Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
-
- Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center (60)
- University of Michigan Law School (13)
- University of Richmond (5)
- Roger Williams University (2)
- Seattle University School of Law (2)
-
- Boston University School of Law (1)
- Georgetown University Law Center (1)
- Liberty University (1)
- Marquette University Law School (1)
- New York Law School (1)
- Penn State Dickinson Law (1)
- Pepperdine University (1)
- Selected Works (1)
- St. John's University School of Law (1)
- University of Baltimore Law (1)
- University of Nevada, Las Vegas (1)
- Wayne State University (1)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- Touro Law Review (57)
- Articles (9)
- University of Richmond Law Review (5)
- Michigan Law Review (3)
- Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity (2)
-
- Seattle University Law Review (2)
- All Faculty Scholarship (1)
- Bruce Ledewitz (1)
- Calvert Undergraduate Research Awards (1)
- Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present) (1)
- Faculty Scholarship (1)
- Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works (1)
- Law Faculty Research Publications (1)
- Law Library Newsletters/Blog (1)
- Marquette Law Review (1)
- Michigan Journal of Gender & Law (1)
- NYLS Law Review (1)
- Pepperdine Law Review (1)
- Scholarly Works (1)
- School of Law Conferences, Lectures & Events (1)
- Senior Honors Theses (1)
- St. John's Law Review (1)
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 30 of 94
Full-Text Articles in Judges
Originalism After Dobbs, Bruen, And Kennedy: The Role Of History And Tradition, Randy E. Barnett, Lawrence B. Solum
Originalism After Dobbs, Bruen, And Kennedy: The Role Of History And Tradition, Randy E. Barnett, Lawrence B. Solum
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
In three recent cases, the constitutional concepts of history and tradition have played important roles in the reasoning of the Supreme Court. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization relied on history and tradition to overrule Roe v. Wade. New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen articulated a history and tradition test for the validity of laws regulating the right to bear arms recognized by the Second Amendment. Kennedy v. Bremerton School District looked to history and tradition in formulating the test for the consistency of state action with the Establishment Clause.
These cases raise important questions about …
A Country In Crisis: A Review Of How The Illegitimate Supreme Court Is Rendering Illegitimate Decisions And Doing Damage That Will Not Soon Be Undone., Regina L. Ramsey ,Esq
A Country In Crisis: A Review Of How The Illegitimate Supreme Court Is Rendering Illegitimate Decisions And Doing Damage That Will Not Soon Be Undone., Regina L. Ramsey ,Esq
Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity
This article will discuss in detail exactly how the court is illegitimate and makes decisions that are illegitimate, using examples from the October 2021 term. It will also explain why action needs to be taken immediately to reign in this run-away Court to restore public trust. As discussed herein, we cannot sit by and patiently wait for the Court to right itself over time because there are important issues on the current docket, such as race-conscious admissions policies of colleges and universities to ensure student bodies are diverse as future leaders are prepared to live and work in a diverse …
Depoliticizing The Supreme Court: How To Rein In Those Answerable To No One?, Dana Ortiz-Tulla ,Esq
Depoliticizing The Supreme Court: How To Rein In Those Answerable To No One?, Dana Ortiz-Tulla ,Esq
Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity
This Note will discuss some of the Commission’s findings and other interesting suggestions to determine whether it is possible to rein in the modern-day Court. Part I will explain the inherently political nature of the Supreme Court. Part II will briefly present how the Supreme Court acquired its power. Part III will discuss several prominent proposals for Supreme Court reform. Finally, Part IV will examine whether any recommendations may depoliticize the Court.
