Digital Commons Network^™

News Treatment Of The Supreme Court: Language Selection, Ideological Directions, And Public Support, Alexander Denison

Theses and Dissertations--Political Science

In an increasingly diverse media landscape, how much of the ideological trends seen in current news reporting affect coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court? This work examines two different aspects of the Court's activities, their decisions and the confirmation hearings of Court nominees, analyzing what factors, if any, lead to differences in coverage language. Finally, through the use of a survey experiment, I analyze whether these differences in language, in combination with positive symbolic imagery, affect attitudes toward the institution. This work provides a novel consideration of whether the Court is subject to the same ideological slant found in coverage …

The Influence Of The Federalist Society On Judical Politics And Law In The United States, Peter S. K. Lynch

Theses and Dissertations--Political Science

This dissertation examines the Federalist Society, which is a network of conservative and libertarian attorneys, judges, law professors, and law students. The organization was founded by law students at Harvard Law School, Yale Law School, and the University of Chicago Law School in 1982, and has, over the last four decades, come to play a central role in law and politics in the United States. Individuals affiliated with the Federalist Society influence the law through a variety of avenues.

Federalist Society-members advance the goals of the conservative legal movement in a variety of capacities—by writing amicus curiae briefs providing the …

Sports Law—Sports Gambling In A Post-Murphy World: Ensuring Emerging Sports Gambling Laws Adequately Protect The Integrity Of College Sports, Matthew Dziok

Western New England Law Review

In 2018, the United States Supreme Court struck down the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), which prohibited states from authorizing sports gambling schemes. The Court in Murphy v. NCAA struck down PASPA on constitutional grounds, holding that the Act violated the anticommandeering doctrine of the Tenth Amendment. Before the Murphy decision, because of a grandfather provision in PASPA, Nevada was essentially the only state where it was legal to place a bet on a sporting event. Not surprisingly, after PASPA was struck down, numerous states have legalized sports gambling.

Perhaps one of the most important decisions state lawmakers …

Gerrymandering, Entrenchment, And “The Right To Alter Or Abolish”: Defining The Guarantee Clause As A Judicially Manageable Standard, James R. Brakebill

Western New England Law Review

The Guarantee Clause provides that “[t]he United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” Based on its original public meaning, the guarantee of a republican government protects core political rights and contains readily ascertainable standards founded on majority rule and a prohibition of minority-party entrenchment. The Supreme Court failed to develop a standard for adjudicating partisan gerrymandering claims because the Equal Protection Clause and the “one person, one vote” framework are fundamentally incompatible with the harms associated with partisan gerrymandering. Such claims involve harms to majority rights that strike at the core of …

Criminal Law—Under The Gun Of Rehaif V.United States: How State Legislatures And Courts Must Blunt The Effect Of Knowledge, Meaghan E. Collins

Western New England Law Review

For well over thirty years, courts across the nation maintained an interpretational unanimity in applying 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) in thousands of cases. This law specifies that a defendant commits a crime if they were previously convicted of a felony and then later possess a firearm in or affecting commerce. Under the original statutory interpretation, the government was only required to prove that a person knew of their possession of a firearm. However, in 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States overturned that traditional understanding. Under the more recent interpretation, the government is required to prove not only that …

Property Law—Horror, Inc. V. Miller: The Lurking, Underlying Work Beneath Crystal Lake!, Kenneth Stratton

Western New England Law Review

Horror, Inc. v. Miller highlights the tension in copyright law between authors and their grantees. In its decision, the District Court for the District of Connecticut found that screenwriter Victor Miller recaptured his Friday the 13th screenplay by exercising his termination rights. However, the end of the court’s opinion suggested film production company Horror, Inc. may have a claim to the hockey-masked “adult Jason” present in later films. This sets up a conflict between an author seeking to recapture the works they created and grantees who developed sequels based on that work. So, who controls Jason Voorhees?

This Note argues, …

Constitutional Law—Answering Justice Barrett’S Fulton Prompt: The Case For A Narrow Reconsideration Of Free Exercise, Andrew Lavender

Western New England Law Review

In Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, the Supreme Court, for the second time in three years, considered a case involving the conflict between First Amendment religious, speech, and associational freedoms and the civil rights of the LGBTQ community. And, for the second time, the Court arrived at an apparent compromise, issuing a narrow, factual ruling in favor of the party seeking an exception from antidiscrimination law while avoiding any firm precedent that might create a broader exception.

