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 (3)
- Courts (3)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (2)
- First Amendment (2)
- Criminal Procedure (1)
-
- Disability Law (1)
- Fourth Amendment (1)
- Health Law and Policy (1)
- Human Rights Law (1)
- Jurisdiction (1)
- Labor and Employment Law (1)
- Legislation (1)
- Litigation (1)
- National Security Law (1)
- President/Executive Department (1)
- Privacy Law (1)
- Science and Technology Law (1)
- Sexuality and the Law (1)
- State and Local Government Law (1)
- Keyword
-
- Government speech (2)
- ADA (1)
- AIDS (1)
- Brown v. Board of Education (1)
- Caballes (1)
-
- Civil rights (1)
- Cooper v. Aaron (1)
- Criminal procedure (1)
- Detention (1)
- Due process (1)
- Enemy combatants (1)
- Federal courts (1)
- First Amendment (1)
- First amendment (1)
- Greenwood (1)
- HIV (1)
- Habeas corpus (1)
- Internet (1)
- Judicial power (1)
- Judicial review (1)
- Judicial supremacy (1)
- Jurisdiction (1)
- Katz (1)
- Litigation (1)
- Major life activity (1)
- Per se (1)
- Privacy (1)
- Procedure (1)
- Public employees (1)
- Separation of powers (1)
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
Full-Text Articles in Supreme Court of the United States
The Measure Of Government Speech: Identifying Expression's Source, Helen Norton
The Measure Of Government Speech: Identifying Expression's Source, Helen Norton
Publications
States and other governmental bodies increasingly invoke the government speech defense to First Amendment challenges by private parties who seek to alter or join what the government contends is its own expression. These disputes involve competing claims to the same speech: a private party maintains that a certain means of expression reflects (or should be allowed to reflect) her own views, while a public entity claims that same speech as its own, along with the ability to control its content.
In suggesting a framework for approaching these problems, this Article starts by examining the theoretical and practical justifications for insulating …
State Courts Unbound, Frederic M. Bloom
State Courts Unbound, Frederic M. Bloom
Publications
We may not think that state courts disobey binding Supreme Court precedent, but occasionally state courts do. In a number of important cases, state courts have actively defied apposite Supreme Court doctrine, and often it is the Court itself that has invited them to.
This Article shows state courts doing the unthinkable: flouting Supreme Court precedent, sometimes at the Court's own behest. The idea of state court defiance may surprise us. It is not in every case, after all, that state courts affirmatively disobey. But rare events still have their lessons, and we should ask how and why they emerge. …
Garbage Pails And Puppy Dog Tails: Is That What Katz Is Made Of?, Aya Gruber
Garbage Pails And Puppy Dog Tails: Is That What Katz Is Made Of?, Aya Gruber
Publications
This Article takes the opportunity of the fortieth anniversary of Katz v. U.S. to assess whether the revolutionary case's potential to provide broad and flexible privacy protection to individuals has been realized. Answering this question in a circumspect way, the Article pinpoints the language in Katz that was its eventual undoing and demonstrates how the Katz test has been plagued by two principle problems that have often rendered it more harmful to than protective of privacy. The manipulation problem describes the tendency of conservative courts to define reasonable expectations of privacy as lower than the expectations society actually entertains. The …
Government Workers And Government Speech, Helen Norton
Government Workers And Government Speech, Helen Norton
Publications
This essay, to be published in the First Amendment Law Review's forthcoming symposium issue on Public Citizens, Public Servants: Free Speech in the Post-Garcetti Workplace, critiques the Supreme Court's decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos as reflecting a distorted understanding of government speech that overstates government's own expressive interests while undermining the public's interest in transparent government.
In Garcetti, the Court held that the First Amendment does not protect public employees' speech made "pursuant to their official duties," concluding that a government employer should remain free to exercise "employer control over what the employer itself has commissioned or created." …
Cooper's Quiet Demise (A Short Response To Professor Strauss), Frederic M. Bloom
Cooper's Quiet Demise (A Short Response To Professor Strauss), Frederic M. Bloom
Publications
No abstract provided.
The Accounting: Habeas Corpus And Enemy Combatants, Emily Calhoun
The Accounting: Habeas Corpus And Enemy Combatants, Emily Calhoun
Publications
The judiciary should impose a heavy burden of justification on the executive when a habeas petitioner challenges the accuracy of facts on which an enemy combatant designation rests. A heavy burden of justification will ensure that the essential institutional purposes of the writ--and legitimate, separated-powers government--are preserved, even during times of national exigency. The institutional purposes of the writ argue for robust judicial review rather than deference to the executive. Moreover, the procedural flexibility traditionally associated with the writ gives the judiciary the tools to ensure that a heavy burden of justification can be imposed.
Abbott, Aids, And The Ada: Why A Per Se Disability Rule For Hiv/Aids Is Both Just And A Must, Scott Thompson
Abbott, Aids, And The Ada: Why A Per Se Disability Rule For Hiv/Aids Is Both Just And A Must, Scott Thompson
Publications
HIV/AIDS should be classified as a per se disability under the Americans with Disablities Act. Such a ruling is justified by the plain language of the act itself, legislative history, administrative regulations, and court precedent. Absent such a ruling, individuals with HIV must demonstrate that they have (1) an mental or physical impairment, (2) that substantially limits (3) a major life activity. While most courts to address the applicability of the ADA to individuals with HIV/AIDS have found that such individuals are disabled because HIV impairs the major life activity of reproduction, such an interpretation leaves open the possibility that …