Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
-
- University of Richmond (35)
- William & Mary Law School (26)
- Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center (22)
- Seattle University School of Law (18)
- University of Arkansas, Fayetteville (17)
-
- University of Michigan Law School (16)
- Brooklyn Law School (12)
- St. Mary's University (12)
- University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School (12)
- Notre Dame Law School (11)
- Cleveland State University (10)
- Roger Williams University (7)
- University of Colorado Law School (7)
- Columbia Law School (6)
- Emory University School of Law (6)
- Maurer School of Law: Indiana University (6)
- Georgetown University Law Center (5)
- St. John's University School of Law (5)
- Washington and Lee University School of Law (5)
- Duke Law (4)
- Northwestern Pritzker School of Law (4)
- Penn State Dickinson Law (4)
- The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law (4)
- Washington University in St. Louis (4)
- Brigham Young University Law School (3)
- Florida International University College of Law (3)
- Fordham Law School (3)
- Mitchell Hamline School of Law (3)
- University of Cincinnati College of Law (3)
- University of Oklahoma College of Law (3)
- Keyword
-
- Supreme Court (58)
- United States Supreme Court (22)
- Constitutional law (18)
- First Amendment (18)
- SCOTUS (14)
-
- Constitution (13)
- Abortion (11)
- Ginsburg (10)
- Jurisprudence (10)
- Damages (9)
- Equal protection (9)
- Politics (9)
- Qualified Immunity (9)
- Supreme court (9)
- Bivens (8)
- Constitutional Law (8)
- Court (8)
- Federal Officers (8)
- Justice (8)
- RBG (8)
- Racial classifications (8)
- Ruth Bader Ginsburg (8)
- U.S. Supreme Court (8)
- Discrimination (7)
- First Amendment; Freedom of Speech; Free speech; Constitutional Law; John Roberts; Roberts Court; Free Expression; Freedom of Expression; First Freedom; Supreme Court jurisprudence; Constitution; Constitutional Principles (7)
- Judges (7)
- Judiciary (7)
- Justice Ginsburg (7)
- Supreme (7)
- Women (7)
- Publication
-
- University of Richmond Law Review (34)
- Seattle University Law Review (18)
- Arkansas Law Review (16)
- Faculty Scholarship (16)
- All Faculty Scholarship (13)
-
- Touro Law Review (13)
- Supreme Court Preview (11)
- Faculty Publications (10)
- St. Mary's Law Journal (9)
- Brooklyn Law Review (8)
- Notre Dame Law Review (8)
- Scholarly Works (8)
- Articles (7)
- Faculty Articles (7)
- Cleveland State Law Review (6)
- Life of the Law School (1993- ) (6)
- Scholarly Articles (6)
- Indiana Law Journal (5)
- Michigan Law Review (5)
- Publications (5)
- William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal (5)
- Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present) (4)
- Scholarship@WashULaw (4)
- FIU Law Review (3)
- Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works (3)
- Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy (3)
- Oklahoma Law Review (3)
- University of Cincinnati Law Review (3)
- BYU Law Review (2)
- Brooklyn Journal of International Law (2)
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 30 of 331
Full-Text Articles in Law
Admitting A Wrong: Apology For The Historical Injustice Of The Dred Scott Case, Laura Kyte
Admitting A Wrong: Apology For The Historical Injustice Of The Dred Scott Case, Laura Kyte
BYU Law Review
No abstract provided.
In The Name Of Diversity: Why Mandatory Diversity Statements Violate The First Amendment And Reduce Intellectual Diversity In Academia, Daniel M. Ortner
In The Name Of Diversity: Why Mandatory Diversity Statements Violate The First Amendment And Reduce Intellectual Diversity In Academia, Daniel M. Ortner
Catholic University Law Review
In the 1950s and 1960s in many parts of the country, a professor could be fired or never hired if he refused to denounce communism or declare loyalty to the United States Constitution. The University of California system took the lead in enforcing these loyalty oaths. These loyalty oaths were challenged all the way up to the United States Supreme Court and were soundly rejected, establishing the centrality of academic freedom and open inquiry on the university campus. So why are loyalty oaths making their resurgence in the form of mandatory diversity statements? Universities have begun requiring faculty members to …
How To Conclude A Brief, Brian Wolfman
How To Conclude A Brief, Brian Wolfman
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
This essay discusses the "conclusion" section of an appellate brief and its relationship to problems of argument ordering in multi-issue appeals. The essay first reviews the relevant federal appellate rules--Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(9) and Supreme Court Rule 24.1(j)--and explains the author's preference for short, precise, remedy-oriented conclusions, shorn of repetitive argument. It illustrates these points with examples from recently filed appellate briefs. The essay then turns to problems of argument ordering in multi-issue appellate briefs, with an emphasis on ending with a bang not a whimper, while sticking with the short, non-argumentative conclusion. The argument-ordering discussion is also …
Introductory Remarks: The Roberts Court And The First Amendment: An Introduction, Geoffrey R. Stone
Introductory Remarks: The Roberts Court And The First Amendment: An Introduction, Geoffrey R. Stone
Brooklyn Law Review
On April 9, 2021, Geoffrey R. Stone delivered the following introductory remarks at The Roberts Court and Free Speech Symposium at Brooklyn Law School. An adaptation of Geoffrey R. Stone, Free Speech in the Twenty-First Century: Ten Lessons from the Twentieth Century Lead Article (2008), Dean Stone detailed the history of the pre-Roberts Court First Amendment jurisprudence and laid the foundation for the symposium’s scholarly discourse.
