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

Supreme Court of the United States Commons

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

3,203 Full-Text Articles 2,006 Authors 509,592 Downloads 116 Institutions

All Articles in Supreme Court of the United States

Faceted Search

3,203 full-text articles. Page 61 of 78.

Financing Elections And 'Appearance Of Corruption': Citizen Attitudes And Behavior In 2012, Molly J. Walker Wilson 2013 Saint Louis University School of Law

Financing Elections And 'Appearance Of Corruption': Citizen Attitudes And Behavior In 2012, Molly J. Walker Wilson

Molly J. Walker Wilson

As political spending reaches new highs in the 2012 election cycle, and as the controversy surrounding wealthy donors and interest groups grows, polls demonstrate a surge of cynicism among Americans who profess a belief that the American political system is corrupt. The Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United made possible the most recent expansion of political spending. In this case, the question was whether allowing corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts of money on political advertising would result in corruption or the appearance of corruption. The majority on the Court determined that it would not. Many observers ...


The Court Loses Its Way With The Global Positioning System: United States V. Jones Retreats To The “Classic Trespassory Search”, George M. Dery III, Ryan Evaro 2013 California State University Fullerton

The Court Loses Its Way With The Global Positioning System: United States V. Jones Retreats To The “Classic Trespassory Search”, George M. Dery Iii, Ryan Evaro

Michigan Journal of Race and Law

This Article analyzes United States v. Jones, in which the Supreme Court considered whether government placement of a global positioning system (GPS) device on a vehicle to follow a person’s movements constituted a Fourth Amendment “search.” The Jones Court ruled that two distinct definitions existed for a Fourth Amendment “search.” In addition to Katz v. United States’s reasonable-expectation-of-privacy standard, which the Court had used exclusively for over four decades, the Court recognized a second kind of search that it called a “classic trespassory search.” The second kind of search occurs when officials physically trespass or intrude upon a ...


Wag The Dog: Using Incidental Intellectual Property Rights To Block Parallel Imports, Mary LaFrance 2013 University of Nevada, Las Vegas

Wag The Dog: Using Incidental Intellectual Property Rights To Block Parallel Imports, Mary Lafrance

Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review

Federal law grants owners of intellectual property rights different degrees of control over parallel imports depending on the nature of their exclusive rights. While trademark owners enjoy strong control over unauthorized imports bearing their marks, their protection is less comprehensive than that granted to owners of copyrights and patents. To broaden their rights, some trademark owners have incorporated copyrighted material into their products or packaging, enabling them to block otherwise lawful imports in contravention of the policies underlying trademark law. A 2013 Supreme Court decision has significantly narrowed the importation ban of copyright law, but there may be pressure to ...


Tollbooths And Newsstands On The Information Superhighway, Brad A. Greenberg 2013 Columbia Law School

Tollbooths And Newsstands On The Information Superhighway, Brad A. Greenberg

Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review

Countering the perception that speech limitations affecting distribution necessarily reduce access to information, this Essay proffers that copyright expansions actually can increase access and thereby serve important copyright and First Amendment values. In doing so, this discussion contributes to the growing literature and two recent Supreme Court opinions discussing whether copyright law and First Amendment interests can coexist.


Constitutionally Tailoring Punishment, Richard A. Bierschbach, Stephanos Bibas 2013 Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law

Constitutionally Tailoring Punishment, Richard A. Bierschbach, Stephanos Bibas

Michigan Law Review

Since the turn of the century, the Supreme Court has regulated noncapital sentencing under the Sixth Amendment in the Apprendi line of cases (requiring jury findings of fact to justify sentence enhancements) as well as under the Eighth Amendment in the Miller and Graham line of cases (forbidding mandatory life imprisonment for juvenile defendants). Although both lines of authority sound in individual rights, in fact they are fundamentally about the structures of criminal justice. These two seemingly disparate doctrines respond to structural imbalances in noncapital sentencing by promoting morally appropriate punishment judgments that are based on individualized input and that ...


At What Is The Supreme Court Comparatively Advantaged?, R. George Wright 2013 Indiana University School of Law

At What Is The Supreme Court Comparatively Advantaged?, R. George Wright

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.


Update: The Supreme Court And Affirmative Action, Charles J. Russo 2013 University of Dayton

Update: The Supreme Court And Affirmative Action, Charles J. Russo

Educational Leadership Faculty Publications

Few issues in education have generated more ongoing controversy during the last half-century than affirmative action. Supporters view it as a positive step to eliminate the effects of past discrimination. Conversely, critics speak of race-conscious policies that they maintain create greater problems by failing to address how granting preferences today remedies past inequities.

Although typically more contentious in higher education, affirmative action is the centerpiece of this column because of the impact that race-conscious policies can have on K–12 schools.


Oasis Or Mirage: The Supreme Court's Thirst For Dictionaries In The Rehnquist And Roberts Eras, James J. Brudney, Lawrence Baum 2013 College of William & Mary Law School

Oasis Or Mirage: The Supreme Court's Thirst For Dictionaries In The Rehnquist And Roberts Eras, James J. Brudney, Lawrence Baum

William & Mary Law Review

The Supreme Court’s use of dictionaries, virtually non-existent before 1987, has dramatically increased during the Rehnquist and Roberts Court eras to the point where as many as one-third of statutory decisions invoke dictionary definitions. The increase is linked to the rise of textualism and its intense focus on ordinary meaning. This Article explores the Court’s new dictionary culture in depth from empirical and doctrinal perspectives. We find that while textualist justices are heavy dictionary users, purposivist justices invoke dictionary definitions with comparable frequency. Further, dictionary use overall is strikingly ad hoc and subjective. We demonstrate how the Court ...


