Law Commons^™

Court Packing Is A Chimera, Brian L. Frye

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

The dream of the 1930s is alive in Washington. Democrats see

Republicans hemorrhaging voters as Trump struggles with the

economy and the pandemic and are salivating at the prospect of

retaking not only the White House, but also the Senate. Of course, you

should never sell a bearskin until you've caught the bear. But even a

blowout victory can't get Democrats the prize they really want, a

Supreme Court majority. So, in back-to-the-future fashion, many

progressives are pushing the idea of court packing. After all, in politics,

rules are made to be broken.

Hitting The "Bullseye" In Supreme Court Coverage: News Quality In The Court's 2014 Term, Michael A. Zilis, Justin Wedeking, Alexander Denison

Political Science Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Proving Disparate Impact In Fair Housing Cases After Inclusive Communities, Robert G. Schwemm, Calvin Bradford

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Disparate-impact claims under the federal Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) are now a well-established part of housing discrimination law, having been recognized for decades by the lower courts and recently endorsed by the Supreme Court in Texas Department of Housing & Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. The Court in Inclusive Communities saw the impact theory as a way of bolstering the FHA’s “role in moving the Nation toward a more integrated society,” but it also set forth certain “cautionary standards” to guard against “abusive” impact claims. Under these standards, which are similar to those adopted in a 2013 HUD …

Means And Ends In City Of Arlington V. Fcc: Ignoring The Lawyer's Craft To Reshape The Scope Of Chevron Deference, Michael P. Healy

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

In last year's term, the United States Supreme Court considered the question of the scope of Chevron deference in City of Arlington v. FCC. This article discusses how the decision is an example of the work of an activist Court. The case should have been resolved by a straightforward determination under the analysis of United States v. Mead that Chevron deference simply did not apply to the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) legal determination. The Court ignored this restrained approach to the case and instead addressed the question the Justices desired to decide: the reach of Chevron deference. The article …

The Most Scholarly Justices, Brian L. Frye

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Supreme Court justices both use and produce legal scholarship. This article identifies the ten most scholarly justices, based on both productivity and impact.

The Past, Present And Future Of Auer Deference: Mead, Form And Function In Judicial Review Of Agency Interpretations Of Regulations, Michael P. Healy

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

The law of judicial review of agency legal interpretations has undergone an important reshaping as a consequence of the Supreme Court decision in United States v. Mead Corp. That decision and the important follow-on decision in National Cable & Telecommunications Ass 'n v. Brand X Internet Services have changed the understanding of the Court's landmark 1984 decision in Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. Chevron defined a new era of judicial deference to an agency's interpretation of an ambiguous statute, but the Chevron era has itself been transformed.

These legal developments had seemed to have little consequential …

The Dialectic Of Obscenity, Brian L. Frye

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Until the 1960s, pornography was obscene, and obscenity prosecutions were relatively common. And until the 1970s, obscenity prosecutions targeted art, as well as pornography. But today, obscenity prosecutions are rare and limited to the most extreme forms of pornography.

So why did obscenity largely disappear? The conventional history of obscenity is doctrinal, holding that the Supreme Court’s redefinition of obscenity in order to protect art inevitably required the protection of pornography as well. In other words, art and literature were the vanguard of pornography.

But the conventional history of obscenity is incomplete. While it accounts for the development of obscenity …

Reconciling Chevron, Mead, And The Review Of Agency Discretion: Source Of Law And The Standards Of Judicial Review, Michael P. Healy

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Although the Supreme Court's watershed decision in Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. has been understood by many as defining the framework for judicial review of agency legal determinations, there have been longstanding questions about the application of the standards for reviewing administrative action. These questions have become more troublesome following the Supreme Court's 2001 decision in United States v. Mead Corp. Mead established that Chevron review only applies when defined requirements are met and held that so-called Skidmore deference applies when Chevron deference does not apply. Surveying the aftermath of Mead and its effect on the …

