Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

The Gross Injustices Of Capital Punishment: A Torturous Practice And Justice Thurgood Marshall’S Astute Appraisal Of The Death Penalty’S Cruelty, Discriminatory Use, And Unconstitutionality, John D. Bessler

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

Through the centuries, capital punishment and torture have been used by monarchs, authoritarian regimes, and judicial systems around the world. Although torture is now expressly outlawed by international law, capital punishment—questioned by Quakers in the seventeenth century and by the Italian philosopher Cesare Beccaria and many others in the following century—has been authorized over time by various legislative bodies, including in the United States. It was Beccaria’s book, Dei delitti e delle pene (1764), translated into French and then into English as An Essay on Crimes and Punishments (1767), that fueled the still-ongoing international movement to outlaw the death penalty. …

The Court And Capital Punishment On Different Paths: Abolition In Waiting, Carol S. Steiker, Jordan M. Steiker

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

The American death penalty finds itself in an unusual position. On the ground, the practice is weaker than at any other time in our history. Eleven jurisdictions have abandoned the death penalty over the past fifteen years, almost doubling the number of states without the punishment (twenty-three). Executions have declined substantially, totaling twenty-five or fewer a year nationwide for the past six years, compared to an average of seventy-seven a year during the six-year span around the millennium (1997-2002). Most tellingly, death sentences have fallen off a cliff, with fewer the fifty death sentences a year nationwide over the past …

The Supreme Court And New Frontiers In Religious Liberty, Floersheimer Center For Constitutional Democracy

Event Invitations 2023

The Floersheimer Center for Constitutional Democracy is proud to present The Supreme Court and New Frontiers in Religious Liberty. Join us for a conversation with First Amendment experts to discuss the future of First Amendment Free Exercise and Establishment Clause jurisprudence.

Professor Michael Pollack will lead a discussion on the Court’s jurisprudence and its impact on civil liberties, religious liberty, and separation of church and state.

Panelists:

• Nelson Tebbe, Cornell Law School
• Mark L. Movsesian, St. John's University School of Law
• Elizabeth Reiner Platt, Columbia Law School
• Giselle Klapper, Sikh Coalition

Click here to view the flyer.

The Supreme Court And New Frontiers In Religious Liberty, Floersheimer Center For Constitutional Democracy

Flyers 2022-2023

Click here to view the event invitation.

Force Majeure & Covid-19: A Clause Changed?, Claudia Petcu

DePaul Business & Commercial Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Employee Of The Month: Exploring Whether An Employee's Act Of Fraud May Be Imputed To His Employer Under Agency Principles, Max Birmingham

DePaul Business & Commercial Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Against The Chenery Ii "Doctrine", Gary S. Lawson, Joseph Postell

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court’s 1947 decision in SEC v. Chenery Corp. (“Chenery II”) is generally taken as blanket authorization for agencies to make law through either adjudication or rulemaking if their organic statutes permit both modes. We think this is an overreading of the doctrine. The decision in Chenery II need not be read so broadly, and there are good reasons to read it more narrowly. The most important reason is that agency lawmaking through adjudication presents serious constitutional concerns involving due process of law and subdelegation of legislative power, at least if the agency action deprives people of life, liberty, …

First Amendment Speech Protections In A Post-Dobbs World: Providing Instruction On Instructional Speech, Samantha Mitchell

Fordham Law Review

In its June 2022 opinion, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, thus revoking the constitutional right to abortion. As states continue to pass laws outlawing abortion to varying degrees, not only has Dobbs led to uncertainty for medical professionals and those who might want to seek an abortion, but it has also prompted questions for internet users across the world. May an organization or an individual post instructions on the internet regarding how to obtain an abortion if a resident of a …

Rationalizing Relatedness: Understanding Personal Jurisdiction's Relatedness Prong In The Wake Of Bristol-Myers Squibb And Ford Motor Co., Anthony Petrosino

Fordham Law Review

Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court marked a watershed in the U.S. Supreme Court’s personal jurisdiction jurisprudence. There, the Court came to a reasonable conclusion: Ford, a multinational conglomerate carrying on extensive business throughout the United States, was subject to personal jurisdiction in states where it maintained substantial contacts that were related to the injuries that prompted the suits. This was so, even though the business it conducted in those states was not the direct cause of the suit. While justifying that conclusion, however, the Court drastically altered the personal jurisdiction inquiry’s relatedness prong, which concerns whether …

The Supreme Court In Crisis, David Rudenstine, David M. Hunt Library

Event Invitations 2023

The speakers will discuss recent decisions affecting abortion and gun rights, the public’s trust and confidence in the high court and cases the Court will decide before the summer involving LGBTQ rights, affirmative action, election law and immigration policy.

