Digital Commons Network^™

Originalism's Difference?, Sherif Girgis

Journal Articles

From the Aritcle

My topic is whether originalism makes any practical difference to constitutional reasoning and outcomes, relative to other methods of interpretation.

INTRODUCTION ............................................. 1945

I. JUSTICE SCALIA'S VISION OF CONTRASTS .................. 1949

II. THE BREAKDOWN OF CONTRASTS ........................... 1952

III. REMAINING CONTRASTS: REAL BUT ELUSIVE TO THEORY....................................................... 1961

IV. THE CHAMBERS ORIGINALISM DIFFERENCE .................. 1966

CONCLUSION: LOOKING AHEAD ................................ 1973

Limitation For Liberty: A Commentary On Federalism And The Tenth Amendment, Riley Banker

Senior Honors Theses

The concept of Federalism is essential to the very survival of the United States. However, recent decisions by the Supreme Court have illustrated attempts by the federal government to expand its authority and undermine the balance of power created by Federalism. This thesis will explore the concept of Federalism to demonstrate how it can best be protected. First, this thesis will address the origins of Federalism. Second, it will show how the principles of Federalism are manifested within the founding documents of the United States. Finally, this thesis will analyze current events including Supreme Court cases to demonstrate a concerning …

Not-So-Special Solicitude, Katherine Mims Crocker

Faculty Scholarship

In a high-profile case last term about state standing to sue in federal court, Justice Gorsuch deemed it “hard not to wonder why” the majority said “nothing about ‘special solicitude.’” The silence was indeed surprising, for in a landmark decision several years earlier, the Supreme Court had declared that states were “entitled to special solicitude”—presumably meaning some sort of preferential treatment—“in [the] standing analysis.” And since then, commentators had depicted the concept as permitting opportunistic states to wage ideological crusades in courts across the country, especially through administrative-law attacks on federal-government defendants.

But what if “special solicitude” is not so …

Introduction—Bioethics After Dobbs, James Toomey

Pace Law Review

No abstract provided.

Chevron Deference Is Dead, Long Live Deference, Jack M. Beermann

Faculty Scholarship

The demise of Chevron deference standing alone may turn out to be much less important for the future of administrative law and agency regulation than many believe. The Court explicitly approved of deference under the Skidmore factors, which instruct reviewing courts to “resort for guidance, even on legal questions” to “the interpretations and opinions of the relevant agency, made in pursuance of official duty and based upon specialized experience.”8 Further, the Court had already created numerous limitations to the reach of Chevron deference and, as the Court noted, it had not deferred under Chevron in nearly a decade. Chevron deference …

Fisher V. University Of Texas At Austin: An Analysis Of Race-Conscious Admissions Programs And How The Supreme Court Will Rule, Kevin Mcnelis

Tennessee Journal of Law and Policy

No abstract provided.

Second Amendment: Incompatible Methodologies And The Bruen And Heller Opinions' Underlying Misalignment, Henry H. Robinson

Touro Law Review

In its 2022 Bruen opinion, the Supreme Court characterized the Heller opinion as having applied a “methodological approach” for interpretation of the Second Amendment. However, Bruen’s description and summary partially omitted, and was materially misaligned with, Heller’s actual reasoning. In Heller’s first step of constitutional interpretation, which addressed the first clause of the sentence comprising the Second Amendment, the opinion had selectively not applied the methodological approach described in Bruen; Heller’s first step had applied a different, incompatible methodological approach. Bruen’s description was aligned only with the second step of Heller’s constitutional reasoning, which had addressed the sentence’s second clause. …

Judges In Their Own Cases: Biblical Kings And Supreme Court Justices, Joshua Segev

Touro Law Review

Allegations that the justices of the United States Supreme Court are judges in their own cases and that they judge themselves leniently are common. These allegations are often accompanied by an association with kings, queens, and monarchies, accountable to no one but their own divine authority. This Article took this association seriously and used the biblical story of prophet Nathan's rebuke of King David for his sin towards Bathsheba and Uriah to explain the problems, tensions, and conflicting considerations of the contemporary recusal doctrine of the United States Supreme Court. This biblical judicial tale has two possible conclusions, depending on …

