Law Commons^™

Loud And Soft Anti-Chevron Decisions, Michael Kagan

Scholarly Works

This Article proposes a methodology for interpreting the Supreme Court's long-standing inconsistency in the application of the Chevron doctrine. Developing such an approach is important because this central, canonical doctrine in administrative law is entering a period of uncertainty after long seeming to enjoy consensus support on the Court. In retrospect, it makes sense to view the many cases in which the Court failed to apply Chevron consistently as signals of underlying doctrinal doubt. However, to interpret these soft anti-Chevron decisions requires a careful approach, because sometimes Justices are simply being unpredictable and idiosyncratic. However, where clear patterns can be …

Telling Stories In The Supreme Court: Voices Briefs And The Role Of Democracy In Constitutional Deliberation, Linda H. Edwards

Scholarly Works

On January 4, 2016, over 112 women lawyers, law professors, and former judges told the world that they had had an abortion. In a daring amicus brief that captured national media attention, the women “came out” to their clients; to the lawyers with or against whom they practice; to the judges before whom they appear; and to the Justices of the Supreme Court.

The past three years have seen an explosion of such “voices briefs,” 16 in Obergefell and 17 in Whole Woman’s Health. The briefs can be powerful, but their use is controversial. They tell the stories of non-parties—strangers …

Introduction To The U.S. Feminist Judgments Project, Linda L. Berger, Kathryn M. Stanchi, Bridget J. Crawford

Scholarly Works

The U.S. Feminist Judgments Project turns attention to the U.S. Supreme Court. Contributors to this volume challenge the formalistic concepts that U.S. Supreme Court opinions are, or should be, written from a neutral vantage point and that they are, or should be, based on deductive logic or “pure” rationality. When the project’s authors brought their own feminist consciousness or philosophy to some of the most important (and supposedly “neutral”) decisions and assertions about gender-related issues, the judicial decisions took on a very different character. Feminist consciousness broadens and widens the lens through which we view law and helps the decision …

Workplace Law Cases In The Tenth Term Of The Roberts Court: Between The Usual Ideological Lines, Ruben J. Garcia

Scholarly Works

My review of the Supreme Court's October 2014 Term will focus on cases involving workplace law statutes such as the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (LMRA) and the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 (WPA). These cases can be viewed through the lens of the following trends: 1) the Court continues its judicial narrowing of the Fair Labor Standards Act and federal labor law; 2) plaintiffs who have the backing of the administrative agencies are more likely to be successful; and …

"An Equally Divided Court": Workplace Law In The U.S. Supreme Court 2015-2016, Ruben J. Garcia

Scholarly Works

The 2015-2016 Term of the United States Supreme Court was scarcely halfway over when Justice Antonin Scalia passed away on February 12, 2016. This event and the political gridlock over his successor defined the Term in some ways more than the actual decisions of the Court, particularly when the resulting vacancy led an “equally divided” Supreme Court to affirm the courts below in a one sentence judgment. The most watched of these cases in workplace law was Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, where the Supreme Court’s 4-4 tie avoided the overruling of decades of precedent upholding the constitutionality of agency …

Hobby Lobby: The Crafty Case That Threatens Women's Rights And Religious Freedom, Leslie C. Griffin

Scholarly Works

Despite the pro-religion rhetoric surrounding it, Hobby Lobby marks a loss of religious freedom. Missing from the majority's opinion is the core concept that religious freedom is necessary to protect the rights of all Americans, and that a religious belief must not be imposed on citizens through the force of law. Any interpretation of the First Amendment or the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA")' that imposes one citizen's religious faith upon another must be rejected. This Article defends this non-imposition model of religious freedom and describes why and how Hobby Lobby incorrectly departed from it.

A Rhetorician’S Practical Wisdom, Linda L. Berger

Scholarly Works

For three years, I had the great good fortune to work in the office next to Jack Sammons. My good fortune extended to a coincidence of timing that allowed me to work with Jack on a co-authored article, The Law's Mystery. During the time I worked next door, I felt cursed by an inability to grasp concepts that to Jack appeared inevitable and essential, whether those inevitabilities and essences were to be found within the law, good lawyering, or good legal education. The curse persisted throughout the writing of The Law's Mystery.

