Digital Commons Network^™

Free To Hate: Hate Crimes' Intertwinement With The Evolution Of Free Speech In The United States, Lee F. Paulson

Honors Program: Senior Projects (Public)

In response to the growing tension between civil liberties and civil rights, this research investigates the relationship between the relative expansiveness of free speech and a the nationwide propensity for hate crimes. I argue that government’s legal limitations of speech influence the development of linguistic and hierarchical norms in a national culture. Given structural inequality’s association to violence and crimes of intimidation, I hypothesize that as the government expands the legal bounds of free speech, the national propensity for hate crimes decreases. Text analyses of 50 influential freedom of expression rulings in the United States (U.S.) Supreme Court from 1919-2019 …

Super-Dissenters, Nicholas L. Georgakopoulos

Hofstra Law Review

An overview of adjudication by the Supreme Court reveals three phenomena. In the 1976 term, unanimous decisions switch from being decidedly liberal to even, and in 1990, they switch to greater frequency. Also, during the 1970s and 1980s, the Supreme Court displays greater complexity of coalition formation. The departures of Justice Douglas in the first case, and of Justices Brennan and Marshall in the last two, have explanatory power. A look back at pre-WWII data indicates both changes are in the direction of returning to older patterns.

Self-Determination In American Discourse: The Supreme Court’S Historical Indoctrination Of Free Speech And Expression, Jarred Williams

Honors Program: Senior Projects (Public)

Within the American criminal legal system, it is a well-established practice to presume the innocence of those charged with criminal offenses unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Such a judicial framework-like approach, called a legal maxim, is utilized in order to ensure that the law is applied and interpreted in ways that legislative bodies originally intended.

The central aim of this piece in relation to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution is to investigate whether the Supreme Court of the United States has utilized a specific legal maxim within cases that dispute government speech or expression regulation. …

Supreme Court Reform And American Democracy, Ganesh Sitaraman, Daniel Epps

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

In How to Save the Supreme Court, we identified the legitimacy challenge facing the Court, traced it to a set of structural flaws, and proposed novel reforms. Little more than a year later, the conversation around Supreme Court reform has only grown louder and more urgent. In this Essay, we continue that conversation by engaging with critics of our approach. The current crisis of the Supreme Court is, we argue, inextricable from the question of the Supreme Court’s proper role in our democracy. For those interested in reform, there are three distinct strategies for ensuring the Supreme Court maintains its …

The Importance Of The Time’S Political Climate In Cases Of Incitement, Kimberly George

Student Research Poster Presentations 2021

The Supreme Court cases, Schenck v. United States (1919), Dennis v. United States (1951),and Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) each deal with the issue of incitement speech. Each create tests for determining what is incitement speech which is not protected under the First Amendment. Each of these cases took place during times with tense political climates, World War One, the Cold War, and the Civil Rights Movement. This had an impact on the outcomes of these cases.

No Home Court Advantage: The Trump Impeachment Trial And Attitudes Toward The U.S. Supreme Court, Miles T. Armaly, Adam M. Enders

Faculty and Student Publications

Although the U.S. Supreme Court goes to great lengths to avoid the “political thicket,” it is sometimes unwittingly pulled in. We employ several experimental treatments—each of which is composed of real behaviors that took place during the Trump impeachment trial—to understand the impact of the trial on attitudes about the Court. We find that Chief Justice Roberts’ presence and behaviors during the trial failed to legitimize the proceeding and may have even harmed views of the Court. Treatments involving Roberts’ actions decreased willingness to accept Court decisions and, in some cases, negatively impacted perceived legitimacy. We also find that criticisms …

Neither Safe, Nor Legal, Nor Rare: The D.C. Circuit’S Use Of The Doctrine Of Ratification To Shield Agency Action From Appointments Clause Challenges, Damien M. Schiff

Seattle University Law Review

Key to the constitutional design of the federal government is the separation of powers. An important support for that separation is the Appointments Clause, which governs how officers of the United States are installed in their positions. Although the separation of powers generally, and the Appointments Clause specifically, support democratically accountable government, they also protect individual citizens against abusive government power. But without a judicial remedy, such protection is ineffectual—a mere parchment barrier.

