Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Courts

Supreme court

Institution
Publication Year
Publication
Publication Type
File Type

Articles 1 - 30 of 98

Full-Text Articles in Law

Locke’S “Wild Indian” In United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence, Anthony W. Hobert Phd May 2024

Locke’S “Wild Indian” In United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence, Anthony W. Hobert Phd

American Indian Law Journal

This article explores the impact of John Locke’s Two Treatises on United States Indigenous property rights jurisprudence. After discussing Locke’s arguments, the article turns to the rationales of the first and last cases of the Marshall Trilogy—Johnson v. McIntosh (1823) and Worcester v. Georgia (1832)—arguing that, contrary to prevailing political theory, Marshall’s opinion for the Court in Johnson puts forth a fundamentally Lockean justification for the dispossession of Indigenous property. This article also provides a brief analysis of Marshall’s explicit Vattelian rationale in Worcester, commentary on recent developments regarding the precedents, and recommendations for reconciling them within contemporary …


No-Injury And Piggyback Class Actions: When Product-Defect Class Actions Do Not Benefit Consumers, Philip S. Goldberg, Andrew J. Trask May 2024

No-Injury And Piggyback Class Actions: When Product-Defect Class Actions Do Not Benefit Consumers, Philip S. Goldberg, Andrew J. Trask

University of Massachusetts Law Review

Class counsel are more frequently filing product-based class actions that, whether successful or not, offer few practical benefits to real consumers or class members. These no-benefit class actions cause the unnecessary expense of the courts’ time and resources, and they often fail to provide actual value to class members while still producing substantial attorneys’ fees. This article explores why strategic vagueness in plaintiffs’ filings and a lack of vigorous analysis by the courts have allowed no-benefit class actions to unnecessarily consume court resources. The article concludes by offering suggestions for how courts can alleviate some of this pressure, primarily by …


Who Thinks Treaties Are Like Contracts? Not John Marshall, David P. Stewart, Diana A. A. Reisman Jan 2023

Who Thinks Treaties Are Like Contracts? Not John Marshall, David P. Stewart, Diana A. A. Reisman

American University International Law Review

Courts in the United States are fond of analogizing treaties to contracts. The U.S. Supreme Court has done so on numerous occasions, as have nearly all federal circuit courts. Indeed, the treaty-as-contract trope has permeated U.S. legal discourse since at least the early 1800s when Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in Foster v. Neilson that “[a] treaty is in its nature a contract between two nations, not a legislative act.”


The Causation Canon, Sandra F. Sperino Jan 2023

The Causation Canon, Sandra F. Sperino

Faculty Publications

It is rare to witness the birth of a canon of statutory interpretation. In the past decade, the Supreme Court created a new canon-the causation canon. When a statute uses any causal language, the Court will assume that Congress meant to require the plaintiff to establish "but-for" cause.

This Article is the first to name, recognize and discuss this new canon. The Article traces the birth of the canon, showing that the canon did not exist until 2013 and was not certain until 2020. Demonstrating how the Court constructed this new canon yields several new insights about statutory interpretation.

The …


Situating Structural Challenges To Agency Authority Within The Framework Of The Finality Principle, Harold J. Krent Jan 2023

Situating Structural Challenges To Agency Authority Within The Framework Of The Finality Principle, Harold J. Krent

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.


There Is No Such Thing As Circuit Law, Thomas B. Bennett Jan 2023

There Is No Such Thing As Circuit Law, Thomas B. Bennett

Faculty Publications

Lawyers and judges often talk about “the law of the circuit,” meaning the set of legal rules that apply within a particular federal judicial circuit. Seasoned practitioners are steeped in circuit law, it is said. Some courts have imagined that they confront a choice between applying the law of one circuit or another. In its strong form, this idea of circuit law implies that each circuit creates and interprets its own body of substantive law that is uniquely applicable to disputes that arise within the circuit’s borders.