For Jack, the essence of a …

Creating Kairos At The Supreme Court: Shelby County, Citizens United, Hobby Lobby, And The Judicial Construction Of Right Moments, Linda L. Berger

Scholarly Works

Kairos is an ancient rhetorical concept that was long neglected by rhetorical scholars, and its significance to legal argument and persuasion has been little discussed. Through their use of two words for time, chronos and kairos, the Greeks were able to view history as a grid of connected events spread across a landscape punctuated by hills and valleys. In chronos, the timekeeper-observer constructs a linear, measurable, quantitative accounting of what happened. In kairos, the participant-teller forms a more qualitative history by shaping individual moments into crises and turning points. From a rhetorical perspective, chronos is more closely allied with the …

The Fourth Era Of American Civil Procedure, Thomas O. Main, Stephen N. Subrin

Scholarly Works

Every contemporary American lawyer who has engaged in litigation is familiar with the now fifty-four-volume treatise, Federal Practice and Procedure. Both of that treatise’s named authors, Charles Alan Wright and Arthur Miller, have mourned the death of a Federal Rules regime that they spent much of their professional lives explaining and often celebrating. Wright shared a sense of gloom about federal procedure that he compared to the setting before World War I. Miller has also published a series of articles that chronicled his grief.

We agree that something has fundamentally changed. In fact, we believe that we are in …

Pursuing Justice For The Child: The Forgotten Women Of In Re Gault, David S. Tanenhaus

Scholarly Works

In this article, I first draw on my recent book The Constitutional Rights of Children to introduce the facts of the case and place the case in the larger context of the history of American juvenile justice. I then focus specifically on the role of four remarkable women in the history of this landmark decision: Marjorie Gault, Gerald's mother; Amelia Lewis, Gerald's lawyer; Lorna Lockwood, an Arizona lawyer who became the first woman to serve as the Chief Justice of a State Supreme Court; and Getrude "Traute" Mainzer, who assisted in the litigation of Gerald's case before the U.S. Supreme …

On Teaching Conflicts And Why I Dislike Allstate Insurance Co. V. Hague, Thomas O. Main

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Tainted Love: An Increasingly Odd Arbitral Infatuation In Derogation Of Sound And Consistent Jurisprudence, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

What Is The Sound Of A Corporation Speaking? “Just Another Voice,” According To The Supreme Court, Linda L. Berger

Scholarly Works

When the Supreme Court overrules itself, and reaches a result different from the conclusions of Congress, the Executive Branch, and more than 20 state legislatures, the Court has the burden of persuasion. Did the five justices in the majority in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission meet that burden? The author argues that the answer is no, setting aside the question of whether the majority reached the "right" conclusion about the constitutionality of limiting corporate spending in election campaigns. In this essay, the author explains her answer and addresses a related question: did the Citizens United majority observe the rules …

William Rehnquist, The Separation Of Powers, And The Riddle Of The Sphinx, Jay S. Bybee

Scholarly Works

William Rehnquist's tenure on the Supreme Court presents a Sphinx-like riddle for students of the separation of powers: “What animal is that which in the morning goes on four, at noon on two, and in the evening on three feet?” One might well answer: “Rehnquist's separation of powers jurisprudence, as it is a difficult creature to characterize, arguably evolving over time.” In adolescence, it appeared an originalist on all fours, in manhood it walked erect, a Byron White functionalist, and in old age . . . well, perhaps the Sphinx might just devour one after all! Indeed, it is difficult …

When You Wish Upon Dastar: Creative Provenance And The Lanham Act, Mary Lafrance

Scholarly Works

This Article examines the application of section 43(a) of the Lanham Act to claims of reverse passing off through the lens of the Supreme Court's unpersuasive effort in Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. to exclude a single class of reverse passing off-claims - those involving “expressive” works as opposed to physical commodities - from the scope of section 43(a). The Article critiques the Court's analysis of section 43(a) in light of case law and the pertinent legislative history, including, the Trademark Law Revision Act of 1988, the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, and the Visual Artists …

