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 (197)
- Jurisprudence (55)
- Judges (47)
- First Amendment (38)
- Law and Politics (33)
-
- Legal History (33)
- Courts (31)
- Fourteenth Amendment (26)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (24)
- State and Local Government Law (24)
- Law and Society (20)
- Criminal Procedure (14)
- Public Law and Legal Theory (14)
- Jurisdiction (13)
- Law and Race (13)
- Social and Behavioral Sciences (12)
- Law and Gender (11)
- Arts and Humanities (9)
- Legislation (9)
- Administrative Law (8)
- Criminal Law (8)
- President/Executive Department (8)
- Religion Law (8)
- Education Law (7)
- Law and Philosophy (7)
- Property Law and Real Estate (7)
- Sexuality and the Law (7)
- Civil Procedure (6)
- Institution
-
- University of Colorado Law School (66)
- Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center (22)
- University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School (18)
- Vanderbilt University Law School (17)
- Notre Dame Law School (9)
-
- Selected Works (8)
- Boston University School of Law (7)
- Columbia Law School (7)
- Duke Law (7)
- The University of Akron (6)
- University of Arkansas, Fayetteville (6)
- University of Baltimore Law (5)
- University of Oklahoma College of Law (5)
- William & Mary Law School (5)
- University of Pittsburgh School of Law (4)
- Fordham Law School (3)
- University of Cincinnati College of Law (3)
- Wayne State University (3)
- American University Washington College of Law (2)
- Florida State University College of Law (2)
- Georgetown University Law Center (2)
- Pace University (2)
- Southern Methodist University (2)
- University at Buffalo School of Law (2)
- University of Georgia School of Law (2)
- University of Michigan Law School (2)
- University of New Hampshire (2)
- University of Richmond (2)
- West Virginia University (2)
- Cleveland State University (1)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- Publications (66)
- All Faculty Scholarship (24)
- Faculty Scholarship (23)
- Touro Law Review (22)
- Vanderbilt Law Review (13)
-
- Journal Articles (8)
- Akron Law Review (6)
- Arkansas Law Review (6)
- Alan E Garfield (3)
- Articles (3)
- Law Faculty Research Publications (3)
- Oklahoma Law Review (3)
- University of Cincinnati Law Review (3)
- Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications (3)
- William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal (3)
- American Indian Law Review (2)
- Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals (2)
- Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications (2)
- Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works (2)
- Law Faculty Publications (2)
- Law Faculty Scholarship (2)
- Notre Dame Law Review (2)
- Randy J Kozel (2)
- Scholarly Publications (2)
- West Virginia Law Review (2)
- William & Mary Law Review (2)
- Amici Briefs (1)
- Book Chapters (1)
- Books (1)
- Erwin Chemerinsky (1)
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 30 of 240
Full-Text Articles in Supreme Court of the United States
Who Is A Minister? Originalist Deference Expands The Ministerial Exception, Jared C. Huber
Who Is A Minister? Originalist Deference Expands The Ministerial Exception, Jared C. Huber
Notre Dame Law Review
The ministerial exception is a doctrine born out of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment that shields many religious institutions’ employment decisions from review. While the ministerial exception does not extend to all employment decisions by, or employees of, religious institutions, it does confer broad—and absolute—protection. While less controversy surrounds whether the Constitution shields religious institutions’ employment decisions to at least some extent, much more debate surrounds the exception’s scope, and perhaps most critically, which employees fall under it. In other words, who is a "minister" for purposes of the ministerial exception?
