Converging Trajectories: Interest Convergence, Justice Kennedy, And Jeannie Suk's "The Trajectory Of Trauma",
2010
University of Colorado Law School
Converging Trajectories: Interest Convergence, Justice Kennedy, And Jeannie Suk's "The Trajectory Of Trauma", Jennifer S. Hendricks
Publications
This essay responds to Jeannie Suk's recent article in the Columbia Law Review, The Trajectory of Trauma: Bodies and Minds of Abortion Discourse. Suk argues that feminists are responsible for legitimizing a paternalistic attitude towards women that came home to roost in Gonzales v. Carhart. This essay argues that Suk's critique of feminist paternalism needs to be supplemented with a discussion of traditional paternalism and its influence on how feminist advocacy enters the law. In particular, it suggests that Derrick Bell's theory of interest convergence provides a useful framework for understanding the cultural, legal, and rhetorical evidence adduced …
Contingent Equal Protection: Reaching For Equality After Ricci And Pics,
2010
University of Colorado Law School
Contingent Equal Protection: Reaching For Equality After Ricci And Pics, Jennifer S. Hendricks
Publications
The Supreme Court's decision in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District #1 has been extensively analyzed as the latest step in the Court's long struggle with the desegregation of public schools. This Article examines the decision's implications for the full range of equal protection doctrine dealing with benign or remedial race and sex classifications. Parents Involved revealed a sharp division on the Court over whether government may consciously try to promote substantive equality. In the past, such efforts have been subject to an equal protection analysis that allows race-conscious or sex-conscious state action, contingent on existing, de …
Reviving Employee Rights - Recent And Upcoming Employment Discrimination Legislation: Proceedings Of The 2010 Annual Meeting Of The Association Of American Law Schools Section On Employment Discrimination Law,
2010
University of Colorado Law School
Reviving Employee Rights - Recent And Upcoming Employment Discrimination Legislation: Proceedings Of The 2010 Annual Meeting Of The Association Of American Law Schools Section On Employment Discrimination Law, Scott A. Moss, Sandra Sperino, Robin R. Runge, Charles A. Sullivan
Publications
No abstract provided.
Book Review Of Melvin I. Urofsky's Louis D. Brandeis: A Life,
2010
New York Law School
Book Review Of Melvin I. Urofsky's Louis D. Brandeis: A Life, Edward A. Purcell Jr.
Other Publications
No abstract provided.
Immigration As Invasion: Sovereignty, Security, And The Origins Of The Federal Immigration Power,
2010
University of Baltimore School of Law
Immigration As Invasion: Sovereignty, Security, And The Origins Of The Federal Immigration Power, Matthew Lindsay
All Faculty Scholarship
This Article offers a new interpretation of the modern federal immigration power. At the end of the nineteenth century, the Supreme Court and Congress fundamentally transformed the federal government’s authority to regulate immigration, from a species of commercial regulation firmly grounded in Congress’ commerce authority, into a power that was unmoored from the Constitution, derived from the nation’s “inherent sovereignty,” and subject to extraordinary judicial deference. This framework, which is commonly referred to as the “plenary power doctrine,” has stood for more than a century as an anomaly within American public law. The principal legal and rhetorical rationale for the …
Misplaced Modifiers - Say What,
2010
American University Washington College of Law
Misplaced Modifiers - Say What, David Spratt
Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals
No abstract provided.
Worcester V. Georgia: A Breakdown In The Separation Of Powers,
2010
University of Oklahoma College of Law
Worcester V. Georgia: A Breakdown In The Separation Of Powers, Matthew L. Sundquist
American Indian Law Review
No abstract provided.
