Law Commons^™

The Institutionalization Of Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings, Paul M. Collins Jr., Lori A. Ringhand

Scholarly Works

This article uses an original database of confirmation hearing dialogue to examine how the Senate Judiciary Committee’s role in Supreme Court confirmations has changed over time, with particular attention paid to the 1939–2010 era. During this period, several notable developments took place, including a rise in the number of hearing comments, increased attention to nominees’ views of judicial decisions, an expansion of the scope of issues addressed, and the equalization of questioning between majority and minority party senators. We demonstrate that these changes were shaped by both endogenous and exogenous factors to promote the legitimization of the Judiciary Committee’s role …

The Integrated Approach: A Solution To Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Standards In The Software Context, Carrie Moss

Journal of Intellectual Property Law

No abstract provided.

Why Copyright Law Lacks Taste And Scents, Leon Calleja

Journal of Intellectual Property Law

No abstract provided.

Finders Keepers, Or Finders Weepers? A Proposed Answer To A Question Raised By Myriad Genetics, Jingshi Shi

Journal of Intellectual Property Law

No abstract provided.

Table Of Contents, Vol. 22:1, Journal Of Intellectual Property Law

Journal of Intellectual Property Law

No abstract provided.

Zivotofsky Ii's Two Visions For Foreign Relations Law, Harlan G. Cohen

Scholarly Works

The five opinions in Zivotofsky v. Kerry – four by the Supreme Court’s Republican-nominated Justices – exposed fault-lines over foreign relations law that have remained hidden in many of the Court’s other cases. This short essay, part of an AJIL Unbound Agora on the case, explores the most notable of these fissures – that between Justice Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion, and Chief Justice Roberts, who dissented. Their disagreement in this case highlights the two Justices’ very different visions of U.S. foreign relations law and reveals the dynamic that has defined the direction of the Court over the last …

The Supreme Court And The Rehabilitative Ideal, Chad Flanders

Georgia Law Review

Graham v. Florida was a watershed decision, not least because of the centrality of the "rehabilitative ideal" to its holding that life in prison for juveniles convicted of nonhomicide crimes was cruel and unusual. The Court's emphasis on rehabilitation was surprising both because rehabilitation was barely included as a 'purpose of punishment" in prior decisions of the Court, but also in terms of the history of academic and legislative skepticism toward rehabilitation. Courts and commentators have struggled to make sense of both the meaning and the scope of Graham's rehabilitative holding. This Article places Graham in the context of the …

Playing Favorites: Congress's Denial Of Equal Sovereignty To The States In The Professional And Amateur Sports Protection Act, Justin W. Mckithen

Georgia Law Review

The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 (PASPA) illegalizes state-sponsored sports wagering activity nationwide. PASPA was intended to be a protective measure, as sports wagering was feared to threaten the integrity of sports. Grandfathering provisions in PASPA, however, exempt sports wagering schemes in Delaware, Montana, Nevada, and Oregon-effectively granting these states a monopoly over the (legalized) sports wagering industry. Faced with budgetary crises and other economic hardships, New Jersey is currently at the forefront of an effort to overturn PASPA and permit the other forty-six states to legalize sports wagering in their jurisdictions, a measure that could generate …

An Originalist Argument For A Sixth Amendment Right To Competent Counsel, Erica J. Hashimoto

Scholarly Works

The Treason Act of 1696 provided a right to counsel in treason cases in England and laid the framework for the right to counsel both in England and in the United States. Evidence suggests that the Treason Act may have influenced the Framers of the Constitution; thus, any historical understanding of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel should consider the quality of representation treason defendants received. If, as appears to be the case, treason defendants had competent, experienced lawyers representing them, then the Sixth Amendment right to counsel may well include that right to such representation. This Essay suggest that …

The Stealth Press Clause, Sonja R. West

Georgia Law Review

As we reflect on the 50th anniversary of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, there will likely be many tributes to Sullivan as one of the Supreme Court's most significant press cases. Yet Sullivan was not really a "press" case. The Supreme Court, in its opinion, granted all speakers greater protection against defamation liability regardless of whether they were a member of the press. Sullivan is not the only famous so-called "press" case that was not just about the press. Several more "not-just-the-press" victories followed in Sullivan's wake. New York Times Co. v. United States (the "Pentagon Papers case"), for …

Institutional Actors In New York Times Co. V. Sullivan, Paul Horwitz

Georgia Law Review

Like all major cases, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, which has now reached its fiftieth anniversary, is capable of multiple readings. This is less true of Sullivan than of some other epochal cases, especially those cases that continue to have a powerful political valence. Brown v. Board of Education, in particular, which will mark its sixtieth anniversary this year, continues to provoke fierce debates about its meaning and, in a deeper sense, its ownership. Sullivan is unquestionably one of the most important decisions in First Amendment jurisprudence. It has certainly produced debate. But arguments about Sullivan generally focus on …

Originalism And History, Justice John P. Stevens (Ret.)