The Irrational Turn In Employment Discrimination Law: Slouching Toward A Unified Approach To Civil Rights Law, John Valery White

Scholarly Works

This Article argues that the Supreme Court's recent disparate treatment decisions under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 represent a trend toward unifying all civil rights law under an approach most closely akin to traditional equity. This trend explains the curious tension between substance and process in the Court's most recent decisions, St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks and Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing. It also explains the Court's uncommon confidence in its yet undefined notions of what constitutes discrimination on the basis of the several protected categories recognized in Title VII and related statutes. The trend toward …

Board Of Education V. Taxman: The Unpublished Opinions, Ann C. Mcginley, Michael J. Yelnosky

Scholarly Works

On June 27, 1997 the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Board of Education v. Taxman to review a judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. That court had ruled, en banc, that the school board in Piscataway, New Jersey violated Title VII when it chose to lay off Sharon Taxman, a teacher at Piscataway High School, rather than Debra Williams, her colleague. Taxman quickly became the most anticipated decision of the Term. However, the case settled in November 1997 before argument, so the issues it raised are unresolved. Taxman quickly became the most …

Affirmative Action Awash In Confusion: Backward-Looking-Future-Oriented Justifications For Race-Conscious Measures, Ann C. Mcginley

Scholarly Works

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, decided Taxman v. Board of Education of the Township of Piscataway, in August 1996. Eight judges agreed that he Board of Education of Piscataway Township, New Jersey violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by using race, in accordance with its affirmative action policy, to break a tie between two teachers in the Business Department at Piscataway High School when determining which teacher to lay off. A strong dissent by Chief Judge Sloviter was joined by two other Court of Appeals judges. The majority decision is remarkable in its breadth, …

Panacea Or Corporate Tool?: Debunking The Supreme Court's Preference For Binding Arbitration, Jean R. Sternlight

Scholarly Works

This article examines the increasing use of contracts of adhesion in which companies require consumers, employees, franchisees and other "little guys" to submit disputes with the company to binding arbitration. The article argues that the Supreme Court's current preference for such agreements is not statutorily well-founded. Specifically, it contends that the Federal Arbitration Act was not intended to make such agreements binding on unknowing consumers or employees. Turning next to policy analysis, the article asserts that the Supreme Court has erred in expressing a preference for binding arbitration in cases where such arbitration was not knowingly and voluntarily accepted by …

Review Of Winifred Fallers Sullivan, Paying The Words Extra: Religious Discourse In The Supreme Court Of The United States (1994), Leslie C. Griffin

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

The Supreme Court's Denial Of Reasonable Attorney's Fees To Prevailing Civil Rights Plaintiffs, Jean R. Sternlight

Scholarly Works

The Supreme Court, through a series of recent decisions has effectively overridden Congress’ dictate that prevailing civil rights plaintiffs are entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. The solution to the current crisis lies not in reluctant court-appointed attorneys, but rather in a broad-based reform of the law regarding court-awarded attorney’s fees.

This article argues that only action by Congress will suffice to override the Supreme Court’s erroneous ruling and ensure just compensation for civil rights attorneys. Absent such legislation, it seems virtually certain that both the quantity and quality of civil rights litigation will continue to decrease. Fewer …

The Illinois Bill Of Rights And Our Independent Legal Tradition: A Critique Of The Illinois Lockstep Doctrine, Thomas B. Mcaffee

Scholarly Works

Illinois’ highest court continues to follow the rule that courts of this state are strictly bound by Supreme Court decisions construing provisions that are substantially identical to provisions found in the Illinois Constitution. Increasingly, however, this rule has been challenged by dissenting justices who contend that it is contrary to the state’s independent legal tradition and rests upon an accurate view of the relationship between federal and state courts and their respective constitutions. These justices contend that the court may give independent attention to the provisions of the Illinois Constitution and need not slavishly adhere to decisions of the Supreme …