Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Supreme Court of the United States Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Discipline
Institution
Keyword
Publication Year
Publication
Publication Type
File Type

Articles 1 - 30 of 2586

Full-Text Articles in Supreme Court of the United States

Who Determines What Is Egregious? Judge Or Jury: Enhanced Damages After Halo V. Pulse, Brandon M. Reed Feb 2018

Who Determines What Is Egregious? Judge Or Jury: Enhanced Damages After Halo V. Pulse, Brandon M. Reed

Georgia State University Law Review

Enhanced damages in patent law are a type of punitive damage that can be awarded in the case of “egregious misconduct” during the course of patent infringement. Authorization for enhanced damages comes from 35 U.S.C. § 284, which allows the district court to increase total damages up to three times the amount of actual damages found by the jury. It is well understood that, since enhanced damages are punitive in nature, enhancement should only be considered for cases of “wanton” or “deliberate” infringement. However, determining what constitutes this “egregious” misconduct has vastly transformed over time to include a negligence ...


Supreme Court Review: Legalistic Argle-Bargle, Molly Mcburney, Kristen Barnes, Bernadette Genetin, Wilson Huhn, William Jordan, Marge Koosed, Rich Lavoie, Brant Lee, Elizabeth Reilly, Bill Rich, Kalyani Robbins, Jeff Samuels, Tracy Thomas, Katharine Van Tassel Feb 2018

Supreme Court Review: Legalistic Argle-Bargle, Molly Mcburney, Kristen Barnes, Bernadette Genetin, Wilson Huhn, William Jordan, Marge Koosed, Rich Lavoie, Brant Lee, Elizabeth Reilly, Bill Rich, Kalyani Robbins, Jeff Samuels, Tracy Thomas, Katharine Van Tassel

Katharine Van Tassel

No abstract provided.


Travel Ban Update: Fourth Circuit Affirms Injunction As Supreme Court Awaits Argument, Peter Margulies Feb 2018

Travel Ban Update: Fourth Circuit Affirms Injunction As Supreme Court Awaits Argument, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.


Where The Right Went Wrong In Southworth: Underestimating The Power Of The Marketplace, Clay Calvery Feb 2018

Where The Right Went Wrong In Southworth: Underestimating The Power Of The Marketplace, Clay Calvery

Maine Law Review

When the United States Supreme Court unanimously declared in March 2000 that mandatory student activity fees at public universities do not offend the First Amendment if distributed in viewpoint-neutral fashion, the decision dealt a severe blow to the conservative movement that had both supported the challenge to fee assessments and long railed against a perceived leftist/liberal bias in higher education. The New York Times, acknowledging the political implications of the case, hailed the Court's decision in Board of Regents v. Southworth as “a surprisingly broad and decisive victory for universities on an ideologically charged issue that has roiled ...


Life In No Trump: Property And Speech Under The Constitution, Richard A. Esptein Feb 2018

Life In No Trump: Property And Speech Under The Constitution, Richard A. Esptein

Maine Law Review

The editors of the Maine Law Review have been kind enough to offer me the opportunity to respond to Laura Underkuffler's criticism of my work in her recent Godfrey Lecture, “When Should Rights ‘Trump’? An Examination of Speech and Property,” which appears in the preceding issue. In my earlier writings on constitutional law, more specifically, in my paper, Property, Speech and the Politics of Distrust, I took the position that modern Supreme Court jurisprudence had taken a turn for the worse insofar as it used different standards of review in passing on the constitutionality of legislation. The current position ...


Religion Lessons From Europe: Intolerant Secularism, Pluralistic Neutrality, And The U.S. Supreme Court, Antony Barone Kolenc Feb 2018

Religion Lessons From Europe: Intolerant Secularism, Pluralistic Neutrality, And The U.S. Supreme Court, Antony Barone Kolenc

Pace International Law Review

Case law from the European Court of Human Rights demonstrates to the U.S. Supreme Court how a pluralistic neutrality principle can enrich the American society and harness the value of faith in the public sphere, while at the same time retaining the vigorous protection of individual religious rights. The unfortunate alternative to a jurisprudence built around pluralistic neutrality is the inevitability of intolerant secularism—an increasingly militant separation of religious ideals from the public life, leading ultimately to a repressive society that has no room in its government for religious citizens. The results of intolerant secularism are seen in ...


