Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Trump Travel Ban: Rhetoric Vs Reality, Jeffrey F. Addicott
The Trump Travel Ban: Rhetoric Vs Reality, Jeffrey F. Addicott
Faculty Articles
President Trump's "Muslim ban" set the nation afire with debate. Opponents to the ban were motivated by the President's underlying motivations. Three iterations of the travel ban were struck down by lower courts. Before the Supreme Court, however, the travel ban was upheld. First, the plain language of § 1182(f) granted broad discretion to the President. Second, it did not violate the prohibition of discrimination against selected categories in § 1152(a)(1)(A). Finally, it failed to violate the Establishment Clause because it is facially legitimate, satisfying rational basis review. The Court found no facial evidence demonstrating discriminatory bias.
Reshaping American Jurisprudence In The Trump Era - The Rise Of Originalist Judges, Jeffrey F. Addicott
Reshaping American Jurisprudence In The Trump Era - The Rise Of Originalist Judges, Jeffrey F. Addicott
Faculty Articles
One of the factors that is often cited as a key reason why President Donald J. Trump was elected as the forty-fifth president, was his pledge to the American people to "make America great again" by appointing "conservative judges" to the bench, particularly when it came to filling any vacancies that might open on the United States Supreme Court. Since the never ending fight for securing an ideological majority on the Supreme Court is always viewed with great concern by both political parties, many wondered whether then candidate Trump was simply telling potential voters what they wanted to hear, or …
Anti-Disruption Statutory Construction, Jonathan Adler
Anti-Disruption Statutory Construction, Jonathan Adler
Faculty Publications
During his first ten years on the Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Roberts has adopted a pragmatic approach to statutory interpretation that appears to place a higher priority on avoiding disruptive consequences than on any particular interpretive methodology. Prepared for the symposium, “Ten Years the Chief: Examining a Decade of John Roberts on the Supreme Court,” at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, this brief essay argues that the Chief Justice’s approach to statutory interpretation exhibits a “Burkean minimalism” that seeks to reduce seismic effect of the Court’s decisions. In particular, the Chief Justice is drawn toward statutory interpretations …
Excerpts From Chief Justice Roberts' Opinion In Nfib V. Sebelius, Wilson Huhn
Excerpts From Chief Justice Roberts' Opinion In Nfib V. Sebelius, Wilson Huhn
Akron Law Faculty Publications
In NFIB v. Sebelius the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of all but one of the provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The opinion of Chief Justice Roberts is the controlling opinion in all respects. This is an editted summary of the Chief Justice's opinion.
Excerpts From Chief Justice Roberts' Opinion In Nfib V. Sebelius, Wilson Huhn
Excerpts From Chief Justice Roberts' Opinion In Nfib V. Sebelius, Wilson Huhn
Wilson R. Huhn
In NFIB v. Sebelius the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of all but one of the provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The opinion of Chief Justice Roberts is the controlling opinion in all respects. This is an editted summary of the Chief Justice's opinion.
A Radically Immodest Judicial Modesty: The End Of Facial Challenges To Abortion Regulations And The Future Of The Health Exception In The Roberts Era, B. Jessie Hill
Faculty Publications
If there is anything as strongly associated in the public mind with Chief Justice John Roberts as his black robe and judicial temperament, it is surely his claim to judicial modesty. And indeed, some commentators have suggested that there are signs of newfound judicial restraint in the Roberts Court. One example of this purported restraint is the Roberts Court’s expressed preference for narrower, as-applied decisionmaking in constitutional cases, as opposed to striking down statutes on their face. The Roberts Court has turned away facial challenges or otherwise expressed a preference for making decisions on an as-applied basis in a number …