In addition to this substantive dodge, the Court also “sidestep[ped] the question on which certiorari had been granted: whether to overrule Employment …

Less Restrictive Alternatives And The Ancillary Restraints Doctrine, Thomas B. Nachbar

Seattle University Law Review

In Ohio v. American Express, both the majority and dissent introduced into Supreme Court antitrust jurisprudence a new test for evaluating restraints under the rule of reason: a less restrictive alternatives test. Occasionally appearing in circuit court cases, less restrictive alternatives tests have not been part of Supreme Court’s approach to the rule of reason, which generally evaluates restraints of trade by balancing their anticompetitive and procompetitive effects.

American Express was the first Supreme Court case to mention a less restrictive alternatives test, potentially representing a major shift in antitrust law, but it was not the last. In 2021’s …

Access To Court Cases From The Supreme Court’S 2020–2021 Term: The New Majority’S Debut, Sarah Somers, Jane Perkins, Abigail Coursolle, Sarah Grusin

Saint Louis University Journal of Health Law & Policy

Throughout the Supreme Court’s first term without Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court issued only a few major opinions with respect to access to the Court for civil litigants, and it issued none that discarded major precedents. Yet, in several areas, the Court demonstrated an increasingly conservative bent and began to lay the groundwork for major changes. In this Article, we discuss selected opinions from the Court’s 2020–2021 term that may have an impact on access to the courts for individuals seeking to vindicate civil and constitutional rights. In particular, it focuses on cases that may affect access for low-income …

Clouded Precedent: Tandon V. Newsom And Its Implications For The Shadow Docket, Alexander Gouzoules

Faculty Publications

The Supreme Court’s “shadow docket”—the decisions issued outside its procedures for deciding cases on the merits—has drawn increasing attention and criticism from scholars, commentators, and elected representatives. Shadow docket decisions have been criticized on the grounds that they are made without the benefit of full briefing and argument, and because their abbreviated, per curiam opinions can be difficult for lower courts to interpret.

A spate of shadow docket decisions in the context of free-exercise challenges to COVID-19 public health orders culminated in Tandon v. Newsom, a potentially groundbreaking decision that may upend longstanding doctrines governing claims brought under the Free …

The Insidious Effect Of Soundbites: Why Fences Aren't Punishment, Theresa Gabaldon

American University Law Review

This Article was inspired by two recent Supreme Court decisions dealing with the ability of the Securities and Exchange Commission to seek disgorgement of unlawfully obtained profits. The topic, however, is not disgorgement. That is a different article, published by the author in the Cornell Lazu Reviezu in 2020, on which this one builds. This Article focuses instead on jurisprudential methodology. The Court has begun to exhibit an unfortunate penchant for jurisprudence by soundbite—the functional equivalent of Googling its ozun precedents for pithy quotes taken out of context from inapt cases. The results are, to put it politely, mischievous.

This …

The Heat Is On: Will Climate Change Suits Pressure The Supreme Court To Evolve Its Federal Question Jurisdiction?, Katie Hoffecker

Saint Louis University Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Law—Federal Courts: Is The Constitution A Sword?, Bruce K. Miller

Western New England Law Review

In Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice Marshall proclaimed that “[t]he very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever he [sic] receives an injury.” This pronouncement has shaped a widespread assumption that the rule of law under our Constitution entails a right to seek a judicial remedy when constitutional rights are violated. But, perhaps surprisingly, the Supreme Court has never squarely held that such a right exists. And some recent decisions, most particularly Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson, decided in December of 2021, cast serious doubt …

Circuit Circus: Defying Scotus And Disenfranchising Black Voters, Charquia Wright

Scholarly Publications

Law students are uniformly taught thatfederal circuit courts cannot and will not overrule Supreme Court precedent under any circumstance. This is not true. They can, with little fear of corrective mechanisms like en banc oversight, Supreme Court review, or congressional override. And in certain circumstances, they are bound to do so by the law of the circuit. Under the prudential law of the circuit doctrine in-circuit precedent binds circuit courts, even in scenarios where conflicting long-standing Supreme Court precedent exists. Circuits can only depart from erroneous circuit precedent ifa later-decided SCOTUS or en banc decision obviates the circuit precedent. This …

Redundant Reliance And The Supreme Court's Application Of Stare Decisis, Daniel Kim

CMC Senior Theses

When the Supreme Court invokes the doctrine of stare decisis in their opinions, they are appealing to the fundamental principle that precedents have authority by virtue of being a precedent. However, they also recognize other concerns that come with the decision to defer to precedents or to overturn them. In pursuit of maintaining the rule of law, the Court uses various legal tests to guide them through sometimes competing concerns of precedential authority, including what is called reliance interests: the consideration of whether the precedent has engendered a reliance to the said precedent, to the extent that overturning it would …

