Law Commons^™

Lamb's Chapel V. Center Moriches Union Free School District, 113 S. Ct. 2141 (1993), John E. Burgess

Vanderbilt Law Review

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides the primary foundation for the protection of several individual rights, including free speech and religious autonomy.' At times, how- ever, efforts to protect these rights appear to conflict with competing restraints on state action. The drafters of the First Amendment's Religion Clauses, for example, sought to guarantee religious freedom while maintaining a separation between church and state. The goal or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances."

Section 3: Privacy, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Section 6: First Amendment, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Section 1: Moot Court: Bryant V. Hill, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Section 5: Criminal Law, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Section 2: Property And Economic Rights, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Section 4: Civil Rights, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Federalism, Untamed, Ann Althouse

Vanderbilt Law Review

Do you rankle at those amorphous rhapsodies about "Our Federalism" indulged in by judges who relegate civil rights litigants to state courts?' Why would anyone see cases in which state officials stand charged of violating the rights of individuals as presenting an occasion for deference to the states? If federal rights take precedence over state policies and practices, is it not perverse to prefer adjudication in the courts that have the strongest bias in favor of state interests? If jurisdiction is a duty and declining jurisdiction consequently a dubious business, shouldn't we reject judge-made doctrine and statutory interpretation that restrict …

Why The Supreme Court Overruled "National League Of Cities", Mark Tushnet

Vanderbilt Law Review

We are now in the midst of a confused era for federalism doctrine. A court of appeals has read the Supreme Court's precedents for at least as much as they are worth in holding that Congress, in enacting the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, exceeded the power the Commerce Clause grants it., The Supreme Court itself has been unable to develop a stable constitutional doctrine about the roles of Congress and the courts in protecting federalism. Every time the Supreme Court has wandered into the federalism forest, it has gotten lost. For a while, scholars believed we understood why. …

Symposium: Federalism's Future, Jeffrey R. Pettit

Vanderbilt Law Review

Two years have passed since my predecessor, Mike Smith, sat in Professor Barry Friedman's office to begin choosing a topic for the Symposium that now sits before you. Although choosing a topic for a symposium two years in advance of its occurrence can be a difficult task, the topic they agreed upon, Federalism's Future, transcends the risk of becoming outdated. If the Supreme Court's struggle to articulate a "reasoned principle" in balancing the powers and responsibilities of our state and federal governments in Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, and later in New York v. United States,2 is any …

Recovered Memory Of Childhood Sexual Abuse, Aubrey Immelman

Psychology Faculty Publications

This article examines the psychological basis for repression and recovery of traumatic memories, presents the results of research on potential sources of error in delayed or recovered memories, and offers possible reasons (primarily related to clinical practice and collective behavior) for false accusations of sexual abuse.

Double Jeopardy Issues In The Financial Sector, Richard L. Stone, Francis J. Facciolo

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

Double jeopardy issues arise regularly in the financial, banking and commodities industries where both civil and criminal statutes and penalties are used in successive prosecutions by federal and state governments to sanction the same conduct.

Recent Supreme Court and federal court decisions have established new standards for determining when civil fines and other civil penalties constitute “punishment” for purposes of the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment.

These decisions indicate that where a civil penalty imposed by a federal or state actor bears no “rational relation” to any actual damages caused, the penalty will be characterized as punishment …

Race Against The Court: The Supreme Court And Minorities In Contemporary America, Melissa Nicholson Starkey

Michigan Law Review

A Review of Race Against the Court: The Supreme Court and Minorities in Contemporary America by Girardeau A. Spann

The Constitution Besieged: The Rise And Demise Of Lochner Era Police Powers Jurisprudence, C. Ian Anderson

Michigan Law Review

A Review of The Constitution Besieged: The Rise and Demise of Lochner Era Police Powers Jurisprudence by Howard Gillman

Everyman's Fourth Amendment: Privacy Or Mutual Trust Between Government And Citizen, Scott E. Sundby

Articles

No abstract provided.

Irreconcilable Differences? Divorcing Regugee Protections From Human Rights Norms, Karen Musalo

Michigan Journal of International Law

This article will discuss in greater detail the profound defects of the Court's Zacarias decision. Section I will discuss the interpretation of key provisions of the 1980 Refugee Act, and describe the case of Jairo Elias Zacarias. Section II will review the plain language and legislative intent of the Act, including the congressional purpose of conforming to the 1967 Protocol. Section III will consider issues of burden of proof, and will examine the substantive impact which Zacarias has had on refugee cases. Section IV will focus on religious persecution as a paradigm of the inadequacy of an intent-based requirement and …

Connecticut V. Doehr And Procedural Due Process Requirements For Prejudgment Remedies: The Sniadach Tetrad Revisited, Linda Beale

Law Faculty Research Publications

No abstract provided.

