Law Commons^™

Nigro V. United States: The Most Disingenuous Supreme Court Opinion, Ever, A. Christopher Bryant

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

The chief challenge presented by an opportunity to comment on the "Worst Supreme Court Opinion, Ever," is that so many candidates vie for the title. Fortunately, Professor Stempel has stipulated that the identification of a champion in no way implies acquiescence in any unnamed judicial wrongs. No sane scholar could accept the invitation on any other terms.

No doubt my choice of the Court's Prohibition-Era ruling in Nigro v. United States is a surprising one. Most scholars and lawyers have probably never even heard of the decision nor of the 1914 federal narcotics law that it unconscionably upheld. Nigro's obscurity …

Should States Have Greater Standing Rights Than Ordinary Citizens?: Massachusetts V. Epa's New Standing Test For States, Bradford Mank

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

In Massachusetts v. EPA, 127 S. Ct. 1438 (2007), the Supreme Court held that carbon dioxide (CO²) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) are air pollutants within the meaning of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Although its decision on the merits is important, the Court's conclusion that Massachusetts had standing to file suit because states are entitled to more lenient standing criteria may have a greater impact in the long-term on legal doctrine. In Massachusetts, the Supreme Court for the first time clearly gave greater standing rights to states than ordinary citizens. The Court, however, failed to explain to what extent …

The Third Death Of Federalism, A. Christopher Bryant

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

Federal drug laws proved a stumbling block to the Rehnquist Court's attempted federalism revival. In its final year, the Court's fragile federalism coalition splintered in a pair of cases arising under the Controlled Substances Act ("CSA"). Missing from the emerging legal literature concerning those two decisions is any substantive discussion of the Supreme Court's much earlier, ill-fated efforts to preserve both judicial enforcement of the enumerated powers doctrine and federal narcotics laws. This article fills that gap.

Ninety-odd years ago the Court arrived at the same jurisprudential juncture it now confronts. In the early decades of the twentieth century, the …

Quirin Revisited, A. Christopher Bryant, Carl Tobias

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

In November 2001 President George W. Bush promulgated an Executive Order, premised on Ex Parte Quirin, that authorized the establishment of military commissions as well as purported to eliminate whatever jurisdiction federal courts might have by statute and to deny federal court access to individuals prosecuted or detained for terrorism. This article finds that the profound growth of federal habeas corpus over the last sixty years and the quite narrow holding in Quirin's ultimate determination must guide contemporary application of the precedent. Also, it concludes that federal courts have power not only to assess military commissions' validity in the abstract …