The Origins Of Supreme Court Question Selection, Benjamin B. Johnson

Faculty Scholarship

Arbitrary control over its own docket is the hallmark of the modern Supreme Court. While the Court’s power to choose its cases is a frequent subject of study, its practice of preselecting questions for review has received almost no attention. This is particularly surprising since the Court openly adds or subtracts questions in some of its most consequential and politicizing cases. Yet, despite the significance of this practice, its origins are poorly understood. This is the first Essay to uncover the hidden history of the Court’s question-selection powers. It reveals an important---and possibly intractable---conflict between the Court’s legal authority and …

When Police Volunteer To Kill, Alexandra L. Klein

Faculty Articles

The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of lethal injection, yet states continue to struggle with drug shortages and botched executions. Some states have authorized alternative methods of execution, including the firing squad. Utah, which has consistently carried out firing squad executions throughout its history, relies on police officers from the jurisdiction where the crime took place to volunteer to carry out these executions. This represents a plausible-and probable method for other states in conducting firing squad executions.

Public and academic discussion of the firing squad has centered on questions of pain and suffering. It has not engaged with the …

Originalism's Implementation Problem, Michael L. Smith, Alexander S. Hiland

Faculty Articles

Originalism has received a great deal of recent, mainstream attention. President Donald Trump's nomination of three justices to the Supreme Court amplified discussions of their judicial philosophies during and following their confirmation proceedings. Supporters of these nominations highlighted the nominees' originalist credentials, arguing that originalism was the dominant approach to constitutional interpretation.

In the academic sphere, volumes of articles and books set forth originalist theories and methodology. Its academic proponents also refer to it as the dominant form of constitutional interpretation—often asserting that opponents of originalism have failed to enunciate a coherent alternative theory. Some argue that originalism (at least, …

From Contacts To Relatedness: Invigorating The Promise Of "Fair Play And Substantial Justice" In Personal Jurisdiction Doctrine, Richard D. Freer

Faculty Articles

Personal jurisdiction is integral to access to justice. Without a convenient court, plaintiffs’ efforts to vindicate claims (and society’s interest in private enforcement of law) may be thwarted. After considerable engagement in between 1977 and 1990, the Supreme Court did not decide a personal jurisdiction case between 1990 and 2011. This Symposium addresses what the Court has done regarding personal jurisdiction in the “new era” that started in 2011. That year brought a specific jurisdiction decision, J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, and a general jurisdiction decision, Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown. The former broke no …

Rational Actors, Class Action Waivers, And The Emergence Of Mass Individual Arbitration Demands, Richard D. Freer

Faculty Articles

Part I of this Article gives a brief overview of the FAA, including the four understandings that underlay the Court’s jurisprudence for six decades, and the radical transformation wrought by the Court’s rejection of those understandings in the past four decades. Part II discusses how the transformation of the FAA led plaintiff and defense counsel, as rational actors, to adopt positions that ultimately led to the focus on class action waivers. Part III analyzes the Court’s decisions from 2013 to the present and draws at least some tentative conclusions about where things stand a decade after Professor Wasserman raised these …

Turning Back Time: Implications Of Originalist Legal Theory For Women's Rights, Emma Mays

Honors Program: Senior Projects (Public)

Since America’s foundation, women’s rights have expanded to lengths that would have been unimaginable to the Founding Fathers including the right to vote, the ability to work outside the home, and some aspects of bodily autonomy. These legal adaptations, along with a larger cultural shift towards liberation, have left many modern-day women with a false sense of security in the face of growing judicial sentiments that threaten the rights of women. The legal theory of originalism that has been growing in force significantly since the 1980s argues that in interpreting constitutional matters, judges should uncover and promote the meaning of …

Requiring The Executive To Turn Square Corners: The Supreme Court Increases Agency Accountability In Department Of Homeland Security V. Regents Of The University Of California, Claudia J. Bernstein

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

Administrative agencies frequently promulgate rules that have dramatic effects on peoples’ lives. Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”) is one such example. DACA grants certain unlawful immigrants a temporary reprieve from deportation, as well as ancillary benefits such as work permits. In 2017, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) sought to rescind DACA on the basis that the program violates the Immigration and Nationality Act.

