Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

Applying Citizens United To Ordinary Corruption: With A Note On Blagojevich, Mcdonnell, And The Criminalization Of Politics, George D. Brown

Notre Dame Law Review

Federal criminal law frequently deals with the problem of corruption in the form of purchased political influence. There appear to be two distinct bodies of federal anticorruption law: one concerning constitutional issues in the prevention of corruption through campaign finance regulation, and one addressing corruption in the form of such crimes as bribery, extortion by public officials, and gratuities to them. The latter body of law primarily presents issues of statutory construction, but it may be desirable for courts approaching these issues to have an animating theory of what corruption is and how to deal with it. At the moment, …

A Critique Of Hobby Lobby And The Supreme Court's Hands-Off Approach To Religion, Samuel J. Levine

Notre Dame Law Review Reflection

Part I of this Essay provides a brief overview for analyzing the Supreme Court’s hands-off approach to religious doctrine. Specifically, this Part presents a summary of problems posed by the hands-off approach, followed by a brief taxonomy of different forms of judicial inquiry into religion. This Part aims to clarify which forms of inquiry are permissible—and typically necessary—for adjudication of a case involving a religious claim, and which forms of inquiry are precluded under the hands-off doctrine. Part II of this Essay applies the hands-off framework to the Hobby Lobby decision, considering the taxonomy of forms of judicial inquiry into …

The Constitutionality Of Lengthy Term-Of-Years Sentences For Juvenile Non-Homicide Offenders, Rebecca Lowry

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

Part I discusses the development of the Court's ' kids are different" decisions. Part II argues that the rationale behind Graham applies not only to life-without-parole sentences but also to lengthy term-of-years sentences for juvenile non-homicide offenders. Part III suggests a constitutional mandate as to when states must provide a meaningful opportunity for release and explores other legislative action states can employ to comply with Graham.

Suspicious Suspect Classes - Are Nonimmigrants Entitled To Strict Scrutiny Review Under The Equal Protection Clause?: An Analysis Of Dandamudi And Leclerc, John Harras

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

Part I of this Note provides the background necessary to understand the different alienage classifications, equal protection jurisprudence, and the confusion in the Supreme Court's alienage equal protection precedent. Part II describes the differences of opinion among the circuit courts on the application of the Equal Protection Clause to nonimmigrants. Part III argues, in greater detail, that nonimmigrants are not a suspect class for the reasons stated above.

Constitutional Remedies: Reconciling Official Immunity With The Vindication Of Rights, Michael L. Wells

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

Part I makes the crucial point that compensation is a tool and not a distinct goal of tort liability. With civil recourse theory as a guidepost, Part II argues that one of the aims of constitutional tort law is vindication of the plaintiffs rights. Civil recourse principles teach that vindication may be at least partly achieved even when immunity blocks compensation. Part III shows how the Court's failure to distinguish vindication from compensation has unnecessarily impeded the vindication of rights. Two important official immunity cases-Camreta v. Greene and Pearson v. Callahan -illustrate the missed opportunities and show how …

When Congress Is Away The President Shall Not Play: Justice Scalia's Concurrence In Nlrb V. Noel Canning, Krista M. Pikus

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

On June 26, 2014, the Supreme Court unanimously decided NLRB v. Noel Canning, holding that the Recess Appointments Clause authorizes the president “to fill any existing vacancy during any recess . . . of sufficient length.” Justice Scalia filed a concurring opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito. While Justice Scalia “concurred,” his opinion read more like a dissent. Both the majority and the concurring opinions relied heavily on historical evidence in arriving at their respective opinions. This was expected from Justice Scalia given his method of “new originalism,” which focuses on “the original public …

Comparative Law In The Modalities Of Constitutional Argument, Robert M. Black

North Carolina Central Law Review

No abstract provided.

Injury-In-Fact In Chilling Effect Challenges To Public University Speech Codes, Jennifer L. Bruneau

Catholic University Law Review

Campus speech codes began to spring up on university campuses during the 1980s and continue to operate today. The codes regulate various forms of arguably offensive speech, including speech regarding race, gender, sexual orientation, ideology, views, and political affiliation. Numerous litigants have challenged the chilling effect these policies have on student and faculty speech, but in cases where the challenged code has not yet been enforced, some courts find that the plaintiff has not met the “injury-in-fact” requirement for Article III standing. The Supreme Court has not ruled on standing requirements in speech code challenges and lower courts are divided. …

The War Powers Consultation Act: Keeping War Out Of The Zone Of Twilight, Brendan Flynn