The October 1992 Supreme Court Term And Antitrust: More Objectivity Than Ever, Stephen Calkins

Law Faculty Research Publications

Time and again the Rehnquist Court has favored antitrust certainty. When faced with a choice between achieving individualized justice and adhering to relatively clear, generalized rules, it has usually chosen the latter. The certainty of objective evidence has been preferred to the more customized resort to subjective evidence.

This pattern continued during the 1992-93 term. Perceived objectivity through generalized rules triumphed in the term's four antitrust cases, Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan, Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. California, and Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco …

Slavery Rhetoric And The Abortion Debate, Debora Threedy

Michigan Journal of Gender & Law

There are many things that could be, and have been, said about the question of abortion. This article focuses on the rhetoric of the abortion debate. Specifically, I discuss how both sides of the abortion debate have appropriated the image of the slave and used that image as a rhetorical tool, a metaphor, in making legal arguments. Further, I examine the effectiveness of this metaphor as a rhetorical tool. Finally, I question the purposes behind this appropriation, and whether it reflects a lack of sensitivity to the racial content of the appropriated image.

Voice In Government: The People, Emily Calhoun

Publications

No abstract provided.

The Supreme Court And Local Government Law 1993-94 Term: Introduction, Howard Glickstein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Dangers Of "General Observations" On Expert Scientific Testimony: A Comment On Daubert V. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Robert F. Blomquist

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Liteky V. United States: The Supreme Court Restricts The Disqualification Of Biased Federal Judges Under Section 455(A), Lori M. Mcpherson

University of Richmond Law Review

One of the basic tenets of our judicial system is the right of litigants to have a neutral and impartial judge preside over their case. Over the last two hundred years, American legislatures and courts have sought to "secure the impartiality of trial judges by requiring judges to disqualify themselves in various circumstances." The latest Supreme Court case to consider the issue of judicial disqualification was Liteky v. United States.

Of Laws And Men: An Essay On Justice Marshall's View Of Criminal Procedure, Daniel C. Richman, Bruce A. Green

Faculty Scholarship

As a general rule, criminal defendants whose cases made it to the Supreme Court between 1967 and 1991 must have thought that, as long as Justice Thurgood Marshall occupied one of the nine seats, they had one vote for sure. And Justice Marshall rarely disappointed them – certainly not in cases of any broad constitutional significance. From his votes and opinions, particularly his dissents, many were quick to conclude that the Justice was another of those "bleeding heart liberals," hostile to the mission of law enforcement officers and ready to overlook the gravity of the crimes of which the defendants …

Book Review Of The Constitution Besieged, By Howard Gillman, Edward A. Purcell Jr.

Other Publications

No abstract provided.

Unitariness And Independence: Solicitor General Control Over Independent Agency Litigation, Neal Devins

Faculty Publications

With a few exceptions, the Solicitor General controls all aspects of independent agency litigation before the Supreme Court. Solicitor General control of Supreme Court litigation creates a tension between independent agency freedom and the Solicitor General's authority. On the one hand, Solicitor General control provides the United States with a unitary voice before the Supreme Court, and provides the Court with a trustworthy litigator to explicate the government's position. On the other hand, such control may undermine the autonomy of independent agency decision making. In this Article, the author argues for a hybrid model of independent agency litigation in the …

The Rise And Rise Of The Administrative State, Gary S. Lawson

Faculty Scholarship

The post-New Deal administrative state is unconstitutional, and its validation by the legal system amounts to nothing less than a bloodless constitutional revolution. The original New Dealers were aware, at least to some degree, that their vision of the national government's proper role and structure could not be squared with the written Constitution: The Administrative Process, James Landis's classic exposition of the New Deal model of administration, fairly drips with contempt for the idea of a limited national government subject to a formal, tripartite separation of powers. Faced with a choice between the administrative state and the Constitution, the architects …

Chief Justice Rehnquist, Pluralist Theory, And The Interpretation Of Statutes, Thomas W. Merrill

Faculty Scholarship

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist is often viewed as the ultimate "political" judge. According to Mark Tushnet, for example, "[o]ne could account for perhaps ninety percent of Chief Justice Rehnquist' s bottom-line results by looking, not at anything in the United States Reports, but rather at the platforms of the Republican Party." Nowhere is this attitude more prevalent than with respect to issues of statutory interpretation. When I informed colleagues I was working on an article about Chief Justice Rehnquist's theory of statutory interpretation, the almost universal response was: "What theory?"

Contrary to the common view that Chief Justice Rehnquist …

Textualism And The Future Of The Chevron Doctrine, Thomas W. Merrill

Faculty Scholarship

The last decade has been a remarkable one for statutory interpretation. For most of our history, American judges have been pragmatists when it comes to interpreting statutes. They have drawn on various conventions – the plain meaning rule, legislative history, considerations of statutory purpose, canons of construction – "much as a golfer selects the proper club when he gauges the distance to the pin and the contours of the course." The arrival of Justice Scalia on the Supreme Court has changed this. Justice Scalia is a foundationalist, insisting that certain interpretational tools should be permanently banned from judicial use. What …

A Heterodox Catechism, Paul Campos

Publications

No abstract provided.