Such has become the fate of the Appointments Clause in the D.C. Circuit, thanks to that court’s adoption—and zealous employment—of the rule that agency action, otherwise unconstitutional …

The Constitution In Context: The Continuing Significance Of Racism, T. Alexander Aleinikoff

University of Colorado Law Review

Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, and sex. Many Title VII cases have arisen when an applicant's or employee's non-conformity with an employer's policy barring certain hairstyles or clothing has resulted in an adverse employment action, such as a denial or termination of employment. Generally, courts have not deemed an adverse employment action resulting from an applicant's or employee's non-conformity with an employment policy banning the display of mutable characteristics commonly associated with a particular racial or ethnic group a violation of Title VII's proscription …

Why Do The Poor Not Have A Constitutional Right To File Civil Claims In Court Under Their First Amendment Right To Petition The Government For A Redress Of Grievances?, Henry Rose

Seattle University Law Review

Since 1963, the United States Supreme Court has recognized a constitutional right for American groups, organizations, and persons to pursue civil litigation under the First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances. However, in three cases involving poor plaintiffs decided by the Supreme Court in the early 1970s—Boddie v. Connecticut,2 United States v. Kras,3 and Ortwein v. Schwab4—the Supreme Court rejected arguments that all persons have a constitutional right to access courts to pursue their civil legal claims.5 In the latter two cases, Kras and Ortwein, the Supreme Court concluded that poor persons were properly barred from …

Taking The Constitution Away From The Supreme Court Of India, Amal Sethi

National Law School of India Review

In very few countries worldwide, is constitutionalism confined to the apex court’s courtrooms, the way it is in India. This facet of Indian political life has been taken so much for granted that rarely have people stopped to examine whether it is even desirable. This article will argue that on a closer examination, the Supreme Court is an inefficient forum to realise the Constitution’s promises and more so in today’s political climate. On the contrary, India’s Supreme Court centric constitutionalism raises more challenges than it resolves. This article will suggest that there is an urgent need to usher in a …

Splitting Hairs: Resolving The Circuit Split On Aaa Incorporation In Class Arbitration Delegation, Jacob Petersen

Mitchell Hamline Law Journal of Public Policy and Practice

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch And Brett Kavanaugh Clash Over Federal Regulation And Criminal Justice, Daniel Harris

Chapman Law Review

U.S. Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh are turning out to be quite different from each other. During the Court’s October 2018 term (ending in June 2019), in cases with at least one dissent, Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Justice Neil Gorsuch were on opposite sides 49% of the time. In the October 2019 term, the two Trump-appointed Justices again disagreed in significant cases. The thesis of this Article is that there are themes to the differences between Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Gorsuch that can be discerned from their votes and opinions. The first theme relates to jurisprudential style. …

Reform Through Resignation: Why Chief Justice Roberts Should Resign (In 2023), Scott P. Bloomberg

Faculty Publications

Many proponents of reforming the Supreme Court have expressed support for adopting a system of eighteen-year staggered term limits. These proposals, however, are hobbled by constitutional constraints: Amending the Constitution to implement term limits is highly implausible and implementing term limits through statute is likely unconstitutional. This Essay offers an approach to implementing term limits that avoids these constitutional constraints. Just as President Washington was able to establish a de facto Presidential term limit by not seeking a third term in office, Chief Justice Roberts is uniquely positioned to establish a new norm of serving eighteen-year terms on the Court. …

The Constitutional Tort System, Noah Smith-Drelich

Indiana Law Journal

Constitutional torts—private lawsuits for constitutional wrongdoing—are the primary means by which violations of the U.S. Constitution are vindicated and deterred. Through damage awards, and occasionally injunctive relief, victims of constitutional violations discourage future misconduct while obtaining redress. However, the collection of laws that governs these actions is a complete muddle, lacking any sort of coherent structure or unifying theory. The result is too much and too little constitutional litigation, generating calls for reform from across the political spectrum along with reverberations that reach from Standing Rock to Flint to Ferguson.