Slaughtering Slaughter-House: An Assessment Of 14th Amendment Privileges Or Immunities Jurisprudence, Caleb Webb
Slaughtering Slaughter-House: An Assessment Of 14th Amendment Privileges Or Immunities Jurisprudence, Caleb Webb
Senior Honors Theses
In 1872, the Supreme Court decided the Slaughter-House Cases, which applied a narrow interpretation of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment that effectually eroded the clause from the Constitution. Following Slaughter-House, the Supreme Court compensated by utilizing elastic interpretations of the Due Process Clause in its substantive due process jurisprudence to cover the rights that would have otherwise been protected by the Privileges or Immunities Clause. In more recent years, the Court has heard arguments favoring alternative interpretations of the Privileges or Immunities Clause but has yet to evaluate them thoroughly. By applying the …
How Far Have Standards Of Decency Evolved In Fifteen Years? An Update On Atkins Jurisprudence In Mississippi, Alexander Kassoff
How Far Have Standards Of Decency Evolved In Fifteen Years? An Update On Atkins Jurisprudence In Mississippi, Alexander Kassoff
Mississippi College Law Review
In 2002, the United States Supreme Court handed down Atkins v. Virginia, holding that the Eighth Amendment prohibits the execution of people with intellectual disability. In the years since that ruling, some change has occurred, but questions remain. This article will examine significant developments in Atkins jurisprudence during that time period. It will look at the two post-Atkins United States Supreme Court cases, and the development of the law - in Mississippi especially, but also to some extent in other jurisdictions that still have the death penalty.
An Exegesis Of The Meaning Of Dobbs: Despotism, Servitude, & Forced Birth, Athena D. Mutua
An Exegesis Of The Meaning Of Dobbs: Despotism, Servitude, & Forced Birth, Athena D. Mutua
Journal Articles
The Dobbs decision has been leaked. Gathered outside of New York City's St. Patrick's Old Cathedral, pro-choice protesters chant: "Not the church, not the state, the people must decide their fate."
A white man wearing a New York Fire Department sweatshirt and standing on the front steps responds: "l am the people, l am the people, l am the people, the people have decided, the court has decided, you lose . . . . You have no choice. Not your body, not your choice, your body is mine and you're having my baby."
Despicable but not unexpected,³ this man's comments …
State Sovereign Immunity And The New Purposivism, Anthony J. Bellia Jr., Bradford R. Clark
State Sovereign Immunity And The New Purposivism, Anthony J. Bellia Jr., Bradford R. Clark
William & Mary Law Review
Since the Constitution was first proposed, courts and commentators have debated the extent to which it alienated the States’ preexisting sovereign immunity from suit by individuals. During the ratification period, these debates focused on the language of the citizen-state diversity provisions of Article III. After the Supreme Court read these provisions to abrogate state sovereign immunity in Chisholm v. Georgia, Congress and the States adopted the Eleventh Amendment to prohibit this construction. The Court subsequently ruled that States enjoy sovereign immunity independent of the Eleventh Amendment, which neither conferred nor diminished it. In the late twentieth-century, Congress began enacting …
The Federal Question Jurisdiction Under Article Iii: “First In The Minds Of The Framers,” But Today, Perhaps, Falling Short Of The Framers’ Expectations, Arthur D. Hellman
The Federal Question Jurisdiction Under Article Iii: “First In The Minds Of The Framers,” But Today, Perhaps, Falling Short Of The Framers’ Expectations, Arthur D. Hellman
Articles
As Chief Justice Marshall explained, “the primary motive” for creating a “judicial department” for the new national government was “the desire of having a [national] tribunal for the decision of all national questions.” Thus, although Article III of the Constitution lists nine kinds of “Cases” and “Controversies” to which the “judicial Power” of the United States “shall extend,” “the objects which stood first in the minds of the framers” were the cases “arising under” the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States. Today we refer to this as the federal question jurisdiction.