Georgia Law Review

The notion that a jurisprudence of "original intent" will constrain the discretion of judges who seek to impose their own policy preferences on the law has often been attributed to a speech delivered by Edwin Meese, then-Attorney General of the United States, to an American Bar Association audience on July 9, 1985. In that speech the Attorney General was particularly critical of Supreme Court opinions relying on the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as a basis for requiring the states to adhere to specific provisions of the Bill of Rights. "[N]owhere else [he said,] has the principle of …

Defeating A Wolf Clad As A Wolf: Formalism And Functionalism In Separation-Of-Powers Suits Against The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Lee A. Deneen

Georgia Law Review

In 2010, the Court decided Free Enterprise Fund, engaging in a substantially formalist analysis of the President's removal power. That same year, Congress authorized creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a federal agency with significant regulatory and enforcement power over the consumer finance industry. Within three years of that legislation, two lawsuits have challenged the CFPB's structure. This Note evaluates the arguments of the CFPB's opponents against the backdrop of Free Enterprise Fund and the Roberts Court's other formalist decisions. Although one might expect complaints against the CFPB to be lodged solely in formalist terms, the CFPB's opponents have …

In New York Times Co. V. Sullivan, The Supreme Court Got It Right Then- And Now, David G. Savage

Georgia Law Review

On April 5, 1960, Ray Jenkins, a city editor for the Alabama Journal,the afternoon paper in Montgomery, was having lunch at his desk and skimming through the old papers that had piled up. They included a week-old copy of the New York Times. He spotted an item that had a local angle, and he wrote a thirteen-paragraph story for that day's paper. "Sixty prominent liberals, including [former First Lady] Eleanor Roosevelt, have signed a full page advertisement in the New York Times appealing for contributions to 'The Committee to Defend Martin Luther King and the Struggle for Freedom in the …

The Dangers Of Press Clause Dicta, Ronnell A. Jones

Georgia Law Review

If an attorney, scholar, or citizen opened the 448th volume of the U.S. Reports to page 573, she would find herself midway through a case captioned Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia. Context would make clear that the case was brought by a newspaper that wished to report on a criminal trial but was precluded from doing so when the trial judge closed the proceedings. The tenor of the analysis would foreshadow that the newspaper was on its way to a 7-1 victory and a holding that gave it the access it sought to the judicial proceeding. And the tone of …

Citizen-Critics, Citizen Journalists, And The Perils Of Defining The Press, William E. Lee

Georgia Law Review

Media lawyers frequently describe New York Times Co. v. Sullivan as a great win for the press. Certainly the Court's ruling saved the New York Times from financial ruin. However, four Alabama ministers active in the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), Ralph D. Abernathy, Joseph E. Lowery, Fred L. Shuttlesworth, and S.S. Seay Sr., were also targeted by Sullivan as defendants. Despite testimony that the ministers had not authorized the use of their names in the advertisement, "Heed Their Rising Voices," and learned of the ad only when Sullivan asked them for a retraction, the jury found each liable for …

Scandal! Early Supreme Court News Coverage And The Justice-Journalist Divide, Amy Gajda

Georgia Law Review

In January of 1900, United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Henry Brown (author of Plessy v. Ferguson) had apparently just about had it with the press. He gave what was called "[t]he principal address" before members of the New York State Bar Association in Albany and focused not principally on law, but on what he called journalism's sensationalistic methods.' "Ugly stories are told," he told the gathered attorneys, "of spies put upon houses to unearth domestic scandals or upon the steps of public men to ferret out political secrets," including early reports of court decisions. The greatest of the cruelties …

Fast Forward Fifty Years: Protecting Uninhibited, Robust, And Wide-Open Debate After New York Times Co. V. Sullivan, Amy K. Sanders

Georgia Law Review

In September 2013, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law SB 606, criminalizing attempts to photograph or videotape a child if the reason for doing so was because the child's parent is a celebrity or public official. Not surprisingly, the measure garnered significant support from Hollywood's elite, including legislative testimony from actress-moms Halle Berry and Jennifer Garner. Against the outcry of the California Broadcasters Association and the California Newspaper Publishers Association, the California Legislature approved the measure, which raises current penalties for first-time offenders to one year of incarceration and/or a $10,000 fine (up from a maximum of six months …

