Digital Commons Network^™

Opening Dialogue, Lee C. Bollinger, Geoffrey R. Stone

Faculty Scholarship

To set the stage for the excellent essays that make up this volume on the future of free speech, let’s begin where we often do when thinking together about the First Amendment: with some basic facts and fundamental observations about the constitutional command that “Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”

Of course, in the United States, “free speech” is not only part of the constitutional Bill of Rights; it is also a cultural and social norm by which we choose to live. Several of the essays in this volume therefore take …

Gateway And Non-Gateway Issues In The Enforcement Of Agreements To Arbitrate, George A. Bermann

Faculty Scholarship

Far greater attention is given in literature on international arbitration to limitations on the enforceability of arbitral awards than on the enforceability of agreements to arbitrate. This chapter seeks to redress the balance. While rulings on the enforceability of an award is incontrovertibly within the jurisdiction of the court asked to enforce the award, authority to determine the enforceability of an arbitration agreement is allocated between courts and arbitral tribunals themselves. The chapter seeks to determine which defenses to enforcement of arbitration agreements may be lodged before a court ("gateway issues") and which are necessarily reserved to the tribunal ("non-gateway …

Moore News About The Independent State Legislature, Bruce Ledewitz

Law Faculty Publications

The big news about the Independent State Legislature Doctrine (Doctrine) is that, despite the expectations of most observers, including me, the Supreme Court did not fully adopt the Doctrine in Moore v. Harper. The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Roberts, and joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson, held that state courts may apply their state constitutions to state legislation affecting federal elections in the course of what the opinion called the “ordinary exercise of state judicial review.”

It is equally clear, however, that the Court in Moore federalized state constitutional decision-making in the context of federal …

From College Campus To Corner Office: The Impact Of Sffa V. Harvard On Voluntary Affirmative Action Programs, Ellen Whitehair

University of Cincinnati Law Review

No abstract provided.

Saving Genus Claims For Antibody Patents: What We Can Learn From The Foreign Jurisdictions, Ningxi Sun

San Diego International Law Journal

In the United States, therapeutic antibodies play a key role in the innovations for life-saving therapies. Genus claims—broad claims that cover a group of related species – are widely used in antibody patents, allowing the patentee to obtain broad protection of their inventions. However, a recent line of Federal Circuit decisions has created a higher bar to obtaining patent protection for antibodies. Specifically, it is now nearly impossible to maintain an antibody genus claim. Noteworthy, the United States’ treatment for antibody claims is diverging from other major jurisdictions in the world.

This Article argues the Supreme Court and Congress should …

An Analysis Of A Changing Supreme Court Viewed Through Students For Fair Admissions V. President And Fellows Of Harvard College, Reed Fagg

Finance Undergraduate Honors Theses

An analysis of the Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Admissions v. the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill to better understand the changes in the Supreme Court. Breaking down of the argument and a study of societal impacts.

Constitutional Rights And Remedial Consistency, Katherine Mims Crocker

Faculty Scholarship

When the Supreme Court declined definitively to block Texas’s S.B. 8, which effectively eliminated pre-enforcement federal remedies for what was then a plainly unconstitutional restriction on abortion rights, a prominent criticism was that the majority would have never tolerated the similar treatment of preferred legal protections—like gun rights. This refrain reemerged when California enacted a copycat regime for firearms regulation. This theme sounds in the deep-rooted idea that judge-made law should adhere to generality and neutrality values requiring doctrines to derive justification from controlling a meaningful class of cases ascertained by objective legal criteria.

This Article is about consistency, and …

The Anti-Innovation Supreme Court: Major Questions, Delegation, Chevron And More, Jack M. Beermann

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court of the United States has generally been a very aggressive enforcer of legal limitations on governmental power. In various periods in its history, the Court has gone far beyond enforcing clearly expressed and easily ascertainable constitutional and statutory provisions and has suppressed innovation by the other branches that do not necessarily transgress widely held social norms. Novel assertions of legislative power, novel interpretations of federal statutes, statutes that are in tension with well-established common law rules and state laws adopted by only a few states are suspect simply because they are novel or rub up against tradition. …

Anti-Press Bias: A Response To Andersen Jones And West's Presuming Trustworthiness, Erin C. Carroll

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Professors RonNell Andersen Jones and Sonja R. West’s Presuming Trustworthiness is a deeply depressing read. That is what makes it so good. The article is a clear-eyed, data-driven approach to assessing just how endangered the legal status of the free press is. Given the universality of the agreement that a free press is central to democracy, Andersen Jones and West’s message is vital. Presuming Trustworthiness should raise alarms.

