Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Jurisprudence (5)
- Supreme Court (4)
- SCOTUS (3)
- Constitutional law (2)
- Abortion (1)
-
- Administrative Agencies (1)
- Auer Deference (1)
- Autonomy (1)
- Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co. (1)
- Choice (1)
- Circuit Splits (1)
- Civil Procedure (1)
- Code Revision Commission (CRC) (1)
- Columbia Law Review Forum (1)
- Constitutionalism; congress; national sovereignty; Marbury v. Madison; Supreme Court (1)
- Copyright Act of 1976 (1)
- Court (1)
- Courts of Appeals (1)
- Criminal law (1)
- Defendant-attorney relationship (1)
- Diffuse harm (1)
- Dred scott (1)
- Empirical Legal Studies (1)
- Equality (1)
- Executive enforcement (1)
- Foreign Law (1)
- Fourth Amendment (1)
- Free speech (1)
- Freedom of speech (1)
- Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org (1)
Articles 1 - 18 of 18
Full-Text Articles in Jurisprudence
Social Costs Of Dobbs' Pro-Adoption Agenda, Malinda L. Seymore
Social Costs Of Dobbs' Pro-Adoption Agenda, Malinda L. Seymore
Faculty Scholarship
Abortion opponents have long claimed that women denied access to abortion can simply give their children up for adoption. Justice Alito repeated this argument in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health. Of course, this claim assumes away the burdens of the pregnancy itself, which can result in economic strife, domestic violence, health risks, and potentially death in childbirth. But even on its own terms, the argument that adoption is an adequate substitute for abortion access makes normative assumptions about adoption as a social good in and of itself, ignoring the social costs of adoption for birth parents and adoptees. Idealizing adoption …
Legal Clutter: How Concurring Opinions Create Unnecessary Confusion And Encourage Litigation, Meg Penrose
Legal Clutter: How Concurring Opinions Create Unnecessary Confusion And Encourage Litigation, Meg Penrose
Faculty Scholarship
Good judges are clear writers. And clear writers avoid legal clutter. Legal clutter occurs when judges publish multiple individually written opinions that are neither useful nor necessary. This essay argues that concurring opinions are the worst form of legal clutter. Unlike majority opinions, concurring opinions are legal asides, musings of sorts—often by a single judge—that add length and confusion to an opinion often without adding meaningful value. Concurring opinions do not change the outcome of a case. Unlike dissenting opinions, they do not claim disagreement with the ultimate decision. Instead, concurring opinions merely offer an idea or viewpoint that failed …
Rewriting Whren V. United States, Jonathan Feingold, Devon Carbado
Rewriting Whren V. United States, Jonathan Feingold, Devon Carbado
Faculty Scholarship
In 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Whren v. United States—a unanimous opinion in which the Court effectively constitutionalized racial profiling. Despite its enduring consequences, Whren remains good law today. This Article rewrites the opinion. We do so, in part, to demonstrate how one might incorporate racial justice concerns into Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, a body of law that has long elided and marginalized the racialized dimensions of policing. A separate aim is to reveal the “false necessity” of the Whren outcome. The fact that Whren was unanimous, and that even progressive Justices signed on, might lead one to conclude that …
The Right To Counsel In A Neoliberal Age, Zohra Ahmed
The Right To Counsel In A Neoliberal Age, Zohra Ahmed
Faculty Scholarship
Legal scholarship tends to obscure how changes in criminal process relate to broader changes in the political and economic terrain. This Article offers a modest corrective to this tendency. By studying the U.S. Supreme Court’s right to counsel jurisprudence, as it has developed since the mid-70s, I show the pervasive impact of the concurrent rise of neoliberalism on relationships between defendants and their attorneys. Since 1975, the Court has emphasized two concerns in its rulings regarding the right to counsel: choice and autonomy. These, of course, are nominally good things for defendants to have. But by paying close attention to …
Modeling Narrowest Grounds, Maxwell Stearns
Modeling Narrowest Grounds, Maxwell Stearns
Faculty Scholarship
The Supreme Court’s doctrinal statements governing nonmajority opinions demonstrate inconsistencies and confusion belied by the Justices’ behaviors modeling the narrowest grounds doctrine. And yet, lower courts are bound by stated doctrine, beginning with Marks v. United States, not rules of construction inferred from judicial conduct. This Article simplifies the narrowest grounds rule, reconciling doctrinal formulations with observed behaviors, avoiding the implicit command: “Watch what we do, not what we say.”
