Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

The People's Court: On The Intellectual Origins Of American Judicial Power, Ian C. Bartrum

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

This article enters into the modern debate between “consti- tutional departmentalists”—who contend that the executive and legislative branches share constitutional interpretive authority with the courts—and what are sometimes called “judicial supremacists.” After exploring the relevant history of political ideas, I join the modern minority of voices in the latter camp.

This is an intellectual history of two evolving political ideas—popular sovereignty and the separation of powers—which merged in the making of American judicial power, and I argue we can only understand the structural function of judicial review by bringing these ideas together into an integrated whole. Or, put another way, …

Personal Jurisdiction Over Orb-Web Corporations: A Re-Routed Approach For "Change In The Navigation Of Time", Vidhya Iyer

Global Business Law Review

The law of personal jurisdiction lies at the heart of all litigation. Our courts must recognize the rights of individuals as well as the rights of corporations. The motto placed at the entrance of the United States Supreme Court—"Equal Justice Under Law"—ensures the promise of equal justice under the law to all persons. It expresses the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States (the "Court") as the highest tribunal for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States and functions as a guardian and interpreter of the Constitution. From the …

Original Intent: Understanding The Supreme Court's Original Jurisdiction In Controversies Between States, Kristen A. Linsley

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

No abstract provided.

Fixing Hollingsworth: Standing In Initiative Cases, Karl Manheim, John S. Caragozian, Donald Warner

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

In Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal filed by the “Official Proponents” of California’s Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California. Chief Justice Roberts’ majority opinion held that initiative sponsors lack Article III standing to defend their ballot measures even when state officials refuse to defend against constitutional challenges. As a result, Hollingsworth provides state officers with the ability to overrule laws that were intended to bypass the government establishment—in effect, an “executive veto” of popularly-enacted initiatives.

The Article examines this new “executive veto” in depth. It places Hollingsworth in context, discussing the initiative process …

Does A Computer's Choice Of Where To Reside Implicate The Dormant Commerce Clause?, Robert J. Firestone

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rethinking Fairness: Principled Legal Realism And Federal Jurisdiction, Aviam Soifer

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

Interpreting U.S. Treaties In Light Of Human Rights Values, Lori Fisler Damrosch

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

Citizen's Arrests And The Fourth Amendment--A Fresh Perspective, Howard E. Wallin

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.