Of all federal question cases, the Framers …
Brief Of Amici Curiae In Support Of The United States: Moyle & Idaho V. United States, David S. Cohen, Greer Donley, Rachel Rebouché
Brief Of Amici Curiae In Support Of The United States: Moyle & Idaho V. United States, David S. Cohen, Greer Donley, Rachel Rebouché
Amici Briefs
This amicus brief, submitted to the Supreme Court in Moyle v. United States, argues that Moyle, and the impending circuit split surrounding it, is a symptom of a larger workability problem with the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization framework. Dobbs is already proving, in its brief existence, to be unworkable, and must be overturned. In short order, the Dobbs ruling has ushered in an era of unprecedented legal and doctrinal chaos, precipitating a fury of disorienting legal battles across the country. The Dobbs framework has created destabilizing conflicts between federal and state authorities, as in the current …
Historians Wear Robes Now? Applying The History And Tradition Standard: A Practical Guide For Lower Courts, Alexandra Michalak
Historians Wear Robes Now? Applying The History And Tradition Standard: A Practical Guide For Lower Courts, Alexandra Michalak
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
Never before has the Supreme Court relied on the history and tradition standard to such a magnitude as in the 2021 term to determine the scope of a range of constitutional rights. [...] In reaffirming this standard, the Supreme Court provided no guidance to lower courts on how to apply and analyze the history and tradition standard. Along with balancing the lack of resources in deciding cases with the history and tradition framework, lower courts must face the reality that this standard presents ample opportunity for one-sided historical analysis. To combat the temptation of conducting unbalanced and cursory reviews of …
An Originalist Approach To Prospective Overruling, John O. Mcginnis, Michael Rappaport
An Originalist Approach To Prospective Overruling, John O. Mcginnis, Michael Rappaport
Notre Dame Law Review
Originalism has become a dominant jurisprudential theory on the Supreme Court. But a large number of precedents are inconsistent with the Constitution’s original meaning and overturning them risks creating enormous disruption to the legal order. This article defends a prospective overruling approach that would harmonize precedent with originalism’s rise and reduce the disruption from overrulings. Under prospective overruling, the Court declares that an existing statute violates the original meaning but will continue to be enforced because declaring it unconstitutional would produce enormous costs; however, future statutes of this type will be voided as unconstitutional. Under our approach, the Court would …
Just Extracurriculars?, Emily Gold Waldman
Just Extracurriculars?, Emily Gold Waldman
Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications
Extracurricular activities have been the battleground for a striking number of Supreme Court cases set at public schools, from cases involving speech to religion to drug testing. Indeed, the two most recent Supreme Court cases involving constitutional rights at public schools--Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022) and Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. (2021)--both arose in the extracurricular context of school sports. Even so, the Supreme Court has never fully clarified the status of extracurricular activities themselves. Once a school offers an extracurricular activity, is participation merely a privilege? Does the fact that extracurricular activities are voluntary for students affect …
Inactive Exercise & Unequal Protection: Espinoza & Carson Under The Equal Protection Clause, Griffith B. Bludworth
Inactive Exercise & Unequal Protection: Espinoza & Carson Under The Equal Protection Clause, Griffith B. Bludworth
University of Cincinnati Law Review
No abstract provided.
Education, The First Amendment, And The Constitution, Erwin Chemerinsky
Education, The First Amendment, And The Constitution, Erwin Chemerinsky
University of Cincinnati Law Review
No abstract provided.
School Matters, Ronna Greff Schneider
School Matters, Ronna Greff Schneider
University of Cincinnati Law Review
No abstract provided.
The ‘Weaponized’ First Amendment At The Marble Palace And The Firing Line: Reaction And Progressive Advocacy Before The Roberts Court And Lower Federal Courts, Seth F. Kreimer
All Faculty Scholarship
It once seemed that the First Amendment doctrine developed by the Supreme Court stood as a bulwark protecting grassroots struggles for social change. In the twenty-first century, however, particularly since the appointments of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito in 2005, a number of observers have begun to view the Supreme Court’s First Amendment work as a “weaponized” redoubt of reaction.
This sense of the rightward tilt of Supreme Court decisions is rooted in reality. Examining 104 Supreme Court First Amendment cases decided during the 2005–2020 Terms, it turns out that successful litigants are four times as likely to come …
The Problem Is The Court, Not The Constitution, Jonathan Feingold
The Problem Is The Court, Not The Constitution, Jonathan Feingold
Faculty Scholarship
“But first, we must believe.” So concludes The Antiracist Constitution, where Brandon Hasbrouck confronts an uneasy question: In the quest for racial justice, is the Constitution friend or foe? Even the casual observer knows that constitutional law is no friend to racial justice. In the nineteenth century, Plessy v. Ferguson blessed Jim Crow. In the twentieth century, Washington v. Davis insulated practices that reproduce Jim Crow. Now in the twenty-first century, pending affirmative action litigation invites the Supreme Court to outlaw efforts to remedy Jim Crow.