The Necessary Opportunism Of The Common Law First Amendment, Chris Stangl

Tennessee Journal of Law and Policy

The First Amendment historically has been interpreted to provide greater and greater protection to more and more forms of expression. The notion of an originalist First Amendment has never commanded a majority of the Supreme Court and is unlikely to do so. Instead the development of the First Amendment has followed a common law trajectory. As the reach of its protections expands, so to do its attractiveness for arguments that may be more accurately located elsewhere in the Constitution's text. Such opportunism is a predictable, even necessary consequence of the First Amendment's common law development, and the Supreme Court tacitly …

The Ghost In The Machine: The Threat Screening Center And The Mootness Tool, Jeffrey Kahn

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

In FBI v. Fikre, the Supreme Court resolved a circuit split about the voluntary cessation exception to the mootness doctrine in what initially appears to be a plaintiff-friendly way. The Court unanimously held that the government’s “sparse declaration” was insufficient to moot lawsuits challenging the No Fly List (a list of people banned from aircraft). The declaration failed to show that the government “cannot reasonably be expected to do again in the future what it is alleged to have done in the past.” It stated only that Fikre “will not be placed on the No Fly List in the …

Literal Falsity And The Role Of Social Media Influencers, Kelsey Tidgewell

San Diego Law Review

This Comment seeks to analyze and resolve the current circuit split and justify the solution based on changing forms of advertising through social media.

In addition, this Comment identifies certain categories of goods and services such as skincare, food and beverages, and medical products that warrant the presumption of materiality. Shifting the burden to the defendant for these particular categories would deter influencers and the companies who employ them from making potentially false and misleading statements about products and services that can affect a consumer’s physical wellbeing.

This Comment proceeds as follows: Part II provides background on the Lanham Act, …

The Problem With Direct Collateral Review, Jaden M. Lessnick

Pepperdine Law Review

Federal habeas review of state convictions is sharply circumscribed for a reason: Granting the writ of habeas corpus disrupts the federalism and finality interests that lie at the heart of state sovereignty over criminal law. Both the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) and the Supreme Court’s equitable bars to relief reflect the structural dangers inherent in collateral review of state convictions. Given the increasing unavailability of federal habeas relief, state prisoners have turned to another vehicle for collateral federal review, one that bypasses AEDPA’s demanding standard: direct review of state post-conviction proceedings. And regrettably, the Court has entertained …

Obstructing Precedent, Bill Watson

Northwestern University Law Review

Critics of the Supreme Court sometimes accuse the Justices of disrespecting or being unfaithful to precedent—of undermining certain precedents while leaving them formally in place. Yet it remains unclear what exactly these criticisms mean or why they point to anything objectionable. This Article proposes that critics are often drawing attention to a particular practice: obstructing precedent. A better grasp of what obstructing precedent is and when it is legitimate is important to understanding the Roberts Court’s treatment of precedent in a range of cases.

A court obstructs precedent when it refuses to cooperate with its prior self in building a …

When Do Justices Vote Against Their Ideology?, Ember Bowman

Honors Theses

This paper examines the inherently political nature of the U.S. Supreme Court, focusing on the appointment process, judicial behavior, and the influence of public opinion and how those cause justices to vote against their ideologies. The Supreme Court was created to be an independent judiciary, however, today that proves to be untrue. It analyzes constitutional provisions and the historical development of the Court’s powers, drawing on Federalist No. 78 to emphasize the importance of judicial independence. This study highlights the role of the President and Senate in appointing justices, exploring how political and demographic criteria affect nominations. Additionally, it addresses …

Book Review: John Paul Stevens, The Making Of A Justice: Reflections On My First 94 Years, New York, Little, Brown And Co., 2019, Pp. 549, $35.00 (Hardback), Stephen Wermiel

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

The autobiography of Justice John Paul Stevens, published just a few months before he died, is an enticing travelogue for Supreme Court nerds. Other travelers may want to pick a different landscape.