The Roberts Court—Its First Amendment Free Expression Jurisprudence: 2005–2021, Ronald K.L. Collins, David L. Hudson Jr.
The Roberts Court—Its First Amendment Free Expression Jurisprudence: 2005–2021, Ronald K.L. Collins, David L. Hudson Jr.
Brooklyn Law Review
The decisional law of the First Amendment is an area of law formulated, for the most part, by the high court of the land. At the same time, the study of free speech is equally a study in political philosophy and law. Supreme Court justices have left their mark on the First Amendment free speech doctrine and have made names for themselves in the process. This study explores the impact of Chief Justice John Roberts and the Roberts Court on the free speech doctrine. By examining the case law in this area and the justices and lawyers who craft it, …
The Anti-Free Speech Movement, Robert Corn-Revere
The Anti-Free Speech Movement, Robert Corn-Revere
Brooklyn Law Review
What does it mean for the Supreme Court, under Chief Justice John Roberts, to be “good” when it comes to the First Amendment? First Amendment lawyer Robert Corn-Revere tackles this question, by looking at the history of censorship in the United States. Through a historical lens, Mr. Corn-Revere examines the arguments for regulating “bad” speech in order to promote “good” speech, and analogizes this approach to the work of early American censors like Anthony Comstock. This article examines how the history of censorship has shaped First Amendment law, and ultimately through his analysis, Mr. Corn-Revere identifies several examples of what …
Free Speech Still Matters, Joel M. Gora
Free Speech Still Matters, Joel M. Gora
Brooklyn Law Review
In its first ten years, the Roberts Court proved to be the most speech protective Court in a generation, if not in our history; however, in the intervening five years, the Court has faced intense pressures, ranging from heightened criticism of its First Amendment jurisprudence to seismic changes in the makeup of the Court to very real proposals for court “packing.” Despite these powerful forces, the Roberts Court has surprisingly stayed true to its commitment to—and guardianship of—the First Amendment. Nevertheless, in the face of modern political correctness and cancel culture, free speech has rarely been in a more precarious …
Foreword: The Free Speech Record Of The Roberts Court, William D. Araiza
Foreword: The Free Speech Record Of The Roberts Court, William D. Araiza
Brooklyn Law Review
On April 9, 2021, scholars gathered at Brooklyn Law School to consider the free speech themes highlighted by a catalogue of the Roberts Court’s free speech jurisprudence. The speakers provided incisive and timely insight on these themes—insight that is reflected in the catalogue and accompanying papers published in this symposium issue of the Brooklyn Law Review. This introduction provides an overview of this symposium issue and the questions presented by each article and essay.
The Law Of License Plates And Other Inevitabilities Of Free Speech Context Sensitivity, William D. Araiza
The Law Of License Plates And Other Inevitabilities Of Free Speech Context Sensitivity, William D. Araiza
Brooklyn Law Review
This article, written for a symposium on Ronald Collins’s and Professor David Hudson’s catalogue of the Roberts Court’s First Amendment free speech jurisprudence, reconsiders the longstanding tension between rigid free speech rules and more contextual standards. It examines that debate by considering a set of relatively recent free speech cases in which the Court ostensibly adopted rigid rules, but in doing so arguably cloaked its reliance on more contextual factors by manipulating those rules. In cases dealing with national security and judicial electoral speech, the Court manipulated the strict scrutiny the Court insists applies to nearly every content-based speech restriction …
Transcript: The Roberts Court And Free Speech Symposium, Michael T. Cahill, Joel M. Gora, Geoffrey R. Stone, Ronald K.L. Collins, David L. Hudson Jr., Floyd Abrams, Ellis Cose, Robert Corn-Revere, Genevieve Lakier, William D. Araiza, Helen Norton, Nadine Strossen, Erwin Chemerinsky
Transcript: The Roberts Court And Free Speech Symposium, Michael T. Cahill, Joel M. Gora, Geoffrey R. Stone, Ronald K.L. Collins, David L. Hudson Jr., Floyd Abrams, Ellis Cose, Robert Corn-Revere, Genevieve Lakier, William D. Araiza, Helen Norton, Nadine Strossen, Erwin Chemerinsky
Brooklyn Law Review
On April 9, 2021, the Brooklyn Law Review gathered a panel of First Amendment scholars for a symposium on the Roberts Court's free speech jurisprudence. This transcript captures the panelists' diverse perspectives on the free speech themes highlighted by the Roberts Court's free speech jurisprudence.