This article argues that the notion of circuit law is nonsensical and undesirable …


Are The Federal Rules Of Evidence Unconstitutional?, Ethan J. Leib Jan 2022

Are The Federal Rules Of Evidence Unconstitutional?, Ethan J. Leib

Faculty Scholarship

The Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) rest on an unacceptably shaky constitutional foundation. Unlike other regimes of federal rulemaking—for Civil Procedure, for Criminal Procedure, and for Appellate Procedure—the FRE rulemaking process contemplated by the Rules Enabling Act is both formally and functionally defective because Congress enacted the FRE as a statute first but purports to permit the Supreme Court to revise, repeal, and amend those laws over time, operating as a kind of supercharged administrative agency with the authority to countermand congressional statutes. Formally, this system violates the constitutionally-delineated separation of powers as announced in Chadha, Clinton, and the non-delegation …


Can The Fourth Amendment Keep People "Secure In Their Persons"?, Bruce A. Green Jan 2022

Can The Fourth Amendment Keep People "Secure In Their Persons"?, Bruce A. Green

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.


Third-Party Standing And Abortion Providers: The Hidden Dangers Of June Medical Services, Elika Nassirinia Apr 2021

Third-Party Standing And Abortion Providers: The Hidden Dangers Of June Medical Services, Elika Nassirinia

Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy

Standing is a long held, judicially-created doctrine intended to establish the proper role of courts by identifying who may bring a case in federal court. While standing usually requires that a party asserts his or her own rights, the Supreme Court has created certain exceptions that allow litigants to bring suit on behalf of third parties when they suffer a concrete injury, they have a “close relation” to the third party, and there are obstacles to the third party's ability to protect his or her own interests. June Medical Services, heard by the Supreme Court on June 29, 2020, …


The Long Shortlist: Women Considered For The Supreme Court, Michael Conklin Jan 2021

The Long Shortlist: Women Considered For The Supreme Court, Michael Conklin

Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity

No abstract provided.


The People's Court: On The Intellectual Origins Of American Judicial Power, Ian C. Bartrum Jan 2021

The People's Court: On The Intellectual Origins Of American Judicial Power, Ian C. Bartrum

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

This article enters into the modern debate between “consti- tutional departmentalists”—who contend that the executive and legislative branches share constitutional interpretive authority with the courts—and what are sometimes called “judicial supremacists.” After exploring the relevant history of political ideas, I join the modern minority of voices in the latter camp.

This is an intellectual history of two evolving political ideas—popular sovereignty and the separation of powers—which merged in the making of American judicial power, and I argue we can only understand the structural function of judicial review by bringing these ideas together into an integrated whole. Or, put another way, …


Testa, Crain, And The Constitutional Right To Collateral Relief, Carlos Manuel Vázquez, Stephen I. Vladeck Jan 2021

Testa, Crain, And The Constitutional Right To Collateral Relief, Carlos Manuel Vázquez, Stephen I. Vladeck

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In Montgomery v. Louisiana, the U.S. Supreme Court held that state prisoners have a constitutional right to relief from continued imprisonment if the prisoner’s conviction or sentence contravenes a new substantive rule of constitutional law. Specifically, the Court held that prisoners with such claims are constitutionally entitled to collateral relief in state court—at least if the state courts are open to other claims for collateral relief on the ground that their continued imprisonment is unlawful. In our article, The Constitutional Right to Collateral Post-Conviction Relief, we argued that, under two lines of Supreme Court decisions interpreting the Supremacy …


A False Sense Of Security: How Congress And The Sec Are Dropping The Ball On Cryptocurrency, Tessa E. Shurr Oct 2020

A False Sense Of Security: How Congress And The Sec Are Dropping The Ball On Cryptocurrency, Tessa E. Shurr

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

Today, companies use blockchain technology and digital assets for a variety of purposes. This Comment analyzes the digital token. If the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) views a digital token as a security, then the issuer of the digital token must comply with the registration and extensive disclosure requirements of federal securities laws.

