Law Commons^™

Using Nlp To Model U.S. Supreme Court Cases, Katherine Lockard, Robert Slater, Brandon Sucrese

SMU Data Science Review

The advantages of employing text analysis to uncover policy positions, generate legal predictions, and inform or evaluate reform practices are multifold. Given the far-reaching effects of legislation at all levels of society these insights and their continued improvement are impactful. This research explores the use of natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning to predictively model U.S. Supreme Court case outcomes based on textual case facts. The final model achieved an F1-score of .324 and an AUC of .68. This suggests that the model can distinguish between the two target classes; however, further research is needed before machine learning models …

Originalism-By-Analogy And Second Amendment Adjudication, Joseph Blocher, Eric Ruben

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

In New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, the Supreme Court held that the constitutionality of modern gun laws must be evaluated by direct analogy to history, unmediated by familiar doctrinal tests. Bruen’s novel approach to historical decision-making purported to constrain judicial discretion but instead enabled judicial subjectivity, obfuscation, and unpredictability. Those problems are painfully evident in courts’ faltering efforts to apply Bruen to laws regulating 3D-printed guns, assault weapons, large-capacity magazines, obliterated serial numbers, and the possession of guns on subways or by people subject to domestic-violence restraining orders. The Court’s recent grant of certiorari in United …

Corpus Linguistics Criticisms Of Heller Misuse Corpus Linguistics, Michael Showalter

SMU Law Review Forum

A number of linguistics experts have asserted that new corpus-linguistics evidence undermines the U.S. Supreme Court’s conclusion in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment phrase keep and bear arms means to possess and carry weapons. At the time of ratification, the term bear arms carried both an idiomatic sense meaning “to serve as a soldier” and a literal sense meaning “to carry weapons.” The Heller majority concluded that the Second Amendment uses the literal sense, partly because the idiomatic reading has the absurd implication of causing the Amendment to protect a right to serve as a soldier. …

Justice Breyer And Patent Eligibility, David O. Taylor

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

Justice Breyer leaves the Supreme Court having left a significant mark on patent eligibility law. In Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, he eliminated the ability to obtain patents on many useful applications of new (and even breakthrough) discoveries. The author discusses how Justice Breyer’s test for patent eligibility both contradicts the historical approach and has had pernicious impact on the patent system and investment in development of technology, including, and in particular, medical technologies.

Public Carry And Criminal Law After Bruen, Eric Ruben

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

Gun rights supporters appear to be on the cusp of achieving a decades-long goal: defanging licensing laws for carrying handguns in public nationwide. More than 20 states have removed all licensing requirements for concealed carry, and most of the others now require little more than a background check. At oral argument in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, meanwhile, the Supreme Court seemed poised to strike down policies in the remaining states that limit licenses to those who can show a heightened need, or “good cause,” to carry a gun. If that happens, what comes next?

This …

Public Safety Concerns And Meeting The Dudenhoeffer Pleading Standard, Douglass G. Brown

Journal of Air Law and Commerce

This Comment analyzes the recent Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) stock drop cases against The Boeing Company (Boeing) and reviews the underlying pleading standard in these cases that the Supreme Court set forth in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer. With the tremendous amount of assets in retirement plans—and specifically in employee stock ownership plans—litigation under ERISA can be extremely costly to employers, especially those in the airline industry that offer these plans. The current pleading standard for stock drop cases has become a practically insurmountable barrier to plaintiffs, even when their employers know they are negligently creating products …

The Gun Rights Movement And 'Arms' Under The Second Amendment, Eric M. Ruben

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

After Donald Trump supporters breached the U.S. Capitol on January 6 wielding weapons including tasers, chemical sprays, knives, police batons, and baseball bats, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) remarked that the insurrection “didn’t seem . . . armed.” Johnson, who is A-rated by the National Rifle Association (NRA), observed, “When you hear the word ‘armed,’ don’t you think of firearms?” For many, the answer is likely yes.

This essay describes how the gun rights movement has contributed to the conflation of arms and firearms. In doing so, it shows how that conflation is flatly inconsistent with the most important legal context …

From Protecting Water Quality To Protecting States’ Rights: Fifty Years Of Supreme Court Clean Water Act Statutory Interpretation, Stephen Johnson

SMU Law Review

In 1972, a bipartisan Congress enacted the Clean Water Act “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” Almost fifty years have passed since Congress enacted the law, and during that time, the Supreme Court has played a significant role in the administration and evolution of the law. Since the dawn of the environmental era in the 1970s, the Supreme Court has heard more cases involving the Clean Water Act than any other environmental law. However, the manner in which the Court has analyzed the law has changed substantially over the last half century. …

Stare Decisis And The Identity-Over-Time Problem: A Comment On The Majority's Wrongness In Kisor V. Wilkie, Christian Talley

