Digital Commons Network^™

Certiorari Transparency, Alexandra L. Klein, Michael L. Smith

Faculty Articles

Amid increasing controversy over the Supreme Court’s amassing of power, rejection of precedent, reliance on the shadow docket, and Justices’ undisclosed acceptance of lavish gifts, legal scholars, commentators, and politicians have called for bold and far-reaching reforms to the Court, including term limits for Justices, stripping the Court of jurisdiction in certain cases, and adding Justices to the Court. This Article proposes a more subtle reform to the Court’s proceedings: the Court should make its certiorari de-terminations, in which it decides which cases to take up and review, public. Currently, the Court exercises near-complete discretion over the cases it decides …

Spending Programs And The New Roberts Court, Nicole Huberfeld

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court is poised to place new limits on Congress’s spending power at the urging of states vying for regulatory dominance, particularly in health care and public health. This article is the first to highlight and catalog the throughlines of argumentation, which sparked after states successfully challenged the ACA but have grown into opposing more than Medicaid’s cooperative federalism. This means federal and state programs that heavily rely on federal spending power are at risk, so studying this pattern is imperative. The article begins with a descriptive account of increasing spending power challenges, which make use of converging factors …

Noem V. Vazquez Perdomo And Plenary Authority: A Look At What Is Happening To U.S. Citizens, Jose Juan Solis

Florida Atlantic University Undergraduate Law Journal

On September 8th, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled in Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo, and that ruling led to the Trump administration allowing immigration officers to detain Hispanic people based on four factors. These factors include race and ethnicity, speaking Spanish or having an accent when speaking English, being present at a particular location, or having a particular job.1 This ruling is very controversial because it gives immigration officers the right to use racial profiling to justify their arrests. This type of precedent has not been seen and sets a very dangerous situation, not only for undocumented civilians but also for …

The Myth Of The Second Amendment, Laura Muna-Landa

CGU Theses & Dissertations

This dissertation traces the evolution of the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment, which shifted from a constitutional provision grounded in collective security and concerns about tyranny to a modern doctrine emphasizing an individual right to possess firearms. It contends that post-Heller (District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) decisions do not simply “apply” founding-era intent to modern circumstances but instead reflect a significant doctrinal reconstruction that now shapes both gun policy and public perceptions of constitutional meaning. This research first reconstructs the founding-era context, then tests explanations of judicial behavior, and finally applies that framework to Heller, …

Let Them Hear It: Peaceful Protests Near The Homes Of Supreme Court Justices, Srikanth Reddy

Lewis & Clark Law Review

All of us—not just attorneys and politicians—need to be more critical and skeptical of the Supreme Court. Criticism by ordinary people is good and appropriate, even if it hurts the Justices’ feelings. That includes public protests. When a case matters enough to them, members of the public can and should criticize the Court and its Justices, including by peacefully gathering and protesting near a Justice’s home, or when a Justice appears out in the world.

Richard J. Childress Memorial Lecture: Immigration And The Supreme Court In The Early Days Of The Second Trump Administration, Kevin R. Johnson

Saint Louis University Law Journal

An enduring St. Louis University School of Law tradition, the Childress Memorial Lecture is devoted to “highlighting a provocative and timely area of law.” Discussion of immigration law and its enforcement by the Trump administration falls squarely into the category of provocative and timely. My lecture today analyzes the Supreme Court’s responses to the Trump administration’s immigration actions in the early months of his second term. Those responses no doubt provide an idea about the Court’s future responses to the administration’s immigration actions.

Immigration has been a divisive, often explosive political issue throughout U.S. history. The law as it has …

Excavating Miranda, Samuel J. Levine

Scholarly Works

Sixty years after it was decided, Miranda v. Arizona remains one of the most significant and renowned cases—as well as, arguably, one of the most controversial cases—in the history of the United States. Chief Justice Earl Warren’s majority opinion, establishing the eponymous Miranda warnings for custodial interrogation of criminal suspects, has prompted voluminous and continuing commentary, among both critics and supporters. This Article is part of an ongoing project exploring a particular aspect of Chief Justice Warren’s majority opinion: a footnote referencing Jewish legal sources, documenting an important passage at the start of a pivotal section of the opinion.

