Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Supreme Court of the United States (31)
- Constitutional Law (12)
- Courts (10)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (7)
- Health Law and Policy (7)
-
- Judges (7)
- Intellectual Property Law (5)
- Law and Race (5)
- Administrative Law (4)
- Jurisprudence (4)
- Law and Politics (4)
- Common Law (3)
- Family Law (3)
- Fourth Amendment (3)
- Jurisdiction (3)
- Law and Economics (3)
- Law and Gender (3)
- Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility (3)
- Legal Writing and Research (3)
- Business Organizations Law (2)
- Criminal Law (2)
- Criminal Procedure (2)
- Education Law (2)
- Fourteenth Amendment (2)
- Labor and Employment Law (2)
- Law and Society (2)
- Legal History (2)
- President/Executive Department (2)
- Agency (1)
- Publication Year
- Publication
Articles 1 - 30 of 59
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Anti-Innovation Supreme Court: Major Questions, Delegation, Chevron And More, Jack M. Beermann
The Anti-Innovation Supreme Court: Major Questions, Delegation, Chevron And More, Jack M. Beermann
Faculty Scholarship
The Supreme Court of the United States has generally been a very aggressive enforcer of legal limitations on governmental power. In various periods in its history, the Court has gone far beyond enforcing clearly expressed and easily ascertainable constitutional and statutory provisions and has suppressed innovation by the other branches that do not necessarily transgress widely held social norms. Novel assertions of legislative power, novel interpretations of federal statutes, statutes that are in tension with well-established common law rules and state laws adopted by only a few states are suspect simply because they are novel or rub up against tradition. …
Keynote Address: "Attacking And Defending The Administrative State", Jack M. Beermann
Keynote Address: "Attacking And Defending The Administrative State", Jack M. Beermann
Faculty Scholarship
At the beginning of this semester I told my students at Boston University that this is the most interesting time to take administrative law since I started teaching it nearly forty years ago. Doctrines that seemed settled just a few years ago have been questioned and significant change seems to be on the horizon. Don't get me wrong, we've been here before. In the 1970s and 1980s there were a few Supreme Court decisions on separation of powers1 that indicated the possibility of big changes, but ultimately it fizzled out into the administrative law revolution that wasn't.
Things feel …
Abortion Politics And The Rise Of Movement Jurists, Robert L. Tsai, Mary Ziegler
Abortion Politics And The Rise Of Movement Jurists, Robert L. Tsai, Mary Ziegler
Faculty Scholarship
This Article employs the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization and litigation in its wake as the jumping off point to reconsider the connections between judges, the Constitution, and social movements. That movements influence constitutional law, and that judicial pronouncements in turn are reshaped by politics, is well-established. But, while these accounts of legal change depend upon judges to embrace movement ideas, less has been written about the conditions under which judicial entrenchment can be expected to take place. There may, in fact, be different types of judicial dispositions towards external political phenomena.
In this Article, …
Loper Bright And The Future Of Chevron Deference, Jack M. Beermann
Loper Bright And The Future Of Chevron Deference, Jack M. Beermann
Faculty Scholarship
The question presented in Loper Bright Industries v. Raimondo1 is “[w]hether the Court should overrule Chevron or at least clarify that statutory silence concerning controversial powers expressly but narrowly granted elsewhere in the statute does not constitute an ambiguity requiring deference to the agency.” The Court denied certiorari on another question focused on the merits of the case,2 indicating that at least four of the Justices are anxious to revisit or at least clarify Chevron. It’s about time, although it’s far from certain that the Court will actually follow through with the promise the certiorari grant indicates.3 …
Jack Daniel’S And The Unfulfilled Promise Of Trademark Use, Stacey Dogan, Jessica Silbey
Jack Daniel’S And The Unfulfilled Promise Of Trademark Use, Stacey Dogan, Jessica Silbey
Faculty Scholarship
In Jack Daniel’s v. VIP Products, the Supreme Court announced a bright-line rule: whatever speech protections govern the use of trademarks in artistic works, no such rule applies “when an alleged infringer uses a trademark in the way the Lanham Act most cares about: as a designation of source for the infringer’s own goods.” Those who engage in “trademark use,” in other words, must face the usual likelihood-of-confusion standard, regardless of whether their use also has expressive dimensions. The Jack Daniel’s defendant conceded that it was engaged in trademark use, so the opinion did not do the hard work …
Roads Not Taken On Affirmative Action, Robert L. Tsai
Roads Not Taken On Affirmative Action, Robert L. Tsai
Faculty Scholarship
The law of affirmative action is a mess. In the short term, legal doctrine is constrained by path dependence, but its long-term future is murkier due to the many unforeseen contingencies. To regain a sense of the possible, this Article looks forward to the future of equality jurisprudence by looking backward. It recovers three roads not taken. First, the Supreme Court could have kept expectations minimal by hewing closely to the methods and rhetoric of fairness rather than ratifying a consumerist model of entitlement by deploying an individualistic vision of equality. Second, the justices might have endorsed a robust right …
Justices Citing Justices, Jay D. Wexler
Justices Citing Justices, Jay D. Wexler
Faculty Scholarship
