Law Commons^™

Does The Discourse On 303 Creative Portend A Standing Realignment?, Richard M. Re

Notre Dame Law Review Reflection

Perhaps the most surprising feature of the last Supreme Court Term was the extraordinary public discourse on 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. According to many commentators, the Court decided what was really a “fake” or “made-up” case brought by someone who asserted standing merely because “she worries.” As a doctrinal matter, these criticisms are unfounded. But what makes this episode interesting is that the criticisms came from the legal Left, which has long been associated with expansive principles of standing. Doubts about standing in 303 Creative may therefore portend a broader standing realignment, in which liberal Justices become jurisdictionally hawkish. …

Did The Court In Sffa Overrule Grutter?, Bill Watson

Notre Dame Law Review Reflection

In Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (SFFA), the Supreme Court held that affirmative action programs designed to comply with the precedent set in Grutter v. Bollinger were unlawful. Yet the Court nowhere said that it was overruling Grutter and, in fact, relied on Grutter as authority. Neither the Justices themselves nor subsequent commentators have been able to agree on what, if anything, remains of Grutter today. Did SFFA overrule Grutter or not? This Essay analyzes that question and its normative fallout. The Essay concludes that SFFA at least partially overruled Grutter and that …

Emergency-Docket Experiments, Edward L. Pickup, Hannah L. Templin

Notre Dame Law Review Reflection

This short Essay is the first to analyze the Court’s recent emer-gency-docket experiments and discuss their effectiveness. We conclude that the Court’s interventions have real benefits: giving emergency cases greater procedure improves transparency, boosts public confidence in the Court, and gives guidance to litigants and lower courts.

But experiments are often iterative—it is unusual to hit the right result the first time. So too with the Court’s emergency-docket tinkering. In tweaking its stay factors, the Justices have failed to give suffi-cient guidance to litigants about how those factors will apply in the future. Plus, in transferring Ramirez from the emergency …

Speaking Of The Speech Or Debate Clause: Revising State Legislative Immunity, Shane Coughlin

Notre Dame Law Review Reflection

An increasing number of America’s most contentious issues will be resolved in state legislatures. Consequently, the ability of litigants to seek judicial review of a legislature’s actions is becoming more important. The scope of state legislative immunity, a federal common-law defense that provides state legislators with absolute immunity against certain lawsuits, will also increase in importance. A recent case involving New Hampshire’s legislature raises two significant questions about the scope of state legislative immunity. The first question entails how the United States Congress can abrogate the immunity, and the second question is whether legislators may claim the immunity when a …

Counting Heads: The Decennial Census And Adjustments To Enumeration, Jay E. Town

Notre Dame Law Review Reflection

The 2020 Decennial Census has become a lightning rod for litigious civil rights organizations, state attorneys general, and even members of Congress. At stake is the apportionment of representatives in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College divided amongst the several states. Furthermore, the “headcount” determines the allotment of $1.5 trillion in nondiscretionary federal dollars to be distributed to the various states based on the persons who are counted in each. The headcount is also used in redistricting of congressional districts. Make no mistake, litigation surrounds the manner in which the census arrives at its headcount after every census. …

One Ring To Rule Them All: Individual Judgments, Nationwide Injunctions, And Universal Handcuffs, Paul J. Larkin Jr., Giancarlo Canaparo

Notre Dame Law Review Reflection

A large and growing body of literature criticizes nationwide injunctions, although a handful of scholars have come to their qualified defense. The literature has focused on whether universal injunctions comport with the historic scope of federal courts’ equitable powers and are good policy to boot. Largely missing from the debate is a fulsome analysis of whether the Constitution or the Judicial Code authorizes federal courts to issue such injunctions and whether they are permissible under existing Supreme Court precedent. We argue that the answer to each question is “no.”

Parts I and II explain that no positive law authorizes universal …

The Needle And The Damage Done: Mitchell V. Wisconsin'S Sweeping Rule For Warrantless Blood Draws On Unconscious Dui Suspects, Dyllan Taxman

Notre Dame Law Review Reflection

In a normal year, the annual death toll from drunk driving accidents in the United States will roughly equal the total number of victims of the September 11th terrorist attacks and service members killed in the War on Terror combined. And while every state has enacted increasingly progressive laws to prevent and punish driving under the influence (DUI), episodes of drunk driving remain consistent year to year and less than one percent of self-reported drunk drivers are arrested. Drunken and drugged driving is, both in lay terms and legally speaking, a compelling public issue. But the Fourth Amendment of the …

The Love In Loving: Overcoming Artificial Racial Barriers, Justice Leah Ward Sears (Ret.), Sasha N. Greenberg

Notre Dame Law Review Reflection

The rewritten opinion of Loving v. Virginia in Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Opinions of the United States Supreme Court is in stark contrast to the original. Professor Teri McMurtry-Chubb’s judgment for the court “unmasks—and renders unavoidable— the link between America’s history of White supremacy and patriarchy and America’s legal structures for regulating marriage and families.” The feminist opinion relies almost entirely on legal, social, and cultural history, in particular the history of marriage and family relationships among and between Blacks and Whites during the colonial, antebellum, and postbellum eras in the American South.

