Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- United States Supreme Court (7)
- Statutory interpretation (3)
- Brown v. Board of Education (2)
- Constitution (2)
- Deference (2)
-
- Discrimination (2)
- Eighth Amendment (2)
- Establishment Clause (2)
- Federalism (2)
- First Amendment (2)
- Fourteenth Amendment (2)
- History (2)
- Judicial interpretation (2)
- Jurisprudence (2)
- SCOTUS (2)
- Separation of powers (2)
- Supreme Court (2)
- Supreme Court of the United States (2)
- Abusive work environment (1)
- Administrative law (1)
- Advocacy (1)
- Affirmative action (1)
- And Liability Act (1)
- Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (1)
- Avoidance Canon (1)
- CERCLA (1)
- Ceremonial deism (1)
- Chevron deference (1)
- Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1)
- Civil Rights Act of 1964 (1)
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 28 of 28
Full-Text Articles in Jurisprudence
Judicial Candor And Extralegal Reasoning: Why Extralegal Reasons Require Legal Justifications (And No More), Eric Dean Hageman
Judicial Candor And Extralegal Reasoning: Why Extralegal Reasons Require Legal Justifications (And No More), Eric Dean Hageman
Notre Dame Law Review
This Note’s first Part explores two landmark Supreme Court cases, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey and NFIB, that may have been decided based on extralegal considerations. Part II describes three prominent theories of judicial candor with an eye to the results they might yield with respect to extralegal reasoning. Part III offers and defends a new, partial theory of judicial candor. This theory is that a judge who employs extralegal reasoning should omit discussion of her reliance on that reasoning and justify her decision with legal reasoning.
The first two Parts will demonstrate that there is a …
The Keyes To Reclaiming The Racial History Of The Roberts Court, Tom I. Romero, Ii
The Keyes To Reclaiming The Racial History Of The Roberts Court, Tom I. Romero, Ii
Michigan Journal of Race and Law
This Article advocates for a fundamental re-understanding about the way that the history of race is understood by the current Supreme Court. Represented by the racial rights opinions of Justice John Roberts that celebrate racial progress, the Supreme Court has equivocated and rendered obsolete the historical experiences of people of color in the United States. This jurisprudence has in turn reified the notion of color-blindness, consigning racial discrimination to a distant and discredited past that has little bearing to how race and inequality is experienced today. The racial history of the Roberts Court is centrally informed by the context and …
The Constitution And Informational Privacy, Or How So-Called Conservatives Countenance Governmental Intrustion Into A Person's Private Affairs, 18 J. Marshall L. Rev. 871 (1985), Michael P. Seng
Michael P. Seng
No abstract provided.
Escobedo And Miranda Revisited, Arthur J. Goldberg
Escobedo And Miranda Revisited, Arthur J. Goldberg
Akron Law Review
Shortly before the close of the 1983 term, the Supreme Court of the United States decided two cases, U.S. v. Gouveia and New York v. Quarles, which in effect overruled Escobedo v. Illinois and undermined Miranda v. Arizona.
Meritor Savings Bank V. Vinson: The Supreme Court's Recognition Of The Hostile Environment In Sexual Harassment Claims, Victoria T. Bartels
Meritor Savings Bank V. Vinson: The Supreme Court's Recognition Of The Hostile Environment In Sexual Harassment Claims, Victoria T. Bartels
Akron Law Review
This casenote will examine Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson in light of the brief legal history of Title VII sexual harassment claims and will consider the implications of both the Court's holding and its dicta regarding the undecided issues.
Pennsylvania V. Union Gas Company: The Supreme Court Employs The Wrong Means To Reach The Proper End, Christopher A. Brodman
Pennsylvania V. Union Gas Company: The Supreme Court Employs The Wrong Means To Reach The Proper End, Christopher A. Brodman
Akron Law Review
This casenote reviews the facts of Union Gas, the history of eleventh amendment jurisprudence, and the purposes of CERCLA. The note critically analyzes the Supreme Court's approach to evading eleventh amendment immunity. Finally, the note contemplates the impact of Union Gas on CERCLA and eleventh amendment law.
Of Flags And Menorahs: The Power Of Individual And Governmental Symbolic Speech, Mark F. Kohler
Of Flags And Menorahs: The Power Of Individual And Governmental Symbolic Speech, Mark F. Kohler
Akron Law Review
The aim of this article will be to explore the nature of symbolic speech, both individual and governmental. Using Johnson and Allegheny County as a backdrop, four themes will emerge from the article. First, both individuals and government speak and speak powerfully through symbols and symbolic conduct. Second, medium-based regulation of individual speech should receive careful judicial scrutiny. Third, unlike individual symbolic expression, governmental symbolic speech is subject to substantial content-based restrictions. Finally, careful distinctions must be drawn between government-initiated symbolic speech and governmental endorsement of individual symbolic speech.