The “New” Presumption Against Preemption, Mary J. Davis

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Is there or isn't there a “presumption against preemption”? The Supreme Court continues to mention it, but then does, or does not, apply it in a way that helps us understand what it is. This Article explores the Court's preemption opinions in the last several decades, particularly its most recent pronouncements, and concludes that, indeed, there is a presumption against preemption. It is a "new" presumption in the sense that it is born of the Court's active preemption docket in the last two decades, which has more narrowly defined both express and implied preemption analysis. The "new" presumption is stronger …

Bizarre Love Triangle: The Spending Clause, Section 1983, And Medicaid Entitlements, Nicole Huberfeld

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

The first two terms of the Roberts Court signal a willingness to revisit precedent, even decisions that have been considered long-settled, and the United States Supreme Court may be ready to reinterpret another area of jurisprudence: the private enforcement of conditions on federal spending against states through actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The most recent pre-Roberts Court precedent is Gonzaga University v. Doe, a 2002 decision that made it more difficult for individuals harmed by violations of federal laws to enforce rights through § 1983 actions. Federal courts have inconsistently and confusingly applied the Gonzaga framework, but the …

Florida East Coast Railway And The Structure Of Administrative Law, Michael P. Healy

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

A typical Administrative Law course presents the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Florida East Coast Railway Co. as establishing the rule that statutory text quite close to the magic words, "on the record after opportunity for an agency hearing," is needed to trigger the Administrative Procedure Act's (APA) formal hearing requirements for a rulemaking. Florida East Coast Railway is a prime example of an underrated case because, even though the case is well known, its renown is a consequence only of its black letter rule about rulemaking procedures. Many scholars and practitioners do not appreciate the case for …

Preemption Of State Tort Law By Federal Safety Statutes: Supreme Court Preemption Jurisprudence Since Cipollone, Richard C. Ausness

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

This article shall attempt to trace the twists and turns of Supreme Court preemption jurisprudence. Part I provides a brief overview of federal preemption law, considering the constitutional sources of preemption and the traditional preemption categories. Part II analyzes Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., the source of modem Supreme Court doctrine regarding preemption of state tort law by federal safety legislation. Part III reviews seven post-Cipollone Supreme Court preemption cases: CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Easterwood, Freightliner Corp. v. Myrick, Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Shanklin, Geier v. American Honda Motor …

Resorting To External Norms And Principles In Constitutional Decision-Making, Alvin L. Goldman

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Given the very significant role of constitutional law in the American political system and the fact that Supreme Court Justices are appointed through a political process, it is understandable that the appropriate judicial approach to resolving constitutional issues often is the subject of political commentary. Unfortunately, discourse by politicians concerning this issue seldom rises to the deserved level of wisdom. One of President George W. Bush's public mantras is illustrative of political commentary respecting federal judicial appointments: "I'm going to put strict constructionists on the bench." On its face, and as understood by politically naive audiences, the statement appears to …

Choice Programs And Market-Based Separationism, Paul E. Salamanca

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

The Supreme Court's recent decision in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris appears to clear the way for a wide variety of educational and charitable choice plans. In this decision, the Court upheld against Establishment Cause Challenge a formally neutral school choice program that encompassed a wide variety of options in the public and private sector, including private sectarian schools. The Court reasoned that, when the government makes aid available to a broad class of recipients without regard to their religious or non-religious affiliation, and when the recipients have a genuine choice as to whether to obtain that aid from a religious or …

Spurious Interpretation Redux: Mead And The Shrinking Domain Of Statutory Ambiguity, Michael P. Healy

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

In skewering the Supreme Court's recent decision in United States v. Mead Corp., Justice Scalia's rhetoric is exceptional. He derides the decision as "one of the most significant opinions ever rendered by the Court dealing with the judicial review of administrative action. Its consequences will be enormous, and almost uniformly bad." Although Justice Scalia objects to Mead's new and uncertain limits on the applicability of the Chevron doctrine, this Article will focus instead on how Mead employs a method of interpretation imputing a clear intent to Congress, and authorizes courts to discern statutory meaning without strong deference to …