Preserving The ‘Jewel Of Their Souls’: How North Carolina’S Common Law Could Save Cyber-Bullying Statutes, Nick Mcguire Feb 2018

Preserving The ‘Jewel Of Their Souls’: How North Carolina’S Common Law Could Save Cyber-Bullying Statutes, Nick Mcguire

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

In State v. Bishop, the North Carolina Supreme Court struck down the state’s cyber-bullying statute on the grounds that it violated the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. Cyber-bullying, bullying that occurs through electronic technology, has become more prevalent in recent years as much of adolescent life shifts to social media and digital communications. Increasing evidence of cyber-bullying’s negative effects on children has prompted numerous state legislatures to take action. Many states have enacted generic policies for school personnel to take reasonable action to combat cyber-bullying during school hours. This note, however, argues for an alternative approach ...


Newsroom: 'You Can't Help Being In Awe' 1-30-2018, Michael M. Bowden, Edward Fitzpatrick Jan 2018

Newsroom: 'You Can't Help Being In Awe' 1-30-2018, Michael M. Bowden, Edward Fitzpatrick

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.


Technical Fouls: Adjudicating Statutory Violations With Equitable Resolutions, Antonio G. Fraone Jan 2018

Technical Fouls: Adjudicating Statutory Violations With Equitable Resolutions, Antonio G. Fraone

Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review

In Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, the United States Supreme Court allowed for an equitable resolution to a lawsuit seeking immediate enforcement, by injunction, of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (“FWPCA”). In this case, the United States Navy violated the FWPCA by discharging munitions—a pollutant as defined by the statute—during training exercises into the waters surrounding the Island of Vieques. The Navy also failed to obtain a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit, which would have made the discharge lawful under the statute. The people of Puerto Rico sought to enjoin the training exercises through the FWPCA. The Navy ...


Chance To Change: Jennings V. Rodriguez As A Chance To Bring Due Process To A Broken Detention System, Joe Bianco Jan 2018

Chance To Change: Jennings V. Rodriguez As A Chance To Bring Due Process To A Broken Detention System, Joe Bianco

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Jennings v. Rodriguez will determine whether specific classes of detained noncitizens will be entitled to bond hearings before Immigration Judges moving forward. The challenge comes from the Ninth Circuit, which, with the Second Circuit, mandates bond hearings for some detainees automatically after six months. Those Circuits found that after that point, the detention was arbitrary without a showing by the Government of why the noncitizen needed continued detention. The Government seeks to retain the current system, where the noncitizen’s detention release is entirely at the Government’s discretion. This commentary sets out the case and argues that the better ...


Fulfilling U.S. Commitment To Refugee Resettlement: Protecting Refugees, Preserving National Security, & Building The U.S. Economy Through Refugee Admissions, Harvard Immigration And Refugee Clinical Program Jan 2018

Fulfilling U.S. Commitment To Refugee Resettlement: Protecting Refugees, Preserving National Security, & Building The U.S. Economy Through Refugee Admissions, Harvard Immigration And Refugee Clinical Program

Texas A&M Law Review

At a time when the U.S. refugee admissions program is under serious threat and the world’s displaced population is at its highest, this Report sets forth extensive recommendations regarding the United States’ role in protecting vulnerable refugees and compliance with its commitments under domestic and international law that together safeguard people fleeing persecution and fearing return to torture. The Report also identifies key national security reasons for supporting and enhancing the refugee program in keeping with U.S. foreign policy priorities. Additionally, the Report provides an in-depth discussion of the robust, multistep security-assessment mechanisms already in place for ...


Rwu First Amendment Blog: Diana Hassel's Blog: How Will Supreme Court Slice Wedding Cake Case 01-11-2018, Diana Hassel Jan 2018

Rwu First Amendment Blog: Diana Hassel's Blog: How Will Supreme Court Slice Wedding Cake Case 01-11-2018, Diana Hassel

Law School Blogs

No abstract provided.


Prophylactic Merger Policy, Herbert J. Hovenkamp Jan 2018

Prophylactic Merger Policy, Herbert J. Hovenkamp

Faculty Scholarship

An important purpose of the antitrust merger law is to arrest certain anticompetitive practices or outcomes in their “incipiency.” Many Clayton Act decisions involving both mergers and other practices had recognized the idea as early as the 1920s. In Brown Shoe the Supreme Court doubled down on the idea, attributing to Congress a concern about a “rising tide of economic concentration” that must be halted “at its outset and before it gathered momentum.” The Supreme Court did not explain why an incipiency test was needed to address this particular problem. Once structural thresholds for identifying problematic mergers are identified there ...


Rethinking The Dormant Commerce Clause?: Climate Change And Food Security, Michael Barsa Jan 2018

Rethinking The Dormant Commerce Clause?: Climate Change And Food Security, Michael Barsa

Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy

No abstract provided.


Law Library Blog (January 2018): Legal Beagle's Blog Archive, Roger Williams University School Of Law Jan 2018

Law Library Blog (January 2018): Legal Beagle's Blog Archive, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Law Library Newsletters/Blog

No abstract provided.