Originalism And Summary Judgment,
2010
Vanderbilt University Law School
Originalism And Summary Judgment, Brian T. Fitzpatrick
Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications
Over the last several years, the Supreme Court has revolutionized modern criminal procedure by invoking the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial to strike down several sentencing innovations. This revolution has been led by members of the Supreme Court who follow an "originalist" method of constitutional interpretation. Recent work by the legal historian Suja Thomas has raised the question whether a similar "originalist" revolution may be on the horizon in civil cases governed by the Seventh Amendment’s right to a jury trial. In particular, Professor Thomas has argued that the summary judgment device is unconstitutional because it permits judges …
Right Problem; Wrong Solution,
2010
Vanderbilt University Law School
Right Problem; Wrong Solution, Nancy J. King, Joseph L. Hoffmann
Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications
In Boumediene v. Bush, the Supreme Court, in a powerful and eloquent majority opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy, vindicated the right of a non-U.S. citizen, held in custody at a military base outside the United States, to use the writ to challenge the legality of his incarceration.1 Boumediene was a triumph of both the individual petitioner and the judiciary over the powers of the executive, and represents a high-water mark in the long and celebrated history of habeas.
Response: The Continuing Relevance Of The Establishment Clause: A Reply To Professor Richard C. Schragger,
2010
University of Miami School of Law
Response: The Continuing Relevance Of The Establishment Clause: A Reply To Professor Richard C. Schragger, Caroline Mala Corbin
Articles
No abstract provided.
Dr. Miles's Orphans: Vertical Conspiracy And Consignment In The Wake Of Leegin,
2010
University of Florida Levin College of Law
Dr. Miles's Orphans: Vertical Conspiracy And Consignment In The Wake Of Leegin, Jeffrey L. Harrison
UF Law Faculty Publications
When the Supreme Court overturns a well-established case, the impact extends well beyond that ruling. Cases that have survived for extended periods of time typically spawn complementary cases. These complementary cases protect the ruling in the principal case from erosion by the imagination of business planners, lawyers, scholars, and judges. Or, these complementary cases may be the cases that narrow the rule in the principal case when the Court wants to temper the effect of—but not overrule—its prior decision. When the principal case is, however, overturned, both of these types of cases become orphans. Without the parent case, it is …
The Tao Of Pleading: Do Twombly And Iqbal Matter Empirically,
2010
St. Mary’s University School of Law
The Tao Of Pleading: Do Twombly And Iqbal Matter Empirically, Patricia W. Moore
Faculty Articles
In 2007, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, sending “shockwaves” through the federal litigation bar. Seemingly without prior warning, the Court abrogated “the accepted rule that a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief”—the standard for deciding 12(b)(6) motions first stated fifty years earlier in Conley v. Gibson. To replace the old rule, the Court announced a new “plausibility” standard: that a complaint …
Tribal Civil Judicial Jurisdiction Over Nonmembers: A Practical Guide For Judges,
2010
University of Colorado Law School
Tribal Civil Judicial Jurisdiction Over Nonmembers: A Practical Guide For Judges, Sarah Krakoff
Publications
This Article provides a summary of the law of tribal civil jurisdiction over persons who are not members of the governing tribe ("nonmembers'), followed by an analysis of trends in the lower courts. It was written to respond to a consensus view at the University of Colorado Law Review Symposium: "The Next Great Generation of American Indian Law Judges," in January 2010, that a concise, practical, yet in-depth treatment of this subject would be useful to the judiciary as well as practitioners. The Article traces the development of the Supreme Court's common law of tribal civil judicial jurisdiction from 1959 …
Body And Soul: Equality, Pregnancy, And The Unitary Right To Abortion,
2010
University of Colorado Law School
Body And Soul: Equality, Pregnancy, And The Unitary Right To Abortion, Jennifer S. Hendricks
Publications
This Article explores equality-based arguments for abortion rights, revealing both their necessity and their pitfalls. It first uses the narrowness of the "health exception" to abortion regulations to demonstrate why equality arguments are needed--namely because our legal tradition's conception of liberty is based on male experience, no theory of basic human rights grounded in women's reproductive experiences has developed. Next, however, the Article shows that equality arguments, although necessary, can undermine women's reproductive freedom by requiring that pregnancy and abortion be analogized to male experiences. As a result, equality arguments focus on either the bodily or the social aspect of …
Shining A Light On Democracy's Dark Lagoon,
2010
University of Colorado Law School
Shining A Light On Democracy's Dark Lagoon, Helen Norton
Publications
Written for a symposium examining the Fourth Circuit’s jurisprudential tradition, this short essay explores the Fourth Circuit’s approach to the emerging government speech doctrine, under which the government’s own speech is exempt from free speech clause scrutiny. In developing this doctrine, the Supreme Court has been too quick to defer to public entities’ assertion that contested speech is their own; indeed, it has yet to deny the government’s claim to expression in the face of a competing private claim – at significant cost to the public’s ability to hold government politically accountable for its expressive choices. The Fourth Circuit, in …
Equal Standing With States: Tribal Sovereignty And Standing After Massachusetts V. Epa,
2010
Cleveland State University
Equal Standing With States: Tribal Sovereignty And Standing After Massachusetts V. Epa, Joseph Mead, Nicholas Fromherz
All Maxine Goodman Levin School of Urban Affairs Publications
In Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), the Supreme Court held that Massachusetts was entitled to "special solicitude" in the standing analysis because it was sovereign. As a result, Massachusetts passed the standing threshold in a global warming case where an ordinary litigant may have been stymied. The Supreme Court’s analysis raises an interesting question: Are Indian tribes—which have been considered sovereign entities since before the founding, and which hold lands facing heavy environmental pressure—entitled to "special solicitude" as well? We think they should be.
