Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

Testimony Of Rebecca Ingber Before The United States Senate Committee On The Judiciary On The Nomination Of Brett Kavanaugh For Associate Justice Of The U.S. Supreme Court, Rebecca Ingber

Faculty Scholarship

I am honored to speak to the committee about these matters as you consider Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court. Judge Kavanaugh has had an exceptional career, and has many obvious strengths. Nevertheless, I believe there are concerns his jurisprudence raises that should be addressed before final consideration of his nomination. My testimony will focus on two: First, I will discuss Judge Kavanaugh’s reluctance to impose checks on the President in the national security realm, and the harms in undue deference for national security decision-making and government accountability. Second, I will address Judge Kavanaugh’s unusually dismissive ...

Substantial Shifts In Supreme Court Health Law Jurisprudence, Lawrence O. Gostin, James G. Hodge

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

President Trump’s nomination of jurist Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court presents significant, potential changes on health law and policy issues. If confirmed by the U.S. Senate, Kavanaugh’s approaches as a federal appellate court judge and scholar could literally shift the Court’s balance on consequential health policies. Judge Kavanaugh has disavowed broad discretion for federal agency authorities, cast significant doubts on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, and narrowly interpreted reproductive rights (most notably abortion services). He has supported gun rights pursuant to the Second Amendment beyond U.S. Supreme Court recent interpretations ...

Exacting Public Beach Access: The Viability Of Permit Conditions And Florida's State Beach Access Laws After Dolan V. City Of Tigard, Shawn M. Willson

Florida State University Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law

In the aftermath of Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard, local governments may find it more difficult to utilize permit conditions as a tool for preserving beach access. This Comment explores the viability of Florida's beach access laws after these decisions, examining the potential effects on permitting for construction at the local level. As an introduction, the Comment reviews Florida's current beach access statutes and discusses the Nollan and Dolan cases. The Comment then analyzes the true meaning of the "rough proportionality" requirement of Dolan, entertaining views from subsequent case law and commentators ...

Litigating Suitum V. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency In The United States Supreme Court, Richard J. Lazarus

Florida State University Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law

On May 27, 1997, the United States Supreme Court decided Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, a case addressing ripeness issues as they pertain to regulatory takings and transferable developmental rights (TDRs). As record counsel for the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency in the Suitum, Professor Lazarus considers the strategic litigation choices made by both parties and their impact on the Suitum litigation. By way of introduction, this essay recounts the Suitum facts from two different perspectives, that of petitioner and respondent. Then the essay explores the ways that the parties chose to litigate their respective sides, expounding upon the issues ...

The Finality Ripeness In Federal Land Use Cases From Hamilton Bank To Lucas, R. Jeffrey Lyman

Florida State University Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law

No abstract provided.

Justice Scalia And The Demise Of Environmental Law Standing, Patti A. Meeks

Florida State University Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law

No abstract provided.

Case Note: Constitutional Questions In Environmental Regulation: Epa's Use Of Aerial Photography Does Not Constitute A Fourth Amendment Search, Mark Massey

Florida State University Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law

No abstract provided.

Overcoming Williamson County's Troubling State Procedures Rule: How The England Reservation, Issue Preclusion Exceptions, And The Inadequacy Exception Open The Federal Courthouse Door To Ripe Takings Claims, J. David Breemer

Florida State University Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law

This article discusses an avenue available to takings claimants so that they may open the nearly closed door of the federal courts. In Williamson County, the United States Supreme Court established two ripeness prongs that create powerful barriers to landowners seeking to have their takings claims heard on the merits in federal court. Through an in depth analysis of the facts and litigation of this case and others, the author assesses the foundation of the state procedures requirements and concludes it is not required by the Takings Clause. The article scrutinizes the rule's fundamental unfairness and error in its ...

City Of Boerne V. Flores And The Religious Freedom Restoration Act: The Delicate Balance Between Religious Freedom And Historic Preservation, Elizabeth C. Williamson

Florida State University Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law

This Article analyzes the clash between historic preservation and religious freedom in the context of the United States Supreme Court's decision in City of Boerne v. Flores. (117 S. Ct. 2157 (1997). In Flores, the Court ruled on the constitutionality of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), an act which affords additional protection to religious practices by subjecting neutral, non-religion based government laws such as preservation ordinances to judicial scrutiny. Using the backdrop of the Flores decision, the Article analyzes the constitutionality and policy behind RFRA and examines RFRA's effect on preservation. The Article includes a history of ...

Property And Mysticism: The Legality Of Exactions As A Condition For Public Development Approval In The Time Of The Rehnquist Court, James A. Kushner

Florida State University Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law

No abstract provided.

