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

Supreme Court of the United States Commons

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

5,453 Full-Text Articles 3,453 Authors 1,582,792 Downloads 141 Institutions

All Articles in Supreme Court of the United States

Faceted Search

5,453 full-text articles. Page 1 of 136.

The Rising Of Systemic Racism And Redlining In The United States Of America, Edward Brian Flournoy 2021 Walden University

The Rising Of Systemic Racism And Redlining In The United States Of America, Edward Brian Flournoy

Journal of Social Change

Systemic racism and redlining are synonymous with one another. This essay reviews the history of scholarly research and discussion regarding affordable housing and its impact on ethnic groups in the United States, especially Black African Americans. Affordable housing celebrated its 100th anniversary in 2017, yet much still needs to be done. Moreover, the U.S. Shipping Act of 1917 and Moving to Opportunity (MTO) Intervention Demonstration Program (1994–2009) are congruent to this essay.


Second Amendment Animus, Jacob D. Charles 2021 Northwestern Pritzker School of Law

Second Amendment Animus, Jacob D. Charles

Northwestern University Law Review

No abstract provided.


Brief Of Professor Laura K. Donohue As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Neither Party, Fbi V. Fazaga, No. 20-828 (U.S. Aug. 6, 2021), Laura K. Donohue 2021 Georgetown University Law Center

Brief Of Professor Laura K. Donohue As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Neither Party, Fbi V. Fazaga, No. 20-828 (U.S. Aug. 6, 2021), Laura K. Donohue

U.S. Supreme Court Briefs

Amicus submits this brief in support of neither party to provide the Court with background on the origins and evolution of the state-secrets privilege. The English and American cases decided before United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1 (1953), as well as the decisions before and after the enactment of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA), produce several observations that may help the Court to resolve this case.

First, both Reynolds and earlier English and American case law treat state secrets as an evidentiary privilege rather than a substantive rule of decision. As with other privileges, upholding ...


From Protecting Water Quality To Protecting States’ Rights: Fifty Years Of Supreme Court Clean Water Act Statutory Interpretation, Stephen Johnson 2021 Mercer University Law School

From Protecting Water Quality To Protecting States’ Rights: Fifty Years Of Supreme Court Clean Water Act Statutory Interpretation, Stephen Johnson

SMU Law Review

In 1972, a bipartisan Congress enacted the Clean Water Act “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” Almost fifty years have passed since Congress enacted the law, and during that time, the Supreme Court has played a significant role in the administration and evolution of the law. Since the dawn of the environmental era in the 1970s, the Supreme Court has heard more cases involving the Clean Water Act than any other environmental law. However, the manner in which the Court has analyzed the law has changed substantially over the last half ...


Fixing False Truths: Rethinking Truth Assumptions And Free-Expression Rationales In The Networked Era, Jared Schroeder 2021 William & Mary Law School

Fixing False Truths: Rethinking Truth Assumptions And Free-Expression Rationales In The Networked Era, Jared Schroeder

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The First Amendment makes no mention of truth. Assumptions about truth, however, have become the foundations for free-expression rationales, the very bases for such freedoms in a democratic society. The Supreme Court gradually, over time, wedded Enlightenment assumptions about truth to the marketplace of ideas rationale for free expression. This Article examines, in light of massive, widespread adoption of networked technologies and AI and Supreme Court decisions that have undermined the distinctive role of truth, whether truth should be removed or replaced as a crucial, justifying concept in freedom of expression. The Article examines the marketplace approach’s history and ...


Law School News: Logan Article Central To Scotus Dissent, Roger Williams University School of Law 2021 Roger Williams University

Law School News: Logan Article Central To Scotus Dissent, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.


Bostock Was Bogus: Textualism, Pluralism, And Title Vii, Mitchell N. Berman, Guha Krishnamurthi 2021 University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School

Bostock Was Bogus: Textualism, Pluralism, And Title Vii, Mitchell N. Berman, Guha Krishnamurthi

Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law

In Bostock v. Clayton County, one of the blockbuster cases from its 2019 Term, the Supreme Court held that federal antidiscrimination law prohibits employment discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity. Unsurprisingly, the result won wide acclaim in the mainstream legal and popular media. Results aside, however, the reaction to Justice Neil Gorsuch’s majority opinion, which purported to ground the outcome in a textualist approach to statutory interpretation, was more mixed. The great majority of commentators, both liberal and conservative, praised Gorsuch for what they deemed a careful and sophisticated—even “magnificent” and “exemplary”—application of textualist ...


