Law Commons^™

I Call Rigamarole (Or Taradiddle) On 'Originalist' Justices, Rachel A. Van Cleave

Publications

Last week, while Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett was holding forth about how she applies originalism, invoking her mentor and former boss Justice Antonin Scalia, current Supreme Court justices were undermining an originalist opinion authored by Scalia. Nominee Barrett explained originalism: “I understand [the Constitution] to have the meaning that it had at the time people ratified it. So that meaning doesn’t change over time, and it’s not up to me to update it or infuse my own policy views into it.”

Oral arguments in Torres v. Madrid make clear that, for some justices, originalism is appropriate, except when …

Foreword, National Injunctions: What Does The Future Hold?, Suzette Malveaux

Publications

This Foreword is to the 27th Annual Ira C. Rothgerber Jr. Conference, National Injunctions: What Does the Future Hold?, which was hosted by The Byron R. White Center for the Study of American Constitutional Law at the University of Colorado Law School, on Apr. 5, 2019.

The Belloni Decision: A Foundation For The Northwest Fisheries Cases, The National Tribal Sovereignty Movement, And An Understanding Of The Rule Of Law, Charles Wilkinson

Publications

Judge Belloni’s decision in United States v. Oregon, handed down a half-century ago, has been given short shrift by lawyers, historians, and other commentators on the modern revival of Indian treaty fishing rights in the Pacific Northwest. The overwhelming amount of attention has been given to Judge Boldt’s subsequent decision in United States v. Washington and the Passenger Vessel ruling by the Supreme Court affirming Judge Boldt. I’m one who has been guilty of that.

We now can see that United States v. Oregon was the breakthrough. In those early days, Judge Belloni showed deep understanding of the two …