Law Commons^™

American Legal Realism Today: An Idiosyncratic Restatement, Mark Tushnet

Northwestern Law Journal des Refusés

No abstract provided.

An Introduction To American Legal Realism, Noah Hornberger

Northwestern Law Journal des Refusés

No abstract provided.

Foreword, Caroline Faye Radell, Udhanth Mallasani

Northwestern Law Journal des Refusés

No abstract provided.

Decoding Dobbs: A Typology To Better Understand The Roberts Court's Jurisprudence, Katie Yoder

Honors Projects

The U.S. Supreme Court first recognized Substantive Due Process (“SDP”) in the early twentieth century. In Lochner v. New York, the Court established that there are certain unenumerated rights that are implied by the Fourteenth Amendment.Though SDP originated in a case about worker’s rights and liberties, it quickly became relevant to many cases surrounding personal intimate decisions involving health, safety, marriage, sexual activity, and reproduction.Over the past 60 years, the Court relied upon SDP to justify expanding a fundamental right to privacy, liberty, and the right to medical decision making. Specifically, the court applied these concepts to allow for freedoms …

The Major Questions Doctrine’S Domain, Todd Phillips, Beau J. Baumann

Brooklyn Law Review

In West Virginia v. EPA, the Supreme Court elevated the major questions doctrine to new heights by reframing it as a substantive canon and clear statement rule rooted in the separation of powers. The academic response has missed two unanswered questions that will determine the extent of the doctrine’s domain. First, how will the Court apply the doctrine to a range of different regulatory schemes? The doctrine has so far only been applied to nationwide legislative rules that are both (1) economically or politically significant and (2) transformative. It is unclear whether the doctrine applies to alternative modes of regulation …

Nationwide Injunctions And The Administrative State, Russell L. Weaver

Brooklyn Law Review

Where an administrative regulation is deemed by a court to be illegal, unconstitutional, or otherwise invalid, courts sometimes issue nationwide injunctions. In other words, instead of holding that the regulation cannot be applied to the individuals before the court, the court prohibits the agency from applying the regulation anywhere in the country, including to others not before the court. This article explores the debate surrounding the appropriateness of nationwide injunctions. While at first glance such injunctions may seem to make sense, they can have serious consequences, including risk of abuse and forum shopping, amplification of erroneous decisions, and the negative …

When Life Takes Your Lemons: Resolving The Legislative Prayer Debate In School Board Settings In Light Of Kennedy V. Bremerton School District, Jordan Halper

Brooklyn Law Review

The COVID-19 pandemic fanned the flames of a fire that had been slowly but steadily burning since 2016, arming the loudest warriors of America’s endless culture war with a slew of new divisive issues. Virtually overnight, parental rights groups began capitalizing on the frustration in their communities in order to spur political change, training their ire toward public schools. What began as a crusade against mask mandates and vaccines manifested into a well-funded effort by ultraconservative groups to undermine the public education system as a whole. Against this backdrop, the legislative prayer exception—which was meant to sanction the practice of …

Agency Deference After Loper: Expertise As A Casualty Of A War Against The “Administrative State”, Michael M. Epstein

Brooklyn Law Review

Chevron deference has been a foundational principle for administrative law for decades. Chevron provided a two-step analysis for determining whether an agency would be given deference in its decision-making. This deferential test finds its legitimacy on the grounds of agency expertise and accountability. However, when the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in Loper Bright Enterprise v. Raimondo, it positioned itself to potentially overrule or severely limit Chevron. An overruling of Chevron would place judicial deference to administrative agency decisions in peril by allowing courts to substitute their own views over the informed opinions of agency experts. This …

In Conversation About The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum’S New Mass Atrocity Prevention Training, Tatiana Varanko, Ann O’Rourke

Judicature International

No abstract provided.

Governance And Islam In East Africa: Muslims And The State In Kenya And Tanzania, Farouk Topan, Kai Kresse, Erin E. Stiles, Hassan Mwakimako

Exploring Muslim Contexts

Explores the relationship between Muslim communities and the State in East Africa in political, institutional and legal contexts

• Focuses on the relationship between Muslims and the State in Kenya and Tanzania
• Asks which factors, both within and outside the Muslim community, shape and affect this relationship in contemporary times
• Presents 13 case studies exploring governance issues within and across the categories of politics, institutions and law in Kenya and Tanzania
• Identifies cross-cutting issues of governance and Muslim communities which are relevant beyond East Africa

Recent studies of Muslims in Kenya and Tanzania have tended either to examine governance of Muslims …

Interpretive Divergence In The New York Court Of Appeals, Ethan J. Leib

Journal of Legislation

This Article focuses attention on the New York Court of Appeals, which is decidedly formalist about contract interpretation but decidedly contextualist about statutory interpretation. It explores some recent exemplary cases to show where the New York Court of Appeals tends to land in what turns out to be, for this court at least, two different battlefields in the law of interpretation. Finding that there is “interpretive divergence” between statutory and contract cases, the Article then reflects on the practice of divergence more generally, revisiting assumptions about why anyone might have thought harmonization was sensible in the first place.