To make this argument, we begin by discussing standing basics; dissecting Massachusetts v. …
Law, Facts, And Power,
2010
Southern Methodist University, Dedman School of Law
Law, Facts, And Power, Elizabeth G. Thornburg
Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters
The Supreme Court’s opinion in Ashcroft v. Iqbal is wrong in many ways. This essay is about only one of them: the Court’s single-handed return to a pleading system that requires lawyers and judges to distinguish between pleading facts and pleading law. This move not only resuscitates a distinction purposely abandoned by the generation that drafted the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but also serves as an example of the very difficulties created by the distinction. The chinks in the law-fact divide are evident in Iqbal itself - both in the already notorious pleading section of the opinion, and in …
In Defense Of Appearances: What Caperton V. Massey Should Have Said,
2010
Boston University School of Law
In Defense Of Appearances: What Caperton V. Massey Should Have Said, Jed Handelsman Shugerman
Faculty Scholarship
In June of 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled for the first time that an elected judge must recuse himself from a case that involves a major campaign contributor. In Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co., a coal company had been hit with a $50 million jury verdict. While appealing this verdict, the company's CEO, Don Blankenship, spent $3 million to help a challenger, Brent Benjamin, who had no judicial experience, defeat the incumbent, West Virginia Supreme Court Justice Warren McGraw. Blankenship funded political attack ads by a political organization (And for the Sake of the Kids) that …
Business-Like: The Supreme Court's 2009-2010 Labor And Employment Decisions,
2010
University of Colorado Law School
Business-Like: The Supreme Court's 2009-2010 Labor And Employment Decisions, Melissa Hart
Publications
The 2009-10 Term at the Supreme Court was a relatively quiet one for labor and employment law. While the Justices were in the news for decisions on corporate political donations and the Second Amendment, the Court’s work-related docket grabbed no headlines. In fact, though, the Court considered 7 work law cases this Term, in areas ranging from standards for arbitration agreements to employee privacy rights in new technology to time limitations for filing Title VII disparate impact claims. This article discusses the Court’s labor and employment cases for the Term. While they may not have made much news, several of …
Front Loading And Heavy Lifting: How Pre-Dismissal Discovery Can Address The Detrimental Effect Of Iqbal On Civil Rights Cases,
2010
University of Colorado Law School
Front Loading And Heavy Lifting: How Pre-Dismissal Discovery Can Address The Detrimental Effect Of Iqbal On Civil Rights Cases, Suzette M. Malveaux
Publications
Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are trans-substantive, they have a greater detrimental effect on certain substantive claims. In particular, the Supreme Court’s recent interpretation of Rule 8(a)(2)’s pleading requirement and Rule 12(b)(6)’s dismissal criteria - in Bell Atlantic v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal - sets forth a plausibility pleading standard which makes it more difficult for potentially meritorious civil rights claims alleging intentional discrimination to survive dismissal. Such claims are more vulnerable to dismissal because: plaintiffs alleging intentional discrimination often plead facts consistent with both legal and illegal conduct; discriminatory intent is often difficult, if not impossible, …