Catholic University Law Review

The Constitution divides the war powers between Congress, which declares war, and the President, who serves as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. Since the Korean War, the President has claimed increased authority to send the military into harm’s way without Congressional authorization. ­This Comment surveys the war powers issue through U.S. history and asserts that the President’s claim of increased authority has been enabled by Congressional abdication of its role, leading to­­ wars fought in a legal­­ “zone of twilight” in which Congress has neither authorized nor forbidden Presidential action (drawing on Justice Jackson’s famous tripartite analysis in his Youngstown …

Plenary Power Is Dead! Long Live Plenary Power, Michael Kagan

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

For decades, scholars of immigration law have anticipated the demise of the plenary power doctrine. The Supreme Court could have accomplished this in its recent decision in Kerry v. Din, or it could have reaffirmed plenary power. Instead, the Court produced a splintered decision that did neither. This Essay examines the long process of attrition that has significantly gutted the traditional plenary power doctrine with regard to procedural due process, while leaving it largely intact with regard to substantive constitutional rights.

The Uneasy Partnership: The Balance Of Power Between Congress And The Supreme Court In Interpretation Of The Civil War Amendments, Emil Lippe Jr.

Akron Law Review

The basic thesis of this article is that the enforcement clauses of the thirteenth,' fourteenth, 2 and fifteenth 3 amendments have imposed strong affirmative duties upon the United States Congress and the Supreme Court. These duties, due to their very nature, must be exercised in tandem with each other toward the overall goal of the Civil War Amendments: the guarantee that the civil rights of no American be denied him on the basis of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. In addition, a special type of constitutional stare decisis operates to prevent both branches from contracting the rights guaranteed …

Executive Privilege: A Review Of Berger, R. H. Clark

Akron Law Review

RAOUL BERGER HAS ONCE AGAIN placed within a solidly professional framework an issue of considerable public interest and debate. As was the case with impeachment,' Berger's scholarly study on executive privilege brings to the controversy surrounding the issue a much needed analytical construct and massing of evidence which can only result in a greater level of general understanding. Although it is not accurate to suggest that Berger is neutral on the topic, since he published a significant study as far back as 1965 attacking the concept, 2 his method of massing every conceivable argument and piece of evidence on both …

Standing; Assertion Of Jus Tertii; Sex Discrimination; Equal Protection; Twenty-First Amendment; Craig V. Boren, Anthony Sadowski

Akron Law Review

"A PPELLANTS brought an action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The complaint charged that the operation of two Oklahoma statutes, which prohibited the sale of 3.2% beer to males under the age of 21 while allowing females over the age of 18 to purchase the commodity, violated the fourteenth amendment to the Federal Constitution. The three-judge court held that the gender-based classification did not violate the equal protection clause. In Craig v. Boren, on direct appeal, the United States Supreme Court reversed, finding that the gender-based classification could …

The Reaffirmation Of Federalism As A Viable Limitation Upon The Commerce Power, Randy R. Koenders

Akron Law Review

"Throughout its history, the constitutional basis of the FLSA has remained anchored in the Commerce Clause. However, despite the legitimacy of that purpose, the FLSA has been the subject of constant attacks since its inception, the most fervent of which has been the challenge to its constitutionality on state sovereignty grounds.

"Two recent United States Supreme Court cases construing the constitutionality of the FLSA and its amendments reflect not only the changing judicial posture toward extension of the Act to matters of state concern, but also the differing attitudes toward extension of the Commerce Clause itself."

Sixth Amendment; Right Of Confrontation; Unavailalbe Witness; State V. Roberts, Christopher C. Manthey, Carol G. Simonetti

Akron Law Review

"THE SIXTH AMENDMENT to the Constitution states that "[iln all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him .... ." This seems simple and absolute, but case law has proven it to be neither; almost every phrase has been dissected and interpreted by courts and commentators. In fact, there may be more law review articles on this subject than there are cases.1 Some of the questions that could be asked are: What is meant by "all criminal prosecutions?" Does this require confrontation in preliminary hearings? Does "shall enjoy the …

Equal Protection; Sex Discrimination; Veterans' Preference Statutes, Feeney V. Massachusetts, Eloise Taylor

Akron Law Review

"Historically, the armed services have been predominantly male. The result has been that the operation of veterans' preferences has placed women as a class at a particular disadvantage in comparison to men when in or entering into civil service.' To nullify this stigma, the first successful challenge to veterans' preference, Feeney v. Massachusetts,' was litigated."

Death Penalty; Cruel And Unusual Punishment; Individualized Sentencing Determination; Lockett V. Ohio; Bell V. Ohio, James C. Ellerhorst

Akron Law Review

“In Bell v. Ohio and Lockett v. Ohio the United States Supreme Court found the sentencing provisions of the Ohio capital punishment statute to be incompatible with the eighth and fourteenth amendments which prohibit cruel and unusual punishment. These two opinions represent the most recent attempt by the Supreme Court to explain what elements must be included in a constitutionally valid capital punishment statute.”

