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 (29)
- Jurisprudence (18)
- Legal History (17)
- Fourteenth Amendment (12)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (11)
-
- Law and Society (11)
- Arts and Humanities (8)
- History (8)
- Law and Race (8)
- Judges (6)
- Public Law and Legal Theory (5)
- Social and Behavioral Sciences (5)
- Intellectual History (4)
- Law and Politics (4)
- Legal Studies (4)
- Legal Theory (4)
- Political History (4)
- State and Local Government Law (4)
- United States History (4)
- American Politics (3)
- Banking and Finance Law (3)
- Civil Procedure (3)
- First Amendment (3)
- Legislation (3)
- Political Science (3)
- Criminal Law (2)
- Fourth Amendment (2)
- Human Rights Law (2)
- Keyword
-
- Supreme Court (11)
- Racial classifications (8)
- Constitutional law (6)
- U.S. Supreme Court case (6)
- Legal history (5)
-
- Constitutional analysis (4)
- Constitutionality (3)
- Federal power (3)
- Federalism (3)
- Fourteenth Amendment (3)
- Jurisprudence (3)
- Necessary and Proper Clause (3)
- Taney Court (3)
- Anticanon (2)
- Enumerated power (2)
- Executive Order 9066 (2)
- Fourth Amendment (2)
- Implied federal powers (2)
- Implied powers (2)
- National power (2)
- Reconstruction Amendments (2)
- States rights (2)
- Student speech (2)
- Thirteenth Amendment (2)
- Tucker's rule (2)
- U.S. Constitution (2)
- Abortion rights (1)
- Agency interpretations (1)
- Arkansas Statute (1)
- Arkansas Supreme Court (1)
Articles 1 - 30 of 34
Full-Text Articles in Supreme Court of the United States
Dead Men Tell No Tales: Arkansas’S Grave Failure To Honor Its Constituents’ Postmortem Quasi-Property Right, Mckenna Moore
Dead Men Tell No Tales: Arkansas’S Grave Failure To Honor Its Constituents’ Postmortem Quasi-Property Right, Mckenna Moore
Arkansas Law Review
It is doubtful that Hulon Rupert Austin woke up on the day of March 7, 1986 and expected it to be his last. March 7 was a typical day—a workday—that started with a simple drive to a job site with his co-worker. A day that began so unremarkably ended with his co-worker looking up from where he was working to see “Austin lying on the ground.”
The High Price Of Poverty In Arkansas’S Courts: Rethinking The Utility Of Municipal Fines And Fees, Madison Miller
The High Price Of Poverty In Arkansas’S Courts: Rethinking The Utility Of Municipal Fines And Fees, Madison Miller
Arkansas Law Review
The opposite of poverty is not wealth. It is justice. Beginning in the 1980s, a "trail of tax cuts" led to budget shortfalls and revenue gaps throughout the United States. These budgetary problems resulted in many cities and towns shifting their burden of funding courts and the justice system at large "to the 'users' of the courts, including those least equipped to pay." Although "jailing an indigent person for a fine-only, low-level offense is unconstitutional," it is still an ongoing practice in many states, including Arkansas. In 1995, Arkansas passed new legislation to govern its circuit courts' collection and enforcement …
The National Popular Vote On Trial, Keaton Barnes
The National Popular Vote On Trial, Keaton Barnes
Arkansas Law Review
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the Peopl to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them …
Korematsu’S Ancestors, Mark A. Graber
Korematsu’S Ancestors, Mark A. Graber
Arkansas Law Review
Mark Killenbeck’s Korematsu v. United States has important affinities with Dred Scott v. Sandford. Both decisions by promoting and justifying white supremacy far beyond what was absolutely mandated by the constitutional text merit their uncontroversial inclusion in the anticanon of American constitutional law.3 Dred Scott held that former slaves and their descendants could not be citizens of the United States and that Congress could not ban slavery in American territories acquired after the Constitution was ratified.5 Korematsu held that the military could exclude all Japanese Americans from portions of the West Coast during World War II.6 Both decisions nevertheless provided …
A Government Of Laws That Is A Government Of Men And Women, Mark Tushnet
A Government Of Laws That Is A Government Of Men And Women, Mark Tushnet
Arkansas Law Review
I take Mark Killenbeck’s “provocative” article as an occasion for some informal comments about what Korematsu and Trump v. Hawaii tell us about the saying, “a government of laws, not a government of men and women.” My basic thought is that the “not” in the saying has to be replaced “but also.” And, in some sense we have always had to have known that the saying was wrong as stated. Whatever the laws are, they don’t make themselves. Nor do they administer themselves, nor interpret themselves. Men and women appear at the stages of enactment, application, and adjudication. So, for …
