Law Commons^™

Brief Of Law Professors As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioner, Scott R. Bauries, Sheldon H. Nahmod, Paul M. Secunda, Joshua D. Branson

Law Faculty Advocacy

Amici curiae respectfully submit this brief in support of Petitioner, Edward Lane, encouraging the reversal of the judgment of the Eleventh Circuit, because the judgment below is inconsistent with both the Court’s general historical approach to public employee speech and the specific approach to such speech that the Court adopted in Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006).

Amici are law professors who teach and write about the constitutional rights of public employees and have published a number of scholarly articles on these topics. Amici have no financial stake in the outcome of this case, and in this brief …

Keeping Up With New Legal Titles, Tina M. Brooks

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

In this book review, Tina M. Brooks discusses The Puzzle of Unanimity: Consensus on the United States Supreme Court by Pamela C. Corley, Amy Steigerwalt, and Artemus Ward.

Procedural Predictability And The Employer As Litigator: The Supreme Court’S 2012-2013 Term, Scott R. Bauries

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

In this contribution to the University of Louisville Law Review’s Annual Carl A. Warns Labor and Employment Institute issue, I examine the Supreme Court’s labor and employment-related decisions from the October Term 2012 (OT 2012). I argue that the Court’s decisions assisted employers as litigators—as repeat players in the employment dispute resolution system—in two ways. First, the Court established simple contract drafting strategies that employers may use to limit their exposure to employment claims. Second, the Court adopted bright-line interpretations of employment statutes. Both forms of assistance served a formalist interest in what I term “procedural predictability”—enhanced employer predictability and …

The Right To Vote Under State Constitutions, Joshua A. Douglas

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

This Article provides the first comprehensive look at state constitutional provisions explicitly granting the right to vote. We hear that the right to vote is "fundamental," the "essence of a democratic society," and "preservative of all rights." But courts and scholars are still searching for a solution to the puzzle of how best to protect voting rights, especially because the U.S. Supreme Court has underenforced the right to vote. The answer, however, is right in front of us: state constitutions. Virtually every state constitution includes direct, explicit language granting the right to vote, as contrasted with the U.S. Constitution, which …