Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
![Digital Commons Network](http://assets.bepress.com/20200205/img/dcn/DCsunburst.png)
Supreme Court of the United States Commons™
Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Due Process (2)
- Jurisdiction (2)
- Adult Criminal Court (1)
- Commerce Clause (1)
- Conditional Spending Power Doctrine (1)
-
- Constitutional Law (1)
- Contacts requirement (1)
- County (1)
- Courts (1)
- Decision-Maker Model (1)
- Deference (1)
- Deterrence (1)
- Dillon's Rule (1)
- Dissent (1)
- E-Commerce (1)
- Executive Order (1)
- Federalism (1)
- Fifth Amendment (1)
- Fourteenth Amendment (1)
- Home Rule (1)
- In re Gault (1)
- Indigency (1)
- Interstate (1)
- JJDPA (1)
- Judges (1)
- Judicial Appointments (1)
- Judicial Branch (1)
- Judicial Independence (1)
- Judicial Review (1)
- Jurisprudence (1)
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Supreme Court of the United States
Physical Presence Is In No Wayfair!: Addressing The Supreme Court’S Removal Of The Physical Presence Rule And The Need For Congressional Action, Claire Shook
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
The Commerce Clause of Article I grants Congress the power to regulate commerce. In the past, an entity had to have a physical presence in a state for that state to impose taxes on the entity. Due to the changing landscape of online businesses, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in South Dakota v. Wayfair in June 2018 to remove the physical presence rule as it applied to the Commerce Clause analysis of state taxation. The Wayfair decision’s ramification is that states can now impose taxes on businesses conducting sales online without having any physical presence in those states. While the …
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Seattle University Law Review
No abstract provided.
Categorical Confusion In Personal Jurisdiction Law, Todd Peterson
Categorical Confusion In Personal Jurisdiction Law, Todd Peterson
Washington and Lee Law Review
In Part I, the Article discusses the history of the U.S. Supreme Court’s substantive due process limitations on personal jurisdiction and, in particular, the standards for corporate-activities-based jurisdiction before the Court’s recent cases on that issue. Part II discusses the Court’s failure to provide a convincing theoretical justification for imposing substantive due process limitations on personal jurisdiction. It also discusses the consequences of that failure in three doctrinal areas of personal jurisdiction law, the traditional basis of service on an individual in the forum state, specific jurisdiction and corporate-activities-based jurisdiction. Part III then analyzes in detail the four recent Supreme …
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Seattle University Law Review
No abstract provided.
Sticks, Stones, And So-Called Judges: Why The Era Of Trump Necessitates Revisiting Presidential Influence On The Courts, Quinn W. Crowley
Sticks, Stones, And So-Called Judges: Why The Era Of Trump Necessitates Revisiting Presidential Influence On The Courts, Quinn W. Crowley
Indiana Law Journal
This Note will be primarily divided into three main sections. Part I of this Note will begin by discussing the importance of judicial independence in modern society and the role of elected officials in shaping the public perception of the courts. Additionally, as problems of judicial legitimacy are age-old and date back to America’s founding, Part I will include a brief discussion of an early clash between President Thomas Jefferson and the courts.
Parts II and III of this Note will seek to place President Trump’s conduct towards the judicial branch within the proper historical context. Part II examines the …
When Big Brother Becomes “Big Father”: Examining The Continued Use Of Parens Patriae In State Juvenile Delinquency Proceedings, Emily R. Mowry
When Big Brother Becomes “Big Father”: Examining The Continued Use Of Parens Patriae In State Juvenile Delinquency Proceedings, Emily R. Mowry
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
The U.S. Constitution grants American citizens numerous Due Process rights; but, historically, the Supreme Court declined to extend these Due Process rights to children. Initially, common-law courts treated child offenders over the age of seven in the same manner as adult criminals. At the start of the 20th century, though, juvenile reformers assisted in creating unique juvenile courts that used the parens patriae doctrine and viewed children as delinquent youths in need of judicial parental guidance rather than punishment. Later, starting in 1967, the Supreme Court released multiple opinions extending certain constitutional Due Process rights to children in juvenile delinquency …
Of Hats And Robes: Judicial Review Of Nonadjudicative Article Iii Functions, Jeffrey L. Rensberger
Of Hats And Robes: Judicial Review Of Nonadjudicative Article Iii Functions, Jeffrey L. Rensberger
University of Richmond Law Review
We are accustomed to thinking of Article III courts and judges deciding cases and controversies. But, federal judges and courts have historically also engaged in official but nonadjudicative activities. In addition to a history of federal judges serving on nonjudicial commissions, federal judges and the Supreme Court participate in the rulemaking process for the federal procedural and evidentiary rules. Although some argue to the contrary, the Supreme Court has approved such arrangements in the face of separation of powers objections. Since Article III officers and courts perform nonadjudicative duties, the question arises of how federal courts who address a challenge …
A Gun To Whose Head? Federalism, Localism, And The Spending Clause, Daniel S. Cohen
A Gun To Whose Head? Federalism, Localism, And The Spending Clause, Daniel S. Cohen
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
President Trump’s executive order rescinding federal funds from “sanctuary jurisdictions” has brought a critical, but overlooked, question of constitutional law to the forefront of the political debate: how does the Spending Clause apply to local governments? The purpose of the Spending Clause is to empower the federal government to bargain with the states to enact policies it cannot enact itself. This power, however, is constrained within the confines of federalism. The Supreme Court has sought to restrict the Spending Clause by crafting the Dole-NFIB framework, a test to determine whether a federal grant has compromised federalism. At its …