This Article constructs a framework of the constitutional tort system, …

Curing The First Amendment Scrutiny Muddle Through A Breyer-Based Blend Up? Toward A Less Categorical, More Values-Oriented Approach For Selecting Standards Of Judicial Review, Clay Calvert

UF Law Faculty Publications

This Article argues that the United States Supreme Court should significantly alter its current categorical approach for discerning standards of judicial review in free-speech cases. The present system should become nondeterminative and be augmented with a modified version of Justice Stephen Breyer’s long-preferred proportionality framework. Specifically, the Article’s proposed tack fuses facets of today’s policy, which largely pivots on distinguishing content-based laws from content-neutral laws and letting that categorization determine scrutiny, with a more nuanced, values-and-interests methodology. A values-and-interests formula would allow the Court to climb up or down the traditional ladder of scrutiny rungs – strict, intermediate or rational …

A Reign Of Error: Property Rights And Stare Decisis, Michael Allan Wolf

UF Law Faculty Publications

Mistakes matter in law, even the smallest ones. What would happen if a small but substantively meaningful typographical error appeared in the earliest published version of a U.S. Supreme Court opinion and remained uncorrected for several decades in versions of the decision published by the two leading commercial companies and in several online databases? And what would happen if judges, legal commentators, and practitioners wrote opinions, articles, and other legal materials that incorporated and built on that mistake? In answering these questions, this Article traces the widespread, exponential replication of an error (first appearing in 1928) in numerous subsequent cases …

An Appellate Solution To Nationwide Injunctions, Sam Heavenrich

Indiana Law Journal

District courts have issued an unprecedented number of nationwide injunctions during the Obama and Trump administrations, provoking criticism from the Supreme Court. This Article proposes a change to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that addresses the Justices’ concerns without taking the drastic step of eliminating nationwide injunctions entirely. Specifically, this Article recommends amending Rule 65 to allow only the appellate courts to issue injunctive relief that extends beyond the plaintiffs in cases challenging a federal law or policy. In addition to the proposed Rule change, this Article offers a categorization framework for existing proposals addressing nationwide injunctions, classifying them …

Deep Tracks: Album Cuts That Help Define The Essential Scalia, Gary S. Lawson

Faculty Scholarship

Jeff Sutton and Ed Whelan have collected some of Justice Scalia’s “greatest hits” in a volume entitled The Essential Scalia: On the Constitution, the Courts, and the Rule of Law. The book is an excellent introduction to the jurisprudential thought and literary style of one of the most influential legal thinkers—and legal writers—in modern times. As with any “greatest hits” compilation, however, there are inevitably going to be key “album cuts” for which there will not be space. This essay seeks to supplement Sutton and Whelan’s invaluable efforts by surveying three of those “deep tracks” that shed particular light on …

Congress's Competing Motivations: What Chevron Can Tell Us About Constitutional Acquiescence, George Krug

Indiana Law Journal

This Note asks under what conditions the Supreme Court would find evidence of post- Founding historical practice persuasive in separation of powers debates. This Note focuses on two theories of how evidence of a long-standing historical practice might be relevant in separation of powers disputes: constitutional liquidation and historical gloss. According to both theories, the authority of a long-standing historical practice depends in part on the motivations driving the relevant branch of government to engage in that practice. Current scholarship on constitutional liquidation and historical gloss, however, has not yet explored fully these motivations in a way that recognizes the …

Oral Argument In The Time Of Covid: The Chief Justice Plays Calvinball, Tonja Jacobi, Timothy R. Johnson, Eve M. Ringsmuth, Matthew Sag

Faculty Articles

In this Article, we empirically assess the Supreme Court’s experiment in hearing telephonic oral arguments. We compare the telephonic hearings to those heard in person by the current Court and examine whether the Justices followed norms of fairness and equality. We show that the telephonic forum changed the dynamics of oral argument in a way that gave the Chief Justice new power, and that Chief Justice Roberts, knowingly or unknowingly, used that new power to benefit his ideological allies. We also show that the Chief interrupted the female Justices disproportionately more than the male Justices and gave the male Justices …

The Remaking Of The Supreme Court: Implications For Climate Change Litigation & Regulation, Mark P. Nevitt

Faculty Articles

With the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett, the Supreme Court is a Senate vote away from a historic shakeup that will cement a conservative judicial majority for decades. While politicians, scholars, and the media have largely focused on what a Barrett nomination means for the Affordable Care Act and Roe v. Wade, the confirmation of Barrett would significantly impact a wide swath of environmental and climate change cases for years to come. As the Supreme Court is on the brink of a generational transformation, it is increasingly clear that we have a generation—and no longer—to reduce our Greenhouse …

Is There A New Extraterritoriality In Intellectual Property?, Timothy R. Holbrook