Speakers:

• Tom Gerety, former President of Amherst and Trinity Colleges, former Executive Director of the Brennan Center for Justice
• Adam Liptak, New York Times Supreme Court Correspondent
• David Rudenstine, Sheldon H. Solow Professor of Law at Cardozo and former Dean

The Evolution Of Chapter 11: How Corporate Restructuring Has Evolved And Its Important Role In The Recovery Of A Struggling Economy, Eduardo Cervantes

DePaul Business & Commercial Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Covid-19 Vs. Constitution; Limited Government's Unlimited Response, John A. Losurdo

DePaul Business & Commercial Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The "No License, No Chips" Policy: When A Refusal To Deal Becomes Reasonable, Sheng Tong

DePaul Business & Commercial Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Dark Triad: Private Benefits Of Control, Voting Caps And The Mandatory Takeover Rule, Jorge Brito Pereira

DePaul Business & Commercial Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Repugnant Precedents And The Court Of History, Daniel B. Rice

Michigan Law Review

Aged Supreme Court precedents continue to tolerate many practices that would shock modern sensibilities. Yet the Court lacks standard tools for phasing out decisions that offend our national character. The very cultural shifts that have reoriented our normative universe have also insulated most repugnant precedents from direct attack. And the familiar stare decisis factors cannot genuinely explain what ails societally outmoded decisions. Even for justices inclined to condemn these embarrassments in less clinical terms, it is unclear what qualifies courts to make universalist claims about contemporary American values.

The Court recently sidestepped these difficulties by insisting that one of its …

Justice Alito's Laundry List: Highlights From Appendix C Of Bostock And A Roadmap For Lgbtq+ Legal Advocates, Peter Quinn

William & Mary Law Review

After a brief background on Bostock [v. Clayton County] in Part I, the bulk of this Note seeks to examine Justice Alito’s Bostock dissent and its potential future usefulness for LGBTQ+ advocates. Part II will analyze Justice Alito’s dissent and Appendix C, arguing that his concerns about Bostock’s consequences across other federal statutes fall into three primary categories of usefulness. The remaining Parts will survey these categories, including the “small potatoes” in Part III, the “blockbusters” in Part IV, and the “under-the-radar” areas in Part V. Part V takes particular notice of potential applications of Bostock’s …

Justices Citing Justices, Jay D. Wexler

Faculty Scholarship

Scholars have long paid attention to how often and for what reasons Supreme Court justices cite law review articles and academic books in their opinions. More recently, a new area of scholarship has begun to look at how Justices create their own lines of “personal precedent” through not only their prior opinions but also their academic writings. At the intersection of these two areas of inquiry lies questions of how often and for what reasons Supreme Court justices cite the journal articles and books of the various justices sitting on the Court, including their own. With the exception of one …

The Counterdemocratic Difficulty, Aziz Z. Huq

Northwestern University Law Review

Since the 2020 elections, debate about the Supreme Court’s relationship with the mechanisms of national democracy has intensified. One important thread of that debate focuses critically on the possibility of a judicial decision flipping a presidential election or thwarting the will of national majorities respecting progressive legislation, and pushes concerns about the Court’s effect on national democracy. A narrow focus on specific interventions, however, does not exhaust the subtle and consequential ways in which the Court influences whether and how the American democratic system thrives or fails. A narrow focus is partial because it construes democracy as merely the aggregation …

Consequences And The Supreme Court, Aaron Tang

Northwestern University Law Review

May the Supreme Court consider consequences when it decides the hard cases that divide us? The conventional wisdom is that it may not. Scholars have argued, for example, that consequentialism is a paradigmatic “anti-modal” form of reasoning at the Court. And the Court itself has declared that “consequences cannot change our understanding of the law.”

This Article presents evidence of a possible shift in the standard account. Although many kinds of consequentialist arguments remain forbidden, such as naked judicial efforts to maximize social utility, a particular form of consequentialism is now surprisingly common when the Supreme Court confronts hard cases. …

The Misunderstood History Of Textualism, Tara Leigh Grove

Northwestern University Law Review

This Article challenges widespread assumptions about the history of textualism. Jurists and scholars have sought for decades to distinguish “modern textualism” from the so-called “plain meaning school” of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries—an approach that both textualists and non-textualists alike have long viewed as improperly “literal” and “wooden.” This Article shows that this conventional historical account is incorrect. Based on a study of statutory cases from 1789 to 1945 that use the term “plain meaning” or similar terms, this Article reveals that, under the actual plain meaning approach, the Supreme Court did not ignore context but looked to …