA)
illustrate this practice of purporting to follow textualism,
but then …

Let My People Grow: Putting A Number On Strict Scrutiny In The Wake Of Holt V. Hobbs, Dana A. Schwartzenfeld

Georgia Law Review

Beards have always played an important role in human
society, especially in the religious context. One man's
beard even got him in front of the United States Supreme
Court. In Holt v. Hobbs, the Court decided that a prisoner
had a constitutional right to grow a one-half-inch beard
for religious purposes. In making the decision, the Court
made clear that the prisoner's religious interest far
outweighed any security threat that such a short beard
could pose to the prison. The Court declined to go any
further, however, in clarifying the beard length at which
the scales would begin to tip …

From Ripe To Rotten: An Examination Of The Continued Utility Of The Ripeness Doctrine In Light Of The Modern Standing Doctrine, Michael A. Delgaudio

Georgia Law Review

First year law students are generally taught that the justiciability doctrines of standing and ripeness perform distinct functions that work together to help courts determine whether an Article III "case or controversy" exists in particular suits. The standing doctrine, it is said, assists courts in this inquiry by determining who can bring suit, whereas the ripeness doctrine assists them by determining when someone can bring suit. This theoretical distinction in the doctrines' functions is based on the original forms the standing and ripeness doctrines took. Over the course of the past century, however, the Supreme Court has altered the standing …

Miscarriage Of Justice: The Cognizability Of § 2255 Claims For Erroneous Career Offender Sentences, Matthew B. Rosenthal

Georgia Law Review

Career offender sentencing enhancements present difficult questions for courts. One of the most difficult of these questions is deciding what crimes warrant the application of these serious enhancements. Federal courts sentencing defendants often must decide, with little guidance, what offenses constitute a "crime of violent" or "violent felony." On a few occasions, the Supreme Court has stepped in and told lower courts that certain crimes do not fit within these categories, and that their interpretation of the career offender enhancement is incorrect. Often, the recognition of this misapplication of the enhancements occurs years after an individual defendant has been convicted, …

The Supreme Court And The Rehabilitative Ideal, Chad Flanders

Georgia Law Review

Graham v. Florida was a watershed decision, not least because of the centrality of the "rehabilitative ideal" to its holding that life in prison for juveniles convicted of nonhomicide crimes was cruel and unusual. The Court's emphasis on rehabilitation was surprising both because rehabilitation was barely included as a 'purpose of punishment" in prior decisions of the Court, but also in terms of the history of academic and legislative skepticism toward rehabilitation. Courts and commentators have struggled to make sense of both the meaning and the scope of Graham's rehabilitative holding. This Article places Graham in the context of the …

Playing Favorites: Congress's Denial Of Equal Sovereignty To The States In The Professional And Amateur Sports Protection Act, Justin W. Mckithen

Georgia Law Review

The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 (PASPA) illegalizes state-sponsored sports wagering activity nationwide. PASPA was intended to be a protective measure, as sports wagering was feared to threaten the integrity of sports. Grandfathering provisions in PASPA, however, exempt sports wagering schemes in Delaware, Montana, Nevada, and Oregon-effectively granting these states a monopoly over the (legalized) sports wagering industry. Faced with budgetary crises and other economic hardships, New Jersey is currently at the forefront of an effort to overturn PASPA and permit the other forty-six states to legalize sports wagering in their jurisdictions, a measure that could generate …

The Stealth Press Clause, Sonja R. West

Georgia Law Review

As we reflect on the 50th anniversary of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, there will likely be many tributes to Sullivan as one of the Supreme Court's most significant press cases. Yet Sullivan was not really a "press" case. The Supreme Court, in its opinion, granted all speakers greater protection against defamation liability regardless of whether they were a member of the press. Sullivan is not the only famous so-called "press" case that was not just about the press. Several more "not-just-the-press" victories followed in Sullivan's wake. New York Times Co. v. United States (the "Pentagon Papers case"), for …

Institutional Actors In New York Times Co. V. Sullivan, Paul Horwitz

Georgia Law Review

Like all major cases, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, which has now reached its fiftieth anniversary, is capable of multiple readings. This is less true of Sullivan than of some other epochal cases, especially those cases that continue to have a powerful political valence. Brown v. Board of Education, in particular, which will mark its sixtieth anniversary this year, continues to provoke fierce debates about its meaning and, in a deeper sense, its ownership. Sullivan is unquestionably one of the most important decisions in First Amendment jurisprudence. It has certainly produced debate. But arguments about Sullivan generally focus on …

The Impact Of Clapper V. Amnesty International Usa On The Doctrine Of Fear-Based Standing, Amanda M. Mcdowell

Georgia Law Review

The Supreme Court's 2013 decision in Clapper v. Amnesty International USA dealt with the government's electronic surveillance authority under the Foreign Intelligence SurveillanceAct (FISA) Amendments. In a 5- 4 opinion, the Court held that a variety of U.S. persons, including attorneys and media organizations, did not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the FISA Amendments because the plaintiffs' fear of future unlawful surveillance was not "certainly impending." Depending on how lower courts choose to interpret Clapper, the decision could have a significant impact on the doctrine of fear-based standing, which allows plaintiffs to establish standing based on fear of …

Originalism And History, Justice John P. Stevens (Ret.)