This Comment analyzes the recent Supreme Court decision about DACA’s recission in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of University of California. In rejecting DHS’s attempt to rescind DACA, the Court strengthened agency accountability …

Courts In Conversation, Thomas P. Schmidt

Faculty Scholarship

Ralph Waldo Emerson once suggested that we read not for instruction but for provocation. By that standard, in The Words That Made Us, Akhil Reed Amar has written a characteristically great book. This is not to deny that there is abundant instruction in its many pages: Amar offers a synoptic and yet still nuanced description of the great constitutional conversation that engulfed American political life in the eighty or so years around the founding. One of the chief values of the book, though, is that it will provoke a whole new set of additions to the constitutional conversation that …

“Seeking The Fruits Of Their Labors”: The Story Of Johnson V. Mcadoo, The First Major Reparations Case, John G. Browning

Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity

No abstract provided.

Signs Inscribed On A Gate: The Impact Of Van Buren V. United States On Civil Claims Under The Computer Fraud And Abuse Act, Scott T. Lashway, Matthew M.K. Stein

Western New England Law Review

This Article addresses the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2021 decision in Van Buren v. United States on what constitutes“ authorization” to access a computer under the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)—a law that imposes both criminal and private civil liability for violations—and concludes that, so far, the Van Buren decision has not rendered the CFAA toothless. The Introduction briefly explains the history of the CFAA, a summary of why it was enacted, how organizations have relied upon it as an important tool to protect themselves from computer hackers and increased cybersecurity risks, and a Circuit …

Defending The Defenders: Why Bureaucratic Independence Is A Necessary Supplement To Judicial Defense Of Democracy The Specter Of Dictatorship: Judicial Enabling Of Presidential Power, Andrea Scoseria Katz

Scholarship@WashULaw

A familiar story is being observed in countries ranging from Brazil to Australia, the United States, and Poland, as elected executives deploy a populist threat narrative to politicize the rule of law and entrench themselves in power. Out of the academy, a growing literature on democratic “backsliding” or “decline” proposes a menu of “guardrails” for shoring up democracy from gradual collapse. Broadly, these guardrails fall under two headings: I call one judicial, the other bureaucratic. The former looks to the power of judicial review, under which courts may invalidate enactments that threaten, not just the Constitution, but the very democratic …

Unresponsive Judicial Review: How Formalism On The American Bench Thwarts Democracy Defense, Andrea Scoseria Katz

Scholarship@WashULaw

At a time when worldwide democratic decline is of grave concern, Rosalind Dixon’s Responsive Judicial Review is vital and timely. Dixon sketches an attractive vision of courts’ highest role as one of democracy-defense: protecting free and fair elections, ensuring rights and freedoms remain in vigor, muscularly enforcing checks and balances. Granted, argues Dixon, “responsive” courts must exercise their powers in a context-sensitive way; courts in fraught environments cannot get away with quite as much entrepreneurial judging as their counterparts, and they should tailor a remedy to ensure, one, its own feasibility, and two, the court’s survival. The pragmatic character of …

Revisiting America's Guardrails The Constitution And Democratic Erosion Symposium, Andrea Scoseria Katz

Scholarship@WashULaw

A familiar story is being observed in countries ranging from Brazil to Australia, the United States, and Poland as elected executives deploy a populist threat narrative to politicize the rule of law and entrench themselves in power. Out of the academy, a growing literature proposes a menu of “guardrails” for shoring up democracy from backsliding or decline. Some see guardrails in society and culture, calling for rebuilding civic norms of tolerance. Others call for stricter rules in administering elections, to prevent undue influence. Others call for greater judicial intervention, tasking courts with striking down enactments that threaten the constitution or …

Assessing Affirmative Action's Diversity Rationale, Kyle Rozema, Adam Chilton, Justin Driver, Jonathan S. Masur

Scholarship@WashULaw

Ever since Justice Lewis Powell’s opinion in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke made diversity in higher education a constitutionally acceptable rationale for affirmative action programs, the diversity rationale has received vehement criticism from across the ideological spectrum. Critics on the right argue that diversity efforts lead to “less meritorious” applicants being selected. Critics on the left charge that diversity is mere “subterfuge.” On the diversity rationale’s legitimacy, then, there is precious little diversity of thought. In particular, prominent scholars and jurists have cast doubt on the diversity rationale’s empirical foundations, claiming that it rests on an implausible …

Establishment’S Political Priority To Free Exercise, Marc O. Degirolami

Faculty Publications

Americans are beset by disagreement about the First Amendment. Progressive scholars are attacking the venerable liberal view that First Amendment rights must not be constricted to secure communal, political benefits. To prioritize free speech rights, they say, reflects an unjust inflation of individual interest over our common political commitments. These disagreements afflict the Religion Clauses as well. Critics claim that religious exemption has become more important than the values of disestablishment that define the polity. Free exercise exemption, they argue, has subordinated establishment.

This Article contests these views. The fundamental rules and norms constituting the political regime—what the Article calls …