Textualism’S Limits On The Administrative State: Of Isolated Waters, Barking Dogs, And Chevron, Michael P. Healy

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

In Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Supreme Court recently held that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) does not have authority under the Clean Water Act (the Act or the CWA) to regulate the filling of “other waters.” This decision demonstrates a major shift in the Court's approach to statutory interpretation, particularly in the context of reviewing an agency’s understanding of a statute. The significance of the case is best gauged by contrasting it with United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc. There, the Court, acting …

Standing In Environmental Citizen Suits: Laidlaw’S Clarification Of The Injury-In-Fact And Redressability Requirements, Michael P. Healy

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

In its first week of business during the new millennium, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., and provided important clarifications about the law of standing in environmental citizen suits. Specifically, the Court rejected the narrow view of environmental injury-in-fact advocated by Justice Scalia and instead adhered to the broader view of injury-in-fact established in a nonenvironmental context by the Court's decision in Federal Elections Commission v. Akins. As importantly, the Court also addressed the redressability requirement of Article III standing in Laidlaw. Here too, the Court did …

At Loggerheads: The Supreme Court And Racial Equality In Public School Education After Missouri V. Jenkins, Roberta M. Harding

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

June 12th of 1995 marked a somber occasion in the annals of school desegregation litigation. On that day, the United States Supreme Court sent disturbing messages in its opinion in Missouri v. Jenkins. The Court's decision hinders achievement of the objective of school desegregation litigation—providing equal educational opportunities for African-American public school children—and detrimentally impacts other substantive areas of civil rights litigation. This article examines what I believe are several important general consequences of Jenkins's the impairment of a trial judge's discretionary equitable remedial powers; the Court's establishment of a new agenda that sacrifices the interests of African-American …

State And Local Taxation Of Interstate And Foreign Commerce: The Second Best Solution, Kathryn L. Moore

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Our current system of state and local taxation of interstate and foreign commerce, simply put, is a mess. First, the mere number of jurisdictions that may impose taxes is seemingly limitless: each of the fifty states, plus the District of Columbia, may impose its own set of taxes. In addition, each state may authorize local government units within the state, such as counties, municipalities, townships, and special districts, to assess and collect taxes. For example, in 1994, well over 6,000 separate jurisdictions were authorized to impose sales taxes.

Second, the states may impose a wide variety of taxes and may …

The Supreme Court And Our Culture Of Irresponsibility, Mary J. Davis

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

This article chronicles the Supreme Court's expansion of the “culture of irresponsibility,” where institutional defendants are freed from tort liability with no check on the abuse of such immunity. Professor Davis describes the Court's progression toward immunity in products liability decisions of the past decade including East River Steamship, Boyle, Cipollone, and Lohr. Noting the effect of the Court's decisions in promoting institutional irresponsibility, Professor Davis encourages the Court to use its “cultural influence” and reconsider its broad extension of immunity which has spread to situations and institutional defendants the Court never imagined.

The Impact Of The Cipollone Case On Federal Preemption Law, Richard C. Ausness

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

The United States Supreme Court handed down an opinion in the Cipollone case on June 24, 1992. Justice Stevens, writing for the majority, concluded that the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act preempted all tort claims against cigarette manufacturers based on failure to provide adequate warnings about the health risks of smoking. However, the Court also held that claims based on breach of express warranty, misrepresentation, and conspiracy were not preempted by the Act. Thus, although Cipollone represents a clear victory for tobacco companies, it also leaves the door open for future litigation. The first part of this Article will …

"I Vote This Way Because I'M Wrong": The Supreme Court Justice As Epimenides, John M. Rogers

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Possibly the most unsettling phenomenon in the Supreme Court's 1988 term was Justice White's decision to vote contrary to his own exhaustively stated reasoning in Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co. His unexplained decision to vote against the result of his own analysis lends support to those who argue that law, or at least constitutional law, is fundamentally indeterminate. Proponents of the indeterminacy argument sometimes base their position on the allegedly inescapable inconsistency of decisions made by a multi-member court. There is an answer to the inconsistency argument, but it founders if justices sometimes vote, without explanation, on the basis of …

