Law Commons^™

Making It Harder To Challenge Election Districting, Erwin Chemerinsky

Fordham Law Voting Rights and Democracy Forum

No abstract provided.

Fiddling With Federal Circuit Precedent: The Commercial And Qualitative Impact Of Recent Supreme Court Reversals On The U.S. Patent System, Christopher J. Hamersky

Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal

Prior to 2006, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit enjoyed a fairly laissez-faire relation with the Supreme Court of the United States, enabling it to develop a patent law jurisprudence that patent practitioners could confidently rely on given that it had remained relatively stable for several decades. However, in 2006, the Supreme Court reviewed eBay v. MercExchange and subsequently began a string of frequent Federal Circuit reversals that have caused significant change to the U.S. patent system. Whereas the Supreme Court rarely took up patent appeals in the Federal Circuit’s early history, it now routinely reviews patent questions …

A Patent Reformist Supreme Court And Its Unearthed Precedent, Samuel F. Ernst

Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal

How is it that the Supreme Court, a generalist court, is leading a project of innovation reform in our times while the court of appeals established to encourage innovation is having its precedent stricken down time and again? This decade the Supreme Court has issued far more patent law decisions than in any decade since the passage of the Patent Act of 1952. In doing so, the Supreme Court has overruled the Federal Circuit in roughly threequarters of the patent cases in which the Supreme Court has issued opinions. In most of these cases, the Supreme Court has established rules …

What’S So Special About Patent Law?, Michael Goodman

Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal

The widespread belief that patent law is special has shaped the development of patent law into one of the most specialized areas of the law today. The belief in patent law’s exceptionalism manifests itself as two related presumptions with respect to the judiciary: first, that generalist judges who do not have patent law expertise cannot effectively decide patent cases, and second, that judges can develop necessary expertise through repeated experience with patent cases. Congress showed that it acquiesced to both views when it created the Federal Circuit and the Patent Pilot Program. In recent years, however, the Supreme Court has …

Skilling: More Blind Monks Examining The Elephant, Julie Rose O'Sullivan

Fordham Urban Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Need For "Supreme" Clarity: Clothing, Copyright, And Conceptual Separability, Jacqueline Lefebvre

Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal

For the first time in history, the U.S. Supreme Court will address copyright protection in the context of apparel in the case Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc. This case tackles arguably the most vexing, unresolved question in copyright law: How to determine whether artistic features of a useful article—such as a garment or piece of furniture—are conceptually separable from the article and thus protectable. Indeed, this case comes more than sixty years after Mazer v. Stein, the Supreme Court’s first and,until this date, only decision in this area. A lack of clear guidance from the Supreme Court and …

The Power Of Dignity, Elizabeth B. Cooper

Fordham Law Review

This Essay juxtaposes the historical and judicial equating of homosexuality and stigma with the Court’s development of a jurisprudence of dignity for gay men and lesbians, culminating in its decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. The language of Obergefell reflects an acceptance of and respect for gay men and lesbians that—regardless of one’s actual desire to marry or attitudes toward the institution of marriage—will profoundly change not only how the law treats LGB individuals, but also how we are treated by others, as well as how we perceive ourselves. I do not mean to assert that Obergefell is without its …

Roberts, Kennedy, And The Subtle Differences That Matter In Obergefell, Joseph Landau

Fordham Law Review

By upholding a nationwide right to marry for same-sex couples in Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court’s enormously significant decision resolves a major civil rights question that has percolated through our legal system and coursed through our culture for some time. The ruling was not an unforeseen outcome, but it brings welcome clarity by ensuring marriage rights for same-sex couples throughout all fifty states. Building on United States v. Windsor—a 2013 decision striking down section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which prevented gay and lesbian married couples from receiving federal benefits—Obergefell is an important and …

Hail Marriage And Farewell, Ethan J. Leib

Fordham Law Review

My conclusion in what follows is that, notwithstanding much rhetoric in the opinion, states have some room to rethink marriage in light of marriage equality. And with some intellectual jujitsu, this opening to rethink the state’s place in relational ordering gives marriage-skeptics another bite at the apple to get something they wanted all along: to decenter the largely religious, gendered, and bourgeois institution of marriage. Justice Kennedy’s opinion has the unfortunate result of reaffirming marriage at the top of a relational hierarchy, yet there are surely other ways we can have civil rights and equality for gay people without marriage …

Up From Marriage: Freedom, Solitude, And Individual Autonomy In The Shadow Of Marriage Equality, Catherine Powell

Fordham Law Review

Obergefell v. Hodges represents a tremendous victory for those of us who believe that each individual has the right to love, form bonds, and create families with whomever one so desires. Through Obergefell and the line of cases from Griswold v. Connecticut and Loving v. Virginia onward, the Court has now repeatedly affirmed the freedoms to plan, to choose, and to create one’s own family as fundamental.

