Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Supreme Court of the United States Commons™
Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Constitutional Law (36)
- Legislation (28)
- First Amendment (17)
- Litigation (16)
- Other Law (16)
-
- Jurisprudence (15)
- Courts (12)
- State and Local Government Law (12)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (11)
- Fourteenth Amendment (8)
- Law and Society (8)
- Administrative Law (7)
- Commercial Law (7)
- Human Rights Law (7)
- Internet Law (7)
- Law and Gender (7)
- Civil Law (6)
- Judges (6)
- Jurisdiction (6)
- Law and Economics (6)
- Sexuality and the Law (6)
- Bankruptcy Law (5)
- Consumer Protection Law (5)
- Criminal Law (5)
- Election Law (5)
- Immigration Law (5)
- International Law (5)
- Labor and Employment Law (5)
- Keyword
-
- First Amendment; Freedom of Speech; Free speech; Constitutional Law; John Roberts; Roberts Court; Free Expression; Freedom of Expression; First Freedom; Supreme Court jurisprudence; Constitution; Constitutional Principles (7)
- Constitution (4)
- Corruption (4)
- Framers (4)
- Anti-Federalism (2)
-
- Anti-Federalist (2)
- Anti-racketeering (2)
- Bribery (2)
- Circuit split (2)
- Clayton Act (2)
- Donald J. Trump (2)
- Donations (2)
- Donziger (2)
- Elector (2)
- Electoral College (2)
- Emolument (2)
- Emoluments Clause (2)
- Equitable Relief (2)
- Faithless Elector (2)
- Federal Official (2)
- Federalism (2)
- Federalist (2)
- Foreign Government (2)
- Hillary Rodham Clinton (2)
- Influence (2)
- Injunctive Relief (2)
- Liberal Construction Clause (2)
- National Security (2)
- New York (2)
- Popular vote (2)
- Publication Year
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 30 of 81
Full-Text Articles in Supreme Court of the United States
Puerto Rican Presidential Voting Rights: Why Precedent Should Be Overturned, And Other Options For Suffrage, Sigrid Vendrell-Polanco
Puerto Rican Presidential Voting Rights: Why Precedent Should Be Overturned, And Other Options For Suffrage, Sigrid Vendrell-Polanco
Brooklyn Law Review
The United States has continued to hold Puerto Rico as a colony, much like the British empire did the US colonies, and has given it no clear path to incorporation, statehood, or independent sovereignty. It has also denied its citizens the right to vote for their president and have voting representation in Congress. Current case law regarding Puerto Rican presidential voting rights and voting representation in Congress rests on precedent that dates almost as far back as its acquisition—the infamous Insular Cases. This case law is inconsistent with prior precedent, constitutional principles, and does not account for Puerto Rico’s contributions …
My Body, Whose Choice? A Case For A Fundamental Right To Bodily Autonomy, Miri Trauner
My Body, Whose Choice? A Case For A Fundamental Right To Bodily Autonomy, Miri Trauner
Brooklyn Law Review
In 2022, the US Supreme Court decided Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade and the fundamental right to abortion it had established nearly fifty years prior. The Court’s decision threw into uncertainty the future of not only reproductive rights in this country, but also many other individual rights. At the same time as the decision, the world was still reeling from a global pandemic, and the development of COVID-19 vaccines had spurred widespread controversy over the constitutionality of vaccine mandates. Both advocates for abortion access and opponents to vaccine mandates shared a common cry: “my …
First Amendment Scrutiny: Realigning First Amendment Doctrine Around Government Interests, John Inazu
First Amendment Scrutiny: Realigning First Amendment Doctrine Around Government Interests, John Inazu
Brooklyn Law Review
This article proposes a simpler way to frame judicial analysis of First Amendment claims: a government restriction on First Amendment expression or action must advance a compelling interest through narrowly tailored means and must not excessively burden the expression or action relative to the interest advanced. The test thus has three prongs: (1) compelling interest; (2) narrow tailoring; and (3) proportionality. Part I explores how current First Amendment doctrine too often minimizes or ignores a meaningful assessment of the government’s purported interest in limiting First Amendment liberties. Part II shows how First Amendment inquiry is further confused by threshold inquiries …