SMU Law Review Forum

In Kisor v. Wilkie, the Supreme Court recently confronted whether to overrule the doctrine under which courts defer to agencies’ interpretations of their own ambiguous regulations—so-called Auer or Seminole Rock deference. In its prior reexaminations of Seminole Rock, the Court had progressively restricted the doctrine’s scope, leading observers to wonder whether the Justices would scrap it for good. This question of administrative law ignited a corollary debate about stare decisis. Writing for the majority, Justice Kagan argued that stare decisis mandated the preservation of Seminole Rock. Yet as she appealed to stare decisis, her opinion further restricted …

You Have One New Message—The Eleventh Circuit Correctly Applies The Spokeo Framework To Tcpa Claims For Unsolicited Text Messaging, Mary Love

SMU Law Review Forum

No abstract provided.

What Can We Expect Of Law And Religion In 2020?, Leslie C. Griffin

SMU Law Review Forum

The United States is in a religion-friendly mood—or at least its three branches of government are. The Supreme Court is turning away from its Free Exercise Clause analysis that currently holds that every religious person must obey the law. At the same time, the Court is rejecting its old Establishment Clause analysis that the government cannot practice or support religion. The old model of separation of church and state is gone, replaced by an ever-growing unity between church and state. This Article examines how much union of church and state this Court might establish.

Up To Interpretation—Highlighting The Texas Supreme Court’S “Ambiguous” Approach To Statutory Construction, Kyle Gromann

SMU Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Incomplete Record In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association V. City Of New York, Eric J. Mogilnicki, Alexander Schultz

SMU Law Review Forum

A Second Amendment case now pending at the Supreme Court, New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. City of New York, tests the extent to which New York City may limit the movement of guns along city streets. The briefing in that case is, however, incomplete. Second Amendment jurisprudence calls for an examination of historical analogues to the firearms regulation at issue. Here, the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association asserted that there are none. This Article identifies numerous historical analogues to the City’s transportation restrictions, most of which were not identified in the briefing before the …

Overwriting And Under-Deciding: Addressing The Roberts Court's Shrinking Docket, Meg Penrose

SMU Law Review Forum

No abstract provided.

The Rise Of The Viewpoint-Discrimination Principle, Lackland H. Bloom Jr.

SMU Law Review Forum

The Supreme Court’s freedom-of-speech jurisprudence is complicated. There are few hard and fast rules. One is that judicially-imposed prior restraints on speech are hardly ever permissible. In recent years, another hard and fast rule appears to have developed. It is that the government may never prohibit speech simply on account of its viewpoint. It remains unclear whether this is a per se prohibition or whether such viewpoint-focused regulation must overcome the all but insurmountable burden of serious strict scrutiny. In any event, any governmental rule that attempts to regulate speech based on its point of view will almost certainly be …

“And The Truth Shall Make You Free”: Schenck, Abrams, And A Hundred Years Of History, Rodney A. Smolla

SMU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Gamble, Dual Sovereignty, And Due Process, Anthony J. Colangelo

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

The Constitution’s Double Jeopardy Clause is an analytically gnarly beast. What seems like a fairly straightforward prohibition on multiple prosecutions for the same crime turns out to be a bramble bush of doctrinal twists and snarls. At the center is the so-called “dual sovereignty” doctrine. This principle holds that separate sovereigns may prosecute for what looks like the same “offence”—to use the Constitution’s language—because they have separate laws, and those laws prohibit separate offenses, and thus the Double Jeopardy Clause’s bar on multiple prosecutions for the same offense simply does not come into play. As a doctrine that relates to …

The Lessons Of 1919, Lackland H. Bloom

SMU Law Review

One hundred years ago, the Supreme Court embarked on its first serious consideration of the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech. In 1919, the Court upheld four federal criminal convictions over First Amendment defenses. Three of the majority opinions were written by Justice Holmes. In the fourth, he offered a classic dissent. Two of the cases, Frohwerk v. United States and Debs v. United States, are of middling significance. The other two, Schenck v. United States and Abrams v. United States, are iconic. From these cases have sprung an expansive and complex jurisprudence of free speech. The …

The Clear And Present Dangers Of The Clear And Present Danger Test: Schenck And Abrams Revisited, Ronald J. Krotoszynski Jr.

SMU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Falsity And The First Amendment, G. Edward White

SMU Law Review

This Article considers the extent to which the exclusion of forms of speech from the coverage of the First Amendment has turned on the falsity of statements within the excluded categories. It does so, first, by reviewing the Supreme Court’s early and mid-twentieth century free speech decisions, to demonstrate that none of the principal cases in which the Court swept a particular category of expression within the First Amendment’s coverage involved speech that was false; and, second, by suggesting that when the Court first announced that some “breathing space” was required for factually inaccurate statements about public officials or private …

Article Iii, Judicial Restraint, And This Supreme Court, Joseph S. Diedrich

SMU Law Review

Article III of the U.S. Constitution establishes a federal judiciary with powers and functions separate and distinct from the other branches. During its October 2017 Term, the U.S. Supreme Court decided three cases that turned on an interpretation of Article III power: Patchak v. Zinke, Oil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy Group, and Gill v. Whitford.