Georgia Law Review

The notion that a jurisprudence of "original intent" will constrain the discretion of judges who seek to impose their own policy preferences on the law has often been attributed to a speech delivered by Edwin Meese, then-Attorney General of the United States, to an American Bar Association audience on July 9, 1985. In that speech the Attorney General was particularly critical of Supreme Court opinions relying on the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as a basis for requiring the states to adhere to specific provisions of the Bill of Rights. "[N]owhere else [he said,] has the principle of …

Scandal! Early Supreme Court News Coverage And The Justice-Journalist Divide, Amy Gajda

Georgia Law Review

In January of 1900, United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Henry Brown (author of Plessy v. Ferguson) had apparently just about had it with the press. He gave what was called "[t]he principal address" before members of the New York State Bar Association in Albany and focused not principally on law, but on what he called journalism's sensationalistic methods.' "Ugly stories are told," he told the gathered attorneys, "of spies put upon houses to unearth domestic scandals or upon the steps of public men to ferret out political secrets," including early reports of court decisions. The greatest of the cruelties …

Fast Forward Fifty Years: Protecting Uninhibited, Robust, And Wide-Open Debate After New York Times Co. V. Sullivan, Amy K. Sanders

Georgia Law Review

In September 2013, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law SB 606, criminalizing attempts to photograph or videotape a child if the reason for doing so was because the child's parent is a celebrity or public official. Not surprisingly, the measure garnered significant support from Hollywood's elite, including legislative testimony from actress-moms Halle Berry and Jennifer Garner. Against the outcry of the California Broadcasters Association and the California Newspaper Publishers Association, the California Legislature approved the measure, which raises current penalties for first-time offenders to one year of incarceration and/or a $10,000 fine (up from a maximum of six months …

Defeating A Wolf Clad As A Wolf: Formalism And Functionalism In Separation-Of-Powers Suits Against The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Lee A. Deneen

Georgia Law Review

In 2010, the Court decided Free Enterprise Fund, engaging in a substantially formalist analysis of the President's removal power. That same year, Congress authorized creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a federal agency with significant regulatory and enforcement power over the consumer finance industry. Within three years of that legislation, two lawsuits have challenged the CFPB's structure. This Note evaluates the arguments of the CFPB's opponents against the backdrop of Free Enterprise Fund and the Roberts Court's other formalist decisions. Although one might expect complaints against the CFPB to be lodged solely in formalist terms, the CFPB's opponents have …

In New York Times Co. V. Sullivan, The Supreme Court Got It Right Then- And Now, David G. Savage

Georgia Law Review

On April 5, 1960, Ray Jenkins, a city editor for the Alabama Journal,the afternoon paper in Montgomery, was having lunch at his desk and skimming through the old papers that had piled up. They included a week-old copy of the New York Times. He spotted an item that had a local angle, and he wrote a thirteen-paragraph story for that day's paper. "Sixty prominent liberals, including [former First Lady] Eleanor Roosevelt, have signed a full page advertisement in the New York Times appealing for contributions to 'The Committee to Defend Martin Luther King and the Struggle for Freedom in the …

Citizen-Critics, Citizen Journalists, And The Perils Of Defining The Press, William E. Lee

Georgia Law Review

Media lawyers frequently describe New York Times Co. v. Sullivan as a great win for the press. Certainly the Court's ruling saved the New York Times from financial ruin. However, four Alabama ministers active in the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), Ralph D. Abernathy, Joseph E. Lowery, Fred L. Shuttlesworth, and S.S. Seay Sr., were also targeted by Sullivan as defendants. Despite testimony that the ministers had not authorized the use of their names in the advertisement, "Heed Their Rising Voices," and learned of the ad only when Sullivan asked them for a retraction, the jury found each liable for …

Justifying A Prudential Solution To The Williamson County Ripeness Puzzle, Katherine M. Crocker

Georgia Law Review

In the much-maligned 1985 case Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, the Supreme Court articulated a rule of "ripeness" requiring most Fifth Amendment regulatory- takings claimants to seek 'just compensation" in state court before attempting to litigate in federal court. Williamson County and its progeny have opened a Pandora's box of unforeseen complications, spawning many more questions than they purported to answer. At the forefront is what kind of requirement the rule is anyway. This Article contends that reading Williamson County as grounded in the Constitution (specifically, in Article III or the Fifth Amendment) runs …

The Dangers Of Press Clause Dicta, Ronnell A. Jones

Georgia Law Review

If an attorney, scholar, or citizen opened the 448th volume of the U.S. Reports to page 573, she would find herself midway through a case captioned Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia. Context would make clear that the case was brought by a newspaper that wished to report on a criminal trial but was precluded from doing so when the trial judge closed the proceedings. The tenor of the analysis would foreshadow that the newspaper was on its way to a 7-1 victory and a holding that gave it the access it sought to the judicial proceeding. And the tone of …

Textualism And Obstacle Preemption, John D. Ohlendorf

Georgia Law Review

Commentators, both on the bench and in the academy,
have perceived an inconsistency between the Supreme
Court's trend, in recent decades, towards an increasingly
formalist approach to statutory interpretation and the
Court's continued willingness to find state laws preempted
as "obstacles to the accomplishment and execution of the
full purposes and objectives of Congress'"--so-called
"obstacle preemption." This Article argues that by giving
the meaning contextually implied in a statutory text
ordinary, operative legal force, we can justify most of the
current scope of obstacle preemption based solely on
theoretical moves textualism already is committed to
making.
The Article first sketches …

Jurisdictional Sequencing, Alan M. Trammell

Georgia Law Review

The Supreme Court has begun to grapple with the
problems presented by the doctrine of jurisdictional
sequencing-the decision of certain issues, and even the
dismissal of cases, before a federal court has verified its
subject matter jurisdiction. Recent jurisprudence has
created confusion as to what, if anything, a federal court
may do before it verifies subject matter jurisdiction.
Moreover, scholars and courts have struggled to discern
an underlying rationale for jurisdictional sequencing, and
no theory has been able to explain the case law fully or
offer a satisfying normative defense of the doctrine.

This Article develops a theory of jurisdictional …