Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

How The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Should Interpret Wynne, Michael S. Knoll, Ruth Mason

All Faculty Scholarship

In this special report, Knoll and Mason discuss how the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court should apply Wynne when it hears on remand First Marblehead v. Commissioner of Revenue. The authors conclude that when it originally heard the case, the Massachusetts court mistakenly considered, as part of its internal consistency analysis, whether Gate Holdings Inc. experienced double state taxation. As developed by the U.S. Supreme Court and most recently applied in Wynne, the internal consistency test is not concerned with actual double taxation that may arise from the interaction of different states’ laws. Rather, the test is designed to determine …

Front Matter

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Constitution And Informational Privacy, Or How So-Called Conservatives Countenance Governmental Intrustion Into A Person's Private Affairs, 18 J. Marshall L. Rev. 871 (1985), Michael P. Seng

Michael P. Seng

No abstract provided.

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."

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."

The Antitrust Laws And The Health Industry, Robert P. Borsody

Akron Law Review

"The health industry is one of the largest and fastest growing sectors of the nation's economy, yet in the past, trade regulation cases arising in this area have been disproportionately few. Today this is changing. The courts and regulatory agencies have increasingly held the attitude that if physicians and health care providers wish to reap the benefits of commercial activity they must bear the burden of competition, including trade regulation."

Apartments And Houses: The Warranty Of Habitability, Walter H.E. Jaeger

Akron Law Review

“The trend towards greater consumer protection so evident in the products liability field is clearly discernible in the sale of new homes by the builder-vendor, and in the leasing of apartments by landlords. Some of the fundamental concepts of real property law, especially those which make no sense in modern society, have been, or are being, overruled and superseded by more enlightened and public policy-minded decisions of both the federal and state courts. It seems safe to predict that the warranty of habitability which governs the sale of new homes by the builder-vendor, adopted by a substantial majority of jurisdictions, …

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 …

In Rem Jurisdiction; Attachment Of Insurance Debts; State Statutes; O'Connorv. Lee-Hy Paving Corp., Eloise Lubbinge Mackus

Akron Law Review

The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, in O'Connor v. Lee-Hy Paving Corp., upheld New York's insurance attachment procedure which serves as a vehicle for gaining personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants in causes of action that arise outside of New York. The court thereby determined that New York federal courts, in applying the procedures, had not violated defendant's due process because the minimum contacts requirement of the recent United Stated Supreme Court case, Shaffer v. Heitner, had been met.

Rid Of Habeas Corpus - How Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel Has Endangered Access To The Writ Of Habeas Corpus And What The Supreme Court Can Do In Maples And Martinez To Restore It, 45 Creighton L. Rev. 185 (2011), Hugh Mundy

Hugh Mundy

No abstract provided.

The Unconstitutionality Of Ohio's House Bill 125: The Heartbeat Bill, Jessica L. Knopp

Akron Law Review

This Comment analyzes the constitutionality of Ohio’s controversial H.B. 125 under the Fourteenth and First Amendments to the United States Constitution in the context of current United States Supreme Court precedent. Part II outlines Ohio’s current abortion laws, describes Ohio’s role in creating anti-abortion legislation and case law, provides a context of other abortion bills occurring nationwide, and explains H.B. 125. Part III analyzes how H.B. 125 is unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment in its current form, analyzes its constitutionality if the bill was modified to be a consent-only bill, and analyzes its unconstitutionality under the Establishment Clause of the …

“Stop Me Before I Get Reversed Again”: The Failure Of Illinois Appellate Courts To Protect Their Criminal Decisions From United States Supreme Court Review, 36 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 893 (2005), Timothy P. O'Neill

Timothy P. O'Neill

No abstract provided.