Tribal Sovereignty Preempted, Michael Doran
Tribal Sovereignty Preempted, Michael Doran
Brooklyn Law Review
In June of 2022, the US Supreme Court held in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta that a state may prosecute a non-Indian for a crime committed against an Indian within Indian country. That decision effectively overruled Worcester v. Georgia, an 1832 landmark case in which Chief Justice Marshall said that state law “can have no force” in Indian country. Although the conventional wisdom about Castro-Huerta sees the case as a radical departure from first principles of federal Indian law, this article argues that Castro-Huerta is the natural—although deeply deplorable—next step in a long line of Supreme Court cases expanding state governmental authority …
Reimagining Financial Whistleblower Protection: A Proposal For Stronger Protection Under The Sarbanes-Oxley Act, Matthew J. Gilligan
Reimagining Financial Whistleblower Protection: A Proposal For Stronger Protection Under The Sarbanes-Oxley Act, Matthew J. Gilligan
Brooklyn Law Review
Whistleblowers occupy a unique place in American society. They operate in nearly every sphere of modern life, exposing unlawful conduct by financial institutions, technology companies, and government entities, just to name a few. When whistleblowers encounter retaliatory behavior, they are faced with an uphill battle to hold their employer accountable. This note discusses the circuit split regarding whistleblower protections under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which was recently granted cert by the US Supreme Court. Until recently, no circuit required whistleblowers suing their employers for engaging in retaliatory behavior to show that the employer acted with retaliatory intent. The Second Circuit broke …
Limiting 28 U.S.C. § 1782: A Changed Landscape For Discovery In Private Commercial Arbitration Abroad, Jazmyne R. Barto
Limiting 28 U.S.C. § 1782: A Changed Landscape For Discovery In Private Commercial Arbitration Abroad, Jazmyne R. Barto
Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial & Commercial Law
For decades 28 U.S.C. § 1782 has been used by foreign entities looking to compel discovery in the United States for use in commercial arbitration proceedings abroad. Despite the statute being in force since 1948, many federal courts were unsure of whether § 1782 could actually be used in international private commercial arbitration. The Supreme Court tried and failed to clarify the statute’s scope in 2004, leading to a circuit court split as to §1782’s applicability. Looking to end the controversy once and for all, during the Summer of 2022, the Supreme Court clearly stated that § 1782 might not …
Contracting Against Slavery: Corporate Accountability For Human Rights Supply Chain Violations, Alexandra Hyken
Contracting Against Slavery: Corporate Accountability For Human Rights Supply Chain Violations, Alexandra Hyken
Brooklyn Journal of International Law
The United States Supreme Court decision in Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Doe effectively closed the door for forced laborers in the global supply chain to sue corporations headquartered in the United States for aiding and abetting in their human trafficking under the Alien Tort Statute. At the same time, however, the European Union and Canada are passing legislative measures that increase corporate accountability for human rights supply chain violations. This note argues that, in light of the Nestlé decision, contracts can be an effective mechanism for corporate accountability in the United States and that multi-national corporations will be incentivized to …
A Civil Shame: The Failure To Protect Due Process In Discretionary Immigration Bond Hearings, Stacy L. Brustin
A Civil Shame: The Failure To Protect Due Process In Discretionary Immigration Bond Hearings, Stacy L. Brustin
Brooklyn Law Review