A Proper Burial, Robert L. Tsai
A Proper Burial, Robert L. Tsai
Arkansas Law Review
In his article, Professor Mark Killenbeck defends both Korematsu v. United States and Trump v. Hawaii on their own terms, albeit on narrow grounds. He goes on to conclude that comparisons of the two decisions don’t hold up. Killenbeck has authored a thoughtful and contrarian paper, but I’m not sold. In my view, Korematsu simply isn’t worth saving; in fact, a more complete repudiation of the internment decisions is overdue. Trump v. Hawaii, too, must also be revisited at the earliest opportunity and its more alarming features that abet presidential discrimination against non-citizens rejected. Moreover, I believe that comparisons between …
Tainted Precedent, Darrell A.H. Miller
Tainted Precedent, Darrell A.H. Miller
Arkansas Law Review
We have a common law system of constitutional adjudication, at least in the sense that constitutional practice in the United States relies on prior rulings rather than reasoning from first principles in each case. If there’s controlling precedent on point, it’s binding. Neither “inferior courts” in the federal system, nor state courts adjudicating federal law, are permitted to start anew with the “original public meaning” of the First Amendment or pronounce a fresh Dworkinian “moral reading” of the Fourth. Even the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court of the United States, for reasons of reputation, stability, and rule …
There Was Nothing "Neutral" About Executive Order 9066, Eric L. Muller
There Was Nothing "Neutral" About Executive Order 9066, Eric L. Muller
Arkansas Law Review
There is no more appropriate place to discuss the Japanese American cases of World War II than in the pages of the Arkansas Law Review. This is not only because Arkansas was the only state outside the Western Defense Command to host not one but two of the War Relocation Authority’s (WRA) concentration camps for Japanese Americans. It is because one of the most important lawyers to oversee the development and administration of all the WRA camps was the dean under whose leadership this law review was founded: Robert A. Leflar. Leflar’s is not a name that constitutional lawyers are …
Korematsu, Hawaii, And Pedagogy, Sanford Levinson
Korematsu, Hawaii, And Pedagogy, Sanford Levinson
Arkansas Law Review
I begin with some reflections on my own career in teaching—or, perhaps, attempting to teach—American constitutional law to generations of students from 1975 to the present. Or, more accurately, until about three years ago, when I taught introductory constitutional law for the last time. I am quite happy to no longer be teaching that course, whatever joys it did provide me in the past, for a very simple reason: I became more and more frustrated by the demands of coverage, i.e., the duty to take up a variety of topics—including attendant cases and collateral materials—and the unfortunate certainty that what …
Korematsu As The Tribute That Vice Pays To Virtue, Jack M. Balkin
Korematsu As The Tribute That Vice Pays To Virtue, Jack M. Balkin
Arkansas Law Review
Mark Killenbeck wants to (partially) rehabilitate the reputation of one of the Supreme Court’s most despised legal decisions, Korematsu v. United States. He argues that “[w]e should accept and teach Korematsu as an exemplar of what thelaw regarding invidious discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, and national origin should be.” In both Korematsu (and Hirabayashi v. United States) the Court asserted that classifications based on race were subject to strict scrutiny. But “[t]he majority,” Killenbeck explains, “refused to heed their own mandate. In Hirabayashi they held that the government policy was ‘reasonable.’ In Korematsu, . . . they failed …
Sober Second Thought? Korematsu Reconsidered, Mark R. Killenbeck
Sober Second Thought? Korematsu Reconsidered, Mark R. Killenbeck
Arkansas Law Review
How to best describe and treat Korematsu v. United States? A self-inflicted wound? It is certainly an exemplar of a case that in key respects tracks Justice Stephen Breyer’s caution about decisions that have “harm[ed] not just the Court, but the Nation.” Part of an “Anticanon,” resting on “little more than naked racism and associated hokum” and “embod[ying] a set of propositions that all legitimate constitutional decisions must be prepared to refute”? Perhaps. Or is it simply an opinion and result that “has long stood out as a stain that is almost universally recognized as a shameful mistake”?