Racing On Two Different Tracks: Using Substantive Due Process To Challenge Tracking In Schools, Katarina Wong

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Tracking is a widespread educational practice where secondary schools divide students into different classes or “tracks” based on their previous achievements and perceived abilities. Tracking produces different levels of classes, from low ability to high ability, based on the theory that students learn better when grouped with others at their own level. However, tracking often segregates students of color and low socioeconomic status into low-tracked classes and these students do not receive the same educational opportunities as white and/or wealthier students. Students and parents have historically challenged tracking structures in their schools using an Equal Protection Clause framework. However ...

What Members Of Congress Say About The Supreme Court And Why It Matters, Carolyn Shapiro

Chicago-Kent Law Review

Republican and Democratic senators took strikingly different approaches to Justice Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation hearing. Republicans focused on judicial process—what judges are supposed to do, how they are constrained, and the significance of the constitutional separation of powers—evoking rhetoric long used by the political right. Democrats, by contrast, focused primarily on case outcomes, complaining, for example, that Gorsuch favored “the big guy” over “the little guy” in cases he decided as a judge on the Tenth Circuit. This Article critiques the Democrats’ failure to discuss judicial process and to promote their own affirmative vision of the judiciary and ...

The Forgotten Issue? The Supreme Court And The 2016 Presidential Campaign, Christopher W. Schmidt

Chicago-Kent Law Review

This Article considers how presidential candidates use the Supreme Court as an issue in their election campaigns. I focus in particular on 2016, but I try to make sense of this extraordinary election by placing it in the context of presidential elections over the past century.

In the presidential election of 2016, circumstances seemed perfectly aligned to force the Supreme Court to the front of public debate, but neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton treated the Court as a central issue of their campaigns. Trump rarely went beyond a brief mention of the Court in his campaign speeches; Clinton basically ...

Neil Gorsuch And The Ginsburg Rules, Lori A. Ringhand, Paul M. Collins Jr.

Chicago-Kent Law Review

Supreme Court nominees testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee frequently invoke the so-called “Ginsburg Rule” to justify not answering questions posed to them. According to this “rule,” nominees during their testimony must avoid signaling their preferences about previously decided Supreme Court cases or constitutional issues. Using empirical data on every question asked and answered at every hearing from 1939–2017, we explore this “rule,” and its attribution to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. We demonstrate three things. First, the Ginsburg Rule is poorly named, given that the practice of claiming a privilege to not respond to certain types of questions predates ...

Taking Judicial Legitimacy Seriously, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer

Chicago-Kent Law Review

Chief Justice Roberts appears worried about judicial legitimacy. In Gill v. Whitford, the Wisconsin gerrymandering case, he explicitly worries about the message the Court would send if it wades into the gerrymandering debate. More explicitly, he worries about “the status and integrity” of the Court if is seen as taking sides in politically charged controversies. Similarly, during his confirmation hearing, Roberts warned that the Court has a limited role in our constitutional scheme and must stay within it. To decide cases on the basis of policy and not law would compromise the Court’s legitimacy. This Essay is skeptical. For ...

The Supreme Court And American Politics: Symposium Introduction, Christopher W. Schmidt, Carolyn Shapiro

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

Keynote Address: Judging The Political And Political Judging: Justice Scalia As Case Study, Richard L. Hasen

Chicago-Kent Law Review

This is a revised version of a Keynote Address delivered at “The Supreme Court and American Politics,” a symposium held October 17, 2017 at the Chicago-Kent College of Law. In this Address, Professor Hasen considers through the lens of Justice Scalia’s opinions the role that views of the political process play, at least rhetorically, in how Supreme Court Justices decide cases. It focuses on Justice Scalia’s contradictory views on self-dealing and incumbency protection across a range of cases, comparing campaign finance on the one hand to partisan gerrymandering, voter identification laws, political patronage, and ballot access rules on ...

Will The Supreme Court Still “Seldom Stray Very Far”?: Regime Politics In A Polarized America, Kevin J. Mcmahon

Chicago-Kent Law Review

This Article examines the concept of a “minority Justice,” meaning a Supreme Court Justice appointed by a President who had failed to win the popular vote and confirmed with the support of a majority of senators who had garnered fewer votes in their most recent elections than their colleagues in opposition. Specifically, Neil Gorsuch was the first “minority Justice,” receiving the support of senators who had collected nearly 20 million fewer votes than those in opposition (54,098,387 to 73,425,062). From there, the Article considers the significance this development, first by examining some of the foundational work ...

Above Politics: Congress And The Supreme Court In 2017, Jason Mazzone

Chicago-Kent Law Review

The Supreme Court figured prominently in the November 2016 elections because of the vacancy on the Court that resulted from the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. This Essay picks up the story by examining the place of the Supreme Court in national politics during 2017. It traces congressional efforts to respond to statutory and constitutional rulings by the Court as well as steps to regulate the operations of the Court and the work of the Justices. Although in 2017 Republicans and Democrats introduced numerous bills directed at the Court, these bills were generally modest in scope and, even so, did ...