Commerce Clause; Privileges And Immunities Clause; State Hiring; Discrimination Against Nonresidents; Hicklin V. Orbeck, Donna N. Kemp

Akron Law Review

"In Hicklin v. Orbeck, the United States Supreme Court unanimously held' that Alaska's statute entitled "Local Hire Under State Leases"' violates the Constitution due to its discriminatory effect on nonresidents. Basing its decision on the Privileges and Immunities Clause,' the Court found that there was insufficient justification for the extensive discrimination against nonresidents required by the Act because the unemployment problem to be alleviated by the legislation was not due to a great influx of nonresident jobseekers. Rather, the Court attributed the problem to the fact that a large percentage of the unemployed in Alaska lack sufficient education and job …

First Amendment; Freedom Of Speech; Obscenity; Pinkus V. United States, Cary Douglass Caesa

Akron Law Review

“In its latest attempt to define a workable standard for obscenity rulings, the United States Supreme Court has held that children may not be included in a court's instruction as to the social group to whom the material would or would not be obscene. However, the Court held that sensitive persons and deviant groups may be included without unduly lowering the threshold of a finding of obscenity. Thus, Pinkus v. United States clarified the "community" whose judgment should define obscenity.”

First Amendment; Freedom Of Speech; Commerical Speech And Advertising; Metpath, Inc. V. Imperato, Sheryl S. Kantz

Akron Law Review

"The decision of Metpath, Inc. v. Imperato is indicative of the growing trend of the judiciary toward affording "commercial speech" the protective shield of the first amendment. As shown by Metpath, where the concern is advertising by a medical clinic, speech with commercial overtones is afforded protection where a public interest in the subject and content of the speech is demonstrated. However, the perimeters of such protection have not been defined by this or previous decisions."

Hiding Behind The Constitution: The Supreme Court And Procedural Due Process In Cleveland Board Of Education V. Loudermill, Jennifer Jaff

Akron Law Review

This term, the Supreme Court had an opportunity to affirm the approach of the plurality in Arnett v. Kennedy in Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill. In Arnett, Justice Rehnquist's plurality opinion articulated the rule that statutorily-created entitlements can be limited by and conditioned upon the procedural rules that accompany those entitlements.

This article argues that the Supreme Court should have adopted Justice Rehnquist's approach in Arnett because it articulates a clear rule of law. Such clarity would have two effects. First, holders of entitlements would know what procedures they would be afforded at the time the entitlement was granted …

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.

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

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

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.

Three Variations Of The Supreme Court's Legal Mind, Albert Lebowitz

Akron Law Review

With their independence, the Justices emerged, not, as Madison imagined them, a unified definition of reason but with diverging strains of legal mindedness that, as they almost inevitably clashed with each other, developed that added strength which emerges from dialectic. Madison's vision may have been too simple.

Constitutional theory is heavily concentrated in the area of judicial review, and the three issues raised in Marbury v. Madison are still subjects of heated debate and controversy. It is remarkable how topical this opinion remains.

Edmonson V. Leesville Concrete Company: Pre-Empting Prejudice, Andrea K. Huston

Akron Law Review

In Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., the United States Supreme Court decided the issue of whether parties in a civil case may use their peremptory challenges to exclude black venirepersons from the jury.

This Note will discuss the various limitations that courts have placed on the use of peremptory challenges, and the position of the Supreme Court. This Note will also discuss the Court's expansion of the state action doctrine, and the impact Edmonson will have on future cases.

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.

Coming Out Is A Free Pass Out: Boy Scouts Of America V. Dale, N. Nicole Endejann

Akron Law Review

This Note discusses the three Supreme Court cases that have delineated the battle between public accommodation laws and an organization’s freedom of expressive association: Roberts v. United States Jaycees, Board of Directors of Rotary International v. Rotary Club of Duarte, and New York State Club Association, Inc. v. City of New York. Specifically, this Note focuses on the development of the balancing test which courts use to protect these two constitutional freedoms. This Note then analyzes the Supreme Court’s decision in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, pointing out its deviations from the Roberts Trilogy. Finally, this Note explains the …

The Supreme Court In Real Time: Haste, Waste, And Bush V. Gore, Michael Herz

Akron Law Review

The legal proceedings following the 2000 election had their moments of humor. The oral argument in Bush v. Gore may have produced the most guffaws, as Joseph Klock struggled to name the Justices of the Supreme Court, or even to limit himself to those currently living. But if one finds humor in the absurd, the comic highpoint came 34 hours later (34 hours!) when the Court released its decision. Network “runners”―presumably the employees who had distinguished themselves at company picnics, the network softball league, or summer corporate challenge races―grabbed copies, dashed outside, and handed them to on-air reporters who were …