Law School News: Rwu Law Remembers Sarah Weddington 12/30/2021, Michael M. Bowden
Law School News: Rwu Law Remembers Sarah Weddington 12/30/2021, Michael M. Bowden
Life of the Law School (1993- )
No abstract provided.
On The Constitutionality Of Hard State Border Closures In Response To The Covid-19 Pandemic, Benjamen Franklen Gussen
On The Constitutionality Of Hard State Border Closures In Response To The Covid-19 Pandemic, Benjamen Franklen Gussen
Journal of Law and Health
I investigate the constitutionality of hard state border closures in the United States as a prophylactic response to a pandemic. This type of border closure prevents people from entering a State, except for exempt travelers, a category that includes, for example, military, judicial and government officers, and people granted entry on compassionate grounds. Those allowed to enter usually have to then go through a quarantine regime before being released into the community. During the COVID-19 pandemic, no State has attempted such closures. However, epidemiological experts suggest that, in comparison to other border and non-border measures, such closures are more effective. …
Dead Men Tell No Tales: Arkansas’S Grave Failure To Honor Its Constituents’ Postmortem Quasi-Property Right, Mckenna Moore
Dead Men Tell No Tales: Arkansas’S Grave Failure To Honor Its Constituents’ Postmortem Quasi-Property Right, Mckenna Moore
Arkansas Law Review
It is doubtful that Hulon Rupert Austin woke up on the day of March 7, 1986 and expected it to be his last. March 7 was a typical day—a workday—that started with a simple drive to a job site with his co-worker. A day that began so unremarkably ended with his co-worker looking up from where he was working to see “Austin lying on the ground.”
The High Price Of Poverty In Arkansas’S Courts: Rethinking The Utility Of Municipal Fines And Fees, Madison Miller
The High Price Of Poverty In Arkansas’S Courts: Rethinking The Utility Of Municipal Fines And Fees, Madison Miller
Arkansas Law Review
The opposite of poverty is not wealth. It is justice. Beginning in the 1980s, a "trail of tax cuts" led to budget shortfalls and revenue gaps throughout the United States. These budgetary problems resulted in many cities and towns shifting their burden of funding courts and the justice system at large "to the 'users' of the courts, including those least equipped to pay." Although "jailing an indigent person for a fine-only, low-level offense is unconstitutional," it is still an ongoing practice in many states, including Arkansas. In 1995, Arkansas passed new legislation to govern its circuit courts' collection and enforcement …
The National Popular Vote On Trial, Keaton Barnes
The National Popular Vote On Trial, Keaton Barnes
Arkansas Law Review
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the Peopl to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them …
Korematsu’S Ancestors, Mark A. Graber
Korematsu’S Ancestors, Mark A. Graber
Arkansas Law Review
Mark Killenbeck’s Korematsu v. United States has important affinities with Dred Scott v. Sandford. Both decisions by promoting and justifying white supremacy far beyond what was absolutely mandated by the constitutional text merit their uncontroversial inclusion in the anticanon of American constitutional law.3 Dred Scott held that former slaves and their descendants could not be citizens of the United States and that Congress could not ban slavery in American territories acquired after the Constitution was ratified.5 Korematsu held that the military could exclude all Japanese Americans from portions of the West Coast during World War II.6 Both decisions nevertheless provided …
The Flag Can Travel But The Constitution Must Ask Permission: How The First Circuit And The District For Puerto Rico Commit To Equal Protection Without Abandoning The Insular Cases Doctrine, Alejandro J. Anselmi González
The Flag Can Travel But The Constitution Must Ask Permission: How The First Circuit And The District For Puerto Rico Commit To Equal Protection Without Abandoning The Insular Cases Doctrine, Alejandro J. Anselmi González
University of Miami Inter-American Law Review
For American citizens, one of the most important safeguards guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States is the equal protection of the law. The United States prides itself on the doctrine and jurisprudence of equal protection because of the social progression achieved since the end of the Civil War. The Reconstruction Amendments to the Constitution eliminated the institution of slavery and were supposed to guarantee equal civil and legal status to all citizens. The Constitution, however, has not been consistently interpreted in this way since the end of the Spanish-American War in 1898. The nation emerged from this conflict …
The Arkansas Code And Georgia V. Public.Resource.Org, Daniel Bell
The Arkansas Code And Georgia V. Public.Resource.Org, Daniel Bell
Arkansas Law Notes