Speaking Collectively: The First Amendment, The Public Sector, And The Right To Bargain And Strike, Kate Andrias

Faculty Scholarship

How is it that the Supreme Court has not understood collective bargaining and strikes among public sector workers to fall within the First Amendment’s ambit? Public sector union activity involves expression, assembly, association, and petitioning. Workers’ ability to form unions and to engage in concerted action in support of their shared goals is an important part of democratic governance. Through unions, workers engage in active citizenship; through association with one another, they express their views collectively and engage the government and the public on issues of public concern. Indeed, in the context of protecting the putative speech rights of union …

Climate Change, Democracy, And The Major Questions Doctrine, Joshua Ulan Galperin

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

This brief Essay progresses in four parts. I will first argue that climate change is impacting the Court’s decisionmaking. Next, I will show that the significance of climate change as a modern political issue has caused the Court to downplay the statutory arrangement Congress created in the Clean Air Act. Third, I will suggest that the Court is not genuinely failing to appreciate the design of the Clean Air Act. Instead, the Court is aware of that design and feels the design goes beyond a constitutionally acceptable delegation of legislative power. Confronting the Nondelegation Doctrine head-on, however, would force the …

Revitalizing Biotechnological Advancement In The United States: Patent Eligibility Reform To Promote Innovation While Preserving Morality, Sydney Virtue

West Virginia Law Review

Patent protection has long been recognized as a key part of promoting innovation; however, current patent eligibility law in the United States often produces the exact opposite result. While the basic framework for patent eligibility is provided by the Patent Act, the United States Supreme Court has crafted several significant exceptions to patent eligibility—laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas. These judicial exceptions have created a crisis in patent law and impeded biotechnological innovation, as they are too vague to be properly confined and carry tests that are too ambiguous for predictable application. To promote and retain world leadership …

Taking Liberties: The Supreme Court's New Hierarchy Of Rights And Its Victims, Richard B. Katskee

West Virginia Law Review

The legitimacy of our unelected Supreme Court comes from the nature and structural limitations on judicial power. Courts do not make policy in the abstract. Rather, Article III requires federal judges to decide only real, live disputes, on the facts before them. Stare decisis then prevents the courts from changing legal rules willy-nilly. The big, important changes come instead through collective decision-making by our elected representatives. When courts do break from stare decisis, it is normally to expand protections for the politically disempowered. Those protections then make legislatures more representative and act as brakes on abuses of minorities by an …

The Surprising Survival – So Far – Of The Corporate Contribution Ban, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court invalidated the longstanding ban on the expenditure of corporate funds in federal election campaigns. In so doing, the Court dismissed outright an argument that had long been the foundation for the restriction of corporate money in election campaigns — that, due to the “substantial aggregations of wealth amassed by the special advantages which go with the corporate form[,]” corporate money poses a distinct threat to the integrity of democracy. Instead, viewing corporations as essentially “associations of citizens,” Citizens United determined that “the First Amendment does not permit Congress to …

Major Questions, Common Sense?, Kevin Tobia, Daniel E. Walters, Brian Slocum

Faculty Scholarship

The Major Questions Doctrine (“MQD”) is the newest textualist interpretive canon, and it has driven consequential Supreme Court decisions concerning vaccine mandates, environmental regulation, and student loan relief. But the new MQD is a canon in search of legitimization. Critics allege that the MQD displaces the Court’s conventional textual analysis with judicial policymaking. Textualists have now responded that the MQD is a linguistic canon, consistent with textualism. Justice Barrett recently argued in Biden v. Nebraska that the MQD is grounded in ordinary people’s understanding of language and law, and scholarship contends that the MQD reflects ordinary people’s understanding of textual …

What The Warhol Court Got Wrong: Use As An Artist Reference And The Derivative Work Doctrine, Jessica Silbey, Eva Subotnik

Faculty Scholarship

In Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, the Supreme Court conflated “use as an artist reference” with preparing a “derivative work.” It did so on the erroneous assumption that permission to use a copyrighted work as an artist reference is a license to prepare a derivative work. But copyright law does not necessarily deem all uses of references for making new art to be the preparation of a derivative work. In other words, not all adaptations of an original work are infringing. Some may be neither derivative works nor substantially similar copies, and some may …

Social Media And Perceptions Of Supreme Court Legitimacy, Ryan Stadler

University Honors Theses

This thesis observed how information sources may have a polarizing effect on perceptions of Supreme Court legitimacy. The focus of the study was to measure whether social media had a stronger effect on peoples' perception of Supreme Court legitimacy when compared to other forms information sources. This study may significantly determine how support for the Supreme Court can fluctuate depending on both the platform of information distribution and the content of the information. This study used an anonymous survey to canvas sentiment about the Supreme Court in the Portland Metro Area. The initial findings suggest that those who use social …