Scholars have long paid attention to how often and for what reasons Supreme Court justices cite law review articles and academic books in their opinions. More recently, a new area of scholarship has begun to look at how Justices create their own lines of “personal precedent” through not only their prior opinions but also their academic writings. At the intersection of these two areas of inquiry lies questions of how often and for what reasons Supreme Court justices cite the journal articles and books of the various justices sitting on the Court, including their own. With the exception of one …
Rewriting Whren V. United States, Jonathan Feingold, Devon Carbado
Rewriting Whren V. United States, Jonathan Feingold, Devon Carbado
Faculty Scholarship
In 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Whren v. United States—a unanimous opinion in which the Court effectively constitutionalized racial profiling. Despite its enduring consequences, Whren remains good law today. This Article rewrites the opinion. We do so, in part, to demonstrate how one might incorporate racial justice concerns into Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, a body of law that has long elided and marginalized the racialized dimensions of policing. A separate aim is to reveal the “false necessity” of the Whren outcome. The fact that Whren was unanimous, and that even progressive Justices signed on, might lead one to conclude that …
The Right To Counsel In A Neoliberal Age, Zohra Ahmed
The Right To Counsel In A Neoliberal Age, Zohra Ahmed
Faculty Scholarship
Legal scholarship tends to obscure how changes in criminal process relate to broader changes in the political and economic terrain. This Article offers a modest corrective to this tendency. By studying the U.S. Supreme Court’s right to counsel jurisprudence, as it has developed since the mid-70s, I show the pervasive impact of the concurrent rise of neoliberalism on relationships between defendants and their attorneys. Since 1975, the Court has emphasized two concerns in its rulings regarding the right to counsel: choice and autonomy. These, of course, are nominally good things for defendants to have. But by paying close attention to …
Interpretation, Remedy, And The Rule Of Law: Why Courts Should Have The Courage Of Their Convictions, Jack M. Beermann, Ronald A. Cass
Interpretation, Remedy, And The Rule Of Law: Why Courts Should Have The Courage Of Their Convictions, Jack M. Beermann, Ronald A. Cass
Faculty Scholarship
The Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Arthrex opens a window on a set of issues debated in different contexts for decades. These issues—how to interpret statutes and constitutional provisions, what sources to look to, whether so far as possible to adopt interpretations that avoid declaring actions of coordinate branches unconstitutional, and where such actions are deemed to have been unconstitutional whether to provide remedies that cabin the most significant implications of such a declaration—go to the heart of the judicial role and the division of responsibilities among the branches of government.
Our principal focus, however, is on the …
Deep Tracks: Album Cuts That Help Define The Essential Scalia, Gary S. Lawson
Deep Tracks: Album Cuts That Help Define The Essential Scalia, Gary S. Lawson
Faculty Scholarship
Jeff Sutton and Ed Whelan have collected some of Justice Scalia’s “greatest hits” in a volume entitled The Essential Scalia: On the Constitution, the Courts, and the Rule of Law. The book is an excellent introduction to the jurisprudential thought and literary style of one of the most influential legal thinkers—and legal writers—in modern times. As with any “greatest hits” compilation, however, there are inevitably going to be key “album cuts” for which there will not be space. This essay seeks to supplement Sutton and Whelan’s invaluable efforts by surveying three of those “deep tracks” that shed particular light on …
Equality Is A Brokered Idea, Robert L. Tsai
Equality Is A Brokered Idea, Robert L. Tsai
Faculty Scholarship
This essay examines the Supreme Court's stunning decision in the census case, Department of Commerce v. New York. I characterize Chief Justice John Roberts' decision to side with the liberals as an example of pursuing the ends of equality by other means – this time, through the rule of reason. Although the appeal was limited in scope, the stakes for political and racial equality were sky high. In blocking the administration from adding a citizenship question to the 2020 Census, 5 members of the Court found the justification the administration gave to be a pretext. In this instance, that lie …
Elite Patent Law, Paul Gugliuzza
Elite Patent Law, Paul Gugliuzza
Faculty Scholarship
Over the last twenty years, one of the most significant developments in intellectual property law has been the dramatic increase in the number of patent cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. That same time period has also seen the emergence of a small, elite group of lawyers specializing not in any particular area of substantive law but in litigation before the Supreme Court. In recent empirical work, I linked the Court’s growing interest in patent law to the more frequent participation of elite Supreme Court lawyers in patent cases, particularly at the cert. stage. Among other things, I found …
The Supreme Court Bar At The Bar Of Patents, Paul Gugliuzza
The Supreme Court Bar At The Bar Of Patents, Paul Gugliuzza
Faculty Scholarship
Over the past two decades, a few dozen lawyers have come to dominate practice before the U.S. Supreme Court. By many accounts, these elite lawyers—whose clients are often among the largest corporations in the world—have spurred the Court to hear more cases that businesses care about and to decide those cases in favor of their clients. The Supreme Court’s recent case law on antitrust, arbitration, punitive damages, class actions, and more provides copious examples.