The United States Supreme Court decided Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc. (“PRO”) in late April, 2020, a case with major implications for those who rely on the Arkansas statutes. The case addressed whether extra materials Georgia includes in its official statutes, the annotations, can be copyrighted, or if they are in the public domain and can be freely distributed without permission. The case pitted two important competing interests against each other: the ability of citizens to freely access the official versions of laws of their state, versus the interests of a third-party publisher in being compensated for its work. Arkansas produces …
The Gig Economy’S Short Reach: An Analysis Of The Scope Of The Federal Arbitration Act’S “Transportation Worker” Exemption, Emina Sadic Herzberger
The Gig Economy’S Short Reach: An Analysis Of The Scope Of The Federal Arbitration Act’S “Transportation Worker” Exemption, Emina Sadic Herzberger
Georgia Law Review
The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) governs arbitration agreements in the United States. Section 1 of the FAA provides an exemption from arbitration for “contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.” In a 2001 decision, Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the residual phrase “any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce” includes transportation workers. But, such language is ambiguous, and the Supreme Court did not expound upon what it means to be a transportation worker or to be engaged …
The Lost History Of Delegation At The Founding, Christine Chabot
The Lost History Of Delegation At The Founding, Christine Chabot
Georgia Law Review
The new Supreme Court is poised to bring the administrative state to a grinding halt. Five Justices have endorsed Justice Gorsuch’s dissent in Gundy v. United States—an opinion that threatens to invalidate countless regulatory statutes in which Congress has delegated significant policymaking authority to the Executive Branch. Justice Gorsuch claimed that the “text and history” of the Constitution required the Court to replace a longstanding constitutional doctrine that permits broad delegations with a more restrictive one. But the supposedly originalist arguments advanced by Justice Gorsuch and like-minded scholars run counter to the understandings of delegation that prevailed in the Founding …
The Roberts Court, State Courts, And State Constitutions: Judicial Role Shopping, Ariel L. Bendor, Joshua Segev
The Roberts Court, State Courts, And State Constitutions: Judicial Role Shopping, Ariel L. Bendor, Joshua Segev
Journal of Law and Policy
In this Article we reveal a dual dilemma, both material and institutional, that the Supreme Court in its current composition faces when reviewing liberal state court decisions based on the state constitution. The Article further describes substantive and procedural tactics that the Court adopts to address this dilemma, and illustrates the arguments by analyzing a number of recent Supreme Court decisions. The two dilemmas, the combination of which serve as a “power multiplier,” of sorts, have arisen following the last three appointments to the Supreme Court, which resulted in a solid majority of conservative Justices nominated by Republican presidents. One …
Prosecuting The Phone Scammer When Extradition Fails And Concurrent Jurisdiction Exists, Michelle Lepkofker
Prosecuting The Phone Scammer When Extradition Fails And Concurrent Jurisdiction Exists, Michelle Lepkofker
Brooklyn Journal of International Law
Advancements in technology allow people to place phone calls half a world away via the internet. This technology has made it easier and cheaper for consumers to communicate, but it has also made it easier for scammers to reach more unsuspecting victims. In 2020, TrueCaller, an app designed to block scam phone calls, successfully blocked, and identified 31.3 billion spam calls in 20 countries. In the same year, Americans alone lost a total of USD $ 29.8 billion to scam calls. This Note argues that phone scams continue to be lucrative, in part, because criminal prosecutions of transnational crimes are …
The Good, The Bad, And The Historically Anti-Semitic: An Analytical Comparison Of Anti-Hate Laws In Germany And The United States, Jamie Rauch
Brooklyn Journal of International Law
Confronted every day with drastically increasing accounts of hate crimes and hate speech, nations’ legislators have routinely tried and subsequently failed to implement effective legislation capable of curbing the hatred epidemic currently sweeping the globe. This failure is due in large part to the lack of a universal stance on hate crime regulation and criminalization. Two countries in particular, the United States and Germany, embody two diametrically opposing approaches taken by nations in the present-day war on hate speech. This Note explores the dramatic dichotomy between the legislative framework surrounding the regulation of hate speech in these two countries. This …
Without A Voice, Without A Forum: Finding Iirira Section 1252(G) Unconstitutional, Amanda Simms
Without A Voice, Without A Forum: Finding Iirira Section 1252(G) Unconstitutional, Amanda Simms
Brooklyn Law Review