Too Many Cooks In The Climate Change Kitchen: The Case For An Administrative Remedy For Damages Caused By Increased Greenhouse Gas Concentrations, Benjamin Reese

Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law

Recent federal and state court decisions have made clear that federal common law claims against emitters of greenhouse gases are not sustainable; however, those same courts seem to have given state common law tort claims the green light, at least if the claims are brought in the state where the polluters are located. This Note contends that such suits are not an adequate remedy for those injured by climate change because they will face nearly insurmountable barriers in state court, and because there are major policy-level drawbacks to relying on state tort law rather than a federal solution. This Note …

Issue 4: Table Of Contents

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

No Good Options: Picking Up The Pieces After King V. Burwell, Nicholas Bagley, David K. Jones

Articles

If the Supreme Court rules against the government in King v. Burwell, insurance subsidies available under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) will evaporate in the thirty-four states that have refused to establish their own health-care exchanges. The pain could be felt within weeks. Without subsidies, an estimated eight or nine million people stand to lose their health coverage. Because sicker people will retain coverage at a much higher rate than healthier people, insurance premiums in the individual market will surge by as much as fifty percent. Policymakers will come under intense pressure to mitigate the fallout from a government loss …

Issue 3: Table Of Contents

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Contents

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Fixing Hollingsworth: Standing In Initiative Cases, Karl Manheim, John S. Caragozian, Donald Warner

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

In Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal filed by the “Official Proponents” of California’s Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California. Chief Justice Roberts’ majority opinion held that initiative sponsors lack Article III standing to defend their ballot measures even when state officials refuse to defend against constitutional challenges. As a result, Hollingsworth provides state officers with the ability to overrule laws that were intended to bypass the government establishment—in effect, an “executive veto” of popularly-enacted initiatives.

The Article examines this new “executive veto” in depth. It places Hollingsworth in context, discussing the initiative process …

Litigating State Interests: Attorneys General As Amici, Margaret H. Lemos, Kevin M. Quinn

Faculty Articles

An important strain of federalism scholarship locates the primary value of federalism in how it carves up the political landscape, allowing groups that are out of power at the national level to flourish—and, significantly, to govern—in the states. On that account, partisanship, rather than a commitment to state authority as such, motivates state actors to act as checks on federal power. Our study examines partisan motivation in one area where state actors can, and do, advocate on behalf of state power: the Supreme Court. We compiled data on state amicus filings in Supreme Court cases from the 1979–2013 Terms and …

Administering Section 2 Of The Voting Rights Act After Shelby County, Christopher S. Elmendorf, Douglas M. Spencer

Publications

Until the Supreme Court put an end to it in Shelby County v. Holder, section 5 of the Voting Rights Act was widely regarded as an effective, low-cost tool for blocking potentially discriminatory changes to election laws and administrative practices. The provision the Supreme Court left standing, section 2, is generally seen as expensive, cumbersome, and almost wholly ineffective at blocking changes before they take effect. This Article argues that the courts, in partnership with the Department of Justice, could reform section 2 so that it fills much of the gap left by the Supreme Court's evisceration of section …

Issue 2: Table Of Contents

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Implementing Marriage Equality In America, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

In June, the Supreme Court held that state proscriptions on same-sex marriage violate the Fourteenth Amendment. Obergefell v. Hodges declared that same-sex couples possess a fundamental right to marry but left implementation’s daily particulars to federal, state, and local officials. Because formal recognition of marriage equality is a valuable first step but realizing actual marriage equality will necessitate careful implementation of the Justices’ mandate, this effectuation deserves analysis.

Part I principally reviews Obergefell’s rationale for formal marriage equality. Part II assesses implementation of the Court’s mandate. Detecting that a few states and numerous localities have yet to provide comprehensive marriage …

Will Uncooperative Federalism Survive Nfib?, Abigail R. Moncrieff, Jonathan Dinerstein

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

In the end, the Supreme Court's federalism jurisprudence seems to run contrary to its stated goals. The New Federalism era, up to and including NFIB, creates an incentive for the national government to flex its own muscles more, not less. Maybe that result will be good for voters' clarity and for uniformity of national policy, but it is not good for uncooperative federalism or for states' autonomy—the values that the Supreme Court seems to be trying to protect.