Symposium: Giving Korematsu V. United States A Sober Second Thought, Nick Bell, Emily Levy, Julian Sharp
Symposium: Giving Korematsu V. United States A Sober Second Thought, Nick Bell, Emily Levy, Julian Sharp
Arkansas Law Review
We are elated to present Professor Mark Killenbeck’s thought provoking article, Sober Second Thought? Korematsu Reconsidered. Killenbeck dives into the Korematsu opinion and its history with great care to determine whether it truly “has no place in law under the Constitution” as Chief Justice John Roberts declared in Trump v. Hawaii.1 While Korematsu’s result provides an understandable “impulse to condemn” it, Killenbeck shows us that focusing solely on the case’s result “stands apart from and in stark contrast to its most important place in the constitutional order: articulation of precepts and terminology that provide the foundations for strict scrutiny.”
Nondelegation Of Major Questions, Clinton T. Summers
Nondelegation Of Major Questions, Clinton T. Summers
Arkansas Law Review
The Supreme Court has many tools at its disposal to address improper delegations of legislative power by Congress to the executive branch. Two of these tools are the nondelegation doctrine and the major questions doctrine. The nondelegation doctrine is a sledgehammer. Able to declare entire statutory provisions unconstitutional, its ability to do a lot of damage is perhaps the reason the Court never uses it. Indeed, the Court has only used it twice, both times in 1935. Although it’s old and rusty, the Court continues to keep it in the toolbox just in case. Since 1935, the Court has been …
A Costly Victory: June Medical, Federal Abortion Legislation, And Section 5 Of The Fourteenth Amendment, Thomas J. Molony
A Costly Victory: June Medical, Federal Abortion Legislation, And Section 5 Of The Fourteenth Amendment, Thomas J. Molony
Arkansas Law Review
The United States Supreme Court’s recent major abortion ruling in June Medical Services L.L.C. v. Russo was a win for abortion rights supporters, but a costly one. Although the June Medical Court struck down a Louisiana law requiring abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at a local hospital, a majority of the Justices—and most importantly, Chief Justice Roberts, whose concurrence constitutes the Court’s holding—stressed that Casey’s constitutional standard for pre-viability abortion regulations is not the amorphous balancing test the Court suggested in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, but a more deferential one under which a pre-viability regulation typically will be …
Recent Developments, Clinton T. Summers
Recent Developments, Clinton T. Summers
Arkansas Law Review
The United States Supreme Court upheld an Arkansas law regulating how pharmacies are reimbursed by pharmacy benefit managers. In Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Ass’n, a unanimous Court decided that Arkansas Act 900, passed in 2015, was not pre-empted by the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”).
Greenbacks, Consent, And Unwritten Amendments, John M. Bickers
Greenbacks, Consent, And Unwritten Amendments, John M. Bickers
Arkansas Law Review
I remember a German farmer expressing as much in a few words as the whole subject requires: “money is money, and paper is paper.”—All the invention of man cannot make them otherwise. The alchymist may cease his labours, and the hunter after the philosopher’s stone go to rest, if paper cannot be metamorphosed into gold and silver, or made to answer the same purpose in all cases. Every day Americans spend paper money, using it as legal tender. Yet the Constitution makes no mention of this phenomenon. Indeed, it clearly prevents the states from having the authority to make paper …
The Jones Trespass Doctrine And The Need For A Reasonable Solution To Unreasonable Protection, Geoffrey Corn
The Jones Trespass Doctrine And The Need For A Reasonable Solution To Unreasonable Protection, Geoffrey Corn
Arkansas Law Review
Each day that Houston drivers exit from Interstate 45 to drive to downtown Houston, they pass an odd sight. Nestled within some bushes is an encampment of tents. This encampment is very clearly located on public property adjacent to the interstate highway, and equally clearly populated by homeless individuals. While local police ostensibly tolerate this presence, at least temporarily, the sight frequently evokes an image in my mind of a police search of those tents. This thought is especially prominent on the days I am driving to my law school, South Texas College of Law Houston, to teach my federal …
Foreseeably Uncertain: The (In)Ability Of School Officials To Reasonably Foresee Substantial Disruption To The School Environment, Maggie Geren
Arkansas Law Review
“Ms. Sarah Phelps is the worst teacher I’ve ever met.” While the name of this Facebook page is perhaps a bit harsh, most would hardly view it as grounds for school suspension. The very heart of the First Amendment, and indeed the notion for which our Framers drafted it, is the right of citizens to “think, speak, write and worship as they wish, not as the Government commands.” Without this fundamental freedom—one that has persevered despite countless efforts to narrow its reach—the American people would live in constant fear of backlash and suppression for merely voicing their opinions.