Holland V. Illinois: Sixth Amendment Fair Cross-Section Requirement Does Not Preclude Racially-Based Peremptory Challenges, Debra L. Dippel
Holland V. Illinois: Sixth Amendment Fair Cross-Section Requirement Does Not Preclude Racially-Based Peremptory Challenges, Debra L. Dippel
Akron Law Review
This note recaps the Supreme Court's previous decisions regarding defendant's objections to jury composition, including both equal protection and fair cross-section requirement analyses. It also discusses Holland, examines the various opinions in the case, and reviews the arguments for and against abolishing peremptory challenges. Finally, the note proposes a solution for the questions which Holland leaves unanswered.
Milkovich Vs. Lorain Journal Co.: Is The Supreme Court "Holding The Balance True" In Defamation Actions?, Sheila Noonan
Milkovich Vs. Lorain Journal Co.: Is The Supreme Court "Holding The Balance True" In Defamation Actions?, Sheila Noonan
Akron Law Review
This Note examines the background of defamation law and the Milkovich court's reasoning. The Note will discuss the Milkovich test's ability to distinguish fact from opinion and its potential future impact on broadcasters and journalists in the United States.
Mugwump, Mediator, Machiavellian, Or Majority? The Role Of Justice O'Connor In The Affirmative Action Cases, Thomas R. Haggard
Mugwump, Mediator, Machiavellian, Or Majority? The Role Of Justice O'Connor In The Affirmative Action Cases, Thomas R. Haggard
Akron Law Review
The purpose of this article is to provide a critical analysis of Justice O'Connor's affirmative action opinions. It will show that while her early record provides justification for all three characterizations, her more recent decisions suggest the emergency of a more favorable image. Her opinions in Croson and Media Broadcasting reflect the realization that a narrow, hair-splitting approach to this critical social and constitutional crisis will do little to hasten its resolution; that there is apparently no form of affirmative action that the liberal wing of the Court is unwilling to endorse, making her consensus by compromise approach a futile …
The Constutionality Of Punitive Damages: Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company V. Cleopatra Haslip, Thomas P. Mannion
The Constutionality Of Punitive Damages: Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company V. Cleopatra Haslip, Thomas P. Mannion
Akron Law Review
This Note examines the history of the constitutional challenges to the doctrine of punitive damages. Next, this Note explores the Supreme Court's decision in Haslip. Finally, this Note examines the ramifications of the Haslip decision.
Scott V. Harris And The Future Of Summary Judgment, Tobias Barrington Wolff
Scott V. Harris And The Future Of Summary Judgment, Tobias Barrington Wolff
All Faculty Scholarship
The Supreme Court’s decision in Scott v. Harris has quickly become a staple in many Civil Procedure courses, and small wonder. The cinematic high-speed car chase complete with dash-cam video and the Court’s controversial treatment of that video evidence seem tailor-made for classroom discussion. As is often true with instant classics, however, splashy first impressions can mask a more complex state of affairs. At the heart of Scott v. Harris lies the potential for a radical doctrinal reformation: a shift in the core summary judgment standard undertaken to justify a massive expansion of interlocutory appellate jurisdiction in qualified immunity cases. …
Finding Nino: Justice Scalia's Confrontation Clause Legacy From Its (Glorious) Beginning To (Bitter) End, Joëlle Anne Moreno Professor
Finding Nino: Justice Scalia's Confrontation Clause Legacy From Its (Glorious) Beginning To (Bitter) End, Joëlle Anne Moreno Professor
Akron Law Review
Until very recently, Justice Scalia has steered the Court’s modern confrontation jurisprudence. However, as discussed below, his leadership is increasingly threatened by deep divisions on questions of historical accuracy, constitutional interpretation, and the practical realities of twenty-first century criminal prosecutions.