Preemption And Textualism, Daniel J. Meltzer 2013 Harvard Law School

Preemption And Textualism, Daniel J. Meltzer

Michigan Law Review

In the critically important area of preemption, the Supreme Court’s approach to statutory interpretation differs from the approach it follows elsewhere. Whether in politically salient matters, like challenges to Arizona’s immigration laws, or in more conventional cases, such as those in which state tort liability overlaps with federal regulation, the Court’s preemption decisions reflect a highly purposive approach to reading statutes, most notably through the application of “obstacle preemption” analysis. Recently, however, Justice Thomas has objected to the Court’s failure in preemption cases to respect its more textualist approach to issues of statutory interpretation, and he ...


Pro-Whistleblower Reform In The Post-Garcetti Era, Julian W. Kleinbrodt 2013 University of Michigan Law School

Pro-Whistleblower Reform In The Post-Garcetti Era, Julian W. Kleinbrodt

Michigan Law Review

Whistleblowers who expose government ineptitude, inefficiency, and corruption are valuable assets to a well-functioning democracy. Until recently, the Connick–Pickering test governed public employee speech law; it gave First Amendment protection to government employees who spoke on matters of public concern—-such as whistleblowers-—so long as the government’s administrative concerns did not outweigh the employees’ free speech interests. The Supreme Court significantly curtailed the protection of such speech in its recent case, Garcetti v. Ceballos. This case created a categorical threshold requirement that afforded no protection to speech made as an employee rather than as a citizen. Garcetti ...


Section 7: Abortion, Institute of Bill of Rights Law at The College of William & Mary School of Law 2013 Institute of Bill of Rights Law at The College of William & Mary School of Law

Section 7: Abortion, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law At The College Of William & Mary School Of Law

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.


Section 6: Criminal Law, Institute of Bill of Rights Law at The College of William & Mary School of Law 2013 Institute of Bill of Rights Law at The College of William & Mary School of Law

Section 6: Criminal Law, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law At The College Of William & Mary School Of Law

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.


Section 5: First Amendment & Separation Of Powers, Institute of Bill of Rights Law at The College of William & Mary School of Law 2013 Institute of Bill of Rights Law at The College of William & Mary School of Law

Section 5: First Amendment & Separation Of Powers, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law At The College Of William & Mary School Of Law

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.


Section 4: Business, Institute of Bill of Rights Law at The College of William & Mary School of Law 2013 Institute of Bill of Rights Law at The College of William & Mary School of Law

Section 4: Business, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law At The College Of William & Mary School Of Law

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.


Section 3: Civil Rights, Institute of Bill of Rights Law at The College of William & Mary School of Law 2013 Institute of Bill of Rights Law at The College of William & Mary School of Law

Section 3: Civil Rights, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law At The College Of William & Mary School Of Law

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.


Section 1: Moot Court: Town Of Greece V. Galloway, Institute of Bill of Rights Law at The College of William & Mary School of Law 2013 Institute of Bill of Rights Law at The College of William & Mary School of Law

Section 1: Moot Court: Town Of Greece V. Galloway, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law At The College Of William & Mary School Of Law

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.


Section 2: Affordable Care Act, Institute of Bill of Rights Law at The College of William & Mary School of Law 2013 Institute of Bill of Rights Law at The College of William & Mary School of Law

Section 2: Affordable Care Act, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law At The College Of William & Mary School Of Law

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.


Transforming Juvenile Justice: Making Doctrine Out Of Dicta In Graham V. Florida, Jason Zolle 2013 University of Michigan Law School

Transforming Juvenile Justice: Making Doctrine Out Of Dicta In Graham V. Florida, Jason Zolle

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

In the late 1980s and 1990s, many state legislatures radically altered the way that their laws treated children accused of crimes. Responding to what was perceived of as an epidemic of juvenile violence, academics and policymakers began to think of child criminals as a "new breed" of incorrigible "superpredators." States responded by making it easier for prosecutors to try and sentence juveniles as adults, even making it mandatory in some circumstances. Yet in the past decade, the Supreme Court handed down four opinions that limit the states' ability to treat children as adults in the justice system. Roper v. Simmons ...


Retroactivity And Crack Sentencing Reform, Harold J. Krent 2013 IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

Retroactivity And Crack Sentencing Reform, Harold J. Krent

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Article argues that the strong presumption against retroactive application of reduced punishments articulated in the Supreme Court’s recent decision, Dorsey v. United States, is neither historically grounded nor constitutionally compelled. Although not dispositive in Dorsey, the presumption may mislead legislatures in future contexts, whether addressing marijuana decriminalization or lessened punishment for file sharing, and in no way should signal to Congress that future changes should apply prospectively only. Although the Court reached the right result in applying the reduction in punishment for crack offenses to offenders whose sentences had not been finalized, the Court relied excessively on the ...


Knives And The Second Amendment, David B. Kopel, Clayton E. Cramer, Joseph Edward Olson 2013 Denver University, Sturm College of Law

Knives And The Second Amendment, David B. Kopel, Clayton E. Cramer, Joseph Edward Olson

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Article is the first scholarly analysis of knives and the Second Amendment. Under the Supreme Court’s standard in District of Columbia v. Heller, knives are Second Amendment “arms” because they are “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” including self-defense. There is no knife that is more dangerous than a modern handgun; to the contrary, knives are much less dangerous. Therefore, restrictions on carrying handguns set the upper limit for restrictions on carrying knives. Prohibitions on carrying knives in general, or of particular knives, are unconstitutional. For example, bans of knives that open in a convenient way ...


Digital Commons powered by bepress