Holmes V. Walton And Its Enduring Lessons For Originalism, Justin W. Aimonetti
Holmes V. Walton And Its Enduring Lessons For Originalism, Justin W. Aimonetti
Marquette Law Review
Originalism is nothing new. And the New Jersey Supreme Court’s 1780 decision in Holmes v. Walton shows it. In that case, the New Jersey Supreme Court disallowed a state law as repugnant to the state constitution because the law permitted a jury of only six to render a judgment. To reach that result, the court looked to the fixed, original meaning of the jury trial guarantee embedded in the state constitution, and it then constrained its interpretive latitude in conformity with that fixed meaning. Holmes thus cuts against the common misconception that originalism as an interpretive methodology is a modern …
Original(Ism) Sin, G. Alex Sinha
Original(Ism) Sin, G. Alex Sinha
St. John's Law Review
(Excerpt)
During President Trump’s term in office, the Senate confirmed nearly 250 of his federal judicial nominees, including 3 to the Supreme Court of the United States. That number amounts to nearly a third of the federal judiciary’s roughly 800 active members. By and large, the judges nominated by President Trump purport to apply some form of originalist constitutional interpretation or construction, though the subject of originalism featured perhaps most prominently at the confirmation hearings for Amy Coney Barrett, whom President Trump nominated in October of 2020 to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Whatever one thinks of the vast literature …
When Interpretive Communities Clash On Immigration Law: The Courts’ Mediating Role In Noncitizens’ Rights And Remedies, Peter Margulies
When Interpretive Communities Clash On Immigration Law: The Courts’ Mediating Role In Noncitizens’ Rights And Remedies, Peter Margulies
Touro Law Review
Immigration law gains clarity through the lens of Robert Cover's compelling work on law as a "system of meaning." Cover's vision inspires us to consider immigration law as a contest between two interpretive communities: acolytes of the protective approach, which sees law as a haven for noncitizens fleeing harm in their home countries, and followers of the regulatory approach, which stresses sovereignty and strict adherence to legal categories. Immigration law's contest between contending camps need not be a zero-sum game. As Cover and Alex Aleinikoff observed in their classic article on habeas corpus, a legal remedy can also be a …
2nd Annual Women In Law Leadership Lecture: A Fireside Chat With Debra Katz, Esq. 03-03-2021, Roger Williams University School Of Law
2nd Annual Women In Law Leadership Lecture: A Fireside Chat With Debra Katz, Esq. 03-03-2021, Roger Williams University School Of Law
School of Law Conferences, Lectures & Events
No abstract provided.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Wise Legal Giant, Thomas A. Schweitzer
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Wise Legal Giant, Thomas A. Schweitzer
Scholarly Works
No abstract provided.
Why Do The Poor Not Have A Constitutional Right To File Civil Claims In Court Under Their First Amendment Right To Petition The Government For A Redress Of Grievances?, Henry Rose
Seattle University Law Review
Since 1963, the United States Supreme Court has recognized a constitutional right for American groups, organizations, and persons to pursue civil litigation under the First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances. However, in three cases involving poor plaintiffs decided by the Supreme Court in the early 1970s—Boddie v. Connecticut,2 United States v. Kras,3 and Ortwein v. Schwab4—the Supreme Court rejected arguments that all persons have a constitutional right to access courts to pursue their civil legal claims.5 In the latter two cases, Kras and Ortwein, the Supreme Court concluded that poor persons were properly barred from …
Neither Safe, Nor Legal, Nor Rare: The D.C. Circuit’S Use Of The Doctrine Of Ratification To Shield Agency Action From Appointments Clause Challenges, Damien M. Schiff
Neither Safe, Nor Legal, Nor Rare: The D.C. Circuit’S Use Of The Doctrine Of Ratification To Shield Agency Action From Appointments Clause Challenges, Damien M. Schiff
Seattle University Law Review
Key to the constitutional design of the federal government is the separation of powers. An important support for that separation is the Appointments Clause, which governs how officers of the United States are installed in their positions. Although the separation of powers generally, and the Appointments Clause specifically, support democratically accountable government, they also protect individual citizens against abusive government power. But without a judicial remedy, such protection is ineffectual—a mere parchment barrier.
Such has become the fate of the Appointments Clause in the D.C. Circuit, thanks to that court’s adoption—and zealous employment—of the rule that agency action, otherwise unconstitutional …
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Wise Legal Giant, Thomas A. Schweitzer
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Wise Legal Giant, Thomas A. Schweitzer
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
The People's Court: On The Intellectual Origins Of American Judicial Power, Ian C. Bartrum
The People's Court: On The Intellectual Origins Of American Judicial Power, Ian C. Bartrum
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
This article enters into the modern debate between “consti- tutional departmentalists”—who contend that the executive and legislative branches share constitutional interpretive authority with the courts—and what are sometimes called “judicial supremacists.” After exploring the relevant history of political ideas, I join the modern minority of voices in the latter camp.