The two most recent cases considering Marks, Ramos v. Louisiana and Hughes v. United States, obfuscate three central features: (1) when the doctrine does or does not …
Supreme Court Precedent And The Politics Of Repudiation, Robert L. Tsai
Supreme Court Precedent And The Politics Of Repudiation, Robert L. Tsai
Faculty Scholarship
This is an invited essay that will appear in a book titled "Law's Infamy," edited by Austin Sarat as part of the Amherst Series on Law, Jurisprudence, and Social Thought. Every legal order that aspires to be called just is held together by not only principles of justice but also archetypes of morally reprehensible outcomes, and villains as well as heroes. Chief Justice Roger Taney, who believed himself to be a hero solving the great moral question of slavery in the Dred Scott case, is today detested for trying to impose a racist, slaveholding vision of the Constitution upon America. …
Deep Tracks: Album Cuts That Help Define The Essential Scalia, Gary S. Lawson
Deep Tracks: Album Cuts That Help Define The Essential Scalia, Gary S. Lawson
Faculty Scholarship
Jeff Sutton and Ed Whelan have collected some of Justice Scalia’s “greatest hits” in a volume entitled The Essential Scalia: On the Constitution, the Courts, and the Rule of Law. The book is an excellent introduction to the jurisprudential thought and literary style of one of the most influential legal thinkers—and legal writers—in modern times. As with any “greatest hits” compilation, however, there are inevitably going to be key “album cuts” for which there will not be space. This essay seeks to supplement Sutton and Whelan’s invaluable efforts by surveying three of those “deep tracks” that shed particular light on …
Long Live The Common Law Of Copyright!: Georgia V. Public.Resource.Org., Inc. And The Debate Over Judicial Role In Copyright, Shyamkrishna Balganesh
Long Live The Common Law Of Copyright!: Georgia V. Public.Resource.Org., Inc. And The Debate Over Judicial Role In Copyright, Shyamkrishna Balganesh
Faculty Scholarship
In Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc., the Supreme Court resurrected a nineteenth-century copyright doctrine – the government edicts doctrine – and applied it to statutory annotations prepared by a legislative agency. While the substance of the decision has serious implications for due process and the rule of law, the Court’s treatment of the doctrine recognized an invigorated role for courts in the development of copyright law through the use of principled reasoning. In expounding the doctrine, the Court announced a vision for the judicial role in copyright adjudication that is at odds with the dominant approach under the Copyright …
Overwriting And Under-Deciding: Addressing The Roberts Court's Shrinking Docket, Meg Penrose
Overwriting And Under-Deciding: Addressing The Roberts Court's Shrinking Docket, Meg Penrose
Faculty Scholarship
How do we evaluate a Supreme Court that writes more than it decides? Despite having the lowest decisional output in the modern era, the Roberts Court is the most verbose Supreme Court in history. The current Justices are more likely than past Justices to have their individual say in cases, writing more concurring and dissenting opinions than prior Courts. These opinions are longer, often strongly worded, and rarely add clarity to the underlying decision. The Roberts Court has shifted from being a decisional body to becoming an institution that comments on more cases than it decides.
