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

Supreme Court of the United States Commons

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

7,013 Full-Text Articles 4,640 Authors 2,952,774 Downloads 161 Institutions

All Articles in Supreme Court of the United States

Faceted Search

7,013 full-text articles. Page 127 of 203.

The Supreme Court And Education Law, Charles J. Russo 2017 University of Dayton

The Supreme Court And Education Law, Charles J. Russo

Educational Leadership Faculty Publications

Compiling a “top 10” list of anything— including Supreme Court cases and justices’ quotes—can be fraught with differences of opinion. Yet discussions about those differences can be useful learning activities, because they can lead to conversations about the underlying legal issues in schools. With that caveat in mind, this column offers key quotes from major Supreme Court cases that played major, even transformational, roles in shaping the landscape of U.S. K–12 education. The quotes are accompanied by brief summaries of why the cases are significant. With the exception of Brown v. Board of Education, Topeka, Kansas (1954), the most important …


An Alcohol Mindset In A Drug-Crazed World: A Review Of Birchfield V. North Dakota, Devon Beeny 2017 Duke Law

An Alcohol Mindset In A Drug-Crazed World: A Review Of Birchfield V. North Dakota, Devon Beeny

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Birchfield v. North Dakota involved the ability of legislatures to criminalize a driver’s refusal to submit to a chemical test after a law enforcement officer arrested the individual for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The driver’s argued this criminalized their constitutional right to refuse a warrantless search, while the governments’ argued they needed this power in order to effectively address drunk driving in their jurisdictions. The Court decided that refusing a breath test could be criminalized because requiring the test did not violate the driver’s constitutional rights, however the Court also ruled that because of the invasive …


Ditching Your Duty: When Must Private Entities Comply With Federal Antidiscrimination Law?, Tara Knapp 2017 Duke Law

Ditching Your Duty: When Must Private Entities Comply With Federal Antidiscrimination Law?, Tara Knapp

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

This Commentary considers how the Fifth Circuit characterizes “services, programs, and activities” of public agencies in Ivy v. Williams, in the context of determining whether a private entity is subject to federal antidiscrimination law. “Services, programs, and activities” of public agencies must comply with Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, whether directly distributed by a public or a private entity. This Commentary argues private driving schools in Texas that distribute a driving course necessary to obtaining a drivers’ license are subject to Title II because the providing the course functionally constitutes a program of the Texas Education …


Even More Honest Than Ever Before: Abandoning Pretense And Recreating Legitimacy In Constitutional Interpretation, Leslie Gielow Jacobs 2017 Pacific McGeorge School of Law

Even More Honest Than Ever Before: Abandoning Pretense And Recreating Legitimacy In Constitutional Interpretation, Leslie Gielow Jacobs

Leslie Gielow Jacobs

In this article, Professor Leslie Gielow Jacobs asserts that the Supreme Court, by becoming mired in a formalistic mode of reporting decisions, has sacrificed the legitimacy of its interpretive process. She argues that this sacrifice stems from contemporary Supreme Court opinions' failure to acknowledge alternatives and value judgments that inevitably are a part of decision making. She explores several recent decisions by the Court, noting the detrimental impact of formalism in each. Professor Jacobs then suggests a new method of reporting, defining, and structuring its components into a method which can recreate legitimacy in the interpretive process.


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 to a …


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 …


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 approach could result in …


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 death on …


Why Not Limit Neil Gorsuch — And All Supreme Court Justices — To 18-Year Terms?, Lori A. Ringhand, Paul M. Collins Jr. 2017 University of Georgia School of Law

Why Not Limit Neil Gorsuch — And All Supreme Court Justices — To 18-Year Terms?, Lori A. Ringhand, Paul M. Collins Jr.

Popular Media

Legal scholars and political scientists increasingly question whether life tenure remains a good idea for Supreme Court justices. While scholars disagree about the exact numbers, our Supreme Court justices are serving longer and longer terms; presidents have incentives to choose younger and younger nominees; and the justices themselves appear to delay retirement in the hope of having an ideologically compatible president select their replacements. Moreover, the confirmation process has become increasingly contentious, culminating last year in Senate Republicans refusing to even grant a hearing to President Barack Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland.

As a result, many scholars propose a shift to …


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, disputes over the status …


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 Act thereby requiring …


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 …


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.


Bob Nagel And The Emptiness Of The Supreme Court Standards Of Review, Larry Alexander 2017 University of Colorado Law School

Bob Nagel And The Emptiness Of The Supreme Court Standards Of Review, Larry Alexander

University of Colorado Law Review Forum

In this piece, written to honor Robert Nagel on his retirement, I focus on the arguments he made in a student note on the Supreme Court's rational basis standard of review.


Precedent And Speech, Randy J. Kozel 2017 Notre Dame Law School

Precedent And Speech, Randy J. Kozel

Randy J Kozel

The U.S. Supreme Court has shown a notable willingness to reconsider its First Amendment precedents. In recent years the Court has departed from its prior statements regarding the constitutional value of false speech. It has revamped its process for identifying categorical exceptions to First Amendment protection. It has changed its position on corporate electioneering and aggregate campaign contributions. In short, it has revised the ground rules of expressive freedom in ways both large and small.

The Court generally describes its past decisions as enjoying a presumption of validity through the doctrine of stare decisis. This Article contends that within the …


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 …


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 …


Brief Of The National Association Of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Et Al As Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioner, Mcwilliams V. Dunn (U.S. March 6, 2017) (No. 16-5294)., Janet Moore 2017 University of Cincinnati College of Law

Brief Of The National Association Of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Et Al As Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioner, Mcwilliams V. Dunn (U.S. March 6, 2017) (No. 16-5294)., Janet Moore

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

We submit this brief to make three important points. First, Ake itself clearly and unambiguously held as a matter of due process that indigent capital defendants must be provided with independent expert assistance upon a reasonable showing of need. The Court was unanimous on this point and swept aside aging precedent that had held provision of neutral assistance was adequate.

Second, Ake was hardly a revolutionary decision. As the Court noted, many states already provided expert assistance. In the first six years after Ake, numerous states explicitly held independent expert assistance must be provided upon an adequate showing of need. …


Trending @ Rwu Law: Dean Yelnosky's Post: 24: Dean Style 3-6-2017, Michael Yelnosky 2017 Roger Williams University School of Law

Trending @ Rwu Law: Dean Yelnosky's Post: 24: Dean Style 3-6-2017, Michael Yelnosky

Law School Blogs

No abstract provided.


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.


Digital Commons powered by bepress