Law Commons^™

The Pioneers, Waves, And Random Walks Of Securities Law In The Supreme Court, Elizabeth Pollman

Seattle University Law Review

After the pioneers, waves, and random walks that have animated the history of securities laws in the U.S. Supreme Court, we might now be on the precipice of a new chapter. Pritchard and Thompson’s superb book, A History of Securities Law in the Supreme Court, illuminates with rich archival detail how the Court’s view of the securities laws and the SEC have changed over time and how individuals have influenced this history. The book provides an invaluable resource for understanding nearly a century’s worth of Supreme Court jurisprudence in the area of securities law and much needed context for …

Three Stories: A Comment On Pritchard & Thompson’S A History Of Securities Laws In The Supreme Court, Harwell Wells

Seattle University Law Review

Adam Pritchard and Robert Thompson’s A History of Securities Laws in the Supreme Court should stand for decades as the definitive work on the Federal securities laws’ career in the Supreme Court across the twentieth century.1 Like all good histories, it both tells a story and makes an argument. The story recounts how the Court dealt with the major securities laws, as well the agency charged with enforcing them, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the rules it promulgated, from the 1930s into the twenty-first century. But the book does not just string together a series of events, “one …

Students For Fair Admissions: Affirming Affirmative Action And Shapeshifting Towards Cognitive Diversity?, Steven A. Ramirez

Seattle University Law Review

The Roberts Court holds a well-earned reputation for overturning Supreme Court precedent regardless of the long-standing nature of the case. The Roberts Court knows how to overrule precedent. In Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (SFFA), the Court’s majority opinion never intimates that it overrules Grutter v. Bollinger, the Court’s leading opinion permitting race-based affirmative action in college admissions. Instead, the Roberts Court applied Grutter as authoritative to hold certain affirmative action programs entailing racial preferences violative of the Constitution. These programs did not provide an end point, nor did they require assessment, review, periodic expiration, or revision for greater …

Case Law On American Indians: October 2022 - August 2023, Thomas P. Schlosser

American Indian Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Bureaucratic Overreach And The Role Of The Courts In Protecting Representative Democracy, Katie Cassady

Liberty University Journal of Statesmanship & Public Policy

The United States bureaucracy began as only four departments and has expanded to address nearly every issue of public life. While these bureaucratic agencies are ostensibly under congressional oversight and the supervision of the President as part of the executive branch, they consistently usurp their discretionary authority and bypass the Founding Fathers’ design of balancing legislative power in a bicameral Congress.

The Supreme Court holds an indispensable role in mitigating the overreach of executive agencies, yet the courts’ inability to hold bureaucrats accountable has diluted voters’ voices. Since the Supreme Court’s 1984 ruling in Chevron, U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense …

Keeping Up: Walking With Justice Douglas, Charles A. Reich

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Mcgirt V. Oklahoma, Allison Barnwell

Public Land & Resources Law Review

The United States Supreme Court ruled that large areas of Oklahoma, including much of the City of Tulsa, are reservation land. The case arose from an Oklahoma state court’s conviction of Jimcy McGirt on several criminal offenses. Mr. McGirt argued the State of Oklahoma lacked jurisdiction to prosecute because he was an enrolled member of the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma and committed his crimes on the Creek Reservation. Under the Major Crimes Act, only the federal government has the power to try tribal members for crimes committed on reservation lands. In a five to four decision, the Court held that …

Fmc Corp. V. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Seth T. Bonilla

Public Land & Resources Law Review

In 1998, FMC Corporation agreed to submit to the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes’ permitting processes, including the payment of fees, for clean-up work required as part of consent decree negotiations with the Environmental Protection Agency. Then, in 2002, FMC refused to pay the Tribes under a permitting agreement entered into by both parties, even though the company continued to store hazardous waste on land within the Shoshone-Bannock Fort Hall Reservation in Idaho. FMC challenged the Tribes’ authority to enforce the $1.5 million permitting fees first in tribal court and later challenged the Tribes’ authority to exercise civil regulatory and adjudicatory jurisdiction over …