The Constitutional Law Of Incarceration, Reconfigured, Margo Schlanger Jan 2018

The Constitutional Law Of Incarceration, Reconfigured, Margo Schlanger

Articles

On any given day, about 2.2 million people are confined in U.S. jails and prisons—nearly 0.9% of American men are in prison, and another 0.4% are in jail. This year, 9 or 10 million people will spend time in our prisons and jails; about 5000 of them will die there. A decade into a frustratingly gradual decline in incarceration numbers, the statistics have grown familiar: We have 4.4% of the world’s population but over 20% of its prisoners. Our incarceration rate is 57% higher than Russia’s (our closest major country rival in ...


How Big Money Ruined Public Life In Wisconsin, Lynn Adelman Dec 2017

How Big Money Ruined Public Life In Wisconsin, Lynn Adelman

Cleveland State Law Review

This Article discusses how Wisconsin fell from grace. Once a model good government state that pioneered many democracy-enhancing laws, in a very short time, Wisconsin became a state where special interest money, most of which is undisclosed, dominates politics. This Article identifies several factors as being critical to Wisconsin’s descent. These include the state’s failure to nurture and build on the campaign finance reforms enacted in the 1970s and both the state’s and the United States Supreme Court’s failure to adequately regulate sham issue ads. As evidence of Wisconsin’s diminished status, this Article describes how ...


Ohio's Modern Courts Amendment Must Be Amended: Why And How, Richard S. Walinski, Mark D. Wagoner Jr. Dec 2017

Ohio's Modern Courts Amendment Must Be Amended: Why And How, Richard S. Walinski, Mark D. Wagoner Jr.

Cleveland State Law Review

A 1968 amendment to the Ohio Constitution granted the Supreme Court of Ohio the authority to promulgate “rules governing practice and procedure” for Ohio courts. The amendment also provided that “[a]ll laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force or effect after such rules have taken effect” and that no rule may “abridge, enlarge, or modify any substantive right.”

Although the amendment was explicit about automatic repeal of existing laws, it says nothing about whether the General Assembly may legislate on a procedural matter after a court rule takes effect. That silence has caused enduring ...


Stuck In Ohio's Legal Limbo, How Many Mistrials Are Too Many Mistrials?: Exploring New Factors That Help A Trial Judge In Ohio Know Whether To Exercise Her Authority To Dismiss An Indictment With Prejudice, Especially Following Repeated Hung Juries, Samantha M. Cira Dec 2017

Stuck In Ohio's Legal Limbo, How Many Mistrials Are Too Many Mistrials?: Exploring New Factors That Help A Trial Judge In Ohio Know Whether To Exercise Her Authority To Dismiss An Indictment With Prejudice, Especially Following Repeated Hung Juries, Samantha M. Cira

Cleveland State Law Review

Multiple mistrials following validly-prosecuted trials are becoming an increasingly harsh reality in today’s criminal justice system. Currently, the Ohio Supreme Court has not provided any guidelines to help its trial judges know when to make the crucial decision to dismiss an indictment with prejudice following a string of properly-declared mistrials, especially due to repeated hung juries. Despite multiple mistrials that continue to result in no conviction, criminal defendants often languish behind bars, suffering detrimental psychological harm and a loss of personal freedom as they remain in “legal limbo” waiting to retry their case. Furthermore, continuously retrying defendants cuts against ...


Travel Ban Update: Ninth Circuit Holds Eo-3 Exceeds President’S Power, Peter Margulies Dec 2017

Travel Ban Update: Ninth Circuit Holds Eo-3 Exceeds President’S Power, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.


National Labor Relations Board V. Murphy Oil Usa, Inc.: A Test Of Might, Elizabeth Storey Dec 2017

National Labor Relations Board V. Murphy Oil Usa, Inc.: A Test Of Might, Elizabeth Storey

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA pits two co-equal federal statutes head-to-head. The Federal Arbitration Act mandates that all arbitration clauses be enforced. The National Labor Relations Act grants employees the right to act collectively to bring claims against employers. The Supreme Court must decide whether arbitration clauses in employment contracts, which require employees to arbitrate work-related disputes on an individual basis, contravene the interests of the NLRA. This commentary argues that the Supreme Court should recognize how these arbitration clauses undermine and subvert the protections of the NLRA by disallowing employees to act collectively. By invoking the ...


Political Science Professor’S Book Gets Chinese Translation Dec 2017

Political Science Professor’S Book Gets Chinese Translation

Gary L. Rose

A Chinese firm, Rightol Media Limited, will publish a translated version of Sacred Heart University Professor Gary Rose's book, Shaping a Nation, which delves into 25 Supreme Court cases that had major effects on the United States.