Over the last four years, the US Supreme Court has granted certiorari in four immigration bond review cases. The sheer number of cases the Court has recently considered underscores the significance of this area of immigration law. Each case centers on whether the Immigration and Nationality Act or the Constitution mandates a bond review hearing after prolonged detention. Yet these cases leave unresolved the issue of whether initial bond hearings themselves meet the due process threshold required of civil confinement proceedings. Federal circuit and district courts have addressed aspects of this question and found procedural due process violations. However, most …
The Cost Of Cutting Corners: Jurisdictional Implications Flowing From Removal Proceedings Commenced By A Defective Notice To Appear, Juliana M. Lopez
The Cost Of Cutting Corners: Jurisdictional Implications Flowing From Removal Proceedings Commenced By A Defective Notice To Appear, Juliana M. Lopez
Brooklyn Law Review
A Notice to Appear (NTA) in removal proceedings is a written notice served on noncitizens that, among other things, alerts them that they must appear in immigration court for a hearing. In 2018, contrary to statute and common sense, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) admitted to issuing almost all NTAs without the accurate date, time, and place of the initial proceeding. In response, the Supreme Court, in Pereira v. Sessions, clarified that an NTA without the date and place of the hearing is statutorily defective and cannot be used to bar noncitizens from cancellation of removal. However, DHS circumvented …
Cracks In The Clean Air Act: Fixing The Foundation Of Us Climate Policy, Emily Joshi-Powell
Cracks In The Clean Air Act: Fixing The Foundation Of Us Climate Policy, Emily Joshi-Powell
Brooklyn Law Review
The urgent need to cool the atmosphere and slow the effects of climate change is evident all around us. However, half of Congress and large swaths of the American public are still not on board, and the highest Court in the land just knee-capped the EPA’s power to regulate effectively. This note looks at the implementation and amendment of the Clean Air Act and subsequent deviation from the Act’s bipartisan roots to its current highly political polarizing status. It then reviews twenty-first century caselaw affecting climate policy to highlight statutory and judicial barriers to progress. Culminating with the recent Supreme …
Social Media And The Common Law, Leslie Y. Garfield Tenzer
Social Media And The Common Law, Leslie Y. Garfield Tenzer
Brooklyn Law Review
The framers of the United States Constitution and those who developed the early common law were no strangers to printed media. They could not, however, have anticipated the widespread ability of average people to communicate instantaneously with large audiences via platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. Despite this new technology, courts have primarily relied on pre-social media precedent, rules of law, and the Constitution for guidance when confronted with civil and criminal social media misconduct. On the one hand, relying on existing law is a good thing; it reaffirms the judiciary's commitment to precedent and stare decisis. On the other …
Book Review: The Mighty Roe Has Fallen (Probably): A Call To Action As An Antidote To Despair, Loreen Peritz
Book Review: The Mighty Roe Has Fallen (Probably): A Call To Action As An Antidote To Despair, Loreen Peritz
Journal of Law and Policy
Reviewing CONTROLLING WOMEN: WHAT WE MUST DO NOW TO SAVE REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM. By Kathryn Kolbert & Julie Kay. New York, NY: Hachette Books, 2021. 304 pp., $29.00
Introductory Remarks: The Roberts Court And The First Amendment: An Introduction, Geoffrey R. Stone
Introductory Remarks: The Roberts Court And The First Amendment: An Introduction, Geoffrey R. Stone
Brooklyn Law Review
On April 9, 2021, Geoffrey R. Stone delivered the following introductory remarks at The Roberts Court and Free Speech Symposium at Brooklyn Law School. An adaptation of Geoffrey R. Stone, Free Speech in the Twenty-First Century: Ten Lessons from the Twentieth Century Lead Article (2008), Dean Stone detailed the history of the pre-Roberts Court First Amendment jurisprudence and laid the foundation for the symposium’s scholarly discourse.
The Roberts Court—Its First Amendment Free Expression Jurisprudence: 2005–2021, Ronald K.L. Collins, David L. Hudson Jr.
The Roberts Court—Its First Amendment Free Expression Jurisprudence: 2005–2021, Ronald K.L. Collins, David L. Hudson Jr.