First Amendment “Harms”, Stephanie H. Barclay

Indiana Law Journal

What role should harm to third parties play in the government’s ability to protect religious rights? The intuitively appealing “harm” principle has animated new theories advanced by scholars who argue that religious exemptions are indefensible whenever they result in cognizable harm to third parties. This third-party harm theory is gaining traction in some circles, particularly in light of the Supreme Court’s pending cases in Little Sisters of the Poor and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. While focusing on harm appears at first to provide an appealing, simple, and neutral principle for avoiding other difficult moral questions, the definition of harm …

Introduction To The Conference: Commemorating The Life And Legacy Of Charles A. Reich, Rodger D. Citron

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Introduction To Charles A. Reich’S Keeping Up: Walking With Justice Douglas, Rodger D. Citron

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Case Law On American Indians August 2018-2019, Thomas P. Schlosser

American Indian Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Hawkes Co. V. United States Army Corps Of Engineers, Sarah M. Danno

Public Land & Resources Law Review

A peat mining company will not be required to obtain a permit under the Clean Water Act to discharge dredged and fill material into wetlands. The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota held that the United States Army Corps of Engineers fell short in its attempts to establish jurisdiction over the wetlands by twice failing to show a significant nexus existed between the wetlands and navigable waters. Further, the district court enjoined the Corps from asserting jurisdiction a third time because it would force the mining company through a “never ending loop” of administrative law.

The Epa Is Only “Sort Of” Permitted To Regulate Greenhouse Gases Under The Clean Air Act: How Utility Air Regulatory Group V. Epa Shows The Supreme Court Is Still Hot And Cold On Climate Change, Kristen Curley

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Mild Winter: The Status Of Environmental Preliminary Injunctions, Sarah J. Morath

Seattle University Law Review

Since the enactment of environmental legislation in the 1970s, the preliminary injunction standard articulated by the Supreme Court for environmental claims has evolved from general principles to enumerated factors. In Winter v. Natural Resource Defense Council, Inc., the Court’s most recent refinement, the Court endorsed but failed to explain the application of a common four-factor test when it held that the alleged injury to marine mammals was outweighed by the public interest of a well-trained and prepared Navy. While a number of commentators have speculated about Winter’s impact on future environmental preliminary injunctions, this article seeks to more precisely determine …

Reading The Standing Tea Leaves In American Electric Power Co. V. Connecticut, Bradford C. Mank

University of Richmond Law Review

The U.S. Supreme Court by an equally divided vote offour to four affirmed the Second Circuit's decision finding standing and jurisdiction in the case in American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut. While not binding as precedent beyond the Second Circuit,the case offers clues to how the Court is likely to rule in future standing cases. This article discusses the likely identities of the four Justices on each side of the standing issue in the case, as well as how Justice Sotomayor might have voted if she had not recused herself. Furthermore, the article examines how the decision expand- ed on …

A Primer On Batson, Including Discussion Of Johnson V. California, Miller-El V. Dretke, Rice V. Collins, & Synder V. Louisiana., Mikal C. Watts, Emily C. Jeffcott

St. Mary's Law Journal

Fundamental to the existence of the rights guaranteed to every citizen is the assurance that the right to equal protection under the law will be defended at all costs. Key to the United States’ system of adjudication is the right to a trial by jury, which is embodied in the Sixth and Seventh Amendments to the Constitution. These rights are also incorporated into all state constitutions through the Fourteenth Amendment. During jury selection, the judicial system permits the elimination of a certain number of jurors without cause. This form of elimination is known as a peremptory challenge. Over time, however, …

Texas Law's Life Or Death Rule In Capital Sentencing: Scrutinizing Eight Amendment Violations And The Case Of Juan Guerrero, Jr., John Niland, Riddhi Dasgupta

St. Mary's Law Journal

The United States Supreme Court has never explained the Eighth Amendment’s impact in noncapital cases involving a mentally retarded or brain-injured defendant. The Court has not provided guidance to legislatures or lower courts concerning the acceptable balancing of aggravating and mitigating factors and the role that mitigating factors must play in the sentencing decision. A definitive gap exists between the protections afforded to a criminal defendant facing a life sentence as opposed to those confronted with the death penalty. The Court requires sentencing procedures to consider aggravating and mitigating factors, including mental retardation and brain damage, when imposing a death …