Refuting The “Classic” Property Clause Theory, Eugene R. Gaetke

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

In a series of cases the Supreme Court has recognized broad, preemptive federal regulatory power over federally owned land. The Court has based these decisions on the combined effect of the property and supremacy clauses of the Constitution. The scope of this power has been the cause of a heated political and legal debate in western states, which contain extensive federal land holdings. A number of legal commentators have argued that the Court's broad construction of the property clause is a misinterpretation of the Framers' intent and that the clause merely grants the federal government proprietary rights over its land …

State Marital Property Laws And Federally Created Benefits: A Conflict Of Laws Analysis, Louise Everett Graham

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

The laws of individual states have historically controlled familial relationships and the rights and responsibilities derived from them. The injection of federal rights into the domestic relations area has generally been confined to resolution of claims that the application of particular state laws violated either due process or equal protection rights of particular persons. In a limited number of cases concerning marital property, however, one party has relied upon a federal law creating a benefit or right that conflicts with the state-created rule apportioning marital property or establishing a support obligation. Such a conflict of laws problem arose in McCarty …

Standing To Sue In Fair Housing Cases, Robert G. Schwemm

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Few procedural issues have commanded more attention from the Supreme Court in recent years than standing. The question of who is a proper party to bring a particular claim has arisen in a variety of contexts, but the Court has been especially active in addressing standing problems in cases concerning allegations of housing discrimination. The recent decision of Gladstone Realtors v. Village of Bellwood marked the fifth time in the past decade that the justices have decided a fair housing case on standing grounds.

The Supreme Court's determination to emphasize standing issues in many of its early fair housing opinions …

Presuming Lawyers Competent To Protect Fundamental Rights: Is It An Affordable Fiction?, Robert G. Lawson

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

This article explores the ramifications of Wainwright v. Sykes, a case decided before the Supreme Court of the United States in 1977. The broad question before the Court in Sykes concerned the extent to which state prisoners should have access to federal court by use of the writ of habeas corpus. The narrow issue before the Court concerned the impact on a prisoner's claim for habeas relief of procedural defaults (such as a failure to object to evidence, a failure to perfect an appeal, etc.) that occur in the state proceeding under attack. In considering these important issues Justice …

Santa Fe Industries, Inc. V. Green: An Analysis Two Years Later, Rutheford B. Campbell Jr.

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

In 1977, the Supreme Court decided Santa Fe Industries, Inc. v. Green. Although the outcome of that decision should have surprised no one, since the trend of the Court clearly had been to constrict the scope of the federal securities legislation, the case was a major decision that will have a substantial impact on the development of corporate law in this country. Indeed, it may turn out to be one of the most significant corporate cases decided by the Supreme Court in recent years. Since by this point the dust has settled from the case, it seems appropriate to …

From Washington To Arlington Heights And Beyond: Discriminatory Purpose In Equal Protection Litigation, Robert G. Schwemm

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

When the Supreme Court decided Washington v. Davis on June 7, 1976, it began a new era in civil rights law. Rejecting the contention that state action is unconstitutional solely because it operates to injure more blacks than whites, the Court held that proof of discriminatory purpose is necessary to establish a claim of racial discrimination under the equal protection clause. In two cases decided the following term—Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. and Castaneda v. Partida—the Court reaffirmed its commitment to the discriminatory purpose requirement, but was badly divided on how to apply the …

Legislative Reapportionment—The Kentucky Legal Context, Robert G. Lawson

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

In its continuing role as guardian of citizens’ constitutional rights, the Supreme Court in Baker v. Carr unlocked widespread concern for equal representation in state legislatures. Having been suppressed for two decades in which an amazing shift of population has occurred, the question of reapportionment and what to do about it had become one of great importance. In November, 1960, apportionments of 30 state legislatures had been challenged in state and federal courts. In addition, ten cases of an electoral character are presently on the docket of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Apart from the legal implications and …