Burying Mcculloch?, David S. Schwartz
Burying Mcculloch?, David S. Schwartz
Arkansas Law Review
Kurt Lash is a superb constitutional historian trapped inside the body of an originalist. He is one of the few originalists bold enough to acknowledge that McCulloch v. Maryland needs to be ejected from the (conservative) originalist canon of great constitutional cases. While he attributes to me an intention “not to praise the mythological McCulloch, but to bury it,” it is Lash who seeks to bury McCulloch, which he views as a fraudulent “story of our constitutional origins.”
Mcculloch V. Madison: John Marshall's Effort To Bury Madisonian Federalism, Kurt Lash
Mcculloch V. Madison: John Marshall's Effort To Bury Madisonian Federalism, Kurt Lash
Arkansas Law Review
In his engaging and provocative new book, The Spirit of the Constitution: John Marshall and the 200-Year Odyssey of McCulloch v. Maryland, David S. Schwartz challenges McCulloch’s canonical status as a foundation stone in the building of American constitutional law. According to Schwartz, the fortunes of McCulloch ebbed and flowed depending on the politics of the day and the ideological commitments of Supreme Court justices. Judicial reliance on the case might disappear for a generation only to suddenly reappear in the next. If McCulloch v. Maryland enjoys pride of place in contemporary courses on constitutional law, Schwartz argues, then this …
What Is "Appropriate" Legislation?: Mcculloch V. Maryland And The Redundancy Of The Reconstruction Amendments, Franita Tolson
What Is "Appropriate" Legislation?: Mcculloch V. Maryland And The Redundancy Of The Reconstruction Amendments, Franita Tolson
Arkansas Law Review
I am thankful for the opportunity to review Professor David Schwartz’s really thoughtful and incisive critique of McCulloch v. Maryland. The book is a creative and masterful reinterpretation of a decision that I thought I knew well, but I learned a lot of new and interesting facts about McCulloch and the (sometimes frosty) reception that the decision has received over the course of the last two centuries. Professor Schwartz persuasively argues that modern views of McCulloch as a straightforward nationalist decision that has always had a storied place in the American constitutional tradition are flat-out wrong. The Spirit of the …
Mcculloch And The American Regime, Mark A. Graber
Mcculloch And The American Regime, Mark A. Graber
Arkansas Law Review
Professor David S. Schwartz’s magnificent The Spirit of the Constitution: John Marshall and the 200-Year Odyssey of McCulloch v. Maryland explicitly challenges how we teach government powers in first weeks or semester of constitutional law and implicitly challenges how we teach civil rights and liberties in later weeks or second semester of constitutional law. Contrary to the impression given in many classes on the constitutional law of national powers, no straight line exists from the Marshall opinion in McCulloch v. Maryland to the New Deal and beyond. Schwartz meticulously details how, for two-hundred years, different aspects of McCulloch have been …
Marshalling Mcculloch, Richard Primus
Marshalling Mcculloch, Richard Primus
Arkansas Law Review
David Schwartz’s terrific new book is subtitled John Marshall and the 200-Year Odyssey of McCulloch v. Maryland. But the book is about much more than Marshall and McCulloch. It’s bout the long struggle over the scope of national power. Marshall and McCulloch are characters in the story, but the story isn’t centrally about them. Indeed, an important part of Schwartz’s narrative is that McCulloch has mattered relatively little in that struggle, except as a protean symbol.
Does Importance Equal Greatness? Reflections On John Marshall And Mcculloch V. Maryland, Sanford Levinson
Does Importance Equal Greatness? Reflections On John Marshall And Mcculloch V. Maryland, Sanford Levinson
Arkansas Law Review
David S. Schwartz’s The Spirit of the Constitution: John Marshall and the 200-Year Odyssey of McCulloch v. Maryland, is a truly excellent book, for which I was happy to contribute the following blurb appearing on the back jacket: "David Schwartz has written an indispensable study of thesingle most important Supreme Court case in the canon. As such, he delineates not only the meaning and importance of the case in 1819, but also the use made of it over the next two centuries as it became a central myth and symbol of the very meaning of American constitutionalism.”