Activist Extremist Terrorist Traitor, J. Richard Broughton
Activist Extremist Terrorist Traitor, J. Richard Broughton
St. John's Law Review
(Excerpt)
Abraham Lincoln had a way of capturing, rhetorically, the national ethos. The “house divided.” “Right makes might” at Cooper Union. Gettysburg’s “last full measure of devotion” and the “new birth of freedom.” The “mystic chords of memory” and the “better angels of our nature.” “[M]alice toward none,” “charity for all,” and “firmness in the right.” But Lincoln not only evaluated America’s character; he also understood the fragility of those things upon which the success of the American constitutional experiment depended, and the consequences when the national ethos was in crisis. Perhaps no Lincoln speech better examines the threats to …
Originalism-By-Analogy And Second Amendment Adjudication, Joseph Blocher, Eric Ruben
Originalism-By-Analogy And Second Amendment Adjudication, Joseph Blocher, Eric Ruben
Faculty Scholarship
In New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, the Supreme Court held that the constitutionality of modern gun laws must be evaluated by direct analogy to history, unmediated by familiar doctrinal tests. Bruen’s novel approach to historical decision-making purported to constrain judicial discretion but instead enabled judicial subjectivity, obfuscation, and unpredictability. Those problems are painfully evident in courts’ faltering efforts to apply Bruen to laws regulating 3D-printed guns, assault weapons, large-capacity magazines, obliterated serial numbers, and the possession of guns on subways or by people subject to domestic-violence restraining orders. The Court’s recent grant of certiorari in United …
Originalism-By-Analogy And Second Amendment Adjudication, Joseph Blocher, Eric Ruben
Originalism-By-Analogy And Second Amendment Adjudication, Joseph Blocher, Eric Ruben
Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters
In New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, the Supreme Court held that the constitutionality of modern gun laws must be evaluated by direct analogy to history, unmediated by familiar doctrinal tests. Bruen’s novel approach to historical decision-making purported to constrain judicial discretion but instead enabled judicial subjectivity, obfuscation, and unpredictability. Those problems are painfully evident in courts’ faltering efforts to apply Bruen to laws regulating 3D-printed guns, assault weapons, large-capacity magazines, obliterated serial numbers, and the possession of guns on subways or by people subject to domestic-violence restraining orders. The Court’s recent grant of certiorari in United …
Three Observations About Justice Alito's Draft Opinion In Dobbs - Commentary, John M. Greabe
Three Observations About Justice Alito's Draft Opinion In Dobbs - Commentary, John M. Greabe
Law Faculty Scholarship
[Excerpt] "There is much to say about Justice Samuel Alito's draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which was leaked from the United States Supreme Court on May 2 [2022].
Obviously, the most significant direct consequence of the proposed decision, which overrules Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) while upholding the constitutionality of a Mississippi law that outlaws most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, would be the restriction or elimination of abortion services throughout much of the nation. This will have all sorts of attendant consequences, large and smaller, many of which …
Deep-State Constitutionalism, Randy E. Barnett
Deep-State Constitutionalism, Randy E. Barnett
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
In this review, I explain how "Common Good Constitutionalism" taps into a deficiency of the conservative legal movement: namely, its exclusive focus on the law "as it is" at the expense of the underlying abstract normative principles that justify the positive law of our written Constitution. Due to this deficiency, the conservative legal movement gives short shrift to the Declaration of Independence and the Ninth Amendment and the natural rights to which both refer. This deficiency is in need of correction. But any such correction does not justify the jettisoning of originalism as Vermeule proposes. Nor does Vermeule defend his …
Interpretation, Remedy, And The Rule Of Law: Why Courts Should Have The Courage Of Their Convictions, Jack M. Beermann, Ronald A. Cass
Interpretation, Remedy, And The Rule Of Law: Why Courts Should Have The Courage Of Their Convictions, Jack M. Beermann, Ronald A. Cass
Faculty Scholarship
The Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Arthrex opens a window on a set of issues debated in different contexts for decades. These issues—how to interpret statutes and constitutional provisions, what sources to look to, whether so far as possible to adopt interpretations that avoid declaring actions of coordinate branches unconstitutional, and where such actions are deemed to have been unconstitutional whether to provide remedies that cabin the most significant implications of such a declaration—go to the heart of the judicial role and the division of responsibilities among the branches of government.