Though it is often overlooked in discussions of the emergent Supreme Court bar, patent law is another area in which the Court’s agenda has changed significantly …
From Loving V. Virginia To Washington V. Davis: The Erosion Of The Supreme Court's Equal Protection Intent Analysis, Angela Onwuachi-Willig
From Loving V. Virginia To Washington V. Davis: The Erosion Of The Supreme Court's Equal Protection Intent Analysis, Angela Onwuachi-Willig
Faculty Scholarship
In 1967, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion that contained its most searing and explicit condemnation of white supremacy: Loving v. Virginia. At issue in Loving was the constitutionality of a statutory scheme in the state of Virginia that prohibited marriages between individuals solely on the basis of race. Among other things, provisions in this statutory scheme punished intermarriage between a "white person" and a "colored person," meaning not only Blacks, but also Asian Americans and American Indians who did not fall under the Pocahontas Exception. The provisions also punished evasion of the state's interracial marriage ban by …
A Few Observations About The Curious State Of Massachusetts Labor Law: Public-Sector Unions After Janus, Maria O'Brien
A Few Observations About The Curious State Of Massachusetts Labor Law: Public-Sector Unions After Janus, Maria O'Brien
Faculty Scholarship
This essay focuses on this hurried, even panicked response to Janus in Massachusetts and evaluates the likely outcome that encouraging a public union to treat member employees in one way and non-member employees in a distinctly less generous way will have for employees and the unions. I begin, in Part II, by noting (and explaining) the first and most apparent oddity in this story: why is an employer - i.e. the state - rushing to help its putative, arms-length bargaining partners? In Massachusetts, there are many different public-sector unions. School teachers, 13 firefighters,14 clerical workers, 15 state and local …
Obama's Conversion On Same-Sex Marriage: The Social Foundations Of Individual Rights, Robert L. Tsai
Obama's Conversion On Same-Sex Marriage: The Social Foundations Of Individual Rights, Robert L. Tsai
Faculty Scholarship
This essay explores how presidents who wish to seize a leadership role over the development of rights must tend to the social foundations of those rights. Broad cultural changes alone do not guarantee success, nor do they dictate the substance of constitutional ideas. Rather, presidential aides must actively re-characterize the social conditions in which rights are made, disseminated, and enforced. An administration must articulate a strategically plausible theory of a particular right, ensure there is cultural and institutional support for that right, and work to minimize blowback. Executive branch officials must seek to transform and popularize legal concepts while working …
Equality, Sovereignty, And The Family In Morales-Santana, Kristin Collins
Equality, Sovereignty, And The Family In Morales-Santana, Kristin Collins
Faculty Scholarship
In Sessions v. Morales-Santana, 3 the Supreme Court encountered a body of citizenship law that has long relied on family membership in the construction of the nation’s borders and the composition of the polity.4 The particular statute at issue in the case regulates the transmission of citizenship from American parents to their foreign-born children at birth, a form of citizenship known today as derivative citizenship.5 When those children are born outside marriage, the derivative citizenship statute makes it more difficult for American fathers, as compared with American mothers, to transmit citizenship to their foreign-born children.6 Over …
Chevron Is A Rorschach Test Ink Blot, Jack M. Beermann
Chevron Is A Rorschach Test Ink Blot, Jack M. Beermann
Faculty Scholarship
I agree with Alan Morrison that, in some circumstances, courts should defer to legal determinations made by administrative agencies. I disagree, however, with Alan’s view that Chevron provides a suitable framework for such deference. It really boils down to my disagreement with the first sentence of Alan’s article: “In Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., the Supreme Court unanimously adopted an approach to interpreting federal statutes under which the courts are required to give substantial deference to the interpretations by the administrative agencies that enforce them.”1 In fact, the Supreme Court adopted nothing in Chevron related to …
How Much Has The Supreme Court Changed Patent Law?, Paul Gugliuzza
How Much Has The Supreme Court Changed Patent Law?, Paul Gugliuzza
Faculty Scholarship
The U.S. Supreme Court has decided a remarkable number of patent cases in the past decade, particularly as compared to the first twenty years of the Federal Circuit’s existence. No longer is the Federal Circuit “the de facto Supreme Court of patents,” as Mark Janis wrote in 2001. Rather, it seems the Supreme Court is the Supreme Court of patents. In the article at the center of this symposium, Judge Timothy Dyk of the Federal Circuit writes that the Supreme Court’s decisions “have had a major impact on patent law,” citing, among other evidence, the Court’s seventy percent reversal rate …