Brooklyn Law Review
The decisional law of the First Amendment is an area of law formulated, for the most part, by the high court of the land. At the same time, the study of free speech is equally a study in political philosophy and law. Supreme Court justices have left their mark on the First Amendment free speech doctrine and have made names for themselves in the process. This study explores the impact of Chief Justice John Roberts and the Roberts Court on the free speech doctrine. By examining the case law in this area and the justices and lawyers who craft it, …
The Anti-Free Speech Movement, Robert Corn-Revere
The Anti-Free Speech Movement, Robert Corn-Revere
Brooklyn Law Review
What does it mean for the Supreme Court, under Chief Justice John Roberts, to be “good” when it comes to the First Amendment? First Amendment lawyer Robert Corn-Revere tackles this question, by looking at the history of censorship in the United States. Through a historical lens, Mr. Corn-Revere examines the arguments for regulating “bad” speech in order to promote “good” speech, and analogizes this approach to the work of early American censors like Anthony Comstock. This article examines how the history of censorship has shaped First Amendment law, and ultimately through his analysis, Mr. Corn-Revere identifies several examples of what …
Free Speech Still Matters, Joel M. Gora
Free Speech Still Matters, Joel M. Gora
Brooklyn Law Review
In its first ten years, the Roberts Court proved to be the most speech protective Court in a generation, if not in our history; however, in the intervening five years, the Court has faced intense pressures, ranging from heightened criticism of its First Amendment jurisprudence to seismic changes in the makeup of the Court to very real proposals for court “packing.” Despite these powerful forces, the Roberts Court has surprisingly stayed true to its commitment to—and guardianship of—the First Amendment. Nevertheless, in the face of modern political correctness and cancel culture, free speech has rarely been in a more precarious …
Foreword: The Free Speech Record Of The Roberts Court, William D. Araiza
Foreword: The Free Speech Record Of The Roberts Court, William D. Araiza
Brooklyn Law Review
On April 9, 2021, scholars gathered at Brooklyn Law School to consider the free speech themes highlighted by a catalogue of the Roberts Court’s free speech jurisprudence. The speakers provided incisive and timely insight on these themes—insight that is reflected in the catalogue and accompanying papers published in this symposium issue of the Brooklyn Law Review. This introduction provides an overview of this symposium issue and the questions presented by each article and essay.
The Law Of License Plates And Other Inevitabilities Of Free Speech Context Sensitivity, William D. Araiza
The Law Of License Plates And Other Inevitabilities Of Free Speech Context Sensitivity, William D. Araiza
Brooklyn Law Review
This article, written for a symposium on Ronald Collins’s and Professor David Hudson’s catalogue of the Roberts Court’s First Amendment free speech jurisprudence, reconsiders the longstanding tension between rigid free speech rules and more contextual standards. It examines that debate by considering a set of relatively recent free speech cases in which the Court ostensibly adopted rigid rules, but in doing so arguably cloaked its reliance on more contextual factors by manipulating those rules. In cases dealing with national security and judicial electoral speech, the Court manipulated the strict scrutiny the Court insists applies to nearly every content-based speech restriction …
Transcript: The Roberts Court And Free Speech Symposium, Michael T. Cahill, Joel M. Gora, Geoffrey R. Stone, Ronald K.L. Collins, David L. Hudson Jr., Floyd Abrams, Ellis Cose, Robert Corn-Revere, Genevieve Lakier, William D. Araiza, Helen Norton, Nadine Strossen, Erwin Chemerinsky
Transcript: The Roberts Court And Free Speech Symposium, Michael T. Cahill, Joel M. Gora, Geoffrey R. Stone, Ronald K.L. Collins, David L. Hudson Jr., Floyd Abrams, Ellis Cose, Robert Corn-Revere, Genevieve Lakier, William D. Araiza, Helen Norton, Nadine Strossen, Erwin Chemerinsky
Brooklyn Law Review
On April 9, 2021, the Brooklyn Law Review gathered a panel of First Amendment scholars for a symposium on the Roberts Court's free speech jurisprudence. This transcript captures the panelists' diverse perspectives on the free speech themes highlighted by the Roberts Court's free speech jurisprudence.
