Law Commons^™

No Longer Innocent Until Proven Guilty: How Ohio Violates The Fourth Amendment Through Familial Dna Searches Of Felony Arrestees, Jordan Mason

Cleveland State Law Review

In 2013, the United States Supreme Court legalized DNA collection of all felony arrestees upon arrest through its decision in Maryland v. King. Since then, the State of Ohio has broadened the use of arrestee DNA by subjecting it to familial DNA searches. Ohio’s practice of conducting familial DNA searches of arrestee DNA violates the Fourth Amendment because arrestees have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information that is extracted from a familial DNA search and it fails both the totality of the circumstances and the special needs tests. Further, these tests go against the intention of the …

Equitable Defenses In Patent Law, Christa J. Laser

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

In patent law, “unenforceability” can have immense consequences. At least five equitable doctrines make up the defense of “unenforceability” as it was codified into the Patent Act in 1952: laches; estoppel; unclean hands; patent misuse; and according to some, inequitable conduct. Yet in the seventy years since incorporation of equitable defenses into the patent statute, the Supreme Court has not clarified their reach. Indeed, twice in the last four years, the Supreme Court avoided giving complete guidance on the crucial questions of whether, and when, such equitable defenses are available to bar damages in cases brought at law.

Several interpretive …

Certiorari In Patent Cases, Christa J. Laser

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

In the decade from 2010 to 2019, the Supreme Court has decided more patent law cases than in the prior three decades combined. A higher percentage of its docket has been patent cases--5.45%--than in any decade in the last century. A number of scholars have advanced theories of why this rate of review of patent cases has increased and provided quantitative analyses. Yet no scholarship to date has used qualitative data to investigate why the Supreme Court’s patent docket is increasing and what factors the Supreme Court considers in its review of patent cases. This paper shares statistics of the …

Private Affairs: Public Employees And The Right To Sexual Privacy, Susan A. Jacobsen

Cleveland State Law Review

Currently, the federal circuit courts split on whether public employers can discipline their employees for legal, off-duty sexual activity. The Fifth and Tenth Circuits permit discipline in these scenarios; the Ninth Circuit does not. At issue is whether certain public employees, like police officers, should be held to a higher standard because of their duty to the public or whether the Constitution entitles them to privacy rights that shield them from discipline. This Note concludes the latter and argues against punishing the legal, off-duty sexual conduct of all public employees. Because the right to sexual privacy already exists within the …

Bucklew V. Precythe'S Return To The Original Meaning Of "Unusual": Prohibiting Extensive Delays On Death Row, Jacob Leon

Cleveland State Law Review

The Supreme Court, in Bucklew v. Precythe, provided an originalist interpretation of the term “unusual” in the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. This originalist interpretation asserted that the word “unusual” proscribes punishments that have “long fallen out of use.” To support its interpretation, the Supreme Court cited John Stinneford’s well-known law review article The Original Meaning of “Unusual”: The Eighth Amendment as a Bar to Cruel Innovation. This Article, as Bucklew did, accepts Stinneford’s interpretation of the word “unusual” as correct. Under Stinneford’s interpretation, the term “unusual” is a legal term of art derived from eighteenth-century …

Decoding Judicial Reasoning In China: A Comparative Empirical Analysis Of Guiding Cases, Runhua Wang

Cleveland State Law Review

The judicial system in China recently started using legal precedents—known as guiding cases—as a new legal source to eliminate adjudicative inconsistency. Guiding cases (“GCs”) present the current judicial reasoning to some extent and can be used to predict the future of judicial reasoning in China. What are GCs? What legal issues do GCs address? How do they address legal issues? How do GCs affect the legal system and adjudication in China? This Article answers these questions with empirical evidence and comparisons to judicial reasoning in the United States. It is the first empirical research providing a systematic review of all …

The Nfl Player, The Schoolchild, And The Entertainer: When The Term "Free Speech" Is Too Freely Spoken, Exactly "Who's On First?", Christian Ketter

Cleveland State Law Review

As America’s media and politicians continue to debate the free speech rights of NFL players, schoolchildren, and entertainers, the dialogue has confused many Americans as to what exactly the First Amendment protects. Chief Justice John G. Roberts ultimately assumes the role of an umpire in many of these issues, guiding the United States Supreme Court to incrementally “call balls and strikes.” In recent years, the Court has umpired employment rights and state action cases, and Roberts’s calls will likely further distance the Court that decided Morse v. Frederick from the one that decided Tinker v. Des Moines. Amid a …

Brief Of Amici Curiae Professors Ronald A. Cass, David F. Forte, James L. Huffman, Donald J. Kochan, Jesse J. Richardson And Reed Watson In Support Of Petitioners, David F. Forte, Ronald A. Cass, James L. Huffman, Donald J. Kochan, Jesse J. Richardson, Reed Watson

Law Faculty Briefs and Court Documents

The Court of Federal Claims ruled that the Klamath, Yurok and Hoopa (hereafter Tribes) reserved water rights in the Klamath River Basin are of a volume at least equal to the amount of water the Environmental Protection Agency has determined to be necessary to trigger endangered species protection. In the absence of an adjudication in state or federal court and contrary to the long history of federal deference (both by Congressional enactment and judicial precedent) to state adjudication of water rights, the Federal Circuit affirmed and thus preempted, without the participation of affected parties including petitioners, the State of Oregon’s …

How Conscientious Objectors Killed The Draft: The Collapse Of The Selective Service During The Vietnam War, Bill Raley

Cleveland State Law Review

This Article argues that a key-but-overlooked factor in the Vietnam-era breakdown of the draft system was the Supreme Court’s expansion of the religious conscientious objector ("CO") exemption. It asserts that the Court understood that the CO exemption violated the Establishment Clause, but rather than strike the exemption down, the Court avoided the constitutional issue by interpreting away the religious element of CO statutes. The Article concludes that the Court’s rulings caused CO exemptions to skyrocket, which in turn caused the draft system to collapse toward the end of the Vietnam War.

Brief Of Constitutional Law Scholars As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioners, David F. Forte, Ronald J. Colombo, Richard Epstein, Carl H. Esbeck, Robert P. George, Mary Ann Glendon, Brian Mccall, Stacy Scaldo, Steven Smith

Law Faculty Briefs and Court Documents

Lurking behind the regulatory issues presented by this appeal is a concerted effort to displace the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq. ("RFRA"), with a novel approach that would trivialize a law's burden on religion. The Court should not indulge it.

The critics' argument suffers from several analytical defects that can be remedied by (1) a proper constitutional understanding of RFRA's relationship to the Establishment Clause; (2) an accurate understanding of how the Religion Clauses safeguard third-party interests; and (3) the correct application of these understandings to the Final Rules.

Brief Of Amici Curiae Michael L. Rosin, David G. Post, David F. Forte, Michael Stokes Paulsen, And Sotirios Barber In Support Of Presidential Electors, David F. Forte, Michael L. Rosin, David G. Post, Michael Stokes Paulsen, Sotirios Barber

Law Faculty Briefs and Court Documents

The Framers of the Constitution crafted the Electoral College to be an independent institution with the responsibility of selecting the President and Vice-President. Therefore, they intended each elector to exercise independent judgment in deciding whom to vote for. A state cannot revise the Constitution unilaterally by reducing the elector to a ministerial agent who must vote in a particular way or face a sanction. The question of each elector’s moral or political obligation is not before the Court. Nor is the desirability of the current electoral system. Rather, this case turns on what the Constitution allows, and what it prohibits. …