The Consequences Of Citizens United: What Do The Lawyers Say?, Ann Southworth

Chicago-Kent Law Review

This Essay examines a polarized world of advocacy over campaign finance regulation in the Roberts Court. It considers what lawyers who filed party and amicus briefs in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission have to say about the consequences of the decision. It shows that the lawyers generally agree about the ruling’s direct consequences but strongly disagree about whether those consequences are good or bad for the country and what lessons the public should draw. This Essay also explores the competing frames that these lawyers bring to questions about money in politics and their competing perspectives about government and ...

Judge Kavanaugh And Freedom Of Expression, Timothy Zick

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Health Care Referrals Out Of The Shadows: Recognizing The Looming Threat Of The Texas Patient Solicitation Act And Other Illegal Remuneration Statutes, Trenton Brown

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract forthcoming

Anthony Kennedy: A Most Principled Justice, Mitchell N. Berman, David Peters

Faculty Scholarship

After three decades on the Court, Justice Anthony Kennedy remains its most widely maligned member. Concentrating on his constitutional jurisprudence, critics from across the ideological spectrum have derided Justice Kennedy as “a self-aggrandizing turncoat,” “an unprincipled weathervane,” and, succinctly, “America’s worst Justice.” We believe that Kennedy is not as bereft of a constitutional theory as common wisdom maintains. To the contrary, this Article argues, his constitutional decisionmaking reflects a genuine grasp (less than perfect, more than rudimentary) of a coherent and, we think, compelling theory of constitutional law—the account, more or less, that one of has introduced in ...

Abortion Rights And The Kavanaugh Nomination, John M. Greabe

Law Faculty Scholarship

[Excerpt] "Last week, President Trump nominated federal appeals court judge Brett Kavanaugh to fill the Supreme Court seat opened by the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy. Immediately, coverage of the nomination focused on abortion and whether Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation would spell the end of the constitutional right recognized in Roe v. Wade. Let's explore why."

Essay: Insiders, Outsiders, & Fair Access: Identifying Culpable Insider Trading, Jonathan D. Glater

Brooklyn Law Review

The Supreme Court’s insider trading doctrine has become increasingly convoluted as each effort to cope with novel fact patterns results in a new rule not tethered to principled understanding of the nature of the wrong committed. That this is not a terribly controversial claim is evidence of how far the Court’s jurisprudence has drifted. This essay proposes that the early error was abandonment of concern for third parties who trade on exchanges but who do not enjoy legal access to information possessed by insiders or tippees who receive information from insiders. The Court’s error, the essay contends ...

U.S. Government Aviation Safety Information Resources, Bert Chapman

Libraries Faculty and Staff Presentations

Presentation covering U.S. Government aviation safety information resources. Topics addressed include U.S. laws,legislation, regulations, court cases, information resources from agencies such as the Federal Aviation Administration, Transportation Security Administration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, congressional aviation oversight committees and congressional support agencies including the Congressional Budget Office, Congressional Research Service, and Government Accountability Office.

Oral Argument Tactics From The Supreme Court Bench: An Analysis Of Neil Gorsuch’S First Term, Corinne Cichowicz

Politics Summer Fellows

This paper analyzes Gorsuch’s approach to oral argument through careful reading of the oral argument transcripts from the 2017 term and use of scholarship on justices’ behavioral tendencies during oral argument. The paper builds upon previous scholars’ understandings of oral argument by testing whether Gorsuch’s first full term is consistent with the typical behavioral patterns of justices. Yet, the paper goes beyond many other scholars’ methodologies by using tool and content analysis before determining Gorsuch’s approach and identifying a cause for his specific behaviors. The paper finds that Gorsuch does not fit into one category of modern ...

Kavanaugh And The Military Commissions: Reading The Law “As Written” For An Unpopular Defendant, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Justice Kennedy’S Controversial Judicial Philosophy, Described By A Former Clerk, Nancy Amoury Combs

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Personal Jurisdiction Over Orb-Web Corporations: A Re-Routed Approach For "Change In The Navigation Of Time", Vidhya Iyer

The Global Business Law Review

The law of personal jurisdiction lies at the heart of all litigation. Our courts must recognize the rights of individuals as well as the rights of corporations. The motto placed at the entrance of the United States Supreme Court—"Equal Justice Under Law"—ensures the promise of equal justice under the law to all persons. It expresses the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States (the "Court") as the highest tribunal for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States and functions as a guardian and interpreter of the Constitution ...