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

Supreme Court of the United States Commons

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

2049 Full-Text Articles 1227 Authors 271609 Downloads 73 Institutions

All Articles in Supreme Court of the United States

Faceted Search

2049 full-text articles. Page 1 of 50.

Birchfield V. North Dakota: Warrantless Breath Tests And The Fourth Amendment, Sara Jane Schlafstein 2017 Duke Law

Birchfield V. North Dakota: Warrantless Breath Tests And The Fourth Amendment, Sara Jane Schlafstein

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

In Birchfield v. North Dakota, the Supreme Court explored warrantless breath tests during DUI stops and their validity under the Fourth Amendment. To determine their constitutionality, the Court adopted a balancing test, weighing the government’s interest in preventing instances of drunk driving with the intrusion on an individual’s privacy. The Court ultimately concluded that warrantless breath tests are constitutional when conducted incident to a lawful DUI arrest. This commentary explores the Court’s reasoning and holding and will argue that the Court was correct in deciding that a warrant is not necessary for conducting a breath test incident ...


Drawing Lines: Racial Gerrymandering In Bethune-Hill V. Virginia Board Of Elections, Scott Reed 2017 Duke Law

Drawing Lines: Racial Gerrymandering In Bethune-Hill V. Virginia Board Of Elections, Scott Reed

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

In Bethune-Hill v. Virginia Board of Elections, the Supreme Court had to decide whether twelve Virginia challenged legislative districts, in which a one-size-fits-all 55% black voting age population floor was imposed, withstood constitutional scrutiny. The Court, though stating that the lower court misapplied precedent, declined to hold that race predominated in the formation of the districts and that strict scrutiny would be triggered, instead remanding to the lower court for reexamination. This commentary argues that the Court missed an opportunity to hold that a 55% BVAP floor prioritized above all else is per se racial predomination, and such a holding ...


May The Best Canon Win: Lockhart V. United States And The Battle Of Statutory Interpretation, Hassan Shaikh 2017 Duke Law

May The Best Canon Win: Lockhart V. United States And The Battle Of Statutory Interpretation, Hassan Shaikh

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

In Lockhart v. United States, the Supreme Court resolved a long-standing circuit split regarding 18 U.S.C. § 2252(b)(2), which triggered a mandatory minimum sentence for recidivists who had previously been convicted under federal or state crimes relating to “aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual conduct involving a minor or ward.” In expected fashion, the Court relied on the statute’s plain meaning to decide whether Lockhart’s previous crime had triggered the mandatory minimum. However, even with identical approaches to the text, the majority and dissent reached contrary conclusions. This commentary explores how a single ...


Quantifying The Contours Of Power: Chief Justice Roberts & Justice Kennedy In Criminal Justice Cases, Michael A. McCall, Madhavi M. McCall 2017 San Diego State University

Quantifying The Contours Of Power: Chief Justice Roberts & Justice Kennedy In Criminal Justice Cases, Michael A. Mccall, Madhavi M. Mccall

Pace Law Review

This Article seeks to contribute to the debate with an empirical analysis of voting behavior in criminal justice cases decided during the first ten Terms of the Roberts Court era. The following section presents the study’s case selection and introduces the types of measures used to illuminate influence on the High Court (Part II). Court- and individual-level tendencies (Part III) identify potential spheres of influence occupied by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy. These bases of judicial power are examined separately in Part IV (Chief Justice Roberts) and Part V (Justice Kennedy). Some possible implications of Justice Scalia’s ...


Religious Freedom In The United States: ‘When You Come To A Fork In The Road, Take It', Charles J. Russo 2017 University of Dayton

Religious Freedom In The United States: ‘When You Come To A Fork In The Road, Take It', Charles J. Russo

Charles J. Russo

As expansive as the Supreme Court’s view of the First Amendment religion clauses has been, its jurisprudence has demonstrated that its rulings do not always achieve the outcomes desired by proponents of religious freedom.3 From the perspective of supporters of religious freedom, this realization lends credence to the preceding wry comment by Justice Scalia. This article details the Court’s inconsistent treatment of Christianity, and people of faith broadly, especially in educational settings. These inconsistent judicial outcomes run the risk of increasingly marginalizing matters of faith and conscience in the public square.4 As discussed in this article ...


Religious Freedom In A Brave New World: How Leaders In Faith-Based Schools Can Follow Their Beliefs In Hiring, Charles J. Russo 2017 University of Dayton

Religious Freedom In A Brave New World: How Leaders In Faith-Based Schools Can Follow Their Beliefs In Hiring, Charles J. Russo

Charles J. Russo

A confluence of litigation at the Supreme Court raises important, yet potentially conflicting, questions about the freedom of employers in religious schools1 to hire teachers and staff members. On the one hand, in Hosanna-Tabor v. Equal Employment Opportunities Commission,2 a unanimous Court reasoned that the ministerial exception granted religious leaders alone the authority to choose who is qualified to teach in their schools. On the other hand, the Court’s rulings on same sex-unions seem to be ushering in a brave new world. For example, in United States v. Windsor,3 the Court struck down the Defense of Marriage ...