Anthony Amsterdam's Perspectives On The Fourth Amendment, And What It Teaches About The Good And Bad In Rodriguez V. United States, Tracey Maclin
Anthony Amsterdam's Perspectives On The Fourth Amendment, And What It Teaches About The Good And Bad In Rodriguez V. United States, Tracey Maclin
Faculty Scholarship
Anthony Amsterdam’s article, Perspectives On The Fourth Amendment is one of the best, if not the best, law review article written on the Fourth Amendment. Thus, Minnesota Law Review on its hundredth anniversary fittingly recognizes and honors Professor Amsterdam’s article in its Symposium edition, “Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: Celebrating 100 Volumes of the Minnesota Law Review.” I am flattered that the Law Review invited me to participate in this Symposium.
Specifically, my article connects two perspectives from Amsterdam’s article — the Fourth Amendment’s concern with discretionary police power and the Framers’ vision of the Fourth Amendment to bar …
Government Analysis Of Shed Dna Is A Search Under The Fourth Amendment, Tracey Maclin
Government Analysis Of Shed Dna Is A Search Under The Fourth Amendment, Tracey Maclin
Faculty Scholarship
This article addresses whether the Fourth Amendment is implicated when police surreptitiously collect and analyze a person’s involuntarily shed DNA.
Law enforcement officers will often obtain shed or abandoned DNA samples from persons who they suspect have committed crimes, but lack sufficient evidence to arrest or detain such persons. When utilizing abandoned or shed DNA for criminal investigative purposes, there are two state actions which arguably trigger Fourth Amendment protection. First, the collection of the biological material which contains a person’s DNA might be considered a search under the amendment. Courts, however, have uniformly rejected this argument. For example, when …
The Argument That Wasn't' And 'King, Chevron, And The Age Of Textualism, Abigail Moncrieff
The Argument That Wasn't' And 'King, Chevron, And The Age Of Textualism, Abigail Moncrieff
Faculty Scholarship
In these two short essays, I examine the somewhat bizarre — and potentially harmful — ways that Chief Justice John Roberts escaped the tension between legalism and realism in King v. Burwell, the Court’s latest Obamacare case. King presented a close legalistic case but a slam-dunk realist case in favor of an IRS interpretation of Obamacare. Roberts opted for the realistic result, but he got there through a bizarre combination of legalistic maneuvers. In “The Argument that Wasn’t,” I note that Roberts refused to make the full legalistic argument in the government’s favor, ignoring an invocation of the constitutional avoidance …
Reading Intellectual Property Law Reform Through The Lens Of Constitutional Equality, Jessica Silbey
Reading Intellectual Property Law Reform Through The Lens Of Constitutional Equality, Jessica Silbey
Faculty Scholarship
In reviewing three books, Robert Spoo's Without Copyright, Bill Herman's The Fight for Digital Rights, and Aram Sinnreich's The Piracy Crusade, for Tulsa Law Review's annual book review volume, this paper explores new themes and structures in Supreme Court cases about intellectual property. Studying the new histories and processes described in the books under review helps reveal constitutional equality frameworks in Supreme Court cases about intellectual property usually understood as cases about congressional deference and property rights. This article explains how many of these Supreme Court cases about IP reflect a range of equality modalities - e.g., …
Will Uncooperative Federalism Survive Nfib?, Abigail Moncrieff, Jonathan Dinerstein
Will Uncooperative Federalism Survive Nfib?, Abigail Moncrieff, Jonathan Dinerstein
Faculty Scholarship
In October Term 2012, the Supreme Court decided two cases that are fundamentally at odds: NFIB v. Sebelius and Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California. In NFIB, the Court held that the federal government, at least under some circumstances, may not use the threat of reduced funding in cooperative federalism programs to require states to comply with federal statutory requirements. In Douglas, however, the Court indicated that private litigants should sue federal agencies under the Administrative Procedure Act if those agencies refuse to enforce federal statutory requirements against the states. The problem is that the withdrawal of funding …
Heed Not The Umpire (Justice Ginsburg Called Nfib), Nicole Huberfeld
Heed Not The Umpire (Justice Ginsburg Called Nfib), Nicole Huberfeld
Faculty Scholarship
A bad reading of the facts in NFIB v. Sebelius has led to new limitations on Congress’s Commerce, Necessary and Proper, and Spending Clause powers. The decision appeared to use healthcare as a vehicle for constitutional change, leading to interpretive gymnastics that invite further litigation. This essay highlights the factual errors in Chief Justice Roberts’s and the joint dissent’s opinions and explains why Justice Ginsburg’s more fact-attuned opinion was the correct analysis of the case.