Perspectives On Marriage Equality And The Supreme Court, The Editors

Fordham Law Review

On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Obergefell v. Hodges, one of the most significant civil rights decisions in recent years. For many of our generation, the Court’s conclusion that same-sex couples enjoy the constitutional right to marry simply confirmed deeply held beliefs about the importance of marriage equality and inclusion for all. We recognize, however, that for American society more broadly, the decision has evoked strong feelings on both sides of the marriage equality debate. For some, Obergefell delivered a unique gift that was unimaginable even a few decades ago: the ability of same-sex couples to …

Obergefell'S Conservatism: Reifying Familial Fronts, Clare Huntington

Fordham Law Review

I am delighted with the result in Obergefell v. Hodges, but I am unhappy with the Court’s reasoning. In lieu of a straightforward, and far more defensible, decision based purely on the Equal Protection Clause, Justice Kennedy’s reliance on the Due Process Clause is deeply problematic.

Race, Dignity, And The Right To Marry, Robin A. Lenhardt

Fordham Law Review

Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges asserts legal marriage’s capacity to afford same-sex couples a measure of “equal dignity” and belonging too long denied. In this Essay, I ask whether there is any reason to believe that marriage could do the same for African Americans. Could broader entrance into marriage, as some conservatives suggest, provide Blacks—gay and straight—a measure of belonging that has been frustratingly elusive, even as the nation prepares to celebrate the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the Thirteenth Amendment’s ratification?

The President’S Plan Respecting The Supreme Court, Ignatius M. Wilkinson

Fordham Law Review

To commemorate our founding in 1914, the Board of Editors has selected six influential pieces published by the Law Review over the past 100 years and will republish one piece in each issue.

The second piece selected by the Board is the testimony of Ignatius M. Wilkinson, the fourth and longest-serving dean of Fordham Law School (1923–1954), to the Judicial Committee of the U.S. Senate. Speaking to the Committee on the Judiciary, Wilkinson criticized the Franklin D. Roosevelt Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937 because it would “undermine the independence of the courts” and “shake[] the foundations of our constitutional structure.” …

The Future Of General Jurisdiction: The Effects Of Daimler Ag V. Bauman, Stephanie Denker

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

The Due Process Clause requires a court to have jurisdiction over a lawsuit before binding the parties to its judgment. However, before 2014, the Supreme Court had not addressed whether a court could impute a subsidiary's contacts to its parent corporation for jurisdictional purposes. Because of this oversight, the Courts of Appeals split over how to impute a subsidiary's contacts. Some courts apply the agency test, while other courts apply variations of the alter ego test. As a result, courts inconsistently asserted jurisdiction over multinational corporations, leading plaintiffs to forum shop and corporations to speculate which forums might assert jurisdiction …

Taking Section 10(B) Seriously: Criminal Enforcement Of Sec Rules, Steve Thel

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court has determined the scope of federal securities laws in a series of cases in which it has read section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act as either prohibiting certain misconduct or authorizing the SEC to regulate that conduct and only that conduct. Judging by the language, structure and history of the Exchange Act, the Court’s reading is wrong. Section 10(b) does not prohibit anything, and it neither grants the SEC rulemaking power nor limits the rulemaking power granted to the SEC elsewhere in the Exchange Act. Instead, section 10(b) simply triggers criminal sanctions for certain rule violations. …

The Dangerous Law Of Biological Race, Khiara M. Bridges

Fordham Law Review

The idea of biological race—a conception of race that postulates that racial groups are distinct, genetically homogenous units—has experienced a dramatic resurgence in popularity in recent years. It is commonly understood, however, that the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected the idea that races are genetically uniform groupings of individuals. Almost a century ago, the Court famously appeared to recognize the socially constructed nature of race. Moreover, the jurisprudence since then appears to reaffirm this disbelief: within law, race is understood to be a social construction, having no biological truth to it at all. Yet upon closer examination, the Court’s apparent …

The Public’S Constitutional Thinking And The Fate Of Health Care Reform: Ppaca As Case Study, Bruce G. Peabody, Peter J. Woolley

Res Gestae

No abstract provided.

Popular Constitutional Values: The Links Between Public Opinion And The Supreme Court's 2011 Term, Peter J. Woolley, Bruce G. Peabody

Res Gestae

No abstract provided.