Making Room At The Inn: Implications Of 'Christian Legal Society V. Martinez' For Public University Housing Professionals, Michael D. Waggoner, Charles J. Russo 2017 University of Northern Iowa

Making Room At The Inn: Implications Of 'Christian Legal Society V. Martinez' For Public University Housing Professionals, Michael D. Waggoner, Charles J. Russo

Charles J. Russo

The Supreme Court ruling in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, its most important case to date on student associational activities, upheld a policy at a public law school in California that required recognized student organizations (or clubs) to admit "all-comers" even if they disagreed with organizational goals and values, rather than retracing the work of Moran and her colleagues, who examined related issues such as religious expression in public areas of residence halls, this article analyzes the potential impact of CLS, since membership in campus organizations clearly overlaps with the kinds of issues that students and housing professionals deal with ...


The Supreme Court On Abortion - A Dissenting Opinion, Patrick T. Conley, Robert J. McKenna 2017 St. John's University School of Law

The Supreme Court On Abortion - A Dissenting Opinion, Patrick T. Conley, Robert J. Mckenna

The Catholic Lawyer

No abstract provided.


Commodity Supply And Extraterritorial Patent Infringement In Life Technologies V. Promega, G. Edward Powell 2017 Duke Law

Commodity Supply And Extraterritorial Patent Infringement In Life Technologies V. Promega, G. Edward Powell

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

American patent law grants inventors the exclusive right, within U.S. territory, to make, sell, use, and import their patented inventions. In response to attempts to circumvent the right by making the components of an invention within the U.S. and exporting them for assembly abroad, Congress passed 35 U.S.C. § 271(f), prohibiting “suppl[ying] . . . from the United States all or a substantial portion of the components of a patented invention . . . to actively induce the combination of such components outside of the United States . . . .” Petitioner Life Technologies supplied one commodity component of a patented five-component genetic testing kit ...


Without More, There Is No More: Standing And Racial Gerrymandering In Wittman V. Personhuballah, Jessica Edmundson 2017 Duke Law

Without More, There Is No More: Standing And Racial Gerrymandering In Wittman V. Personhuballah, Jessica Edmundson

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

In drawing election maps, racial gerrymandering separates minority groups, packing them into specific districts to weaken the power of their votes. In Wittman v. Personhuballah, the Supreme Court held that a group of Virginia congressmen that neither lived in, nor represented a district did not have standing to defend gerrymandering in that district. Although the Court had the opportunity to address the substantive issues in the case, it did not, leaving a substantial gap in racial gerrymandering jurisprudence. This commentary explores the consequences of this gap and argues that the Court should not find a legally cognizable right in a ...


Elonis V. United States: Why The Supreme Court Punted On Free Speech, David Barney 2017 Pepperdine University

Elonis V. United States: Why The Supreme Court Punted On Free Speech, David Barney

Pepperdine Law Review

In Elonis v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2001 (2015), the Supreme Court had a chance to interpret the boundaries of a federal statute forbidding threats transmitted in interstate or foreign commerce and to consider the constitutional implications of regulating such threats. In its statutory analysis, the Court hesitated to declare how the law should be applied, and instead, only provided guidance as to how it should not be. It likewise refrained from any further analysis on constitutional grounds entirely. This contest winning student case note explores the opinion in depth and comments on its potential implications.


Community Control Over Camera Surveillance: A Response To Bennett Capers’S Crime, Surveillance, And Communities, Christopher Slobogin 2017 Vanderbilt University Law School

Community Control Over Camera Surveillance: A Response To Bennett Capers’S Crime, Surveillance, And Communities, Christopher Slobogin

Christopher Slobogin

No abstract provided.


Mccrory V. Harris: Constitutional Prohibitions On Racial Classifications And The Requirements Of The Voting Rights Act In Redistricting, Alex Dietz 2017 Duke Law

Mccrory V. Harris: Constitutional Prohibitions On Racial Classifications And The Requirements Of The Voting Rights Act In Redistricting, Alex Dietz

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

In McCrory v. Harris, the Supreme Court is faced with yet another redistricting case: Are the first and twelfth Congressional Districts in North Carolina the result of impermissible racial gerrymandering? The parties' dispute centers around two questions: In what circumstances is race the predominant factor in a state legislature's redistricting plan? And in what circumstances is the use of race as a predominant factor in redistricting plans an impermissible racial gerrymander? This Commentary will provide a summary and analysis of the arguments presented for the Court's review, and argue that both North Carolina Congressional Districts should be struck ...