Reassessing The Avoidance Canon In Erie Cases, Bernadette Bollas Genetin
Reassessing The Avoidance Canon In Erie Cases, Bernadette Bollas Genetin
Akron Law Review
This Article chronicles the Supreme Court’s inconsistent use of an avoidance canon in cases construing the substantive rights limitation of the Rules Enabling Act (Enabling Act or REA). It focuses primarily on the avoidance canon as used in cases under the REA branch of the Erie doctrine but also discusses avoidance in other REA contexts. The Article concludes that a reassessment and refocusing of the avoidance canon in Enabling Act jurisprudence is necessary... This Article explores the purposes and methodology that should guide avoidance in REA cases... I focus, in this Article, primarily on a subset of this group of …
Justice Sutherland Reconsidered, 62 Vand. L. Rev. 639 (2009), Samuel R. Olken
Justice Sutherland Reconsidered, 62 Vand. L. Rev. 639 (2009), Samuel R. Olken
Samuel R. Olken
No abstract provided.
“Stop Me Before I Get Reversed Again”: The Failure Of Illinois Appellate Courts To Protect Their Criminal Decisions From United States Supreme Court Review, 36 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 893 (2005), Timothy P. O'Neill
Timothy P. O'Neill
No abstract provided.
Fun With Administrative Law: A Game For Lawyers And Judges, Adam Babich
Fun With Administrative Law: A Game For Lawyers And Judges, Adam Babich
Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law
The practice of law is not a game. Administrative law in particular can implicate important issues that impact people’s health, safety, and welfare and change business’ profitability or even viability. Nonetheless, it can seem like a game. This is because courts rarely explain administrative law rulings in terms of the public purposes and policies at issue in lawsuits. Instead, the courts’ administrative law opinions tend to turn on arcane interpretive doctrines with silly names, such as the “Chevron two-step” or “Chevron step zero.” To advance doctrinal arguments, advocates and courts engage in linguistic debates that resemble a smokescreen—tending to obscure …
The Demise Of Habeas Corpus And The Rise Of Qualified Immunity: The Court's Ever Increasing Limitations On The Development And Enforcement Of Constitutional Rights And Some Particularly Unfortunate Consequences, Stephen R. Reinhardt
Michigan Law Review
The collapse of habeas corpus as a remedy for even the most glaring of constitutional violations ranks among the greater wrongs of our legal era. Once hailed as the Great Writ, and still feted with all the standard rhetorical flourishes, habeas corpus has been transformed over the past two decades from a vital guarantor of liberty into an instrument for ratifying the power of state courts to disregard the protections of the Constitution. Along with so many other judicial tools meant to safeguard the powerless, enforce constitutional rights, and hold the government accountable, habeas has been slowly eroded by a …
Reflections On Comity In The Law Of American Federalism, Gil Seinfeld
Reflections On Comity In The Law Of American Federalism, Gil Seinfeld
Articles
Comity is a nebulous concept familiar to us from the law of international relations. Roughly speaking, it describes a set of reciprocal norms among nations that call for one state to recognize, and sometimes defer to, the laws, judgments, or interests of another. Comity also features prominently in the law of American federalism, but in that context, it operates within limits that have received almost no attention from scholarly commentators. Specifically, although courts routinely describe duties that run from one state to another, or from the federal government to the states, as exercises in comity, they almost never rely on …
The Original Meaning Of "God": Using The Language Of The Framing Generation To Create A Coherent Establishment Clause Jurisprudence, Michael I. Meyerson
The Original Meaning Of "God": Using The Language Of The Framing Generation To Create A Coherent Establishment Clause Jurisprudence, Michael I. Meyerson
All Faculty Scholarship
The Supreme Court’s attempt to create a standard for evaluating whether the Establishment Clause is violated by religious governmental speech, such as the public display of the Ten Commandments or the Pledge of Allegiance, is a total failure. The Court’s Establishment Clause jurisprudence has been termed “convoluted,” “a muddled mess,” and “a polite lie.” Unwilling to either allow all governmental religious speech or ban it entirely, the Court is in need of a coherent standard for distinguishing the permissible from the unconstitutional. Thus far, no Justice has offered such a standard.