The Roberts Court, State Courts, And State Constitutions: Judicial Role Shopping, Ariel L. Bendor, Joshua Segev
The Roberts Court, State Courts, And State Constitutions: Judicial Role Shopping, Ariel L. Bendor, Joshua Segev
Journal of Law and Policy
In this Article we reveal a dual dilemma, both material and institutional, that the Supreme Court in its current composition faces when reviewing liberal state court decisions based on the state constitution. The Article further describes substantive and procedural tactics that the Court adopts to address this dilemma, and illustrates the arguments by analyzing a number of recent Supreme Court decisions. The two dilemmas, the combination of which serve as a “power multiplier,” of sorts, have arisen following the last three appointments to the Supreme Court, which resulted in a solid majority of conservative Justices nominated by Republican presidents. One …
Prosecuting The Phone Scammer When Extradition Fails And Concurrent Jurisdiction Exists, Michelle Lepkofker
Prosecuting The Phone Scammer When Extradition Fails And Concurrent Jurisdiction Exists, Michelle Lepkofker
Brooklyn Journal of International Law
Advancements in technology allow people to place phone calls half a world away via the internet. This technology has made it easier and cheaper for consumers to communicate, but it has also made it easier for scammers to reach more unsuspecting victims. In 2020, TrueCaller, an app designed to block scam phone calls, successfully blocked, and identified 31.3 billion spam calls in 20 countries. In the same year, Americans alone lost a total of USD $ 29.8 billion to scam calls. This Note argues that phone scams continue to be lucrative, in part, because criminal prosecutions of transnational crimes are …
The Good, The Bad, And The Historically Anti-Semitic: An Analytical Comparison Of Anti-Hate Laws In Germany And The United States, Jamie Rauch
Brooklyn Journal of International Law
Confronted every day with drastically increasing accounts of hate crimes and hate speech, nations’ legislators have routinely tried and subsequently failed to implement effective legislation capable of curbing the hatred epidemic currently sweeping the globe. This failure is due in large part to the lack of a universal stance on hate crime regulation and criminalization. Two countries in particular, the United States and Germany, embody two diametrically opposing approaches taken by nations in the present-day war on hate speech. This Note explores the dramatic dichotomy between the legislative framework surrounding the regulation of hate speech in these two countries. This …
Without A Voice, Without A Forum: Finding Iirira Section 1252(G) Unconstitutional, Amanda Simms
Without A Voice, Without A Forum: Finding Iirira Section 1252(G) Unconstitutional, Amanda Simms
Brooklyn Law Review
The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) abrogates sovereign immunity in certain circumstances to allow private individuals, regardless of citizenship, to sue the United States for specific torts committed by government officials. Yet when two lawful permanent residents—located in different parts of the country—separately tried to sue the government for wrongful removal, one court dismissed the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction while the other court did not. These decisions, though reaching opposite conclusions, both relied on federal immigration statute 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) in order to determine whether judicial review of immigrants’ removal orders is precluded. This note argues …
“A Dollar Ain’T Much If You’Ve Got It”: Freeing Modern-Day Poll Taxes From Anderson-Burdick, Lydia Saltzbart
“A Dollar Ain’T Much If You’Ve Got It”: Freeing Modern-Day Poll Taxes From Anderson-Burdick, Lydia Saltzbart
Journal of Law and Policy
How much should it cost to vote in the United States? The answer is clear from the Supreme Court’s landmark opinion in Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections—nothing. Yet more than fifty years later, many U.S. voters must jump over financial hurdles to access the franchise. These hurdles have withstood judicial review because the Court has drifted away from Harper and has instead applied the more deferential Anderson-Burdick analysis to modern poll tax claims—requiring voters to demonstrate how severely the cost burdens them. As a result, direct and indirect financial burdens on the vote have proliferated. Millions of voters …
Virtual Pretrial Jurisdiction For Virtual Contacts, Max D. Lovrin
Virtual Pretrial Jurisdiction For Virtual Contacts, Max D. Lovrin