A Miser’S Rule Of Reason: Student Athlete Compensation And The Alston Antitrust Case, Herbert J. Hovenkamp 2021 University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School

A Miser’S Rule Of Reason: Student Athlete Compensation And The Alston Antitrust Case, Herbert J. Hovenkamp

Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law

The unanimous Supreme Court decision in NCAA v. Alston is its most important probe of antitrust’s rule of reason in decades. The decision implicates several issues, including the role of antitrust in labor markets, how antitrust applies to institutions that have an educational mission as well as involvement in a large commercial enterprise, and how much leeway district courts should have in creating decrees that contemplate ongoing administration.

The Court accepted what has come to be the accepted framework: the plaintiff must make out a prima facie case of competitive harm. Then the burden shifts to the defendant to ...


Scotus Denies Review To Florist Who Refused To Serve Same-Sex Couple, Arthur S. Leonard 2021 New York Law School

Scotus Denies Review To Florist Who Refused To Serve Same-Sex Couple, Arthur S. Leonard

Other Publications

No abstract provided.


The Development Of Intellectual Disabilities In United States Capital Cases And The Modern Application Of Moore V. Texas To State Court Decisions, Dr. Alexander Updegrove 2021 University of Massachusetts School of Law

The Development Of Intellectual Disabilities In United States Capital Cases And The Modern Application Of Moore V. Texas To State Court Decisions, Dr. Alexander Updegrove

University of Massachusetts Law Review

Although in 1989 the Supreme Court of the United States initially held that the Eighth Amendment did not prohibit executing persons with intellectual disabilities in Penry v. Lynaugh, in 2002 it subsequently reversed this decision in Atkins v. Virginia, citing changing state legislation. Since the Atkins decision, state courts have interpreted the Court’s Atkins provisions in a variety of ways, some more faithfully than others. As a result, the Court provided additional clarification in its 2014 and 2015 Hall v. Florida and Brumfield v. Cain decisions, ruling that states must apply a Standard Error of Measurement of +5/-5 ...


A Government Of Laws That Is A Government Of Men And Women, Mark Tushnet 2021 Harvard University

A Government Of Laws That Is A Government Of Men And Women, Mark Tushnet

Arkansas Law Review

I take Mark Killenbeck’s “provocative” article as an occasion for some informal comments about what Korematsu and Trump v. Hawaii tell us about the saying, “a government of laws, not a government of men and women.” My basic thought is that the “not” in the saying has to be replaced “but also.” And, in some sense we have always had to have known that the saying was wrong as stated. Whatever the laws are, they don’t make themselves. Nor do they administer themselves, nor interpret themselves. Men and women appear at the stages of enactment, application, and adjudication ...


A Proper Burial, Robert L. Tsai 2021 Boston University

A Proper Burial, Robert L. Tsai

Arkansas Law Review

In his article, Professor Mark Killenbeck defends both Korematsu v. United States and Trump v. Hawaii on their own terms, albeit on narrow grounds. He goes on to conclude that comparisons of the two decisions don’t hold up. Killenbeck has authored a thoughtful and contrarian paper, but I’m not sold. In my view, Korematsu simply isn’t worth saving; in fact, a more complete repudiation of the internment decisions is overdue. Trump v. Hawaii, too, must also be revisited at the earliest opportunity and its more alarming features that abet presidential discrimination against non-citizens rejected. Moreover, I believe ...


Tainted Precedent, Darrell A.H. Miller 2021 Duke University

Tainted Precedent, Darrell A.H. Miller

Arkansas Law Review

We have a common law system of constitutional adjudication, at least in the sense that constitutional practice in the United States relies on prior rulings rather than reasoning from first principles in each case. If there’s controlling precedent on point, it’s binding. Neither “inferior courts” in the federal system, nor state courts adjudicating federal law, are permitted to start anew with the “original public meaning” of the First Amendment or pronounce a fresh Dworkinian “moral reading” of the Fourth. Even the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court of the United States, for reasons of reputation, stability ...


There Was Nothing "Neutral" About Executive Order 9066, Eric L. Muller 2021 University of North Carolina

There Was Nothing "Neutral" About Executive Order 9066, Eric L. Muller

Arkansas Law Review

There is no more appropriate place to discuss the Japanese American cases of World War II than in the pages of the Arkansas Law Review. This is not only because Arkansas was the only state outside the Western Defense Command to host not one but two of the War Relocation Authority’s (WRA) concentration camps for Japanese Americans. It is because one of the most important lawyers to oversee the development and administration of all the WRA camps was the dean under whose leadership this law review was founded: Robert A. Leflar. Leflar’s is not a name that constitutional ...