A careful reading of the history of the framing …
The Scope Of Precedent, Randy J. Kozel
The Scope Of Precedent, Randy J. Kozel
Randy J Kozel
The scope of Supreme Court precedent is capacious. Justices of the Court commonly defer to sweeping rationales and elaborate doctrinal frameworks articulated by their predecessors. This practice infuses judicial precedent with the prescriptive power of enacted constitutional and statutory text. The lower federal courts follow suit, regularly abiding by the Supreme Court’s broad pronouncements. These phenomena cannot be explained by—and, indeed, oftentimes subvert—the classic distinction between binding holdings and dispensable dicta. This Article connects the scope of precedent with recurring and foundational debates about the proper ends of judicial interpretation. A precedent’s forward- looking effect should not depend on the …
Standing Uncertainty: An Expected-Value Standard For Fear-Based Injury In Clapper V. Amnesty International Usa, Andrew C. Sand
Standing Uncertainty: An Expected-Value Standard For Fear-Based Injury In Clapper V. Amnesty International Usa, Andrew C. Sand
Michigan Law Review
The Supreme Court has held that a plaintiff can have Article III standing based on a fear of future harm, or fear-based injury. The Court’s approach to fear-based injury, however, has been unclear and inconsistent. This Note seeks to clarify the Court’s doctrine using principles from probability theory. It contends that fear-based injury should be governed by a substantial-risk standard that encapsulates the probability concept of expected value. This standard appears in footnote 5 of Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, a recent case in which the Court held that a group of plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of …
Spokeo V. Robins And The Constitutional Foundations Of Statutory Standing, Maxwell Stearns
Spokeo V. Robins And The Constitutional Foundations Of Statutory Standing, Maxwell Stearns
Faculty Scholarship
In Spokeo v. Robins, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to address the following question: Does Congress have the power to confer standing upon an individual claiming that a privately owned website violated its federal statutory obligation to take specified steps designed to promote accuracy in aggregating and reporting his personal and financial data even if the resulting false disclosures did not produce concrete harm? This somewhat arcane standing issue involves congressional power to broaden the scope of the first of three constitutional standing requirements: injury in fact, causation, and redressability. Although the case does not directly address the prudential …
A Pragmatic Approach To Interpreting The Federal Rules, Suzette M. Malveaux
A Pragmatic Approach To Interpreting The Federal Rules, Suzette M. Malveaux
Publications
No abstract provided.
Will Uncooperative Federalism Survive Nfib?, Abigail R. Moncrieff, Jonathan Dinerstein
Will Uncooperative Federalism Survive Nfib?, Abigail R. Moncrieff, Jonathan Dinerstein
Law Faculty Articles and Essays
In the end, the Supreme Court's federalism jurisprudence seems to run contrary to its stated goals. The New Federalism era, up to and including NFIB, creates an incentive for the national government to flex its own muscles more, not less. Maybe that result will be good for voters' clarity and for uniformity of national policy, but it is not good for uncooperative federalism or for states' autonomy—the values that the Supreme Court seems to be trying to protect.
Interruptions In Search Of A Purpose: Oral Argument In The Supreme Court, October Terms 1958–60 And 2010–12, Barry Sullivan, Megan Canty
Interruptions In Search Of A Purpose: Oral Argument In The Supreme Court, October Terms 1958–60 And 2010–12, Barry Sullivan, Megan Canty
Utah Law Review
We tend to think of the Supreme Court as an institution that is unchanging. Nothing, of course, could be further from the truth. The Court has changed in important ways throughout its history. During the last few decades, the Court has experienced many significant changes: Congress has virtually eliminated the Court’s mandatory jurisdiction; the Court has reduced by almost half the number of cases in which it grants review; the number of law clerks has increased; the numbers of lower court cases and judges have increased substantially; the Court has shortened by half the amount of time normally allowed for …
The Ironies Of Affirmative Action, Kermit Roosevelt Iii
The Ironies Of Affirmative Action, Kermit Roosevelt Iii
All Faculty Scholarship
The Supreme Court’s most recent confrontation with race-based affirmative action, Fisher v. University of Texas, did not live up to people’s expectations—or their fears. The Court did not explicitly change the current approach in any substantial way. It did, however, signal that it wants race-based affirmative action to be subject to real strict scrutiny, not the watered-down version featured in Grutter v. Bollinger. That is a significant signal, because under real strict scrutiny, almost all race-based affirmative action programs are likely unconstitutional. This is especially true given the conceptual framework the Court has created for such programs—the way …
Evolving Standards Of Domination: Abandoning A Flawed Legal Standard And Approaching A New Era In Penal Reform, Spearit
Articles
This Article critiques the evolving standards of decency doctrine as a form of Social Darwinism. It argues that evolving standards of decency provided a system of review that was tailor-made for Civil Rights opponents to scale back racial progress. Although as a doctrinal matter, evolving standards sought to tie punishment practices to social mores, prison sentencing became subject to political agendas that determined the course of punishment more than the benevolence of a maturing society. Indeed, rather than the fierce competition that is supposed to guide social development, the criminal justice system was consciously deployed as a means of social …