Bridging Silos: Environmental And Reproductive Justice In The Climate Crisis, Sara A. Colangelo

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The climate crisis is a perilous yet underexamined example of the intersection of environmental injustice and reproductive injustice. The physical manifestations of the climate crisis affect key elements of reproductive justice: women’s rights to have children, to not have children, and to parent children in healthy, sustainable communities. Reams of studies document climate disaster-driven gender violence, loss of access to healthcare and reproductive services, as well as direct and deadly health effects of climate change on maternal health, fetal development, infants, and children. Despite these profound impacts, the environmental and reproductive justice movements remain largely siloed, particularly in the legal …

Confrontation, The Legacy Of Crawford, And Important Unanswered Questions, Paul F. Rothstein, Ronald J. Coleman

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The right to confront has a long history. In the United States, the Confrontation Clause provides: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right… to be confronted with the witnesses against him[.]” One of the most troublesome areas of Confrontation Clause jurisprudence has been the Clause’s application to “hearsay statements offered against a criminal defendant pursuant to a hearsay exception or exemption[.]” The Supreme Court’s confrontation analysis in this situation once hinged on the statement’s reliability, with the traditional hearsay rule and its exceptions and exemptions as a guide. But in Crawford v. Washington, the Court considered …

Examining Patent Eligibility, Charles Duan

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

A firestorm of debate has surrounded the Supreme Court of the United States’s 2014 decision Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International on the doctrine of patentable subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. As the Court’s leading articulation of doctrine, which generally excludes from patenting abstract ideas, laws of nature, and natural phenomena, Alice has been criticized as unpredictably vague and overly constrictive of patentability, with the effect of “decimating” patents, innovation, technological investment, and even the United States’ competitiveness against other nations. To support these criticisms and calls for reform, scholars and practitioners have frequently …

Fee Shifting, Nominal Damages, And The Public Interest, Maureen Carroll

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

Half a century ago, Joseph Davis Farrar sued six defendants for seventeen million dollars. Farrar had owned and operated a school for troubled teens, and after one of the students died, the State of Texas obtained a temporary injunction that closed the school. Farrar alleged that the defendants—including William P. Hobby, Jr., the lieutenant governor of Texas—had violated his civil rights in connection with the closure. After ten years of litigation, a jury ruled in favor of five of the six defendants, but it “found that Hobby had ‘committed an act or acts under color of state law that …

Examining Netchoice And Murthy: Content Moderation In The Hands Of The Supreme Court, Devin B. Forbush

Student Journal of Information Privacy Law

The right to free speech is often justified by the idea that an undisturbed marketplace of ideas is an essential ingredient for a healthy democracy. While in many cases we may believe the views espoused by that speech are incorrect, ignorant, or even harmful, those reasons do not justify silencing those views. In 2024, there is a clear social divide between social media platforms’ content-moderation practices. On one side, anti-moderation advocates opine that social media platforms have a distinct and pervasive bias in moderating user content and viewpoints indiscriminately. On the other side, many advocates contend that social media platforms …

Correcting A Corrupt Court: How Unethical Legislative And Judicial Decisions Have Led To The Disintegration Of Basic Human Rights, Civil Liberties, And Personal Freedoms In The Name Of Scoring Points For Political Parties—And How We Can Fix It Without Expansion, Jenelle Carlin

Seattle Journal for Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Excepting Nondelegation From Supreme Court Review, Michael Lomax

Georgia Law Review

For almost a century, the nondelegation doctrine has allowed Congress to create hundreds of distinct federal agencies—provided the delegation meets the “intelligible principle” requirement. While not exacting, this standard underlies the current administrative state, and absent a sufficiently defined alternative, the intelligible principle should remain undisturbed. A recent dissent and a separate pending case, however, give pause. Both present opportunities to rework the intelligible principle, but the solutions offered do not advance the ball. Rather, they suggest replacing a vague interpretive standard with a troublesome interpretive standard, which is unwarranted when a meaningfully clearer one is unfeasible. Further still, conceptualizing …