In response, I hope this essay can serve as a bullhorn. I want to amplify what Andersen Jones and West’s research and data bear out. Not only has the Supreme Court ceased …

Quit Using Acquittals: The Unconstitutionality And Immorality Of Acquitted-Conduct Sentencing, Brenna Nouray

Pepperdine Law Review

This Comment examines the phenomenon of acquitted-conduct sentencing—a practice that allows a sentencing judge to enhance a criminal defendant’s sentence due to conduct for which he has already been acquitted. Seventeen-year-old Dayonta McClinton is one of many criminal defendants who have unjustly suffered at the hands of this practice when he received a thirteen-year enhancement because of conduct for which he already received a verdict of not guilty from a jury. This Comment argues that acquitted-conduct sentencing is unconstitutional, as it violates both the reasonable doubt standard required under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the jury …

A Performative Model For Conducting Critical Race Analysis: Josephine Baker, Modern Dance, And Utilizing Narrative To Transform Legal Doctrine, Patrick C. Brayer

Seattle Journal for Social Justice

No abstract provided.

The Word Is "Humility": Why The Supreme Court Needed To Adopt A Code Of Judicial Ethics, Laurie L. Levenson

Pepperdine Law Review

The Supreme Court is one of our most precious institutions. However, for the last few years, American confidence in the Court has dropped to a new low. Less than 40% of Americans have confidence in the Court and its decisions. Recent revelations regarding luxury trips, gifts, and exclusive access for certain individuals to the Justices have raised questions about whether the Justices understand their basic ethical duties and can act in a fair and impartial manner. As commentators have noted, the Supreme Court stood as the only court in America that was not governed by an ethical code. The question …

Partisanship "All The Way Down" On The U.S. Supreme Court, Lee Epstein

Pepperdine Law Review

Just as the American public is politically polarized, so too is the U.S. Supreme Court. More than ever before, a clear alignment exists between the Justices’ partisanship and their ideological leanings (known as “partisan sorting”). Disapproval of opposing-party identifiers also appears to have intensified (“partisan antipathy”). This Article offers evidence of both forms of polarization. It shows that partisan sorting has resulted in wide gaps in voting between Republican and Democratic appointees; and it supplies data on “us-against-them” judging in the form of increasing antipathy toward opposite-partisan presidents. Taken collectively, the data point not to law “all the way down,” …

The Supreme Court, Article Iii, And Jurisdiction Stuffing, James E. Pfander

Pepperdine Law Review

Reflecting on the state of the federal judiciary in the aftermath of the Biden Commission report and subsequent controversies, this Article identifies problems with the current operation of both the Supreme Court and the lower courts that make up the Article III judicial pyramid. Many federal issues have been assigned to non-Article III tribunals, courts poorly structured to offer the independent legal assessment that such Founders as James Wilson prized as they structured the federal judiciary. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court devotes growing attention to a slice of highly salient public law questions, including those presented on the shadow docket, thereby …

The Misguided Use Of The Harvard/Unc Ruling To Thwart Law Firm And Other Private Employer Dei Efforts, Ronald A. Norwood

SLU Law Journal Online

This article explores the Harvard/UNC ruling and what, in the author’s view, is the misguided efforts by certain political and well-financed private actors to use that ruling to justify the eradication of private employers and law firm DEI efforts. It is the author’s firm belief that because the Supreme Court’s holding is limited to an analysis of the Constitution’s Equal Protection clause (limited to state actors) and Title VI (covering private actions receiving federal funding), that ruling should not be used by courts to quash DEI programs designed to level the employment playing field for minorities, women and other protected …

Slaughtering Slaughter-House: An Assessment Of 14th Amendment Privileges Or Immunities Jurisprudence, Caleb Webb