Faculty Articles

This Article proceeds as follows. Part I discusses the state of the law of extraterritoriality in copyright, trademark, and patent, as it stood before the Supreme Court’s recent intervention. This review demonstrates that all three disciplines were treating extraterritoriality very differently, and none were paying much attention to the presumption against extraterritoriality. Part II reviews a tetralogy of recent Supreme Court cases, describing the Court’s attempt to formalize its approach to extraterritoriality across all fields of law. Part III analyzes the state of IP law in the aftermath of this tetralogy of extraterritoriality cases. It concludes that there has been …

In Contracts We Trust (And No One Can Change Their Mind)! There Should Be No Special Treatment For Religious Arbitration, Michael J. Broyde, Alexa J. Windsor

Faculty Articles

The recent article In God We Trust (Unless We Change Our Mind): How State of Mind Relates to Religious Arbitration ("In God We Trust") proposes that those who sign arbitration agreements that consent to a religious legal system as the basis of the rules of arbitration be allowed to back out of such agreements based on their constitutional right to free exercise. This article is a response and is divided into two sections. In the first section, we show that such an exemption would violate the Federal Arbitration Act's (FAA) basic rules preventing the states from heightened regulation of arbitration …

Court Packing Is A Chimera, Brian L. Frye

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

The dream of the 1930s is alive in Washington. Democrats see

Republicans hemorrhaging voters as Trump struggles with the

economy and the pandemic and are salivating at the prospect of

retaking not only the White House, but also the Senate. Of course, you

should never sell a bearskin until you've caught the bear. But even a

blowout victory can't get Democrats the prize they really want, a

Supreme Court majority. So, in back-to-the-future fashion, many

progressives are pushing the idea of court packing. After all, in politics,

rules are made to be broken.

Oral Argument In The Time Of Covid: The Chief Plays Calvinball, Matthew Sag, Tonja Jacobi, Timothy R. Johnson, Eve M. Ringsmuth

Faculty Publications & Other Works

In this Article, we empirically assess the Supreme Court’s experiment in hearing telephonic oral arguments. We compare the telephonic hearings to those heard in-person by the current Court and examine whether the justices followed norms of fairness and equality. We show that the telephonic forum changed the dynamics of oral argument in a way that gave the Chief Justice new power, and that Chief Justice Roberts, knowingly or unknowingly, used that new power to benefit his ideological allies. We also show that the Chief interrupted the female justices disproportionately more than the male justices and gave the male justices more …

Charles Reich, New Dealer, John Q. Barrett

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

My encounters with Charles Reich began long before I had any personal contact with him. I read his 1970 bestseller The Greening of America late in that decade, when I was in high school. From then on, I always owned a copy of that book, until it would disappear in a move or on "loan" to some friend.

Luckily so many copies of Greening are in print that I easily would find it anew in used bookstores. So, I often restocked, reread in the book, and got to feel afresh the lift of Reich's spirit and his words.

Consider, …

We The People (Of Faith): The Supremacy Of Religious Rights In The Shadow Of A Pandemic, Elizabeth Reiner Platt, Katherine M. Franke, Lilia Hadjiivanova

Faculty Scholarship

Late on a Friday evening in April 2021, over a year into the COVID-19 crisis, the Supreme Court issued a brief opinion that dramatically transformed constitutional law. In the midst of a once-in-a-lifetime global pandemic, the Court ruled in Tandon v. Newsom that state and local governments seeking to curb the spread of the novel coronavirus may not restrict in-person religious gatherings more rigorously than any other type of activity, such as shopping for groceries or working at a warehouse. The opinion was only one in a barrage of cases filed in federal courts across the country — many …

Amen Over All Men: The Supreme Court’S Preservation Of Religious Rights And What That Means For Fulton V. City Of Philadelphia, Christopher Manettas

Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity

No abstract provided.

Social Justice And The Supreme Court: Lessons From The Past, Vicki Lens

Mitchell Hamline Law Journal of Public Policy and Practice

This article revisits over sixty years of Supreme Court decisions that have affected the poor and racial minorities, using a novel approach that considers the synergistic relationship between different doctrinal areas rather than focusing on one area. Specifically, I appraise the Supreme Court’s doctrinal contributions from 1953 to the present across three foundational elements of social justice on behalf of the poor and people of color: the school integration cases under the Equal Protection Clause, a series of cases under the Fourth Amendment which sanctioned the police tactic of stop-and-frisk, and attempts to secure economic security for the poor through …

Charles Reich, New Dealer, John Q. Barrett

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.