This is an intellectual history of two evolving political ideas—popular sovereignty and the separation of powers—which merged in the making of American judicial power, and I argue we can only understand the structural function of judicial review by bringing these ideas together into an integrated whole. Or, put another way, …
An Analysis Of The Competing Views On The Interpretation Of The U.S. Constitution, Joseph Longo
An Analysis Of The Competing Views On The Interpretation Of The U.S. Constitution, Joseph Longo
Senior Honors Theses
This thesis will examine the competing interpretations of the United States Constitution and the different effects these interpretations would have on the American government and legal systems. By examining legal precedents and different philosophical views, the varying interpretations will be examined and put through real-world scenarios. The founding of America was over 200 years ago, but philosophical views throughout history shall be used in the understanding of the different interpretations and real-world consequences. The thesis will not claim that one interpretation is proper and the perfect one for the United States, rather it will challenge each view in an attempt …
The Arms Dealer Who Cries, :“First Amendment”, Gustave Passanante
The Arms Dealer Who Cries, :“First Amendment”, Gustave Passanante
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Influence Of The Warren Court And Natural Rights On Substantive Due Process, James Marmaduke
The Influence Of The Warren Court And Natural Rights On Substantive Due Process, James Marmaduke
Calvert Undergraduate Research Awards
Advanced Research Winner 2019:
While the concept of substantive due process has guided judicial decision making even prior to the Civil War, it has become a lightning rod among the juristic community especially since the 1960s. This controversy includes issues ranging from the applicability and reliability to the cogency and legitimacy of the doctrine of substantive due process Many scholars attribute the skepticism toward the concept of substantive due process to be the result of a paradigm shift in the middle of the 20th century when this concept transitioned from an economic and property rights based approach to one …
Eight Justices Are Enough: A Proposal To Improve The United States Supreme Court, Eric J. Segall
Eight Justices Are Enough: A Proposal To Improve The United States Supreme Court, Eric J. Segall
Pepperdine Law Review
Over the last twenty-five years, some of the most significant Supreme Court decisions involving issues of national significance like abortion, affirmative action, and voting rights were five-to-four decisions. In February 2016, the death of Justice Antonin Scalia turned the nine-Justice court into an eight-Justice court, comprised of four liberal and four conservative Justices, for the first time in our nation’s history. This article proposes that an evenly divided court consisting of eight Justices is the ideal Supreme Court composition. Although the other two branches of government have evolved over the years, the Supreme Court has undergone virtually no significant changes. …
Law Library Blog (January 2018): Legal Beagle's Blog Archive, Roger Williams University School Of Law
Law Library Blog (January 2018): Legal Beagle's Blog Archive, Roger Williams University School Of Law
Law Library Newsletters/Blog
No abstract provided.