The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) abrogates sovereign immunity in certain circumstances to allow private individuals, regardless of citizenship, to sue the United States for specific torts committed by government officials. Yet when two lawful permanent residents—located in different parts of the country—separately tried to sue the government for wrongful removal, one court dismissed the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction while the other court did not. These decisions, though reaching opposite conclusions, both relied on federal immigration statute 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) in order to determine whether judicial review of immigrants’ removal orders is precluded. This note argues …
Supreme Court Institute Annual Report, 2020-2021, Georgetown University Law Center, Supreme Court Institute
Supreme Court Institute Annual Report, 2020-2021, Georgetown University Law Center, Supreme Court Institute
SCI Papers & Reports
During the U.S. Supreme Court’s October Term (OT) 2020—corresponding to the 2020-2021 academic year— the Supreme Court Institute (SCI) provided moot courts for advocates in 57 of the 58 cases argued at the Supreme Court, offered our annual press and student term preview programs, and continued to integrate the moot court program into the Law Center curriculum. As in past Terms, the varied affiliations of advocates mooted reflect SCI’s commitment to assist advocates without regard to the party represented or the position advanced.
Responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Supreme Court took the unprecedented step of hosting all OT 2020 …
Beyond The Horizons Of The Harvard Forewords, Or Bassok
Beyond The Horizons Of The Harvard Forewords, Or Bassok
Cleveland State Law Review
American constitutional thought is controlled by certain paradigms that limit the ability to think beyond them. A careful reading of the Harvard Law Review Forewords—the “tribal campfire” of American constitutional thinkers—is one way to detect these paradigms. Based on reading these Forewords since their inception in 1951 and until 2019, I track how the concept of judicial legitimacy has been understood over the years. My analysis shows that in recent decades an understanding of judicial legitimacy in terms of public support has risen to the status of a controlling paradigm. While this understanding is currently considered commonsensical, it stands in …
Reexamining The Vicarious Criminal Liability Of Corporations For The Willful Crimes Of Their Employees, Evan Tuttle
Reexamining The Vicarious Criminal Liability Of Corporations For The Willful Crimes Of Their Employees, Evan Tuttle
Cleveland State Law Review
Corporate compliance programs in the United States have evolved substantially in the past several decades, expanding exponentially in both number and scope. Yet, our legal standard of corporate criminal liability for the acts of employees has remained largely unchanged for the past fifty years. United States v. Hilton Hotels established that a corporation can be held liable for the acts of its employee, even though the employee’s conduct may be contrary to their actual instructions or contrary to the employer’s stated policies. That holding, cited with favor by the Supreme Court, was based on a deeply flawed interpretation of precedent, …
The End Of The Eviction Moratoriums, Public Interest Law Student Association (Pilsa)
The End Of The Eviction Moratoriums, Public Interest Law Student Association (Pilsa)
Flyers 2021-2022
No abstract provided.
The Supreme Court And The Pro-Business Paradox, Elizabeth Pollman
The Supreme Court And The Pro-Business Paradox, Elizabeth Pollman
All Faculty Scholarship
One of the most notable trends of the Roberts Court is expanding corporate rights and narrowing liability or access to justice against corporate defendants. This Comment examines recent Supreme Court cases to highlight this “pro-business” pattern as well as its contradictory relationship with counter trends in corporate law and governance. From Citizens United to Americans for Prosperity, the Roberts Court’s jurisprudence could ironically lead to a situation in which it has protected corporate political spending based on a view of the corporation as an “association of citizens,” but allows constitutional scrutiny to block actual participants from getting information about …
The Illiberalization Of American Election Law: A Study In Democratic Deconsolidation, James A. Gardner
The Illiberalization Of American Election Law: A Study In Democratic Deconsolidation, James A. Gardner
Journal Articles
For many years, the dominant view among American election law scholars has been that the U.S. Supreme Court’s constitutional jurisprudence of democratic practice got off to a promising start during the mid-twentieth century but has since then slowly deteriorated into incoherence. In light of the United States’ recent turn toward populist authoritarianism, that view needs to be substantially revised. With the benefit of hindsight, it now appears that the Supreme Court has functioned, in its management of the constitutional jurisprudence of democracy, as a vector of infection—a kind of super-spreader of populist authoritarianism.
There is, sadly, nothing unusual these days …