Law Commons^™

Self-Determination In American Discourse: The Supreme Court’S Historical Indoctrination Of Free Speech And Expression, Jarred Williams

Honors Theses

Within the American criminal legal system, it is a well-established practice to presume the innocence of those charged with criminal offenses unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Such a judicial framework-like approach, called a legal maxim, is utilized in order to ensure that the law is applied and interpreted in ways that legislative bodies originally intended.

The central aim of this piece in relation to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution is to investigate whether the Supreme Court of the United States has utilized a specific legal maxim within cases that dispute government speech or expression regulation. …

Justice Ginsburg, Civil Procedure Professor And Champion Of Judicial Federalism, Rodger D. Citron

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Enough Said: A Proposal For Shortening Supreme Court Opinions, Meg Penrose

Faculty Scholarship

The role of the judiciary, Chief Justice Marshall famously advised, is “to say what the law is.” Yet, how often do the justices issue a written opinion that ordinary Americans can understand? The Supreme Court increasingly issues lengthy and complex opinions, often containing multiple concurring and dissenting opinions. These opinions can be as confusing as they are verbose.

“To Say What the Law Is Succinctly: A Brief Proposal,” analyzes the justices’ legal writing. Are the justices effective in saying what the law is? Insufficient attention has been devoted to evaluating the justices’ writing and their efficacy at communicating the law. …

Law Library Blog (January 2018): Legal Beagle's Blog Archive, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Law Library Newsletters/Blog

No abstract provided.

More Than Words, Rachel H. Smith

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

What a delight it is to spend time with Justice Ginsburg’s singular voice. She is the best kind of teacher and writer: humane, principled, funny, gracious, openhearted, and direct. I felt deeply glad to have this chance to know her a little better—to study the rhythm of her words, the quirks of her personality, the motifs of her life story. As I read My Own Words, I couldn’t help but think over and over, Thank goodness for this remarkable person.

Telling Stories In The Supreme Court: Voices Briefs And The Role Of Democracy In Constitutional Deliberation, Linda H. Edwards

Scholarly Works

On January 4, 2016, over 112 women lawyers, law professors, and former judges told the world that they had had an abortion. In a daring amicus brief that captured national media attention, the women “came out” to their clients; to the lawyers with or against whom they practice; to the judges before whom they appear; and to the Justices of the Supreme Court.

The past three years have seen an explosion of such “voices briefs,” 16 in Obergefell and 17 in Whole Woman’s Health. The briefs can be powerful, but their use is controversial. They tell the stories of non-parties—strangers …

Chevron Is A Rorschach Test Ink Blot, Jack M. Beermann

Faculty Scholarship

I agree with Alan Morrison that, in some circumstances, courts should defer to legal determinations made by administrative agencies. I disagree, however, with Alan’s view that Chevron provides a suitable framework for such deference. It really boils down to my disagreement with the first sentence of Alan’s article: “In Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., the Supreme Court unanimously adopted an approach to interpreting federal statutes under which the courts are required to give substantial deference to the interpretations by the administrative agencies that enforce them.”1 In fact, the Supreme Court adopted nothing in Chevron related to …

In Search Of Justice: An Examination Of The Appointments Of John G. Roberts And Samuel A. Alito To The U.S. Supreme Court And Their Impact On American Jurisprudence, Alberto R. Gonzales

Law Faculty Scholarship

During 2005, President George W. Bush appointed Federal Circuit Court Judges John G. Roberts and Samuel A. Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court. These appointments were the culmination of years of examination of the work, character, and temperament of both men commencing during the 2000 presidential transition. Our evaluation included face-to-face interviews; an analysis of judicial opinions, speeches, and writings; and conversation with friends, colleagues, and court experts. Based on this work, a select group of Bush Administration officials developed a set of predictors that formed the basis of our recommendation to President Bush that he elevate Circuit Court Judges …

Bargained Justice: Plea Bargaining's Innocence Problem And The Brady Safety-Valve, Lucian E. Dervan

