Law Commons^™

Retaining A Constitutional Right To Terminate A Pregnancy By Reinterpreting Pregnancy As An Implied Contract, Esra Coskun-Crabtree

Golden Gate University Law Review

This Comment considers the question of abortion as a fundamental right by reframing pregnancy as a ground for implied contract. The recent decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 142 S. Ct. 2228 (2022) rejected the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause as a basis for asserting a fundamental right to abortion. However, other constitutional limits on state power may provide different avenues to such an assertion. Specifically, the Contracts Clause of Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution prohibits the states from impairing the freedom to contract. This Comment argues that the key issue in the abortion …

The Aftermath Of Dobbs: How The Criminalization Of Abortion Has Obstructed The Exercise Of Bodily Autonomy, Sonia Bakshi

Golden Gate University Race, Gender, Sexuality and Social Justice Law Journal

This Blog addresses the topic of bodily autonomy in relation to the criminalization of abortion because everyone should be entitled to the right to make their own choices, especially when it comes to their bodies, and even greater, their selves as a whole. With the recent overturning of Roe v. Wade, the ability to exercise bodily autonomy has never been more obstructed. The Supreme Court has left the nation with the impression that they do not believe women are capable of making decisions about their own bodies or their own futures. Now, it’s important to look into what the ripple …

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 …

The 2020 Supreme Court Term In The Shadow Of Blm, Metoo, And The Notorious Rbg, Rachel A. Van Cleave

Publications

The upcoming Supreme Court term comes in the context of widespread protests about police violence, the criminal (in)justice system, continuing fallout from the #MeToo movement, and the death of iconic Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The court has agreed to hear cases that involve the enduring white supremist legacy of a Louisiana law that allowed for non-unanimous jury criminal convictions, standards for evaluating excessive use of force by police, what is required to sentence a juvenile to life without parole, and military sexual violence.

It is imperative that the Court acknowledge the difficult truths that Black Lives Matter protesters, …

A Patent Reformist Supreme Court And Its Unearthed Precedent, Samuel F. Ernst

Publications

This paper examines the twenty-eight Supreme Court opinions overruling the Federal Circuit since 2000 and quantifies their rationales to discover that, while these reasons are often invoked, the Supreme Court’s most common rationale is that the Federal Circuit has disregarded or cabined its older precedent from before the 1982 creation of the Federal Circuit, from before the 1952 Patent Act, and even from before the 20th Century. The Court has relied on this rationale in twenty-one of the twenty-eight cases. The paper then seeks to probe beneath the surface level patterns to discover the deeper roots of the discord between …

Circuit Splits And Empiricism In The Supreme Court, Karen M. Gebbia

Publications

This Article demonstrates, empirically rather than merely in theory, how a failure to apply accurate data to test carefully constructed hypotheses leads to unreliable conclusions concerning the relationship between the Supreme Court and the circuit courts of appeal. Specifically, commentators routinely misapply facially accurate raw data regarding the rate at which the Court reverses circuit court decisions to support unreliable conclusions regarding the comparative degree of accord between the Court and individual circuits. Commentators and the popular press then employ these unreliable conclusions to draw unsupported inferences regarding the reasons for supposed discord between the Court and the circuits, and …