For the authors of this response Essay, both …

How Is Sex Harassment Discriminatory?, Noa Ben-Asher

Notre Dame Law Review Reflection

Feminist Judgments takes us to a key moment in the history of sexual harassment law. In Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, the Supreme Court recognized for the first time that both quid pro quo and hostile environment sexual harassment violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It also held that to be actionable under Title VII, sexual advances must be (1) “unwelcome” and (2) “sufficiently severe or pervasive ‘to alter the conditions of [the victim’s] employment and create an abusive working environment.’” The latter part of the test (“sufficiently severe or pervasive”) fits well into the …

Rewriting Judicial Opinions And The Feminist Scholarly Project, Linda L. Berger, Kathryn M. Stanchi, Bridget J. Crawford

Notre Dame Law Review Reflection

In 1995, the authors of a law review article examining “feminist judging” focused on the existing social science data concerning women judges and compared the voting records and opinions of the only female Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court: Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sandra Day O’Connor. Based on this review, the authors concluded that appointing more women as judges would make little difference to judicial outcomes or processes. The authors accused those who advocated for more women on the bench of having a hidden feminist agenda and bluntly concluded that “[b]y any measure, feminist judges fit very uneasily in most …

Feminist Judgments & #Metoo, Margaret E. Johnson

Notre Dame Law Review Reflection

The Feminist Judgments book series and the #MeToo movement share the feminist method of narrative. Feminist Judgments is a scholarly project of rewriting judicial opinions using feminist legal theory. #MeToo is a narrative movement by people, primarily women, telling their stories of sexual harassment or assault. Both Feminist Judgments and #MeToo bring to the surface stories that have been silenced, untold, or overlooked. These narrative collections can and do effectuate genderjustice change by empowering people, changing perspectives, opening up new learning, and affecting future legal and nonlegal outcomes.

Feminist Judgments And Women's Rights At Work, Gillian Thomas

Notre Dame Law Review Reflection

The history of the law’s treatment of working women is largely a history of the law’s treatment of women’s bodies. Overwhelmingly created by male judges, that jurisprudence considers women from a remove—their physicality, their reproductive capacity, their stature, their sexuality—eclipsing meaningful consideration of their lived experience, on or off the job. As vividly illustrated by so many of the alternative rulings contained in Feminist Judgments, that erasure resulted in Supreme Court decisions that—even when they came out the “right” way, that is, in favor of the female litigant—squandered opportunities for advancing sex equality.

The tantalizing notion of “what might …

Revisiting Roe To Advance Reproductive Justice For Childbearing Women, Elizabeth Kukura

Notre Dame Law Review Reflection

The rewritten opinions that comprise Feminist Judgments together provide a powerful critique of judicial decisionmaking that renders certain women’s experiences invisible. By reimagining key Supreme Court decisions, the opinion writers unmask various ways that gendered conceptions of social roles are deeply entrenched in the rulings and reasoning of the highest court of the United States. The authors also show, through their alternative texts, that opinions which are celebrated as women’s rights victories can nevertheless impede progress toward equality and liberty.

Kimberly Mutcherson’s rewritten concurrence in Roe v. Wade illustrates the missed opportunities and unintended consequences that have made the landmark …

Looking To The Litigant: Reaction Essay To Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Opinions Of The United States Supreme Court, Claire B. Wofford

Notre Dame Law Review Reflection

Feminist Judgments’s focus on jurists alone is not unusual. My own discipline has devoted a great deal of study to understanding why and how the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court make the decisions they do. Some of the scholarship has even examined whether women judges might operate differently than their male counterparts, though the findings have been mixed at best. The emphasis, moreover, is understandable and laudable, as it is jurists who have the final say on the content of law.

Emphasizing judicial behavior, however, unfortunately overlooks the fundamental passivity of the courts. As much as they might …

Extending The Critical Rereading Project, Gabrielle Appleby, Rosalind Dixon

Notre Dame Law Review Reflection

In this reflection, we want to explain a project in Australia that extends the feminist judgments project and adapts it specifically for the purpose of teaching critical theory, critical legal thinking, and the assumptions inherent in the legal method.