Blunt Speech Rights, Nicholas Almendares

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

There is a lot to be said about the Supreme Court’s decision in 303 Creative LLC. In the wake of the decision there will be a range of commentaries like those presented in this Issue. I want to draw attention to a particular aspect of the opinion, part of a broader trend in the Court’s First Amendment jurisprudence, towards blunt, sweeping rules. By a blunt rule, I mean a simple, coarse one that lacks nuance or distinctions. Blunt rules, by their nature, tend to be sweeping: nuance, that is, distinguishing cases based on various factors, limits the scope of …

Immoderate Moderation: Chief Justice Roberts's Concurrence In Dobbs, Thomas J. Molony

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Chief Justice John Roberts attempted to chart a middle way in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. But there are times when you must choose a side. This was one of them.

The Chief Justice has been a consistent proponent of judicial restraint since he joined the United States Supreme Court in 2005. For him, one of the key characteristics of restraint is deciding no more than necessary to resolve a case. In Dobbs, he insisted that the Court did not need to overrule Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey in full to uphold Mississippi’s fifteen-week …

Constitutional Rights And Remedial Consistency, Katherine Mims Crocker

Faculty Scholarship

When the Supreme Court declined definitively to block Texas’s S.B. 8, which effectively eliminated pre-enforcement federal remedies for what was then a plainly unconstitutional restriction on abortion rights, a prominent criticism was that the majority would have never tolerated the similar treatment of preferred legal protections—like gun rights. This refrain reemerged when California enacted a copycat regime for firearms regulation. This theme sounds in the deep-rooted idea that judge-made law should adhere to generality and neutrality values requiring doctrines to derive justification from controlling a meaningful class of cases ascertained by objective legal criteria.

This Article is about consistency, and …

Silencing And Surveillance: The Struggle Of Same-Sex Desire In The Shadow Of The 20th-Century Police State, Ethan Dunn

Honors Program: Senior Projects (Public)

This paper investigates the intersection of social perceptions of vice and gender norms in shaping the policing of sexual orientation and sexuality during the turn of the twentieth century. Employing a legal analysis rooted in the law and society movement and critical legal studies, this study examines how social anxieties surrounding vice and vice crimes prompted swift legislative measures at both federal and state levels, resulting in statutes characterized by broad language that granted extensive discretion to law enforcement officials and judges. The emergence of morals and vice police squads further intensified the targeting of individuals who deviated from prevailing …

Generative Interpretation, Yonathan A. Arbel, David A. Hoffman

Articles

We introduce generative interpretation, a new approach to estimating contractual meaning using large language models. As AI triumphalism is the order of the day, we proceed by way of grounded case studies, each illustrating the capabilities of these novel tools in distinct ways. Taking well-known contracts opinions, and sourcing the actual agreements that they adjudicated, we show that AI models can help factfinders ascertain ordinary meaning in context, quantify ambiguity, and fill gaps in parties' agreements. We also illustrate how models can calculate the probative value of individual pieces of extrinsic evidence.

After offering best practices for the use of …

How Close Is Close Enough: A Step-By-Step Analysis To Resolve The Circuit Split Created By Misunderstanding The Spokeo Ruling, Cason Shipp

St. Mary's Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Defiance, Lackland H. Bloom Jr

St. Mary's Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Mosaic Theory In Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence: The Last Bastion Of Privacy In A Camera-Surveilled World, Auggie Alvarado

St. Mary's Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Proportionalities, Youngjae Lee

Notre Dame Law Review Reflection

“Proportionality” is ubiquitous. The idea that punishment should be proportional to crime is familiar in criminal law and has a lengthy history. But that is not the only place where one encounters the concept of proportionality in law and ethics. The idea of proportionality is important also in the self-defense context, where the right to defend oneself with force is limited by the principle of proportionality. Proportionality plays a role in the context of war, especially in the idea that the military advantage one side may draw from an attack must not be excessive in relation to the loss of …

Who Is A Minister? Originalist Deference Expands The Ministerial Exception, Jared C. Huber

Notre Dame Law Review

The ministerial exception is a doctrine born out of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment that shields many religious institutions’ employment decisions from review. While the ministerial exception does not extend to all employment decisions by, or employees of, religious institutions, it does confer broad—and absolute—protection. While less controversy surrounds whether the Constitution shields religious institutions’ employment decisions to at least some extent, much more debate surrounds the exception’s scope, and perhaps most critically, which employees fall under it. In other words, who is a "minister" for purposes of the ministerial exception?