Our principal focus, however, is on the …
A Flawed Case Against Black Self-Defense, Nicholas J. Johnson
A Flawed Case Against Black Self-Defense, Nicholas J. Johnson
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Overruling Roe V. Wade: Lessons From The Death Penalty, Paul Benjamin Linton
Overruling Roe V. Wade: Lessons From The Death Penalty, Paul Benjamin Linton
Pepperdine Law Review
In Furman v. Georgia (1972), the Supreme Court struck down the Georgia and Texas death penalty statutes, thereby calling into question the validity of every other state death penalty statute. In their concurring opinions, Justices Brennan and Marshall expressed the view that, given society’s gradual abandonment of the death penalty, capital punishment violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishments.” Justice Powell and three other justices dissented, arguing that the Court had misread the state of the law regarding society’s acceptance of the death penalty. Four years after Furman, in a quintet of cases, the Court held that …
Free Speech, Strict Scrutiny And A Better Way To Handle Speech Restrictions, Aaron Pinsoneault
Free Speech, Strict Scrutiny And A Better Way To Handle Speech Restrictions, Aaron Pinsoneault
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
When it comes to unprotected speech categories, the Roberts Court has taken an amoral and inaccurate approach. When the Court first created unprotected speech categories-- defined categories of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment-- it was unclear what rendered a category of speech unprotected. One school of thought argued that speech was unprotected if it provided little or no value to society. The other school of thought argued that speech was unprotected if it fell into a certain category of speech that was simply categorically unprotected. Then, in 2010, the Court strongly sided with the latter approach, …
From Civil Rights To Blackmail: How The Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act Of 1976 (42 U.S.C. § 1988) Has Perverted One Of America's Most Historic Civil Rights Statutes, Steven W. Fitschen
From Civil Rights To Blackmail: How The Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act Of 1976 (42 U.S.C. § 1988) Has Perverted One Of America's Most Historic Civil Rights Statutes, Steven W. Fitschen
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
For fourteen years, members of Congress repeatedly introduced legislation directed at a single subject. A key underpinning for the necessity of the legislation was provided by the opinions of two Supreme Court justices. Yet, for the past nine years, Congress has gone silent on the same topic. This Article argues that it is past time for Congress to reconsider this topic, and that if it will not do so, the Supreme Court can rectify the situation without engaging in judicial legislation.
Perhaps the best view of Congress's efforts can be seen by examining the high-water mark of those efforts, which …
Against Congressional Case Snatching, Ronald J. Krotoszynski, Atticus Deprospro
Against Congressional Case Snatching, Ronald J. Krotoszynski, Atticus Deprospro
William & Mary Law Review
Congress has developed a deeply problematic habit of aggrandizing itself by snatching cases from the Article III courts. One form of contemporary case snatching involves directly legislating the outcome of pending litigation by statute. These laws do not involve generic amendments to existing statutes but rather dictate specific rulings by the Article III courts in particular cases. Another form of congressional case snatching involves rendering ongoing judicial proceedings essentially advisory by unilaterally permitting a disgruntled litigant to transfer a pending case from an Article III court to an executive agency for resolution. Both practices involve Congress reallocating the business of …
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Seattle University Law Review
Table of Contents and Special Thanks.
Charles Reich, New Dealer, John Q. Barrett
Free Speech And Democracy: A Primer For Twenty-First Century Reformers, Toni M. Massaro, Helen Norton
Free Speech And Democracy: A Primer For Twenty-First Century Reformers, Toni M. Massaro, Helen Norton
Publications
Left unfettered, the twenty-first-century speech environment threatens to undermine critical pieces of the democratic project. Speech operates today in ways unimaginable not only to the First Amendment’s eighteenth-century writers but also to its twentieth-century champions. Key among these changes is that speech is cheaper and more abundant than ever before, and can be exploited — by both government and powerful private actors alike — as a tool for controlling others’ speech and frustrating meaningful public discourse and democratic outcomes.
The Court’s longstanding First Amendment doctrine rests on a model of how speech works that is no longer accurate. This invites …
Tainted Precedent, Darrell A. H. Miller