Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Supreme Court of the United States Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

3,263 Full-Text Articles 2,039 Authors 509,592 Downloads 116 Institutions

All Articles in Supreme Court of the United States

Faceted Search

3,263 full-text articles. Page 1 of 80.

The Business Of Guns: The Second Amendment & Firearms Commerce, Corey A. Ciocchetti 2019 Associate Professor of Business Ethics and Legal Studies, Daniels College of Business, University of Denver; J.D., M.A.

The Business Of Guns: The Second Amendment & Firearms Commerce, Corey A. Ciocchetti

Pepperdine Law Review

Does the Second Amendment protect commerce in firearms? The simple answer is: yes, to an extent. An individual’s right to possess and use a gun for self-defense in the home is black-letter law after District of Columbia v. Heller. The right to possess and use a gun requires the ability to obtain a gun, ammunition, and firearms training. Therefore, gun dealers, servicers, and training providers receive some constitutional protection as facilitators of their customers’ Second Amendment rights. Whether these constitutional rights belong to firearms-related businesses independently of their customers is unclear. The scope of the Second Amendment matters as ...


Richard Posner: A Class Of One, Robert C. Farrell 2019 Quinnipiac University School of Law

Richard Posner: A Class Of One, Robert C. Farrell

SMU Law Review

Judge Richard Posner, best known for his contributions to the field of law and economics, has also made an outsized contribution to another area of the law—the equal protection class-of-one claim. By some combination of happenstance and design, Posner was able to shape the class-of-one doctrine even where his views were inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent. The Supreme Court’s initial exposition of the doctrine had identified an equal protection violation when there was intentionally different treatment of similarly situated persons without a rational basis for the difference in treatment. Posner insisted that this language included within it a ...


Murphy V. Ncaa: The Constitutionality Of State-Authorized Sports Gambling, Shane Landers 2019 Texas A&M University School of Law (Student)

Murphy V. Ncaa: The Constitutionality Of State-Authorized Sports Gambling, Shane Landers

Texas A&M Law Review

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Thus, “Congress may not simply ‘commandee[r] the legislative processes of the States by directly compelling them to enact and enforce a federal regulatory program.’” In Murphy v. NCAA, the United States Supreme Court held that a federal law that prevents States from legalizing sports gambling “violates the anticommandeering rule.” The Supreme Court’s decision in Murphy reemphasizes a fundamental principle of dual sovereignty—Congress is prohibited from “issu[ing] direct orders ...


Asylum Ban Litigation: Supreme Court Declines To Stay Injunction, Peter Margulies 2018 Roger Williams University School of Law

Asylum Ban Litigation: Supreme Court Declines To Stay Injunction, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.


Prophylactic Merger Policy, Herbert J. Hovenkamp 2018 University of Pennsylvania Law School

Prophylactic Merger Policy, Herbert J. Hovenkamp

Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law

An important purpose of the antitrust merger law is to arrest certain anticompetitive practices or outcomes in their “incipiency.” Many Clayton Act decisions involving both mergers and other practices had recognized the idea as early as the 1920s. In Brown Shoe the Supreme Court doubled down on the idea, attributing to Congress a concern about a “rising tide of economic concentration” that must be halted “at its outset and before it gathered momentum.” The Supreme Court did not explain why an incipiency test was needed to address this particular problem. Once structural thresholds for identifying problematic mergers are identified there ...


The Myth Of Morrison: Securities Fraud Litigation Against Foreign Issuers, Robert Bartlett, Matthew D. Cain, Jill E. Fisch, Steven Davidoff Solomon 2018 University of California - Berkeley

The Myth Of Morrison: Securities Fraud Litigation Against Foreign Issuers, Robert Bartlett, Matthew D. Cain, Jill E. Fisch, Steven Davidoff Solomon

Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law

Using a sample of 388 securities fraud lawsuits filed between 2002 and 2017 against foreign issuers, we examine the effect of the Supreme Court’s decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank. We find that the description of Morrison as a “steamroller” substantially ending litigation against foreign issuers is a myth. Instead, we find that Morrison did not substantially change the type of litigation brought against foreign issuers, which both before and after Morrison focused on foreign issuers with a U.S. listing and substantial U.S. trading volume. While dismissal rates rose post-Morrison we find no evidence that ...


