Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Constitutional Law (3)
- Jurisprudence (3)
- Criminal Law (2)
- Law and Society (2)
- Courts (1)
-
- Criminal Procedure (1)
- Fourth Amendment (1)
- Immigration Law (1)
- Juvenile Law (1)
- Law Enforcement and Corrections (1)
- Law and Politics (1)
- Law and Race (1)
- Legal History (1)
- Military, War, and Peace (1)
- President/Executive Department (1)
- Public Law and Legal Theory (1)
- Religion Law (1)
- Rule of Law (1)
- Supreme Court of the United States (1)
- Institution
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Judges
Taking Corrigibility Seriously, Dora Klein
Taking Corrigibility Seriously, Dora Klein
Faculty Articles
This article argues that the Supreme Court's creation of a category of "irreparably corrupt" juveniles is not only an epistemological mistake but also a tactical mistake which has undermined the Court's express desire that only in the "rarest" of cases will juveniles be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
Is Korematsu Good Law?, Jamal Greene
Is Korematsu Good Law?, Jamal Greene
Faculty Scholarship
In Trump v. Hawaii, the Supreme Court claimed to overrule its infamous Korematsu decision. This Essay argues that this claim is both empty and grotesque. It is empty because a decision to overrule a prior case is not meaningful unless it specifies which propositions the Court is disavowing. Korematsu stands for many propositions, not all of which are agreed upon, but the Hawaii Court underspecifies what it meant to overrule. The Court’s claim of overruling Korematsu is grotesque because its emptiness means to conceal its disturbing affinity with that case.
Justice Scalia’S Originalism And Formalism: The Rule Of Criminal Law As A Law Of Rules, Stephanos Bibas
Justice Scalia’S Originalism And Formalism: The Rule Of Criminal Law As A Law Of Rules, Stephanos Bibas
All Faculty Scholarship
Far too many reporters and pundits collapse law into politics, assuming that the left–right divide between Democratic and Republican appointees neatly explains politically liberal versus politically conservative outcomes at the Supreme Court. The late Justice Antonin Scalia defied such caricatures. His consistent judicial philosophy made him the leading exponent of originalism, textualism, and formalism in American law, and over the course of his three decades on the Court, he changed the terms of judicial debate. Now, as a result, supporters and critics alike start with the plain meaning of the statutory or constitutional text rather than loose appeals to legislative …
Taking Dignity Seriously: Excavating The Backdrop Of The Eighth Amendment, Meghan J. Ryan
Taking Dignity Seriously: Excavating The Backdrop Of The Eighth Amendment, Meghan J. Ryan
Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters
The U.S. punishment system is in turmoil. We have a historically unprecedented number of offenders in prison, and our prisoners are serving longer sentences than in any other country. States are surreptitiously experimenting with formulas for lethal injection cocktails, and some prisoners are suffering from botched executions. Despite this tumult, the Eighth Amendment of our Constitution does place limits on the punishments that may be imposed and how they may be implemented. The difficulty, though, is that the Supreme Court’s Eighth Amendment jurisprudence is a bit of a mess. The Court has been consistent in stating that a focus on …
Lochner V. New York (1905) And Kennedy V. Louisiana (2008): Judicial Reliance On Adversary Argument, Douglas E. Abrams
Lochner V. New York (1905) And Kennedy V. Louisiana (2008): Judicial Reliance On Adversary Argument, Douglas E. Abrams
Faculty Publications
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist called Lochner v. New York (1905) “one of the most ill-starred decisions that [the Supreme Court ever rendered.” The Justices’ deliberations preceding the 5-4 decision demonstrate the courts’ reliance on advocacy in the adversary system of civil and criminal justice. The stark imbalance between the state’s “incredibly sketchy” brief and Joseph Lochner’s sterling submission may have determined Lochner’s outcome, and thus may have changed the course of constitutional history, by leading two Justices to join the majority on the central question of whether New York’s maximum-hours law for bakery workers was a reasonable public health …