Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

Virtual Technology And The Changing Rituals Of Courtroom Justice, Meredith Rossner, David Tait

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

How Can You Tell If There Is A Crisis? Data And Measurement Challenges In Assessing Jury Representation, Mary R. Rose, Marc A. Musick

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

Beacons Of Democracy? A Worldwide Exploration Of The Relationship Between Democracy And Lay Participation In Criminal Cases, Sanja K. Ivkovic, Valarie P. Hans

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

How Can You Tell If There Is A Crisis? Data And Measurement Challenges In Assessing Jury Representation, Mary R. Rose, Marc A. Musick

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

Race, Peremptory Challenges, And State Courts: A Blueprint For Change, Nancy S. Marder

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

Judges, Lawyers, And Willing Jurors: A Tale Of Two Jury Selections, Barbara O'Brien, Catherine M. Grosso

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

Beacons Of Democracy? A Worldwide Exploration Of The Relationship Between Democracy And Lay Participation In Criminal Cases, Sanja K. Ivkovic, Valarie P. Hans

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Arrival Of The Civil Jury In Argentina: The Case Of Chaco, Shari S. Diamond, Valarie P. Hans, Natali Chizik, Andres Harfuch

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Hybridization Of Lay Courts: From Colombia To England And Wales, Jeremy Boulanger-Bonnelly

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

Lay Participation Reform In China: Opportunities And Challenges, Zhiyuan Guo

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

Virtual Technology And The Changing Rituals Of Courtroom Justice, Meredith Rossner, David Tait

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

Discussing Privacy In Sec Subpoena Practice After Carpenter V. United States, William A. Ballentine

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

Will The Supreme Court Still “Seldom Stray Very Far”?: Regime Politics In A Polarized America, Kevin J. Mcmahon

Chicago-Kent Law Review

This Article examines the concept of a “minority Justice,” meaning a Supreme Court Justice appointed by a President who had failed to win the popular vote and confirmed with the support of a majority of senators who had garnered fewer votes in their most recent elections than their colleagues in opposition. Specifically, Neil Gorsuch was the first “minority Justice,” receiving the support of senators who had collected nearly 20 million fewer votes than those in opposition (54,098,387 to 73,425,062). From there, the Article considers the significance this development, first by examining some of the foundational work of the regime politics …

What Members Of Congress Say About The Supreme Court And Why It Matters, Carolyn Shapiro

Chicago-Kent Law Review

Republican and Democratic senators took strikingly different approaches to Justice Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation hearing. Republicans focused on judicial process—what judges are supposed to do, how they are constrained, and the significance of the constitutional separation of powers—evoking rhetoric long used by the political right. Democrats, by contrast, focused primarily on case outcomes, complaining, for example, that Gorsuch favored “the big guy” over “the little guy” in cases he decided as a judge on the Tenth Circuit. This Article critiques the Democrats’ failure to discuss judicial process and to promote their own affirmative vision of the judiciary and the Constitution. A …

The Supreme Court And American Politics: Symposium Introduction, Christopher W. Schmidt, Carolyn Shapiro

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

Keynote Address: Judging The Political And Political Judging: Justice Scalia As Case Study, Richard L. Hasen

Chicago-Kent Law Review

This is a revised version of a Keynote Address delivered at “The Supreme Court and American Politics,” a symposium held October 17, 2017 at the Chicago-Kent College of Law. In this Address, Professor Hasen considers through the lens of Justice Scalia’s opinions the role that views of the political process play, at least rhetorically, in how Supreme Court Justices decide cases. It focuses on Justice Scalia’s contradictory views on self-dealing and incumbency protection across a range of cases, comparing campaign finance on the one hand to partisan gerrymandering, voter identification laws, political patronage, and ballot access rules on the other. …

Above Politics: Congress And The Supreme Court In 2017, Jason Mazzone

Chicago-Kent Law Review

The Supreme Court figured prominently in the November 2016 elections because of the vacancy on the Court that resulted from the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. This Essay picks up the story by examining the place of the Supreme Court in national politics during 2017. It traces congressional efforts to respond to statutory and constitutional rulings by the Court as well as steps to regulate the operations of the Court and the work of the Justices. Although in 2017 Republicans and Democrats introduced numerous bills directed at the Court, these bills were generally modest in scope and, even so, did …

The Forgotten Issue? The Supreme Court And The 2016 Presidential Campaign, Christopher W. Schmidt

Chicago-Kent Law Review

This Article considers how presidential candidates use the Supreme Court as an issue in their election campaigns. I focus in particular on 2016, but I try to make sense of this extraordinary election by placing it in the context of presidential elections over the past century.

In the presidential election of 2016, circumstances seemed perfectly aligned to force the Supreme Court to the front of public debate, but neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton treated the Court as a central issue of their campaigns. Trump rarely went beyond a brief mention of the Court in his campaign speeches; Clinton basically …

Neil Gorsuch And The Ginsburg Rules, Lori A. Ringhand, Paul M. Collins Jr.