Building …

A History Of Vacatur, Benjamin B. Johnson

UF Law Faculty Publications

Vacatur, a seemingly routine appellate tool, has evolved into one of the Supreme Court’s most potent instruments for declaring law. This Article offers the first comprehensive historical account of vacatur, tracing its roots from English and early American practice through its twentieth-century transformations to its contemporary uses. Historically, courts used vacatur to manage dockets, correct procedural irregularities, or enforce reversals on the merits. Modern usage has departed markedly from these roots. The Court now frequently employs vacatur to declare binding legal rules without issuing judgments, effectively circumventing traditional limits on judicial power. Taking seriously the Court’s own insistence on history …

The Forgotten Income-Attribution Power, Alex Zhang

Faculty Articles

Economic inequality stands at record levels, and constitutional law haunts egalitarian reform. In 2024, the Supreme Court decided the latest contest. Moore v. United States rebuffed an attempt to sharply limit the federal taxing power, as a razor-thin majority upheld Congress’s attribution of foreign corporations’ income to domestic shareholders. But four Justices criticized the reasoning of the majority, faulting its use of a fabricated doctrine.

This Feature provides a systematic account of Congress’s income-attribution power. It excavates overlooked litigation materials and case law from the infancy of the current federal income tax. In the 1920s and 1930s, litigants attacked, on …

Popular Constitutionalism In A Populist Age, Thomas G. Donnelly

Law Faculty Publications

Popular constitutionalism burst onto the scene as a challenge to the constitutional authority of the Supreme Court. Decades later, popular constitutionalists remain susceptible to one of the earliest (and most potent) critiques of their project—the charge that they have done far too little to explain how their theory might work in practice. With the rise of modern populism, it’s also fair to ask whether popular constitutionalism is an approach that’s capable of meeting the challenges of the current constitutional moment. In this Article, I offer a new vision for popular constitutionalism—one that shows how the theory might work in practice, …

Interpreting Anti-Boycott Laws In The Shadow Of The First Amendment, Joseph A. Tomain

Articles by Maurer Faculty

Thirty-eight states have enacted “anti-BDS” laws. These laws require people or entities doing business with the state to certify that they do not participate in the Boycott Divestment Sanction movement against Israel. Typically, these laws define boycott as a “refusal to deal, terminating business, or other actions” that limit commercial relations with Israel or Israeli entities. It is highly contested in the courts and commentary whether these anti-boycott laws violate the First Amendment. Assuming arguendo that the “refusal to deal” and “terminating business” clauses do not implicate the First Amendment, that leaves the residual clause. At least one court and …

Amicus Incorporated, Adam N. Eckart

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

Attorneys have long advanced change through the court system—including through high-stakes, high-profile litigation in front of the Supreme Court of the United States. Attorneys appearing before the Court often represent individuals, nonprofit organizations, or the gov-ernment, and often seek to drive social reform through the platforms of their organizations. But attorneys representing big businesses also advo-cate for change through action at the Supreme Court. While businesses are not new to speaking out in front of the Court, they have become in-creasingly active in cases focused on social issues, including by submit-ting amicus briefs to the Court in support of a …

Species Of State Constitutional Lockstepping, Michael L. Smith

Faculty Articles

When interpreting state constitutional provisions, state courts frequently take a "lockstep" approach by adopting the United States Supreme Court's interpretation of analogous federal constitutional provisions. Critics often portray lockstep interpretation as misguided and have identified varieties of lockstepping, including unreflective, reflective, prospective, and methodological lockstep interpretation. This Article contributes to these discussions by identifying several additional forms of lockstep interpretation that have thus far gone undiscussed: lazy, mandatory, atextual, and sticky lockstepping.

Several of these variations highlight distinct failures of state courts to independently interpret state constitutions. This includes lazy lockstepping, where state courts tend to engage in repeated, thoughtless …

Law’S Limits: Abortion And The Social Determinants Of Health, Maya Manian

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

After Dobbs: How the Supreme Court Ended Roe but Not Abortion (“After Dobbs”) is a prescient and timely response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade and upended nearly five decades of constitutional protection for abortion. In this meticulously structured oral history, law professor David S. Cohen and sociologist Carole Joffe center the voices of abortion providers, clinic administrators, funders, and advocates from across the country. After Dobbs, not only documents the extraordinary persistence of abortion supporters in the face of legal devastation but also bears witness to …

Beyond Judicial Intent: The Agency Of The Defense Counsel In Ozawa’S And Thind’S Supreme Court Cases, Bret K. Luchs

Master's Theses or Doctor of Nursing Practice

This thesis seeks to examine how specific legal strategies by the defense counsel in Ozawa v. United States, 260 U.S. 178 (1922), and United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind, 261 U.S. 204 (1923), compelled the Supreme Court of the United States into a reactive and contradictory position. A re-examination of Ozawa and Thind delves deeper into the legal briefs and arguments made by Takao Ozawa and Bhagat Singh Thind, alongside their legal teams. These briefs, opinions of the court, past lower court cases, and personal statements by Ozawa and Thind demonstrate how they did not surrender to the confines of …

Reconstituting A Constitution, And A Republic: The Architecture Of Authoritarian Rule, J. Maria Glover

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

A constitution can be remade without tearing it down, or even changing a single word. It is done by law.