Feminist Judgments And The Future Of Reproductive Justice, Sarah Weddington

Notre Dame Law Review Reflection

Roe v. Wade is one of the twenty-five Supreme Court cases that has been rewritten from a feminist perspective by an imaginative group of law professors and lawyers. This Essay is based on remarks made by Ms. Weddington at a panel discussion held at Temple University Beasley School of Law on November 13, 2017.

Feminist Judgments And The Rewritten Price Waterhouse, Sandra Sperino

Notre Dame Law Review Reflection

In Feminist Judgments, Professor Martha Chamallas reimagines the canonical case of Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins. In that case, the Supreme Court recognized that a plaintiff can prevail on a Title VII claim by showing that a protected trait was a motivating factor in a negative employment outcome. In that case, the Court noted that plaintiffs in discrimination cases should not be required to prove but-for cause to prevail.

The introduction to the Professor Chamallas concurrence correctly notes many of the rewritten opinion’s strengths. Professor Chamallas provides richer detail about the facts underlying the case and the context in …

Dead Precedents, Riley T. Svikhart

Notre Dame Law Review Reflection

Part I explores the Roberts Court’s reluctance to overrule Supreme Court precedents more thoroughly. Part II provides a modest account for this phenomenon. Section II.A considers the relationship between the Roberts Court’s reluctance to overrule Supreme Court precedents and its law declaration bent. Section II.B evaluates this reluctance in light of the doctrinal commitment of stare decisis. Finally, Section II.C examines the link between the Roberts Court’s treatment of dying precedents and its trademark adherence to the constitutional avoidance doctrine.

Lafler V. Cooper's Remedy: A Weak Response To A Constitutional Violation, Matthew T. Ciulla

Notre Dame Law Review Reflection

The Lafler v. Cooper Court should have chosen the remedy of specific performance of the original plea bargain. The specific performance remedy, long implemented by federal courts in Lafler-like scenarios, and ordered by the district court in Lafler, precisely cures the Lafler injury—the accused regains the ability to accept the original plea offer, except he now has the benefit of effective assistance of counsel. The specific performance remedy, when coupled with the safeguards of the Strickland prongs, poses little risk of abuse, and gives heft to the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of effective assistance of counsel in the plea …

Military Mothers And Claims Under The Federal Tort Claims Act For Injuries That Occur Pre-Birth, Tara Willke

Notre Dame Law Review Reflection

In order to right a longstanding wrong perpetrated against military mothers and their children, the Court should grant review in Ortiz v. United States ex rel. Evans Army Community Hospital. Part I of this Essay provides a brief discussion of the FTCA and the Feres doctrine. Part II discusses the facts and holding in Ortiz and its rejection of the approaches taken in other circuits involving pregnant service members and pre-birth injuries, which has caused a clear split in the circuits. Part III argues that these types of claims are not subject to the Feres doctrine because pregnancy and …

The Emergence Of Contextually Constrained Purposivism, Michael C. Mikulic

Notre Dame Law Review Reflection

This Case Comment first outlines the various methods of statutory construction used by the Supreme Court throughout its history, leading up to the Court’s implementation of contextually constrained purposivism in King v. Burwell. It then provides a summary of the facts and procedural history of King, thereby setting the stage to explain how the Court invoked contextually constrained purposivism. Finally, the Case Comment discusses some of the positive and negative implications of the approach.

A Critique Of Hobby Lobby And The Supreme Court's Hands-Off Approach To Religion, Samuel J. Levine

Notre Dame Law Review Reflection

Part I of this Essay provides a brief overview for analyzing the Supreme Court’s hands-off approach to religious doctrine. Specifically, this Part presents a summary of problems posed by the hands-off approach, followed by a brief taxonomy of different forms of judicial inquiry into religion. This Part aims to clarify which forms of inquiry are permissible—and typically necessary—for adjudication of a case involving a religious claim, and which forms of inquiry are precluded under the hands-off doctrine. Part II of this Essay applies the hands-off framework to the Hobby Lobby decision, considering the taxonomy of forms of judicial inquiry into …

Confusing Clarity: The Pregnancy Discrimination Act After Young V. Ups, Inc., Jessica M. Bretl

Notre Dame Law Review Reflection

On March 25, 2015, the Supreme Court issued an opinion in Young v. UPS, Inc.—the most recent case in the Court’s pregnancy discrimination jurisprudence. Young focused on an interpretation of one clause of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) and how that interpretation would shape claims of employment discrimination by pregnant employees seeking work accommodations. This Comment argues that the majority opinion in Young did not clarify, but only muddied the waters: the Young framework presents challenges for the lower courts tasked with applying the framework and creates uncertainty for future pregnancy discrimination litigation.

Part I of this Comment provides …