Korematsu, Hawaii, And Pedagogy, Sanford Levinson 2021 University of Texas at Austin

Korematsu, Hawaii, And Pedagogy, Sanford Levinson

Arkansas Law Review

I begin with some reflections on my own career in teaching—or, perhaps, attempting to teach—American constitutional law to generations of students from 1975 to the present. Or, more accurately, until about three years ago, when I taught introductory constitutional law for the last time. I am quite happy to no longer be teaching that course, whatever joys it did provide me in the past, for a very simple reason: I became more and more frustrated by the demands of coverage, i.e., the duty to take up a variety of topics—including attendant cases and collateral materials—and ...


Korematsu As The Tribute That Vice Pays To Virtue, Jack M. Balkin 2021 Yale University

Korematsu As The Tribute That Vice Pays To Virtue, Jack M. Balkin

Arkansas Law Review

Mark Killenbeck wants to (partially) rehabilitate the reputation of one of the Supreme Court’s most despised legal decisions, Korematsu v. United States. He argues that “[w]e should accept and teach Korematsu as an exemplar of what thelaw regarding invidious discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, and national origin should be.” In both Korematsu (and Hirabayashi v. United States) the Court asserted that classifications based on race were subject to strict scrutiny. But “[t]he majority,” Killenbeck explains, “refused to heed their own mandate. In Hirabayashi they held that the government policy was ‘reasonable.’ In Korematsu, . . . they failed ...


Sober Second Thought? Korematsu Reconsidered, Mark R. Killenbeck 2021 University of Arkansas, Fayetteville

Sober Second Thought? Korematsu Reconsidered, Mark R. Killenbeck

Arkansas Law Review

How to best describe and treat Korematsu v. United States? A self-inflicted wound? It is certainly an exemplar of a case that in key respects tracks Justice Stephen Breyer’s caution about decisions that have “harm[ed] not just the Court, but the Nation.” Part of an “Anticanon,” resting on “little more than naked racism and associated hokum” and “embod[ying] a set of propositions that all legitimate constitutional decisions must be prepared to refute”? Perhaps. Or is it simply an opinion and result that “has long stood out as a stain that is almost universally recognized as a shameful ...


Symposium: Giving Korematsu V. United States A Sober Second Thought, Nick Bell, Emily Levy, Julian Sharp 2021 University of Arkansas, Fayetteville

Symposium: Giving Korematsu V. United States A Sober Second Thought, Nick Bell, Emily Levy, Julian Sharp

Arkansas Law Review

We are elated to present Professor Mark Killenbeck’s thought provoking article, Sober Second Thought? Korematsu Reconsidered. Killenbeck dives into the Korematsu opinion and its history with great care to determine whether it truly “has no place in law under the Constitution” as Chief Justice John Roberts declared in Trump v. Hawaii.1 While Korematsu’s result provides an understandable “impulse to condemn” it, Killenbeck shows us that focusing solely on the case’s result “stands apart from and in stark contrast to its most important place in the constitutional order: articulation of precepts and terminology that provide the foundations ...


Changing Counterspeech, G.S. Hans 2021 Vanderbilt Law School

Changing Counterspeech, G.S. Hans

Cleveland State Law Review

A cornerstone of First Amendment doctrine is that counterspeech — speech that responds to speech, including disfavored, unpopular, or offensive speech — is preferable to government censorship or speech regulation. The counterspeech doctrine is often invoked to justify overturning or limiting legislation, regulation, or other government action. Counterspeech forms part of the rationale for the "marketplace of ideas" that the First Amendment is arguably designed to promote. Yet critics assert that counterspeech is hardly an effective remedy for the harms caused by "hate speech" and other offensive words that are expressed in American society, given the realities of how speech is expressed ...


Friends Of The Court: Christian Conservative Arguments On Human Dignity Before The U.S. Supreme Court And The European Court Of Human Rights, Pasquale Annicchino 2021 Brigham Young University Law School

Friends Of The Court: Christian Conservative Arguments On Human Dignity Before The U.S. Supreme Court And The European Court Of Human Rights, Pasquale Annicchino

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.


Digital Commons powered by bepress