Rethinking Legislative Facts, Haley N. Proctor

Notre Dame Law Review

As the factual nature of legal inquiry has become increasingly apparent over the past century, courts and commentators have fallen into the habit of labeling the facts behind the law “legislative facts.” Loosely, legislative facts are general facts courts rely upon to formulate law or policy, but that definition is as contested as it is vague. Most agree that legislative facts exist in some form or another, but few agree on what that form is, on who should find them, and how. This Article seeks to account for and resolve that confusion. Theories of legislative fact focus on the role …

Existing Challenges And Possible Pathways For Case Success In Climate Litigation With Human Rights Claims, Daniel Ziebarth

St. Mary's Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Next Thirty Years: Developments In Mandamus Jurisprudence In The Last Thirty Years And Why The General Rule That Mandamus Is Unavailable To Review The Denial Of Summary Judgment Is Inconsistent With Modern Mandamus Jurisprudence Under The In Re Prudential Balancing Test, Timothy Delabar

St. Mary's Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Shots Fired, Shots Refused: Scientific, Ethical & Legal Challenges Surrounding The U.S. Military's Covid-19 Vaccine Mandate, Shawn Mckelvy, L. William Uhl, Armand Balboni

St. Mary's Law Journal

The COVID-19 pandemic provided uncertain and challenging circumstances under which to lead a nation and the military that protects it. Those in charge and in command faced unique challenges—scientific, ethical, and legal—at our various levels of government to both keep people safe while keeping government and society functioning. While there were many successes to celebrate, there are also many criticisms for how this “whole-of-government approach” may have degraded some of our most cherished liberties along the way. The authors focus on the U.S. military’s vaccine mandate and propose military leaders may have failed to fully consider the evolving science, weigh …

Mass Incarceration, Violent Crimes, And Lengthy Sentences: Using The Race-Class Narrative As A Messaging Framework For Shortening Prison Sentences, Eric Petterson

St. Mary's Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Horizontal Federalism & The Big State "Problem", Elizabeth Beske

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

California regulates pork; does it offend the Constitution that pork producers in other states must comply with its regulations if they want to sell Californians pork? In National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, the Supreme Court emerged sharply divided in its approach to the practical extraterritorial spillover effect of the in-state regulations of a tantalizing market. Although a fractured majority of the Court upheld California’s Proposition 12 against a dormant Commerce Clause challenge, at least five Justices registered profound discomfort, with one dissenter expressly inviting consideration of the problem through the lens of other clauses. This Article analyzes “the …

Survival Labor, Yvette Butler

Articles by Maurer Faculty

This Article makes one simple, novel claim: crime is labor when it generates income, allows individuals to pursue self-sufficiency, or allows them to fulfill societal expectations of providing for or caring for dependents. When individuals engage in survival crimes, instead of seeing them as criminals, we should see them as workers engaged in survival labor.

The carceral system continues to disproportionately harm racial minorities and people living in poverty. The foundations of many laws regulating racialized bodies and the policing of those bodies has created a culture where blackness is equivalent to criminality. While a penal abolitionist framework is helpful …

Slaughtering Slaughter-House: An Assessment Of 14th Amendment Privileges Or Immunities Jurisprudence, Caleb Webb

Senior Honors Theses

In 1872, the Supreme Court decided the Slaughter-House Cases, which applied a narrow interpretation of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14^th Amendment that effectually eroded the clause from the Constitution. Following Slaughter-House, the Supreme Court compensated by utilizing elastic interpretations of the Due Process Clause in its substantive due process jurisprudence to cover the rights that would have otherwise been protected by the Privileges or Immunities Clause. In more recent years, the Court has heard arguments favoring alternative interpretations of the Privileges or Immunities Clause but has yet to evaluate them thoroughly. By applying the …

Colorblind And Color Mute: Words Unspoken In U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments, Chris Chambers Goodman

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

The U.S. Supreme Court holds oral arguments on 70 to 80 cases each year, with fewer than a dozen most years involving issues around race or ethnicity. When the salience of race is clear, Supreme Court observers would expect to hear racial terms used in the arguments by counsel, as well as in the Justice’s questions.

Surprisingly, this research study demonstrates that is not the case. These racial terms - such as color, discriminate, minority, race, and its various related terms like racial, racially, racist, as well as combinations like race-neutral, and race-blind - only sparsely appear in oral argument …