Courts Commons^™

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. V. Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission: The Supreme Court Misses Its "Shot" At Clarifying State Alcohol Regulations And The Commerce Clause, Josephine Battles

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The Supreme Court erred by denying certiorari in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission. The Texas statute that bans all publicly traded corporations from obtaining a license to sell liquor, but carves an exception for some Texas-run public corporations through an express clause, is in direct violation of the dormant Commerce Clause. The Texas Legislature disguised the public corporation ban as a “facially neutral” alcohol regulation, however, the ban is discriminatory towards out-of-state competitors in both its purpose and effect. Moreover, the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Wal-Mart Stores is firmly inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent. Additionally, the …

Docket Selection And Judicial Responsiveness: The Use Of Ai In The Colombian Constitutional Court, Pablo Rueda Saiz

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article addresses some of the limitations of AI as a tool to preselect a long or shortlist of cases for a court at the apex of the judicial system to review. It focuses on the Colombian Constitutional Court, as an example of a court at the apex of the judicial system that has been historically responsive to claims for fundamental rights. Docket selection is an example of a classification problem using supervised learning, in which a machine groups data according to preestablished characteristics.

This Article draws from two different bodies of literature to analyze the consequences of using AI …

Judging History: How Judicial Discretion In Applying Originalist Methodology Affects The Outcome Of Post-Heller Second Amendment Cases, Mark Anthony Frassetto

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article aims to assess how the federal appellate courts have applied the originalist methodology in Second Amendment cases in the decade since Heller. It reviews how courts’ varying approaches to historical analysis—specifically, how courts have addressed what historical period to look to, how prevalent a historical tradition must be, and whether to address history at a high or low level of generality—can drastically affect the outcome of cases. As Justice Scalia acknowledged in McDonald, “Historical analysis can be difficult; it sometimes requires resolving threshold questions, and making nuanced judgments about which evidence to consult and how to …

Who Will Save The Redheads? Towards An Anti-Bully Theory Of Judicial Review And Protection Of Democracy, Yaniv Roznai

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Democracy is in crisis throughout the world. And courts play a key role within this process as a main target of populist leaders and in light of their ability to hinder administrative, legal, and constitutional changes. Focusing on the ability of courts to block constitutional changes, this Article analyzes the main tensions situated at the heart of democratic erosion processes around the world: the conflict between substantive and formal notions of democracy; a conflict between believers and nonbelievers that courts can save democracy; and the tension between strategic and legal considerations courts consider when they face pressure from political branches. …

The Nature Of Standing, Matthew Hall, Christian Turner

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Most academic studies of standing have focused on restrictions on federal court jurisdiction drawn from Article III of U.S. Constitution and related doctrinal schemes developed by state courts. These rules are constructed atop a few words of the Constitution: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity," arising under various circumstances. The Supreme Court has interpreted these words to require federal courts to assess whether a plaintiff has suffered an injury in fact that is both fairly traceable to the actions of the defendant and redressable by a favorable ruling before proceeding to the merits of …

Dissent, Disagreement And Doctrinal Disarray: Free Expression And The Roberts Court In 2020, Clay Calvert

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Using the United States Supreme Court’s 2019 rulings in Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, Nieves v. Bartlett, and Iancu v. Brunetti as analytical springboards, this Article explores multiple fractures among the Justices affecting the First Amendment freedoms of speech and press. All three cases involved dissents, with two cases each spawning five opinions. The clefts compound problems witnessed in 2018 with a pair of five-to-four decisions in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra and Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees. Partisan divides, the Article argues, are only one problem with First Amendment …

Is The “Arising Under” Jurisdictional Grant In Article Iii Self-Executing?, David R. Dow

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Magic Words, Kiel Brennan-Marquez

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Broadly speaking, this Article has two goals. The first is to demonstrate the prominence of functionalism in the interpretive practices of the Supreme Court. Reading a case like NFIB, it would be easy to conclude that the tension between labels and function reflects a deep rift in our legal order. On reflection, though, the rift turns out to be something of a mirage. While judicial opinions do occasionally employ the rhetoric of label-formalism, we are all functionalists at heart.

The Article’s second goal is to explore two exceptions to this norm. One is a faux exception—an exception to functionalism that …

How To Make Sense Of Supreme Court Standing Cases— – A Plea For The Right Kind Of Realism, Richard H. Fallon Jr.

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Does The Supreme Court Ignore Standing Problems To Reach The Merits? Evidence (Or Lack Thereof) From The Roberts Court, Heather Elliott

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Standing And The Role Of Federal Courts: Triple Error Decisions In Clapper V. Amnesty International Usa And City Of Los Angeles V. Lyons, Vicki C. Jackson

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Governmental Sovereignty Actions, Ann Woolhandler

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Comparing Judicial Selection Systems, Lee Epstein, Jack C. Knight, Olga Shvetsova

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The Questioning Of Lower Federal Court Nominees At Senate Confirmation Hearings, William Ross

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The Bush Administration And Appeals Court Nominees, Carl Tobias

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Introduction To The Symposium: The Judicial Process Appointments Process, Carly Van Orman

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The Aba's Role In Prescreening Federal Judicial Candidates: Are We Ready To Give Up On The Lawyers?, Laura E. Little

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The "Blue Slip": Enforcing The Norms Of The Judicial Confirmation Process, Brannon P. Denning

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.