Brooklyn Law Review
Personal jurisdiction is a threshold requirement for any civil court’s constitutional exercise of adjudicative authority over a defendant, and one of civil procedure’s most fundamental concepts. The Supreme Court is acutely aware of difficulties facing personal jurisdiction doctrine in an evolving world and the need for jurisprudential solutions to those problems. But recent inconsistent trends in Supreme Court personal jurisdiction jurisprudence have served to further complicate the doctrine. Such overcomplication often leads to unpredictability, which both increases expenses for litigants and creates additional work for the already overburdened federal civil docket. This problem is exacerbated when litigation arises out of …
South Dakota V. Wayfair: An Ill-Conceived Blow To The Free Flow Of Interstate Commerce, Revel Shinn Atkinson
South Dakota V. Wayfair: An Ill-Conceived Blow To The Free Flow Of Interstate Commerce, Revel Shinn Atkinson
Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial & Commercial Law
For more than a century, brick-and-mortar retailers have been losing local customers—first with the rise of mail-order houses and then more acutely with the rapid growth of online retail. As a result, states have noticed a significant loss in sales tax revenue. While an equivalent amount of tax is typically still owed to the state in the form of a use tax, which is to be remitted to the state by the customer, because these taxes are not automatically collected at the time of the sale, customers have overwhelmingly elected not to pay them. In an effort to recover this …
A Logical And Lawful Application Of § 101 Jurisprudence: The Uspto’S 2019 Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Dustin Luettgen
A Logical And Lawful Application Of § 101 Jurisprudence: The Uspto’S 2019 Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Dustin Luettgen
Journal of Law and Policy
In recent years, 35 U.S.C. § 101 has been a topic of great concern within the patent bar due to uncertainty surrounding the patentability of inventions drawn to the three judicial exceptions to patent-eligible subject matter: abstract ideas, natural phenomena, and laws of nature. In response to this lingering uncertainty and in an effort to provide for the lawful and consistent application of patent law, the United States Patent and Trademark Office released guidance as to the subject matter eligibility of claims drawn to judicial exceptions. This Article provides a review of § 101 jurisprudence, summarizes the USPTO Guidance, and …
Restoring The Rights Multiplier: The Right To An Education In The United States, Katherine Smith Davis, Jeffrey Davis
Restoring The Rights Multiplier: The Right To An Education In The United States, Katherine Smith Davis, Jeffrey Davis
Journal of Law and Policy
In 1973 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that education was not a fundamental right, leaving in place systems that continue today to perpetrate vast inequities among school districts. Through a comparative analysis of treaties, constitutions, legislation, and international and state judicial decisions, we demonstrate that education is indeed a fundamental human right, though our constitutional jurisprudence has denied its fundamental right status. We use case studies from Baltimore, a typical city whose residents face economic hardships, to reveal the dire consequences of this ruling. Without the right to an education, schoolchildren in poor systems continue to be deprived of the …
The Supreme Court And The 117th Congress, Andrew K. Jennings, Athul K. Acharya
The Supreme Court And The 117th Congress, Andrew K. Jennings, Athul K. Acharya
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
A Second Opinion: Can Windsor V. United States Survive President Trump’S Supreme Court?, Artem M. Joukov
A Second Opinion: Can Windsor V. United States Survive President Trump’S Supreme Court?, Artem M. Joukov
Journal of Law and Policy
This Article examines President Donald Trump’s recent recomposition of the United States Supreme Court and the potential effects on Windsor v. United States and its progeny. The Article considers whether the shifting balance of the Court may lead to reconsideration of Windsor, particularly via attempted exploits of the weaknesses in the standard of review applied to reach the decision. The Article will conclude that while revolutionary, Windsor lacked the doctrinal clarity of its offspring, Obergefell v. Hodges, and therefore may be at greatest risk of reversal by the increasingly conservative Court. In particular, the Court may rely on the conflict …