Travel Ban Update: Without Addressing The Merits, The Supreme Court Stays Injunction Pending Further Proceedings, Peter Margulies Dec 2017

Travel Ban Update: Without Addressing The Merits, The Supreme Court Stays Injunction Pending Further Proceedings, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.


Sessions V. Dimaya: Vagueness Doctrine & Deportation Statutes, Matthew Gibbons Dec 2017

Sessions V. Dimaya: Vagueness Doctrine & Deportation Statutes, Matthew Gibbons

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Sessions v. Dimaya seeks to determine whether the residual clause of a criminal provision, incorporated by reference into a civil immigration law, is void for vagueness. Although there is an instance of the Supreme Court applying the criminal vagueness standard to an immigration statute resulting in deportation, the United States argues that immigration law is not subject to that vagueness standard because it is civil and not criminal. This commentary argues that Sessions v. Dimaya presents the Supreme Court with an opportunity to conform with its precedents, further the principles underlying vagueness doctrine, and appear to apply judicial rules consistently ...


Gerrymandering And The Constitutional Norm Against Government Partisanship, Michael S. Kang Dec 2017

Gerrymandering And The Constitutional Norm Against Government Partisanship, Michael S. Kang

Michigan Law Review

This Article challenges the basic premise in the law of gerrymandering that partisanship is a constitutional government purpose at all. The central problem, Justice Scalia once explained in Vieth v. Jubilerer, is that partisan gerrymandering becomes unconstitutional only when it “has gone too far,” giving rise to the intractable inquiry into “how much is too much.” But the premise that partisanship is an ordinary and lawful purpose, articulated confidently as settled law and widely understood as such, is largely wrong as constitutional doctrine. The Article surveys constitutional law to demonstrate the vitality of an important, if implicit norm against government ...


Has Nihilism Politicized The Supreme Court Nomination Process?, Bruce Ledewitz Nov 2017

Has Nihilism Politicized The Supreme Court Nomination Process?, Bruce Ledewitz

Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law

No abstract provided.


Los Derechos Jurisprudenciales De La Mujer Y El Activismo Judicial.Pdf, Daniel Fernando Gómez Tamayo Nov 2017

Los Derechos Jurisprudenciales De La Mujer Y El Activismo Judicial.Pdf, Daniel Fernando Gómez Tamayo

Daniel Fernando Gómez Tamayo PhD Canon Law.

Debate constitucional y argumentativo: Sana crítica de las pruebas con respecto a la despenalización del Aborto en Estados Unidos y Colombia.


What Got Into The Court? What Happens Next?, Linda Greenhouse Nov 2017

What Got Into The Court? What Happens Next?, Linda Greenhouse

Maine Law Review

We are now in the midst of an amazing Supreme Court term--more than half-way through on the calendar, far short of halfway through in terms of what has yet to be decided. It's been a roller-coaster term of sorts, beginning with the highly unusual early-September argument in the campaign finance case, followed by a rather quiet fall and winter, and then ending with an April sitting during which the Court will consider, in the context of the country's response to terrorism, cases that are likely to go quite far to define for the modern age the meaning of ...


Educational Equality For Children With Disabilities: The 2016 Term Cases, Samuel R. Bagenstos Nov 2017

Educational Equality For Children With Disabilities: The 2016 Term Cases, Samuel R. Bagenstos

Book Chapters

One of the most longstanding debates in educational policy pits the goal of equality against the goal of adequacy: Should we aim to guarantee that all children receive an equal education? Or simply that they all receive an adequate education? The debate is vexing in part because there are many ways to specify “equality” and “adequacy.” Are we talking about equality of inputs (which inputs?), equality of opportunity (to achieve what?), or equality of results (which results?)? Douglas Rae and his colleagues famously argued that there are no fewer than 108 structurally distinct conceptions of equality. And how do we ...


Contra Scalia, Thomas, And Gorsuch: Originalists Should Adopt A Living Constitution, R. Randall Kelso Nov 2017

Contra Scalia, Thomas, And Gorsuch: Originalists Should Adopt A Living Constitution, R. Randall Kelso

University of Miami Law Review

Two main approaches appear in the popular literature on constitutional interpretation: originalism and non-originalism. An originalist approach refers back to some aspect of the framers’ and ratifiers’ intent or action to justify a decision. A non-originalist approach bases the goal of constitutional interpretation in part on consideration of some justification independent of the framers’ and ratifiers’ intent or action.

What is often unappreciated in addressing the question of whether to adopt an originalist or non-originalist approach to constitutional interpretation is the complication that emerges if one concludes that the framing and ratifying generation believed in the model of a living ...