Chicago-Kent Law Review

Supreme Court nominees testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee frequently invoke the so-called “Ginsburg Rule” to justify not answering questions posed to them. According to this “rule,” nominees during their testimony must avoid signaling their preferences about previously decided Supreme Court cases or constitutional issues. Using empirical data on every question asked and answered at every hearing from 1939–2017, we explore this “rule,” and its attribution to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. We demonstrate three things. First, the Ginsburg Rule is poorly named, given that the practice of claiming a privilege to not respond to certain types of questions predates the …

Taking Judicial Legitimacy Seriously, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer

Chicago-Kent Law Review

Chief Justice Roberts appears worried about judicial legitimacy. In Gill v. Whitford, the Wisconsin gerrymandering case, he explicitly worries about the message the Court would send if it wades into the gerrymandering debate. More explicitly, he worries about “the status and integrity” of the Court if is seen as taking sides in politically charged controversies. Similarly, during his confirmation hearing, Roberts warned that the Court has a limited role in our constitutional scheme and must stay within it. To decide cases on the basis of policy and not law would compromise the Court’s legitimacy. This Essay is skeptical. For one, …

The Consequences Of Citizens United: What Do The Lawyers Say?, Ann Southworth

Chicago-Kent Law Review

This Essay examines a polarized world of advocacy over campaign finance regulation in the Roberts Court. It considers what lawyers who filed party and amicus briefs in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission have to say about the consequences of the decision. It shows that the lawyers generally agree about the ruling’s direct consequences but strongly disagree about whether those consequences are good or bad for the country and what lessons the public should draw. This Essay also explores the competing frames that these lawyers bring to questions about money in politics and their competing perspectives about government and where …

The Collateral Order Doctrine In Disorder: Redefining Finality, Matthew R. Pikor

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Cessation Of Innovation: An Inquiry Into Whether Congress Can And Should Strip The Supreme Court Of Its Appellate Jurisdiction To Entertain Patent Cases, Catherine Taylor

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

That Elusive Consensus: The Historiographic Significance Of William E. Nelson's Works On Judicial Review, Mark Mcgarvie

Chicago-Kent Law Review

This essay provides a historiographical context for Nelson’s work on judicial review. It argues that Nelson’s integration of intellectual and legal history not only rebutted the instrumentalist historiography that prevailed when he undertook his work on Marshall and judicial review, but also fostered an appreciation of the need to place legal actors in the intellectual context in which they acted. Highlighting the influence of Bernard Bailyn’s pathfinding work on popular sovereignty upon Nelson’s development of his consensus theory, the essay contends that Nelson’s work changed the course of academic readings of Marshall’s jurisprudence to be consistent with a broader acceptance …

Original Intent And The Fourteenth Amendment: Into The Black Hole Of Constitutional Law, Paul Finkelman

Chicago-Kent Law Review

This article explores and examines William E. Nelson’s masterful study of the origins and adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, The Fourteenth Amendment: From Political Principal to Judicial Doctrine (1988). The article explains that a quarter of a century after he wrote this book, Nelson’s study of the origins and adoption of the Amendment remains the best exploration of these issues. His book illustrates the difficulties of determining the “original intent” of the framers of this complicated and complex Amendment. At the same time, however, Nelson demonstrates that for many issues we can come to a strong understanding of the goals …

Rejecting The Legal Process Theory Joker: Bill Nelson's Scholarship On Judge Edward Weinfeld And Justice Byron White, Brad Snyder

Chicago-Kent Law Review

My contribution to this tribute places Bill Nelson’s scholarship about Judge Edward Weinfeld and Justice Byron White within several contexts. It is a personal history of Nelson the law student, law clerk, and young scholar; an intellectual history of legal theory since the 1960s; an examination of the influence of legal theory on Nelson’s scholarship based on his writings about Weinfeld and White; and an example of how legal historians contend with the subject of judicial reputation. Nelson was one of many former Warren Court and Burger Court clerks who joined the professoriate and rejected the legal process theory that …

Claiming Neutrality And Confessing Subjectivity In Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings, Carolyn Shapiro

Chicago-Kent Law Review

Supreme Court confirmation hearings provide a rare opportunity for the American people to hear what (would-be) justices think about the nature of judging and the role of the Supreme Court. In recent years, nominees have been quick to talk about judging in terms of neutrality and objectivity, most famously with Chief Justice Roberts’ invocation of the “neutral umpire,” and they have emphasized their reliance on legal texts and sources as if those sources can provide answers in difficult cases. Many of the cases heard by the Supreme Court, however, do not have objectively correct answers that can be deduced from …

The U.S. Supreme Court And Information Technology: From Opacity To Transparency In Three Easy Steps, Jerry Goldman

Chicago-Kent Law Review

In this comment, I focus on three areas in which the Supreme Court of the United States could improve information sharing with the public: accessibility, data structure, and information standards. I then propose three simple and low-cost steps to address each of these areas.

Cognitive Bias And The Constitution, Dan M. Kahan

Chicago-Kent Law Review

This article uses insights from the study of risk perception to remedy a deficit in liberal constitutional theory—and vice versa. The deficit common to both is inattention to cognitive illiberalism—the threat that unconscious biases pose to enforcement of basic principles of liberal neutrality. Liberal constitutional theory can learn to anticipate and control cognitive illiberalism from the study of biases such as the cultural cognition of risk. In exchange, the study of risk perception can learn from constitutional theory that the detrimental impact of such biases is not limited to distorted weighing of costs and benefits; by infusing such determinations with …

The Ninth Vote In The "Stop The Beach" Case, John Paul Stevens

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.