Senior Honors Theses

In 1872, the Supreme Court decided the Slaughter-House Cases, which applied a narrow interpretation of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14^th Amendment that effectually eroded the clause from the Constitution. Following Slaughter-House, the Supreme Court compensated by utilizing elastic interpretations of the Due Process Clause in its substantive due process jurisprudence to cover the rights that would have otherwise been protected by the Privileges or Immunities Clause. In more recent years, the Court has heard arguments favoring alternative interpretations of the Privileges or Immunities Clause but has yet to evaluate them thoroughly. By applying the …

Free Speech Or Fair Elections? A Call For Campaign Finance Reform And A New Definition Of Corruption, Annabelle Crawford

Brigham Young University Prelaw Review

This paper argues that to protect free speech, the Supreme Court must authorize stricter limits on independent expenditures and expand the legal definition of corruption. It scrutinizes the historical trajectory of Supreme Court rulings concerning the control of political expenditure, emphasizing the delicate balance between safeguarding freedom of expression and mitigating corruption in electoral processes. The paper highlights the Court's limited interpretation of corruption, advocating for a broader conceptualization that encompasses not only direct quid pro quo transactions but also subtler forms of corruption including undue influence and distortion. The paper illustrates how unregulated independent expenditures can subvert democratic principles …

Administrative Law Judges And The Erosion Of The Administrative State: Why Jarkesy May Be The Straw That Breaks The Camel's Back, Nicholas D'Addio

Catholic University Law Review

The Trump-era unitary executive movement sought to expand presidential

power and shrink the influence of the administrative state through deregulation.

This movement ripples into the present moment, as Trump’s overhaul of the

federal judiciary installed a comprehensive system to delegitimize

administrative agency action— a system that is certain to endure. The

independence and role of administrative law judges (ALJs) has proven a key

target of the movement. Most recently, in the 2022 case of Jarkesy v. Securities

and Exchange Commission, the Fifth Circuit held that the dual-tiered for-cause

removal protections of SEC ALJs violated the Take Care Clause of Article …

Unintended Consequences Of Fetal Personhood Statutes: Examples From Tax, Trusts, And Estates, Bridget J. Crawford, Alexis C. Borders, Katherine Keating

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

The laws of taxation, trusts, and estates are new fronts in the culture wars over abortion. After the Supreme Court's 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, some anti-abortion states enacted fetal personhood statutes that have the potential to unsettle and destabilize longstanding legal doctrines that otherwise create predictability and stability in the laws of taxation and succession. This Article makes three principal claims: descriptive, predictive, and normative. First, the Article explores how Dobbs opened the door for states like Georgia to treat zygotes-embryos-fetuses as “dependents” for state income tax purposes. Second, the Article identifies some of the …

Public Opinion And Its Potential Impact On The U.S. Supreme Court, Savannah Medlin

Senior Honors Theses

The Supreme Court of the United States has a fundamental role in the interpretation of the Constitution and the configuration of the legal landscape of the country. But, while the Framers isolated the Court from political pressures, the Court is not removed from the impact of public opinion. This essay considers the effect of public opinion on Supreme Court rulings by reviewing studies and cases to discover the part public opinion plays in the courtroom. My findings imply that public opinion impacts the Court. There are limited ways by which the Court can prevent this impact. I emphasize that the …

Keynote Address: "Attacking And Defending The Administrative State", Jack M. Beermann

Faculty Scholarship

At the beginning of this semester I told my students at Boston University that this is the most interesting time to take administrative law since I started teaching it nearly forty years ago. Doctrines that seemed settled just a few years ago have been questioned and significant change seems to be on the horizon. Don't get me wrong, we've been here before. In the 1970s and 1980s there were a few Supreme Court decisions on separation of powers¹ that indicated the possibility of big changes, but ultimately it fizzled out into the administrative law revolution that wasn't.