To determine whether a digital asset is a security, the SEC relies on the test that the Supreme Court established in SEC v. W.J. Howey Co. Rather than enforcing a statute or agency rule, the SEC enforces securities laws by applying the Howey test on a fact-intensive …


The Law Of Obscenity In Comic Books, Rachel Silverstein Jan 2020

The Law Of Obscenity In Comic Books, Rachel Silverstein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


Case-Linked Jurisdiction And Busybody States, Howard M. Erichson, John C.P. Goldberg, Benjamin Zipursky Jan 2020

Case-Linked Jurisdiction And Busybody States, Howard M. Erichson, John C.P. Goldberg, Benjamin Zipursky

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.


Equity In American And Jewish Law, Itzchak E. Kornfeld , Ph.D. Jan 2020

Equity In American And Jewish Law, Itzchak E. Kornfeld , Ph.D.

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


What's The Difference Between A Conclusion And A Fact?, Howard M. Erichson Jan 2020

What's The Difference Between A Conclusion And A Fact?, Howard M. Erichson

Faculty Scholarship

In Ashcroft v. Iqbal, building on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, the Supreme Court instructed district courts to treat a complaint’s conclusions differently from allegations of fact. Facts, but not conclusions, are assumed true for purposes of a motion to dismiss. The Court did little to help judges or lawyers understand this elusive distinction, and, indeed, obscured the distinction with its language. The Court said it was distinguishing “legal conclusions” from factual allegations. The application in Twombly and Iqbal, however, shows that the relevant distinction is not between law and fact, but rather between different types of factual assertions. This …


Establishment Of Religion Supreme Court Appellate Division Third Department Jul 2019

Establishment Of Religion Supreme Court Appellate Division Third Department

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


Equal Protection Supreme Court Appellate Division Third Department Jul 2019

Equal Protection Supreme Court Appellate Division Third Department

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


Due Process Supreme Court Rockland County Jul 2019

Due Process Supreme Court Rockland County

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


Due Process Supreme Court Appellate Division Second Department Jul 2019

Due Process Supreme Court Appellate Division Second Department

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


Due Process Supreme Court Appellate Division Jul 2019

Due Process Supreme Court Appellate Division

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


Due Process People V. Scott (Decided June 5, 1996) Jul 2019

Due Process People V. Scott (Decided June 5, 1996)

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


Supreme Court Queens County Jul 2019

Supreme Court Queens County

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


Double Jeopardy Jul 2019

Double Jeopardy

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


Double Jeopardy Supreme Court Appellate Division Second Department Jul 2019

Double Jeopardy Supreme Court Appellate Division Second Department

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


Double Jeopardy Jul 2019

Double Jeopardy

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


Endrew F. Clairvoyance, Mark C. Weber Jan 2019

Endrew F. Clairvoyance, Mark C. Weber

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


Substantial Shifts In Supreme Court Health Law Jurisprudence, Lawrence O. Gostin, James G. Hodge Oct 2018

Substantial Shifts In Supreme Court Health Law Jurisprudence, Lawrence O. Gostin, James G. Hodge

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

President Trump’s nomination of jurist Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court presents significant, potential changes on health law and policy issues. If confirmed by the U.S. Senate, Kavanaugh’s approaches as a federal appellate court judge and scholar could literally shift the Court’s balance on consequential health policies. Judge Kavanaugh has disavowed broad discretion for federal agency authorities, cast significant doubts on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, and narrowly interpreted reproductive rights (most notably abortion services). He has supported gun rights pursuant to the Second Amendment beyond U.S. Supreme Court recent interpretations. His varying positions related to consumer …


Divide & Concur: Separate Opinions & Legal Change, Thomas B. Bennett, Barry Friedman, Andrew D. Martin, Susan Navarro Smelcer May 2018

Divide & Concur: Separate Opinions & Legal Change, Thomas B. Bennett, Barry Friedman, Andrew D. Martin, Susan Navarro Smelcer

Faculty Publications

To the extent concurring opinions elicit commentary at all, it is largely contempt. They are condemned for muddying the clarity of the law, fracturing the court, and diminishing the authoritative voice of the majority. But what if this neglect, or even disdain, of concurring opinions is off the mark? In this article, we argue for the importance of concurring opinions, demonstrating how they serve as the pulse and compass of legal change. Concurring opinions let us know what is happening below the surface of the law, thereby encouraging litigants to push the law in particular directions. This is particularly true …