Securities Law In The Sixties: The Supreme Court, The Second Circuit, And The Triumph Of Purpose Over Text, A.C. Pritchard, Robert B. Thompson 2018 University of Michigan

Securities Law In The Sixties: The Supreme Court, The Second Circuit, And The Triumph Of Purpose Over Text, A.C. Pritchard, Robert B. Thompson

Notre Dame Law Review

This Article analyzes the Supreme Court’s leading securities cases from 1962 to 1972—SEC v. Capital Gains Research Bureau, Inc.; J.I. Case Co. v. Borak; Mills v. Electric Auto-Lite Co.; Superintendent of Insurance v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co.; and Affiliated Ute of Utah v. United States—relying not just on the published opinions, but also the Justices’ internal letters, memos, and conference notes. The Sixties Court did not simply apply the text as enacted by Congress, but instead invoked the securities laws’ purposes as a guide to interpretation. The Court became a partner of Congress in shaping the securities laws ...


Precedent In A Polarized Era, Zachary S. Price 2018 University of California, Hastings College of the Law

Precedent In A Polarized Era, Zachary S. Price

Notre Dame Law Review

My Review begins below in Part I with a brief synopsis of Professor Kozel’s argument. Part II then discusses his theory’s particular value, and challenges, in our historical moment of acute polarization and political conflict over constitutional law. To make Part II’s claims more concrete, Part III then turns to Janus and Wayfair. It uses the two cases to illustrate pressures courts may face in the years ahead and assesses how well these decisions accord with Kozel’s theory. The Review ends with a conclusion reflecting more broadly on the importance of stare decisis and other institutional ...


Securities Law In The Sixties: The Supreme Court, The Second Circuit, And The Triumph Of Purpose Over Text, Adam C. Pritchard, Robert B. Thompson 2018 University of Michigan Law School

Securities Law In The Sixties: The Supreme Court, The Second Circuit, And The Triumph Of Purpose Over Text, Adam C. Pritchard, Robert B. Thompson

Articles

This Article analyzes the Supreme Court’s leading securities cases from 1962 to 1972—SEC v. Capital Gains Research Bureau, Inc.; J.I. Case Co. v. Borak; Mills v. Electric Auto-Lite Co.; Superintendent of Insurance v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co.; and Affiliated Ute of Utah v. United States—relying not just on the published opinions, but also the Justices’ internal letters, memos, and conference notes. The Sixties Court did not simply apply the text as enacted by Congress, but instead invoked the securities laws’ purposes as a guide to interpretation. The Court became a partner of Congress in shaping the securities laws ...


Arguing With Friends, William Baude, Ryan D. Doerfler 2018 University of Chicago Law School

Arguing With Friends, William Baude, Ryan D. Doerfler

Michigan Law Review

Judges sometimes disagree about the best way to resolve a case. But the conventional wisdom is that they should not be too swayed by such disagreement and should do their best to decide the case by their own lights. An emerging critique questions this view, arguing instead for widespread humility. In the face of disagreement, the argument goes, judges should generally concede ambiguity and uncertainty in almost all contested cases.

Both positions are wrong. Drawing on the philosophical concepts of “peer disagreement” and “epistemic peerhood,” we argue for a different approach: A judge ought to give significant weight to the ...


U.S. Supreme Court Review: 2017-2018, Miller W. Shealy Jr. 2018 Charleston School of Law

U.S. Supreme Court Review: 2017-2018, Miller W. Shealy Jr.

Miller W. Shealy Jr.

No abstract provided.


The Past, Present, And Future Of Presidential Power, Saikrishna Bangalore Prakash 2018 University of St. Thomas, Minnesota

The Past, Present, And Future Of Presidential Power, Saikrishna Bangalore Prakash

University of St. Thomas Law Journal

No abstract provided.


The President And The Myth Of Judicial Supremacy, Michael Stokes Paulsen 2018 University of St. Thomas School of Law

The President And The Myth Of Judicial Supremacy, Michael Stokes Paulsen

University of St. Thomas Law Journal

No abstract provided.