Things feel …

International Asylum Law In The U.S. Supreme Court, Lorin Utsch

Undergraduate Honors Theses

The role of international law within the United States legislative system is unclear and fluctuating. The extent to which the United States keeps its international commitments is informed by the application of international law in the country’s highest court, the Supreme Court. The Court’s use of international law varies by case, but consistently applies international law so as to maximize domestic interests. These interests may be of strategic, legal, or ideological value. The Supreme Court cites international asylum law in order to clarify domestic statutes, safeguard domestic sovereignty, and to reemphasize the Court’s preference for domestic statutes over international legal …

Once Is Enough: Why Title Ix's Pervasive Requirement Necessitates Adopting The Totality Inquiry, Evan S. Thompson

University of Cincinnati Law Review

No abstract provided.

Willfully Forgetting Miranda's True Nature: Vega V. Tekoh Severs The Warnings Requirement From The Constitution, George M. Dery Iii

Marquette Law Review

This Article analyzes Vega v. Tekoh, in which the Supreme Court ruled that

a violation of Miranda was not a violation of the Fifth Amendment privilege

against self-incrimination. This Article examines the original language of the

Miranda opinion, the statements and intentions of the members of the Miranda

Court, and subsequent precedent to determine Miranda’s true nature. Further,

this Article examines the reasoning of Vega and the dangers created by its

pronouncements, especially in light of the Court’s earlier characterization of

Miranda as a constitutional rule in Dickerson v. United States. This Article

asserts that the Justices who …

Amazon, Spacex And Other Companies Are Arguing The Government Agency That Has Protected Labor Rights Since 1935 Is Actually Unconstitutional, Kate Andrias

Faculty Scholarship

Amazon, SpaceX, Starbucks and Trader Joe’s have all responded to allegations that they have violated labor laws with the same bold argument. The National Labor Relations Board, they assert in several ongoing legal proceedings, is unconstitutional.

SpaceX, for example, says that the NLRB is engaging in “an unlawful attempt … to subject Space X to an administrative proceeding whose structure violates Article II, the Fifth Amendment, and the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.”

If these companies prevail, the entire process for holding union elections and for prosecuting employers who break labor laws – in place since …

Arrests: Legal And Illegal, Daniel Yeager

Georgia State University Law Review

The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. An arrest—manifesting a police intention to transport a suspect to the stationhouse for booking, fingerprinting, and photographing—is a mode of seizure. Because arrests are so intrusive, they require roughly a fifty percent chance that an arrestable offense has occurred. Because nonarrest seizures (aka Terry stops), though no “petty indignity,” are less intrusive than arrests, they require roughly just a twenty-five percent chance that crime is afoot.

Any arrest not supported by probable cause is illegal. It would therefore seem to follow that any arrest supported by probable cause is legal. But it …

Against The Mainstreaming Of The Term Sex Work: Advocacy With India's Supreme Court, Pravin Patkar

Dignity: A Journal of Analysis of Exploitation and Violence

No abstract provided.

Abortion Politics And The Rise Of Movement Jurists, Robert L. Tsai, Mary Ziegler

Faculty Scholarship

This Article employs the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization and litigation in its wake as the jumping off point to reconsider the connections between judges, the Constitution, and social movements. That movements influence constitutional law, and that judicial pronouncements in turn are reshaped by politics, is well-established. But, while these accounts of legal change depend upon judges to embrace movement ideas, less has been written about the conditions under which judicial entrenchment can be expected to take place. There may, in fact, be different types of judicial dispositions towards external political phenomena.

In this Article, …

Pro Se Litigants In The U.S. Supreme Court: How Do They Fare?, Kyle Persaud

St. Mary's Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Growing, Growing, Gone: How Dobbs Fundamentally Altered The Way Reproductive Freedom, Private And Professional Liability, And Constitutional Rights Will Be Analyzed In A Post–Roe America, Amanda J. Sharp

San Diego Law Review

This Note examines the Dobbs decision and its implications. Part II analyzes the history of abortion rights in the United States, including the role Dobbs played in overturning precedential cases. Part III describes the legal implications of Dobbs, including the status of abortion rights and how this decision altered the state of women’s healthcare. It then addresses Dobbs’ indirect implications, including its potential impacts on the foster care system, implied liability in healthcare professions, data privacy laws, and the employer-employee relationship. Part IV briefly proposes next steps that could be taken and concludes with a call to action.