Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Supreme Court of the United States Commons™
Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Courts (2)
- Environmental Law (2)
- First Amendment (2)
- Administrative Law (1)
- Business Organizations Law (1)
-
- Civil Law (1)
- Civil Procedure (1)
- Common Law (1)
- Constitutional Law (1)
- Consumer Protection Law (1)
- Contracts (1)
- Criminal Law (1)
- Cultural Heritage Law (1)
- Energy and Utilities Law (1)
- Government Contracts (1)
- Indigenous, Indian, and Aboriginal Law (1)
- Judges (1)
- Jurisdiction (1)
- Jurisprudence (1)
- Land Use Law (1)
- Law and Economics (1)
- Law and Race (1)
- Law and Society (1)
- Legal History (1)
- Legal Remedies (1)
- Legal Writing and Research (1)
- Litigation (1)
- Natural Resources Law (1)
- Institution
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Supreme Court of the United States
Fmc Corp. V. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Seth T. Bonilla
Fmc Corp. V. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Seth T. Bonilla
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In 1998, FMC Corporation agreed to submit to the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes’ permitting processes, including the payment of fees, for clean-up work required as part of consent decree negotiations with the Environmental Protection Agency. Then, in 2002, FMC refused to pay the Tribes under a permitting agreement entered into by both parties, even though the company continued to store hazardous waste on land within the Shoshone-Bannock Fort Hall Reservation in Idaho. FMC challenged the Tribes’ authority to enforce the $1.5 million permitting fees first in tribal court and later challenged the Tribes’ authority to exercise civil regulatory and adjudicatory jurisdiction over …
First Amendment “Harms”, Stephanie H. Barclay
First Amendment “Harms”, Stephanie H. Barclay
Indiana Law Journal
What role should harm to third parties play in the government’s ability to protect religious rights? The intuitively appealing “harm” principle has animated new theories advanced by scholars who argue that religious exemptions are indefensible whenever they result in cognizable harm to third parties. This third-party harm theory is gaining traction in some circles, particularly in light of the Supreme Court’s pending cases in Little Sisters of the Poor and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. While focusing on harm appears at first to provide an appealing, simple, and neutral principle for avoiding other difficult moral questions, the definition of harm …
Absolute Freedom Of Opinion And Sentiment On All Subjects: John Stuart Mill’S Enduring (And Ever-Growing) Influence On The Supreme Court’S First Amendment Free Speech Jurisprudence, Eric T. Kasper, Troy A. Kozma
Absolute Freedom Of Opinion And Sentiment On All Subjects: John Stuart Mill’S Enduring (And Ever-Growing) Influence On The Supreme Court’S First Amendment Free Speech Jurisprudence, Eric T. Kasper, Troy A. Kozma
University of Massachusetts Law Review
A majority of Justices on the contemporary U.S. Supreme Court have increasingly adopted a largely libertarian view of the constitutional right to the freedom of expression. Indeed, on issues ranging from campaign finance to offensive speech to symbolic speech to commercial speech to online expression, the Court has struck down many laws on free speech grounds. Much of the reasoning in these cases mirrors John Stuart Mill’s arguments in On Liberty. This is not new, as Mill’s position on free speech has been advocated by some members of the Court for a century. However, the advocacy of Mill’s position …