Post-Reform Medicaid Before The Court: Discordant Advocacy Reflects Conflicting Attitudes, Nicole Huberfeld
Post-Reform Medicaid Before The Court: Discordant Advocacy Reflects Conflicting Attitudes, Nicole Huberfeld
Faculty Scholarship
The Supreme Court will decide two major Medicaid cases this term that raise major questions about the program and the tensions it creates between the federal government and the states. The Court heard oral arguments on October 3d in Douglas v. Independent Living Center, a dispute between California and its Medicaid providers regarding reimbursement cuts due to California’s budget crisis. The Medicaid providers argue that these proposed cuts are so extreme as to violate federal law and thus the Supremacy Clause. Their contention hinges on the Equal Access Provision of the Medicaid Act, which commands states to pay healthcare providers …
Safeguarding The Safeguards: The Aca Litigation And The Extension Of Structural Protection To Non-Fundamental Liberties, Abigail Moncrieff
Safeguarding The Safeguards: The Aca Litigation And The Extension Of Structural Protection To Non-Fundamental Liberties, Abigail Moncrieff
Faculty Scholarship
As the lawsuits challenging the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) have evolved, one feature of the litigation has proven especially rankling to the legal academy: the incorporation of substantive libertarian concerns into structural federalism analysis. The breadth and depth of scholarly criticism on this point is surprising, however, given that judges today frequently choose indirect methods for protecting substantive constitutional values, including structural and process-based methods of the kinds at issue in the ACA litigation. Indeed, indirection in the protection of constitutional liberties is a well-known and well-theorized strategy, which one scholar recently termed “semisubstantive review” and another …
Amici Curiae Brief In Support Of Petitioners Urging Reversal On The Minimum Coverage Provision Issue, Department Of Health And Human Services V. State Of Florida, Wendy Parmet, Lorianne Sainsbury-Wong
Amici Curiae Brief In Support Of Petitioners Urging Reversal On The Minimum Coverage Provision Issue, Department Of Health And Human Services V. State Of Florida, Wendy Parmet, Lorianne Sainsbury-Wong
Faculty Scholarship
This amicus brief was filed before the Supreme Court in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) litigation on behalf of Health Care for All and other Massachusetts organizations that have been involved in the implementation of Massachusetts’ health 2006 health reform legislation. The brief argues that Massachusetts’ health reform law, upon which the ACA is modeled, has been very effective in expanding insurance coverage within the State, but it required substantial federal support, through a Medicaid waiver, to achieve its success. In addition the Commonwealth’s experience illustrates that the health insurance and health care markets are inherently interstate commerce and that …
Obamacare's (3) Day(S) In Court, Abigail Moncrieff
Obamacare's (3) Day(S) In Court, Abigail Moncrieff
Faculty Scholarship
Before the oral arguments in late March, the vast majority of legal scholars felt confident that the Supreme Court of the United States would uphold the individual mandate against the constitutional challenge that twenty-six states have levied against it. Since the oral argument, that confidence has been severely shaken. This article asks why legal scholars were so confident before the argument and what has made us so concerned since the argument. The article posits that certain fundamental characteristics of health insurance - particularly its unusual role in steering healthcare consumption decisions, which distinguishes health insurance from standard kinds of indemnity …