Law Faculty Scholarship

If any number of attorneys were asked in 2004 whether Lea Fastow’s plea bargain in the Enron case was constitutional, the majority would respond with a simple word – Brady. Yet while the 1970 Supreme Court decision Brady v. United States authorized plea bargaining as a form of American justice, the case also contained a vital caveat that has been largely overlooked by scholars, practitioners, and courts for almost forty years. Brady contains a safety-valve that caps the amount of pressure that may be asserted against defendants by prohibiting prosecutors from offering incentives in return for guilty pleas that are …

Law Review Scholarship In The Eyes Of The Twenty-First Century Supreme Court Justices: An Empirical Analysis, Brent Newton

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

An analysis of the twenty-first century Justices’ citations of law review scholarship—how often they cite articles, the professional identities of authors of the cited articles, and the rankings of the law reviews in which the cited articles appear—provides an excellent prism through which to assess today’s law reviews. In addition to having had varied and rich legal careers as practitioners, policy-makers, and lower court judges, the majority of the current Justices were, at earlier points in their careers, full-time law professors. Presumably, the Justices are able to separate the wheat from the chaff in the law reviews. The present study …

U.S. Supreme Court Interviews On Effective Legal Writing – Part Iii, Robert S. Anderson

Sturm College of Law: Faculty Scholarship

This column concludes a three-part discussion of legal writing interviews given by eight of the nine sitting justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. The justices discussed usage and grammar issues, as well as their own pet peeves as readers of legal writing.

U.S. Supreme Court Interviews On Effective Legal Writing – Part Ii, Robert S. Anderson

Sturm College of Law: Faculty Scholarship

This column continues a three-part discussion of legal writing interviews given by eight of the nine sitting justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. In addition to discussing the elements of effective legal writing, the justices talked about their own writing processes.

U.S. Supreme Court Interviews On Effective Legal Writing – Part I, Robert S. Anderson

Sturm College of Law: Faculty Scholarship

This column begins a three-part discussion of legal writing interviews given by eight of the nine sitting justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. This first part explores the two aspects of good legal writing that were the most often mentioned by the justices during their interviews: clarity and conciseness.

Looking Backward: Richard Epstein Ponders The “Progressive” Peril, Michael Allan Wolf

UF Law Faculty Publications

In "How Progressives Rewrote the Constitution," Richard Epstein bemoans the growth of a dominant big government. How Progressives should receive a warm reception from the audience, lawyers and laypeople alike, who view the New Deal as a mistake of epic proportions. For the rest of us, significant gaps will still remain between, on the one hand, our understanding of the nation’s past and of the complex nature of constitutional lawmaking and, on the other, Epstein’s version of the nature of twentieth-century reform and Progressive jurisprudence.

Justice Clarence Thomas: The Emergence Of A Commercial-Speech Protector, David L. Hudson Jr.

Law Faculty Scholarship

An examination of Justice Clarence Thomas' jurisprudence regarding commercial speech.

The Supreme Court's Narrow View On Civil Rights, Jack M. Beermann

Faculty Scholarship

The right to choose abortion, although recently significantly curtailed from its original scope,' is a federally protected liberty interest of women, and is at least protected against the imposition of "undue burdens" by state and local government.² Some of the most serious threats to women's ability to choose abortion have come not from government regulation, but from private, national, organized efforts to prevent abortions. In addition to seeking change through the political system, some of these organizations, most notably Operation Rescue, have focused on the providers of abortion, and have attempted to prevent abortions by forcibly closing abortion clinics …

A Critical Approach To Section 1983 With Special Attention To Sources Of Law, Jack M. Beermann

Faculty Scholarship

The Civil Rights Act of 1871¹ ("§ 1983") establishes a tort-like remedy for persons deprived of federally protected rights "under color of law."'² While the statute's broad language provides a remedy for violations of federal constitutional and statutory rights, the statute itself provides little or no guidance regarding important subjects such as the measure of damages, the availability of punitive damages, the requirements for equitable relief, the statute of limitations, survival of claims, proper parties, and immunities from suit.³...

...The first part of this article examines the narrowly "legal" analysis of § 1983 in the cases …