Oasis Or Mirage: The Supreme Court's Thirst For Dictionaries In The Rehnquist And Roberts Eras, James J. Brudney, Lawrence Baum

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court’s use of dictionaries, virtually non-existent before 1987, has dramatically increased during the Rehnquist and Roberts Court eras to the point where as many as one-third of statutory decisions invoke dictionary definitions. The increase is linked to the rise of textualism and its intense focus on ordinary meaning. This Article explores the Court’s new dictionary culture in depth from empirical and doctrinal perspectives. We find that while textualist justices are heavy dictionary users, purposivist justices invoke dictionary definitions with comparable frequency. Further, dictionary use overall is strikingly ad hoc and subjective. We demonstrate how the Court’s patterns of …

The Right To Plea Bargain With Competent Counsel After Cooper And Frye: Is The Supreme Court Making The Ordinary Criminal Process Too Long, Too Expensive, And Unpredictable In Pursuit Of Perfect Justice, Bruce A. Green

Faculty Scholarship

In Lafler v. Cooper and Missouri v. Frye, the Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of criminal defendants who were deprived of a favorable plea offer because of their lawyers’ professional lapses. In dissent, Justice Scalia complained that “[t]he ordinary criminal process has become too long, too expensive, and unpredictable,” because of the Court’s criminal procedure jurisprudence; that plea bargaining is “the alternative in which...defendants have sought relief,” and that the two new decisions on the Sixth Amendment right to effective representation in plea bargaining would add to the burden on the criminal process. This essay examines several aspects of …

The Representative Equality Principle: Disaggregating The Equal Protection Intent Standard, Bertrall L. Ross Ii

Fordham Law Review

Challenges under the Equal Protection Clause require proof of intentional discrimination. Though rarely questioned by legal scholars or the courts, that conventional account cannot explain the success of equal protection challenges to electoral structures that dilute the vote of racial minorities. In the Supreme Court’s most recent decisions on vote dilution, the Court has invalidated local electoral structures under the Equal Protection Clause to the extent that they deprive African Americans of the opportunity for effective representation in the political process. The Court has reached its decisions despite the absence of any proof of intentional discrimination in the adoption of …

Polls, The Public, And Popular Perspectives On Constitutional Issues, Bruce G. Peabody, Peter J. Woolley

Res Gestae

No abstract provided.

The Problem With Pretext, Lynn E. Blais

Fordham Urban Law Journal

This Article examines the problems with the Supreme Court's holding in Kelo v. City of New London that the concept of public use is expansive unless the government is asserting the public use as a "mere pretext" and the true purpose is private benefit. The author examines the level of scrutiny applied in such cases, the link between pretext and motive, and the tests applied to evaluate pretext challenges: the burden-shifting motives test, the sufficiency of the plan taste, and the benefits to the public test. The author concludes that pretext is an "unworkable mechanism" for evaluating public use cases.

Panel I: The Patent Landscape With Bilski On The Map, Jeanne Fromer, James W. Dabney, Clarisa Long, Brian P. Murphy

Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Constitution And The Laws Of War During The Civil War, The Federal Courts, Practice & Procedure, Andrew Kent

Faculty Scholarship

This Article uncovers the forgotten complex of relationships between the U.S. Constitution, citizenship and the laws of war. The Supreme Court today believes that both noncitizens and citizens who are military enemies in a congressionally-authorized war are entitled to judicially-enforceable rights under the Constitution. The older view was that the U.S. government’s military actions against noncitizen enemies were not limited by the Constitution, but only by the international laws of war. On the other hand, in the antebellum period, the prevailing view was U.S. citizenship should carry with it protection from ever being treated as a military enemy under the …

Returning Rico To Racketeers: Corporations Cannot Constitute An Associated-In-Fact Enterprise Under 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4), Caroline N. Mitchell, Jordan Cunningham, Mark R. Lentz

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

No abstract provided.

Imagining Gun Control In America: Understanding The Remainder Problem Article And Essay, Nicholas J. Johnson

Faculty Scholarship

Gun control in the United States generally has meant some type of supply regulation. Supply restrictions ranging from one-gun-a-month schemes to flat gun bans cannot work without a willingness and ability to reduce total inventory to levels approaching zero ("the supply-side ideal"). This is an impossible feat in a country that already has 300 million guns tightly held by people who think they are uniquely important tools. The average defiance ratio in places that have attempted gun confiscation and registration is 2.6 illegal guns for every legal one. In many countries defiance is far higher. None of those countries has …

Text As Truce: A Peace Proposal For The Supreme Court's Costly War Over The Eleventh Amendment, Andrew B. Coan

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

Reevaluating The Debate Surrounding The Supreme Court's Use Of Foreign Precendent, Osmar J. Benvenuto

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.