Moore V. Texas: Balancing Medical Advancements With Judicial Stability, Emily Taft 2017 Duke Law

Moore V. Texas: Balancing Medical Advancements With Judicial Stability, Emily Taft

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

In Moore v. Texas, the Supreme Court will consider whether the Eighth Amendment requires States to adhere to a particular organization’s most recent clinical definition of intellectual disability in determining whether a person is exempt from the death penalty under Atkins v. Virginia and Hall v. Florida. Generally, the Supreme Court has carved away at the death penalty with each new case it takes. This commentary argues that the Supreme Court should not continue that trend in this case and should find for Texas because the state’s intellectual disability determination is consistent with the Eighth Amendment under Atkins ...


Flight Risk Or Danger To The Community? Rodriguez And The Protection Of Civil Liberties In The U.S. Immigration System, Charlie Kazemzadeh 2017 Duke Law

Flight Risk Or Danger To The Community? Rodriguez And The Protection Of Civil Liberties In The U.S. Immigration System, Charlie Kazemzadeh

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Upon arrival to the United States, foreign nationals are required to prove beyond a doubt that they comply with the various requirements for admission into the country. For those who fail to meet this standard, there are only two options: accept immediate removal to their country of origin, or fight removal. For many who contest their deportation, their fate is civil incarceration until their case is adjudicated, which can take several years. The case of Jennings v. Rodriguez addresses the constitutionality of prolonged civil incarceration without the access of mandatory, periodic bond hearings for these individuals.


Textualism And Originalism In Constitutional Interpretation, John M. Greabe 2017 University of New Hampshire School of Law

Textualism And Originalism In Constitutional Interpretation, John M. Greabe

Legal Scholarship

[Excerpt] "In a 2016 lecture at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law, Judge Neil Gorsuch warmly praised former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's approach to constitutional interpretation. Because President Trump has nominated him to serve on the Supreme Court, it is important to understand the approach Judge Gorsuch favors."


The Logic And Limits Of Event Studies In Securities Fraud Litigation, Jill E. Fisch, Jonah B. Gelbach, Jonathan Klick 2017 University of Pennsylvania Law School

The Logic And Limits Of Event Studies In Securities Fraud Litigation, Jill E. Fisch, Jonah B. Gelbach, Jonathan Klick

Faculty Scholarship

Event studies have become increasingly important in securities fraud litigation after the Supreme Court’s decision in Halliburton II. Litigants have used event study methodology, which empirically analyzes the relationship between the disclosure of corporate information and the issuer’s stock price, to provide evidence in the evaluation of key elements of federal securities fraud, including materiality, reliance, causation, and damages. As the use of event studies grows and they increasingly serve a gatekeeping function in determining whether litigation will proceed beyond a preliminary stage, it will be critical for courts to use them correctly.

This Article explores an array ...


A House Built On Shifting Sands: Standing Under The Fair Housing Act After Thompson V. North American Stainless, Eric Vanderhoef 2017 Duke Law

A House Built On Shifting Sands: Standing Under The Fair Housing Act After Thompson V. North American Stainless, Eric Vanderhoef

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

For decades, the Supreme Court construed standing under the Fair Housing Act broadly; any party could bring suit as long as it met Constitutional Standing requirements. In January 2011, in Thompson v. North American Stainless, the Court restricted standing under Title VII—a statute with similar empowering language to the Fair Housing Act. The Court will address Fair Housing Act standing post-Thompson in Bank of America Corp. v. City of Miami. This commentary argues that standing under the Fair Housing Act should be restricted. Additionally, it argues that the allegations of the Plaintiff-Respondent, City of Miami, of widespread reductions in ...


Who Has Standing? Why The Supreme Court's Holding In Hollingsworth V. Perry Empowers Politicians At The Expense Of Citizens, Omar Subat 2017 St. John's University School of Law

Who Has Standing? Why The Supreme Court's Holding In Hollingsworth V. Perry Empowers Politicians At The Expense Of Citizens, Omar Subat

Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development

No abstract provided.


What Lurks Below Beckles, Leah M. Litman, Shakeer Rahman 2017 Northwestern University School of Law

What Lurks Below Beckles, Leah M. Litman, Shakeer Rahman

Northwestern University Law Review

This Essay argues that if the Supreme Court grants habeas relief in Beckles v. United States, then it should spell out certain details about where a Beckles claim comes from and who such a claim benefits. Those details are not essential to the main question raised in the case, but the federal habeas statute takes away the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to hear just about any case that would raise those questions. For that reason, this Essay concludes that failing to address those questions now could arbitrarily condemn hundreds of prisoners to illegal sentences and lead to a situation where ...


Digital Commons powered by bepress