Mcculloch's "Perpetually Arising" Questions, David S. Schwartz
Mcculloch's "Perpetually Arising" Questions, David S. Schwartz
Arkansas Law Review
I’m truly honored to have my book be the subject of a symposium on Balkinization, and I’m deeply grateful to Jack Balkin and John Mikhail for organizing and hosting it. Among its many gratifications for me personally, the symposium guaranteed that at least eight people would read the book. That these readers have engaged with it so closely and insightfully is icing on the cake. My first article on McCulloch four years ago, which became the basis for a couple of the early chapters in the book, insisted that McCulloch was properly interpreted as far less nationalistic than we were …
Scholarship In Review: A Response To David S. Schwartz's The Spirit Of The Constitution: John Marshall And The 200-Year Odyssey Of Mcculloch V. Maryland, Law Review Editors
Scholarship In Review: A Response To David S. Schwartz's The Spirit Of The Constitution: John Marshall And The 200-Year Odyssey Of Mcculloch V. Maryland, Law Review Editors
Arkansas Law Review
We are elated to introduce, and the Arkansas Law Review is honored to publish, this series discussing and applauding David S. Schwartz’s new book: The Spirit of the Constitution: John Marshall and the 200-Year Odyssey of McCulloch v. Maryland. Schwartz sets forth meticulous research, coupled with unparalleled insight, into the opinion penned by Chief Justice John Marshall and details the winding path Marshall’s words have traveled over the past 200 years. Schwartz argues that the shifting interpretations of McCulloch, often shaped to satisfy the needs of the time, echoes the true spirit of the Constitution.
Freedom Of Expression Within The Schoolhouse Gate, Justin Driver
Freedom Of Expression Within The Schoolhouse Gate, Justin Driver
Arkansas Law Review
In the late 1960s, the Supreme Court began contemplating how the First Amendment’s commitment to “the freedom of speech” should protect the right of students to introduce their own ideas into the schoolhouse. This constitutional question extended well beyond the matter addressed in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, because that opinion—momentous though it was—held simply that students could refuse to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. But Barnette did not establish that students possessed an affirmative right to advance their own opinions, on topics of their own selection, much less in the face of school officials’ objections. The …
Recent Developments, Peyton Hildebrand
Recent Developments, Peyton Hildebrand
Arkansas Law Review
In a 5-4 opinion, the United States Supreme Court once again denied a Bivens action. This case involved a tragic crossborder shooting by a border patrol agent standing on United States soil, who shot and killed a young boy standing on Mexican soil. Petitioners, the boy’s parents, sought relief under Biven2, arguing the agent’s action violated the Constitution. However, the Court determined the cross-border shooting was a new Bivens context, which required an analysis of whether any special factors “counseled hesitation” for the cause of action to be extended. The Court concluded Bivens was inappropriate because several factors “counseled hesitation”—namely, …
A Constellation Of Benefits And A Universe Of Equal Protection: The Extension Of The Right To Marry Under Pavan V. Smith, Brad Aldridge
A Constellation Of Benefits And A Universe Of Equal Protection: The Extension Of The Right To Marry Under Pavan V. Smith, Brad Aldridge
Arkansas Law Review
In 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States in Obergefell v. Hodges recognized the constitutional right of all persons, including same-sex couples, to lawfully marry. In 2017, in Pavan v. Smith, the Court recognized that Obergefell extends that right to much more than the act of marriage in itself. Any person who would have been denied the right to marry the person of her choice before Obergefell now enjoys not only the rights of marriage licensing and recognition, but also the full “constellation” of rights and responsibilities that attend marriage among traditional opposite-sex couples. The Court believed that this …
Defying Mcculloch? Jackson’S Bank Veto Reconsidered, David S. Schwartz
Defying Mcculloch? Jackson’S Bank Veto Reconsidered, David S. Schwartz
Arkansas Law Review
On July 10, 1832, President Andrew Jackson issued the most famous and controversial veto in United States history. The bill in question was “to modify and continue” the 1816 “act to incorporate the subscribers to the Bank of the United States. This was to recharter of the Second Bank of the United States whose constitutionality was famously upheld in McCulloch v. Maryland. The bill was passed by Congress and presented to Jackson on July 4. Six days later, Jackson vetoed the bill. Jackson’s veto mortally wounded the Second Bank, which would forever close its doors four years later at the …