This article critiques the …
Supreme Verbosity: The Roberts Court's Expanding Legacy, Mary Margaret Penrose
Supreme Verbosity: The Roberts Court's Expanding Legacy, Mary Margaret Penrose
Faculty Scholarship
The link between courts and the public is the written word. With rare exceptions, it is through judicial opinions that courts communicate with litigants, lawyers, other courts, and the community. Whatever the court’s statutory and constitutional status, the written word, in the end, is the source and the measure of the court’s authority.
It is therefore not enough that a decision be correct—it must also be fair and reasonable and readily understood. The burden of the judicial opinion is to explain and to persuade and to satisfy the world that the decision is principled and sound. What the court says, …
Inherent National Sovereignty Constitutionalism: An Original Understanding Of The U.S. Constitution, Robert J. Kaczorowski
Inherent National Sovereignty Constitutionalism: An Original Understanding Of The U.S. Constitution, Robert J. Kaczorowski
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
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 …
Upending A Global Debate: An Empirical Analysis Of The U.S. Supreme Court’S Use Of Transnational Law To Interpret Domestic Doctrine,, Ryan C. Black, Ryan J. Owens, Daniel E. Walters, Jennifer L. Brookhart
Upending A Global Debate: An Empirical Analysis Of The U.S. Supreme Court’S Use Of Transnational Law To Interpret Domestic Doctrine,, Ryan C. Black, Ryan J. Owens, Daniel E. Walters, Jennifer L. Brookhart
Faculty Scholarship
Over the last ten years, judges, scholars, and policymakers have argued — quite vehemently at times — about whether U.S. courts should use transnational sources of law to interpret domestic legal doctrine. All eyes in this debate focus on the U.S. Supreme Court and its use, misuse, and alleged use of transnational law. And almost all the debates are normative. Some scholars and judges argue the Court is correct to use transnational law. Others believe to do so is constitutional apostacy. Still, the controversy seems to have generated more heat than light. Among the clamor can be found little empirical …
Splits In The Rock: The Conflicting Interpretations Of The Seminole Rock Deference Doctrine By The U.S. Courts Of Appeals, Kevin O. Leske
Splits In The Rock: The Conflicting Interpretations Of The Seminole Rock Deference Doctrine By The U.S. Courts Of Appeals, Kevin O. Leske
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Product Liability In The United States Supreme Court: A Venture In Memory Of Gary Schwartz., Anita Bernstein
Product Liability In The United States Supreme Court: A Venture In Memory Of Gary Schwartz., Anita Bernstein
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Privatization And Political Accountability, Jack M. Beermann
Privatization And Political Accountability, Jack M. Beermann
Faculty Scholarship
This article is an attempt to draw some general connections between privatization and political accountability. Political accountability is to be understood as the amenability of a government policy or activity to monitoring through the political process. Although the main focus of the article is to examine different types of privatization, specifically exploring the ramifications for political accountability of each type, I also engage in some speculation as to whether there are there situations in which privatization might raise constitutional concerns related to the degree to which the particular privatization reduces political accountability for the actions or decisions of the newly …
Five Modern Notions In Search Of An Author: The Ideology Of The Intimate Society In Constitutional Speech Law, Marie Failinger
Five Modern Notions In Search Of An Author: The Ideology Of The Intimate Society In Constitutional Speech Law, Marie Failinger
Faculty Scholarship
In this article, drawing heavily on the work of sociologist Richard Sennett, the author argues that the Court’s jurisprudence lends credence to, and exacerbates, five damaging “common sense” notions about American public social life: that public space and time are naked or empty, and can be imagined as no more than transportation tunnels or even the binoculars of a voyeur, as illustrated by the public forum doctrine; that massed acts of public communication, or “speech crowds” are dangerous and must be controlled by force, as the public forum and “clear and present danger” doctrines suggest; that “shadow” space for deviant …
The Supreme Court As The Cheshire Cat: Escaping The Section 1983 Wonderland, Jose R. "Beto" Juarez
The Supreme Court As The Cheshire Cat: Escaping The Section 1983 Wonderland, Jose R. "Beto" Juarez
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.