This Article argues that in each of those three cases, a majority of the

Court coalesced around a unifying principle of judicial restraint. By “judicial restraint,” this Article refers to the principle that the judiciary should respect and defer to the elected branches. …

Originalist Reflections On Constitutional Freedom Of Speech, Christopher Wolfe

SMU Law Review

In this brief Article, I would like to offer some reflections on the First Amendment freedom of speech and press guarantee from an originalist perspective. This area seems to me to be one that is particularly difficult for originalists, and I think that there is insufficient acknowledgment of that fact among them.

Deliberative Democracy, Truth, And Holmesian Social Darwinism, Alexander Tsesis

SMU Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Martin Luther King Jr. Amendment To The U.S. Constitution: Toward The Abolition Of Poverty, Theodore Walker

Perkins Faculty Research and Special Events

Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. prescribed that we add an economic bill of rights to the U.S. Constitution. A King-Inspired bill of rights should include a constitutional amendment that enumerates a natural human right to be free from economic poverty, and appropriate enforcement legislation.

For the sake of abolishing slavery, the Thirteenth Amendment says:

(Section 1) Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

(Section 2) Congress shall have power to enforce this article by …

Richard Posner: A Class Of One, Robert C. Farrell

SMU Law Review

Judge Richard Posner, best known for his contributions to the field of law and economics, has also made an outsized contribution to another area of the law—the equal protection class-of-one claim. By some combination of happenstance and design, Posner was able to shape the class-of-one doctrine even where his views were inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent. The Supreme Court’s initial exposition of the doctrine had identified an equal protection violation when there was intentionally different treatment of similarly situated persons without a rational basis for the difference in treatment. Posner insisted that this language included within it a requirement that …

Justice Scalia's Bottom-Up Approach To Shaping The Law, Meghan J. Ryan

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

Justice Antonin Scalia is among the most famous Supreme Court Justices in history. He is known for his originalism and conservative positions, as well as his witty and acerbic legal opinions. One of the reasons Justice Scalia's opinions are so memorable is his effective use of rhetorical devices, which convey colorful images and understandable ideas. One might expect that such powerful opinions would be effective in shaping the law, but Justice Scalia's judicial philosophy was often too conservative to persuade a majority of his fellow Justices on the Supreme Court. Further, his regular criticisms of his Supreme Court colleagues were …

Confusing Patent Eligibility, David O. Taylor

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

Patent law — and in particular the law governing patent eligibility — is in a state of crisis. This crisis is one of profound confusion. Confusion exists because the current approach to determining patent eligibility confuses the relevant policies underlying numerous discrete patent law doctrines, and because the current approach lacks administrability. Ironically, the result of all this confusion is seemingly clear: the result seems to be that, when challenged, patent applications and issued patents probably do not satisfy the requirement of eligibility. At least that is the perception. A resulting concern, therefore, is that the current environment substantially reduces …

Firearm Regionalism And Public Carry: Placing Southern Antebellum Case Law In Context, Eric Ruben, Saul A. Cornell

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

In recent years, following the Supreme Court’s landmark originalist opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, courts have been asked to strike down restrictions on the public carrying of handguns on the basis of the original understanding of the Second Amendment. One of the key sources used to justify this outcome is a family of opinions from the antebellum South asserting an expansive right to carry weapons in public. In this essay we explore whether that body of case law reflected a national consensus on the meaning of the right to bear arms or, in the alternative, a narrower regional …

Finality And Rehabilitation, Meghan J. Ryan

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

New science and evolving societal views have led commentators to question the doctrine of finality. This parallels commentators’ embrace of rehabilitation during the middle of the last century. Today, casting off the strictures of finality and embracing rehabilitation are considered complementary positions, but finality has historically been understood as promoting rehabilitation. This shift stems from our changing understandings of rehabilitation. Rehabilitation focuses on offender change — on whether an offender is a final product or, rather, whether he is capable of transformation. Offender change, though, could be either change in character or change in behavior, or a combination of these …

Law, Facts, And Power, Elizabeth G. Thornburg

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

The Supreme Court’s opinion in Ashcroft v. Iqbal is wrong in many ways. This essay is about only one of them: the Court’s single-handed return to a pleading system that requires lawyers and judges to distinguish between pleading facts and pleading law. This move not only resuscitates a distinction purposely abandoned by the generation that drafted the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but also serves as an example of the very difficulties created by the distinction. The chinks in the law-fact divide are evident in Iqbal itself - both in the already notorious pleading section of the opinion, and in …