Law Commons^™

The Applications Docket, Greg Goelzhauser

Georgia Law Review

The Supreme Court’s applications docket, often misleadingly called the “shadow docket” or “emergency docket,” is controversial, complex, and poorly understood. Using original data spanning nearly two decades, I unravel the docket’s empirical foundations. Applications practice changed fundamentally in recent years. Contrary to conventional wisdom, dispositions declined on average, but this conceals divergent trends: among applications involving stays and injunctions, capital dispositions decreased while noncapital dispositions increased. Moreover, noncapital applications now comprise a larger share of the docket than capital applications. This shift enhances docket salience because, as I show, most capital applications are denied simultaneous to denying plenary review, while …

121st Sibley Lecture: American Democracy In Peril, J. Michael Luttig

Georgia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Parting The Red Sea: Prescriptions For The Rluipa Equal Terms Provision's Expanding Circuit Split, Braden T. Meadows

Georgia Law Review

Congress unanimously passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) in 2000. The Act marked the culmination of a decades-long dialogue between Congress and the Supreme Court. RLUIPA’s passage embodied Congress’s resolve to provide religious free exercise protections—particularly as it pertained to religious land use. Since 2000, however, RLUIPA’s Equal Terms Provision has been subject to differing judicial interpretations, resulting in an expanding circuit split. This Note analyzes the circuit split and offers guidance to future interpreters.

First, this Note examines the social, legislative, and judicial history leading to RLUIPA’s enactment. Second, it analyzes the contours of interpretations …

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 …

Discrimination, Trump V. Hawaii, And Masterpiece Cakeshop, Christopher C. Lund

Georgia Law Review

This short symposium piece is a comment on two of the Supreme Court’s recent religion cases. The first is Trump v. Hawaii, the travel ban case, where the Court rejected the claim of unconstitutional religious discrimination against Muslims.1 The second is Masterpiece Cakeshop, the case about the baker who refused to make a cake for a gay wedding, where the Court accepted the claim of unconstitutional religious discrimination against a conservative Christian.2 One case finds discrimination, while the other rejects it. Yet more fundamentally, the pairing suggests differences in how we perceive or react to evidence of discrimination. Both on …

Regulatory Constitutional Law: Protecting Immigrant Free Speech Without Relying On The First Amendment, Michael Kagan

Georgia Law Review

The Supreme Court has long deprived immigrants of the full protection of substantive constitutional rights, including the right to free speech, leaving undocumented immigrants exposed to detention and deportation if they earn the government’s ire through political speech. The best remedy for this would be for the Supreme Court to reconsider its approach. This Essay offers an interim alternative borrowed from an analogous problem that arises under the Fourth Amendment. Under the Constitution, the Supreme Court has indicated that illegally obtained evidence may be suppressed in a removal proceeding only if the Fourth Amendment violation was “egregious.” Yet, some circuit …

The Contested "Bright Line" Of Territorial Presence, Shalini Ray

Georgia Law Review

For this symposium on “Immigrants and the First Amendment,” this Essay considers the current scope of First Amendment protection for noncitizens abroad. Courts have interpreted the constitutional rights of noncitizens to vary with factors including status, ties, and location. But in a recent case, Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, the Supreme Court announced that the First Amendment simply does not apply to noncitizens abroad. This Essay considers this new rule and its implications, concluding that a bright-line rule based on territorial presence masks more complex questions about the meaning of “here” and “abroad.”

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.

Public Rights, Private Privileges, And Article Iii, John Harrison

Georgia Law Review

PUBLIC RIGHTS, PRIVATE PRIVILEGES, AND ARTICLE III John Harrison* This Article addresses the constitutional justification for adjudication by executive agencies that rests on the presence of a public right. The public rights rationale originated in the nineteenth century and was for many decades the dominant explanation for the performance of adjudicative functions by executive agencies. The U.S. Supreme Court most recently relied on that rationale in Oil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy Group in 2018. In light of the Court’s interest in the nineteenth century system, this Article explores that system in depth and seeks to identify the ways …

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 …