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 (26)
- Administrative Law (8)
- Criminal Law (8)
- Criminal Procedure (8)
- Courts (7)
-
- First Amendment (7)
- Legal History (7)
- Law and Politics (6)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (5)
- Juvenile Law (5)
- Intellectual Property Law (4)
- Law and Race (4)
- Election Law (3)
- Health Law and Policy (3)
- Judges (3)
- Law and Gender (3)
- Legal Biography (3)
- Property Law and Real Estate (3)
- Religion Law (3)
- Comparative and Foreign Law (2)
- Construction Law (2)
- Dispute Resolution and Arbitration (2)
- Environmental Law (2)
- Immigration Law (2)
- International Law (2)
- Legislation (2)
- President/Executive Department (2)
- Rule of Law (2)
- Keyword
-
- Columbia Law Review (12)
- Supreme Court (12)
- Harvard Law Review (11)
- Law (10)
- SCOTUS (10)
-
- Constitutional law (7)
- Judicial review (6)
- Capital punishment (5)
- Criminal law (5)
- Death penalty (5)
- Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) (5)
- Duke Law Journal (4)
- Yale Law Journal (4)
- Antonin Scalia (3)
- Capital case (3)
- First Amendment (3)
- Legal practice and procedure (3)
- Northwestern University Law Review (3)
- Rule of law (3)
- SSRN (3)
- Statutory interpretation (3)
- Supreme Court Justice (3)
- Supreme Court Review (3)
- Supreme Court of the United States (3)
- Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (2)
- Administrative law (2)
- Arbitration agreement (2)
- Campaign finance (2)
- Chevron doctrine (2)
- Columbia Law Review Forum (2)
Articles 91 - 94 of 94
Full-Text Articles in Supreme Court of the United States
Taking Supreme Court Opinions Seriously, Henry Paul Monaghan
Taking Supreme Court Opinions Seriously, Henry Paul Monaghan
Faculty Scholarship
Taking Supreme Court opinions seriously emerged as a topic of discussion at a lunch I attended last year with several Supreme Court law clerks. Somehow we came round to a particular three-judge district court case which I confidently opined was "certain" to be reversed on the basis of principles announced in prior opinions. The clerks were models of politeness and circumspection; never once did they even intimate that the judgment would (by divided vote) be affirmed. But shortly after I had announced my views of that case, one of the clerks began to prod me, asking whether I simply took …
Guiding Capital Sentencing Discretion Beyond The "Boiler Plate": Mental Disorder As A Mitigating Factor, James S. Liebman, Michael J. Shepard
Guiding Capital Sentencing Discretion Beyond The "Boiler Plate": Mental Disorder As A Mitigating Factor, James S. Liebman, Michael J. Shepard
Faculty Scholarship
In five decisions handed down on July 2, 1976, the United States Supreme Court held that the death penalty may be imposed for the crime of murder, so long as there are clear standards to guide the sentencing authority and the sanction is not imposed mandatorily. The authors examine the eighth amendment doctrinal framework used by the Court in the July 2 Cases, with particular reference to the requirement that individualized mitigating information be considered in the sentencing decision. Illustrating that requirement, they contend that mental disorder should be considered as a possibly mitigating factor and then suggest a standard …
Constitutional Common Law, Henry Paul Monaghan
Constitutional Common Law, Henry Paul Monaghan
Faculty Scholarship
Mr. Justice Powell has publicly characterized the 1974 Term of the Supreme. Court as a "dull" one. Whatever the accuracy of that description, the 1974 Term was, in the public eye, a quiet one. When, late in the Term, the Court ordered the death penalty case held over for reargument, it ensured that the 1974 Term would generate few front-page testimonials to the supreme authority of the Supreme Court. But neither a dull nor a quiet Term can obscure the current reality that the Court's claim to be the "ultimate interpreter of the Constitution" appears to command more nearly universal …
Constitutional Adjucation: The Who And When, Henry Paul Monaghan
Constitutional Adjucation: The Who And When, Henry Paul Monaghan
Faculty Scholarship
When the newly appointed Justices of the Supreme Court assembled in the Royal Exchange Building in New York for their first session on February 2, 1790, the most farsighted individual could not have foreseen what the future held for this tribunal. Now less than a generation short of its 200th anniversary, the Court is universally acknowledged to be the final and authoritative expositor of the Constitution. Yet after almost two centuries, questions concerning this power of the Court to interpret the Constitution remain. The first set of questions centers on the substantive standards for constitutional adjudication. The second, with which …