Has Nihilism Politicized The Supreme Court Nomination Process?, Bruce Ledewitz
Has Nihilism Politicized The Supreme Court Nomination Process?, Bruce Ledewitz
Bruce Ledewitz
In Memoriam: Justice Antonin Scalia And The Constitution's Golden Thread, L. Margaret Harker
In Memoriam: Justice Antonin Scalia And The Constitution's Golden Thread, L. Margaret Harker
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
Scalia On Abortion: Originalism... But, Why?, Robert Cassidy
Scalia On Abortion: Originalism... But, Why?, Robert Cassidy
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
When Scalia Wasn't Such An Originalist, Michael Lewyn
When Scalia Wasn't Such An Originalist, Michael Lewyn
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Founding Fathers Said I Am Not Subject To Term Limits, Elias Arroyo
The Founding Fathers Said I Am Not Subject To Term Limits, Elias Arroyo
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Six Overrulings, Andrew Koppelman
Six Overrulings, Andrew Koppelman
Michigan Law Review
John Paul Stevens, who retired in 2010 at the age of ninety after more than thirty-four years on the Supreme Court, has capped his astoundingly distinguished career by becoming an important public intellectual. He reviews books, gives high-profile interviews, wrote a memoir of the chief justices he has known, and has now written a second book. Six Amendments revisits half a dozen old, lost battles. Stevens appeals over the heads of his colleagues to a higher authority: the public. Now that he is off the Court, Stevens explains why six decisions in which he dissented should be overruled by constitutional …
But How Will The People Know? Public Opinion As A Meager Influence In Shaping Contemporary Supreme Court Decision Making, Tom Goldstein, Amy Howe
But How Will The People Know? Public Opinion As A Meager Influence In Shaping Contemporary Supreme Court Decision Making, Tom Goldstein, Amy Howe
Michigan Law Review
Chief Justice John Roberts famously described the ideal Supreme Court Justice as analogous to a baseball umpire, who simply "applies" the rules, rather than making them. Roberts promised to "remember that it's my job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat." At her own recent confirmation hearings, Elena Kagan demurred, opining that Roberts's metaphor might erroneously suggest that "everything is clear-cut, and that there's no judgment in the process." Based on his 2009 book, The Will of the People: How Public Opinion Has Influenced the Supreme Court and Shaped the Meaning of the Constitution, Barry Friedman …
Constitutional Expectations, Richard A. Primus
Constitutional Expectations, Richard A. Primus
Articles
The inauguration of Barack Obama was marred by one of the smallest constitutional crises in American history. As we all remember, the President did not quite recite his oath as it appears in the Constitution. The error bothered enough people that the White House redid the ceremony a day later, taking care to get the constitutional text exactly right. Or that, at least, is what everyone thinks happened. What actually happened is more interesting. The second time through, the President again departed from the Constitution's text. But the second time, nobody minded. Or even noticed. In that unremarked feature of …
Limits Of Interpretivism, Richard A. Primus
Limits Of Interpretivism, Richard A. Primus
Articles
Justice Stephen Markman sits on the Supreme Court of my home state of Michigan. In that capacity, he says, he is involved in a struggle between two kinds of judging. On one side are judges like him. They follow the rules. On the other side are unconstrained judges who decide cases on the basis of what they think the law ought to be. This picture is relatively simple, and Justice Markman apparently approves of its simplicity. But matters may in fact be a good deal more complex.
Guarding The Guardians: Judges' Rights And Virginia's Judicial Inquiry And Review Commission, Jeffrey D. Mcmahan Jr.
Guarding The Guardians: Judges' Rights And Virginia's Judicial Inquiry And Review Commission, Jeffrey D. Mcmahan Jr.
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
A Different Take On The Roberts Court: The Court As An Institution, Ideology, And The Settled Nature Of American Constitutional Law, Robert A. Sedler
A Different Take On The Roberts Court: The Court As An Institution, Ideology, And The Settled Nature Of American Constitutional Law, Robert A. Sedler
Law Faculty Research Publications
No abstract provided.
When Should Original Meanings Matter?, Richard A. Primus
When Should Original Meanings Matter?, Richard A. Primus
Articles
Constitutional theory lacks an account of when each of the familiar sources of authority-text, original meaning, precedent, and so on-should be given weight. The dominant tendency is to regard all sources as potentially applicable in every case. In contrast, this Article proposes that each source of authority is pertinent in some categories of cases but not in others, much as a physical tool is appropriate for some but not all kinds of household tasks. The Article then applies this approach to identify the categories of cases in which original meaning is, or is not, a valid factor in constitutional decisionmaking.
Judicial Compensation And The Definition Of Judicial Power In The Early Republic, James E. Pfander
Judicial Compensation And The Definition Of Judicial Power In The Early Republic, James E. Pfander
Michigan Law Review
Article III's provision for the compensation of federal judges has been much celebrated for the no-diminution provision that forecloses judicial pay cuts. But other features of Article Ill's compensation provision have largely escaped notice. In particular, little attention has been paid to the framers' apparent expectation that Congress would compensate federal judges with salaries alone, payable from the treasury at stated times. Article III's presumption in favor of salary-based compensation may rule out fee-based compensation, which was a common form of judicial compensation in England and the colonies but had grown controversial by the time of the framing. Among other …