“The judicial power is vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as Congress may establish,” whose “province and duty” it is to “say what the law is.” U.S. Const. Art. III §1; Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 1 (Cranch) 137 (1803). It is not the power to remake the Constitution that grants it.

The Supreme Court is turning the inherited powers that hold power to law into instruments of its own aggrandizement. It is taking authority from …

Foreword: The Constitution And Public Finance—Why Now And Why Ever?, Conor Clarke, Eric Kubo

Scholarship@WashULaw

This paper introduces the Washington University Law Review’s 2026 symposium issue on “Taxing, Spending, and the Constitution.” We situate the symposium’s ten papers within three interconnected developments in public finance law: the Supreme Court’s recent decision on the Sixteenth Amendment in Moore v. United States; the Trump Administration’s assertions of executive control over appropriated funds; and the use of emergency and trade statutes to justify sweeping tariff authority.

We also step back to ask why constitutional issues in public finance—long treated as a technical backwater—have become such a central site of doctrinal and political conflict. We offer several explanations beyond …

From Myers To Slaughter: A Brief Theory Of The Constitutionalization Of Secondary Sources, Dana Neacsu, Paul D. Callister

Faculty Works

For more than two centuries, American constitutional adjudication has relied upon secondary sources. Yet constitutional theory has almost entirely ignored them. Originalism debates constitutional text. Living constitutionalism debates constitutional evolution. Theories of precedent debate judicial authority. None asks a more fundamental question: What role do secondary sources play in constitutional adjudication? This Article argues that the answer has fundamentally changed in the last 100 of years. Chief Justice William Howard Taft's opinion in Myers v. United States (1926) marked a constitutional revolution by transforming secondary authorities from explanatory materials into evidence of constitutional continuity. Exactly one century later, Chief Justice …

Five Lessons From Ken Kersch’S Conservatives And The Constitution For The Present Moment, James E. Fleming, Linda C. Mcclain

Faculty Scholarship

Timothy Snyder’s On Tyranny, a New York Times bestseller, has the subtitle, “Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century.” Ken Kersch’s Conservatives and the Constitution: Imagining Constitutional Restoration in the Heyday of American Liberalism (2019) provides at least twenty lessons from the second half of the Twentieth Century about the development of conservative constitutional thought and activism. Although conservatism has changed in many ways since the 1954-1980 period on which Kersch’s book focuses, these lessons are relevant for understanding the present political moment, filled with concerns that the U.S., during the second Trump Administration, is lurching toward tyranny, authoritarianism, and …

Rethinking Judicial Power & Remedial Restraint, Caprice L. Roberts

Catholic University Law Review

This Article maintains that groundbreaking Supreme Court cases reshaping judicial power and restraint are frequently remedies centric. The much- anticipated ruling in Trump v. CASA illustrates this correlation. Interpreting traditional equity, the Supreme Court circumscribed federal judicial power to issue universal relief. The Court relied on Marbury v. Madison to bolster its reasoning on the limits of judicial power. Ironically, both cases denied any remedy while enhancing the potential for future judicial power. Whether via judicial review and supremacy power or the Court’s future ability to now be the only federal court able to issue universal remedies—the Court’s role in …

Checks, Balances, Tariffs, And Justice Kavanaugh, Stanley I. Langbein

ConLawNOW

Justice Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion in FCC v. Consumers Research was remarkable in a number of respects, principally because it expressed very strong views on matters currently under consideration by the Supreme Court, although some of the issues he resolved were not issues posed by the Consumers’ Research case itself. Foremost among the positions he expressed were a muted version of the nondelegation doctrine and the view that the major questions doctrine has virtually no application to matters involving foreign affairs. The tariff decision now pending before the Court, in the V.O.S. Enterprises and Learning Research cases, may present a collision …

Packing Our Way To Balance: A Necessary Correction For The Supreme Court, Robert E. Wagner

St. John's Law Review

The Supreme Court is in turmoil. It has the lowest recorded approval rating in its history. Multiple decisions over the past decade made by Justices nominated by a single political party, that the majority of the country viewed as political in nature, have tarnished the reputation of what was once a beacon of justice and impartiality. The Court is increasingly seen as a partisan institution with political actors rather than the fair and honest arbiter America needs it to be. In addition to dramatically unpopular decisions, the Court has suffered increasingly hostile and political machinations in its nominating process. This …

Changing Opinions: The Supreme Court After Dobbs, Lora E. Judge

Honors Theses

No abstract provided.