Why I Can't Be Like Mike: At Least With Respect To His Overly Broad View Of Presidential Power To Act On Independent Constitutional Interpretation, Vikram David Amar 2018 University of St. Thomas, Minnesota

Why I Can't Be Like Mike: At Least With Respect To His Overly Broad View Of Presidential Power To Act On Independent Constitutional Interpretation, Vikram David Amar

University of St. Thomas Law Journal

No abstract provided.


Federalism, Convergence, And Divergence In Constitutional Property, Gerald S. Dickinson 2018 University of Pittsburgh School of Law

Federalism, Convergence, And Divergence In Constitutional Property, Gerald S. Dickinson

University of Miami Law Review

Federal law exerts a gravitational force on state actors, resulting in widespread conformity to federal law and doctrine at the state level. This has been well recognized in the literature, but scholars have paid little attention to this phenomenon in the context of constitutional property. Traditionally, state takings jurisprudence—in both eminent domain and regulatory takings—has strongly gravitated towards the Supreme Court’s takings doctrine. This long history of federal-state convergence, however, was disrupted by the Court’s controversial public use decision in Kelo v. City of New London. In the wake of Kelo, states resisted the Court’s ...


After Life: Governmental Interests And The New Antiabortion Incrementalism, Mary Ziegler 2018 Florida State University College of Law.

After Life: Governmental Interests And The New Antiabortion Incrementalism, Mary Ziegler

University of Miami Law Review

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, commentators have focused on the effect of antiabortion restrictions. But as this Article shows, Whole Woman’s Health is part of the story of an equally important tactic used by those chipping away at abortion rights: the recognition of new governmental interests justifying abortion regulations. Using original archival research, this Article traces the rise of this strategy and documents its influence on Supreme Court doctrine, making sense of what seem to be contradictory rulings on abortion.

How should courts deal with novel legislative purposes ...


Judicial Conflicts And Voting Agreement: Evidence From Interruptions At Oral Argument, Tonja Jacobi, Kyle Rozema 2018 Northwestern Pritzker School of Law

Judicial Conflicts And Voting Agreement: Evidence From Interruptions At Oral Argument, Tonja Jacobi, Kyle Rozema

Boston College Law Review

This Article asks whether observable conflicts between Supreme Court justices—interruptions between the justices during oral arguments—can predict breakdowns in voting outcomes that occur months later. To answer this question, we built a unique dataset based on the transcripts of Supreme Court oral arguments and justice votes in cases from 1960 to 2015. We find that on average a judicial pair is seven percent less likely to vote together in a case for each interruption that occurs between them in the oral argument for that case. While a conflict between the justices that leads to both interruptions and a ...


Freedom Of Research And The Right To Science: From Theory To Advocacy, Andrea Boggio, Romano P.R. Cesare 2018 Bryant University

Freedom Of Research And The Right To Science: From Theory To Advocacy, Andrea Boggio, Romano P.R. Cesare

History and Social Sciences Faculty Journal Articles

While international law recognizes a human right to science, the binding normative content of this right needs to be better clarified and specified. To advance our understanding of this understudied right, this chapter offers a theoretical analysis of ways in which the right to science can be realized. The chapter is divided in three sections: the first section discusses the recognition of the right to science under international and regional legal instruments; the second presents a literature review; and the third discusses how judicial and political mobilisation as paths to contribute to our understating of this right and defining its ...


At Oral Argument, Supreme Court Weighs Immigrant Detention, Peter Margulies 2018 Roger Williams University School of Law

At Oral Argument, Supreme Court Weighs Immigrant Detention, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.


Originalism And Congressional Power To Enforce The Fourteenth Amendment, Christopher W. Schmidt 2018 Chicago-Kent College of Law

Originalism And Congressional Power To Enforce The Fourteenth Amendment, Christopher W. Schmidt

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

In this Essay, I argue that originalism conflicts with the Supreme Court’s current jurisprudence defining the scope of Congress’ power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment. Under the standard established in Boerne v. Flores, the Court limits congressional power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to statutory remedies premised on judicially defined interpretations of Fourteenth Amendment rights. A commitment to originalism as a method of judicial constitutional interpretation challenges the premise of judicial interpretive supremacy in Section 5 jurisprudence in two ways. First, as a matter of history, an originalist reading of Section 5 provides support for broad judicial ...


Digital Commons powered by bepress