Rehnquist, Innsbruck, And St. Mary's University Tribute., Vincent R. Johnson

St. Mary's Law Journal

William H. Rehnquist taught for St. Mary’s University School of Law for four summers while serving as the sixteenth Chief Justice of the United States. For two weeks each July in 1991, 1994, 1998, and 2000, Rehnquist lectured on The Supreme Court in United States History as part of the law school’s Institute on World Legal Problems in Innsbruck, Austria. St. Mary’s has conducted the Institute as an annual five-week summer program at the University of Innsbruck since 1986, with the generous administrative support of that university’s Roman Law Institute. Rehnquist felt welcome in Innsbruck and earned the St. Mary’s …

Environmental Law, Congress, And The Court's New Federalism Doctrine, Christopher H. Schroeder

Indiana Law Journal

Symposium: Congressional Power in the Shadow of the Rehnquist Court: Strategies for the Future held at Indiana University Law School, February 1-2, 2002.

Of Ivory Columns And Glass Ceilings: The Impact Of The Supreme Court Of The United States On The Practice Of Women Attorneys In Law Firms Comment., Nancy L. Farrer

St. Mary's Law Journal

This Commentary examines the effect United States Supreme Court decisions on sex discrimination in the legal profession. Discrimination against women currently appears to be alive and well in the legal field. Decisions like Bradwell v. Illinois and In re Lockwood frustrated women attorneys for over a century, allowing states to determine women were unfit for occupations in areas like law. Hishon v. King & Spalding, and later, Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, applied Title VII protections to evaluations of potential law firm partners—a process previously closed and unassailable for most of the history of the legal profession. More recently, Harris v. …

The Commerce Clause Quartet, Martin A. Schwartz

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Due Process

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Congressional Reform: Can Term Limitations Close The Door On Political Careerism., Julia C. Wommack

St. Mary's Law Journal

Addressing Congressional woes requires reform. Entrenched incumbency is a detriment to the legislative system. Although the enactment of initiatives restricting Congressional terms limits signal voters agree, better alternatives exist. The only prerequisites found in the Constitution for serving in Congress are age, residency, and citizenship. While the twenty-second amendment proscribes the presidential office limit maximum as two terms, no such limitations exist for a congressman or congresswoman. Sitting incumbents have substantial advantages over their challengers. Incumbents success ratio exceeds 80% in Senate races and is approximately 90% for elections in the House of Representatives. Congressional term limitations attempt to eliminate …

Organizational Standing In Environmental Litigation, Jeanne A. Compitello

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Evolving Concept Of Preemption Removal: An Expansion Of Federal Jurisdiction., Scott Roberts

St. Mary's Law Journal

Federal jurisdiction based on preemption removal should extend to federal laws which meet the requirements of Franchise Tax Board v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Taylor. The well-pleaded complaint rule restricts federal removal jurisdiction. The well-pleaded complaint rule requires a federal question appear on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint for federal jurisdiction to attach. Therefore, the defendant’s right to a federal forum depends upon whether the plaintiff chooses to invoke a federal claim in its complaint. Courts routinely criticize the linking of removal jurisdiction to the well-pleaded complaint rule for giving plaintiffs incentive to …

Compensating Manufacturers Submitting Health And Safety Data To Support Product Registrations After Ruckelshaus V. Monsanto, Eric E. Boyd

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

An At-Will Employee May Be Fired Despite Motives Which Violate State Public Policy., Kelsey Menzel

St. Mary's Law Journal

Scholars generally agree children possess fewer rights than adults under the Constitution. Moreover, the school, as a restricted environment, places additional constraints on the constitutional rights of minors. In recent years, however, the Supreme Court extended to minor students the rights of equal protection and civil due process. In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, the Court acknowledged children have First Amendment rights of self-expression in a school environment. This marked a significant change from the judiciary’s traditional reluctance to interfere in school matters. Subsequent First Amendment challenges to school board decisions have focused on library book removal. …

Sierra Club V. Morton: Standing Trees In A Thicket Of Justiciability, Patrick L. Baude

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.