Rethinking The Key Role Of Private Antitrust Enforcement, Filippo Lancieri

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

This Article focuses on the institutional design of American competition policy. It argues that any long-term effective revival of U.S. antitrust policy requires a better acknowledgement of the key and irreplaceable role played by private litigation and proposes a rethink of private anti-trust enforcement policy.

To unpack the nuanced interconnection between public and private competition enforcement, the Article begins by tracing the rise and fall of private antitrust. It builds on a novel, hand-coded, and comprehensive analysis of the entire Supreme Court antitrust track record—all 474 decisions over 130 years—to outline how an ideologically …

Privacy Rights: Their Evolution, Expansion, And Narrowing, Rebecca Nichole Ivans

Undergraduate Honors Capstone Projects

Privacy rights in the United States have evolved significantly through judicial interpretation, with reproductive rights playing a central role in their expansion and contraction. This paper examines how the Supreme Court's treatment of reproductive rights has shaped the broader understanding of constitutional privacy rights, focusing on landmark cases from Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) to Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022).

The analysis begins by exploring how the Court first established privacy rights through "penumbras" found within various constitutional amendments, particularly in Griswold's protection of contraceptive access for married couples. The paper traces the expansion of these rights through subsequent …

Rico V. United States, Meagan R. Hurley

Articles

Isabel Rico was serving a term of supervised release when she absconded from federal supervision. Years later, the government sought to revoke her release, arguing that her fugitive status “tolled” her supervised-release term. The Ninth Circuit agreed. Other circuits, however, have rejected the fugitive-tolling doctrine in the supervised-release context. The Supreme Court will now decide whether federal courts may judicially adopt fugitive tolling, or whether Congress’s silence in the supervised-release statute forecloses it.

Tinkering With The Machinery Of Death: Execution Through Nitrogen Hypoxia, Emiliano Villarreal

The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice

The modern era of the death penalty in the United States began in 1976 when the Supreme Court reinstituted the death penalty just four years after having found it to be unconstitutional. Since then, various states, as well as the federal government, have experimented with different methods of execution to find the most “humane” way of carrying out an execution. In 2018, Alabama legalized the use of nitrogen hypoxia as a method of execution, and in 2024, became the first state to execute a person with this new, previously untested method. However, the use of nitrogen hypoxia has been the …

Bowers, Lawrence And Obergefell: A Case-By-Case Analysis, Hailey Moran

The Downtown Review: An Interdisciplinary Journal Written and Peer-Reviewed by Mandel Honors College Students at Cleveland State University

What does Bowers v. Hardwick, Lawrence v. Texas, and Obergefell v. Hodges all have in common? Each of these Supreme Court cases chronicles the passage of time and advancement in LGBTQ+ rights in America. Not only, however, do they chronicle the rights that have been achieved for LGBTQ+ individuals, but they also chronicle the evolution of the Justices on the bench. These cases here help us understand the influences that encourage the Justice’s decision-making, whether it be the state of the law or the Court’s environment. By analyzing each case, we can understand not only how these cases were decided, …

Examine Supreme Court Decisions That Have Influenced The Gender Salary Gap, Shinhae Hwang

Journal of the Symposium of University Research and Creative Expression

Project Mentor(s): Rodrigo Murataya, PhD

Despite significant advancements in gender equality policies and legal frameworks, women consistently earn less than men across various industries and job positions (Blau & Khan, 2017). As of 2023, median weekly wages of full-time women are 83.6 percent of the median weekly wages of men, an increase of just three percentage points since 2004 (BLS 2024). This stalled convergence in the gender gap in wages has led to a large and vibrant research literature that seeks to understand why change has been so slow (England 2010). This paper explores the impact of legislative acts such …

"Tik Tok" On The Clock: It's Time To Amend Section 230, Mackenzie G. Howe

West Virginia Law Review

The Communications Decency Act (“CDA”), enacted in 1996, was designed to support the rapid growth of the Internet, advancing access to political information, educational resources, culture, entertainment, and news. However, Section 230 of the CDA includes a key provision that grants nearly absolute immunity to online platforms such as Facebook, X, and TikTok. This provision states: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” Despite the Supreme Court’s apprehension to reexamine Section 230, the Third Circuit took a novel approach to potentially …