Justifying A Prudential Solution To The Williamson County Ripeness Puzzle, Katherine M. Crocker

Georgia Law Review

In the much-maligned 1985 case Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, the Supreme Court articulated a rule of "ripeness" requiring most Fifth Amendment regulatory- takings claimants to seek 'just compensation" in state court before attempting to litigate in federal court. Williamson County and its progeny have opened a Pandora's box of unforeseen complications, spawning many more questions than they purported to answer. At the forefront is what kind of requirement the rule is anyway. This Article contends that reading Williamson County as grounded in the Constitution (specifically, in Article III or the Fifth Amendment) runs …

The Impact Of Clapper V. Amnesty International Usa On The Doctrine Of Fear-Based Standing, Amanda M. Mcdowell

Georgia Law Review

The Supreme Court's 2013 decision in Clapper v. Amnesty International USA dealt with the government's electronic surveillance authority under the Foreign Intelligence SurveillanceAct (FISA) Amendments. In a 5- 4 opinion, the Court held that a variety of U.S. persons, including attorneys and media organizations, did not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the FISA Amendments because the plaintiffs' fear of future unlawful surveillance was not "certainly impending." Depending on how lower courts choose to interpret Clapper, the decision could have a significant impact on the doctrine of fear-based standing, which allows plaintiffs to establish standing based on fear of …

Jurisdictional Sequencing, Alan M. Trammell

Georgia Law Review

The Supreme Court has begun to grapple with the
problems presented by the doctrine of jurisdictional
sequencing-the decision of certain issues, and even the
dismissal of cases, before a federal court has verified its
subject matter jurisdiction. Recent jurisprudence has
created confusion as to what, if anything, a federal court
may do before it verifies subject matter jurisdiction.
Moreover, scholars and courts have struggled to discern
an underlying rationale for jurisdictional sequencing, and
no theory has been able to explain the case law fully or
offer a satisfying normative defense of the doctrine.

This Article develops a theory of jurisdictional …

Safe Haven No Longer: The Role Of Georgia Courts And Private Probation Companies In Sustaining A De Facto Debtors' Prison System, Sarah D. Bellacicco

Georgia Law Review

Georgia was specifically established as a colony for debtors-a haven where they could be safe from imprisonment. It is a haven no longer. Georgia courts are regularly imprisoning people for failing to pay debts, often through probation revocation of probationers who have failed to pay a fine or fee imposed as a condition of probation. Some of these probationers are on probation solely because they could not pay a fine on the day of sentencing, a practice which greatly increases the amount they owe due to the additional probation fees imposed. In Bearden v. Georgia, the Supreme Court held that …

Textualism And Obstacle Preemption, John D. Ohlendorf

Georgia Law Review

Commentators, both on the bench and in the academy,
have perceived an inconsistency between the Supreme
Court's trend, in recent decades, towards an increasingly
formalist approach to statutory interpretation and the
Court's continued willingness to find state laws preempted
as "obstacles to the accomplishment and execution of the
full purposes and objectives of Congress'"--so-called
"obstacle preemption." This Article argues that by giving
the meaning contextually implied in a statutory text
ordinary, operative legal force, we can justify most of the
current scope of obstacle preemption based solely on
theoretical moves textualism already is committed to
making.
The Article first sketches …

Let's Talk: Judicial Decisions At Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings, Anna Batta, Paul M. Collins, Jr., Tom Miles, Lori A. Ringhand

Scholarly Works

An investigation of Supreme Court Confirmation hearings reveals many queries posed to nominees reference specific court cases, especially recent decisions, and with questioning often divided along partisan lines. These findings indicate that the hearings are more substantive than is commonly assumed.

American Electricpower V. Connecticut: Disaster Averted By Displacing The Federal Common Law Of Nuisance, Damian M. Brychey

Georgia Law Review

Historically, the federal common law of nuisance has
provided a means to regulate interstate pollution. With
the passing of legislative acts such as the Clean Water Act
and the Clean Air Act, however, traditional federal
nuisance lawsuits were displaced. The continued viability
of the federal common law of nuisance to regulate
pollution, specifically greenhouse gases, was brought to
the forefront of American jurisprudence in American
Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut. There, the Supreme
Court held that the Clean Air Act and the EPA actions the
Act authorizes displace any federal common law right to
seek abatement of greenhouse gases-reversing the …

A Judicial Solution To The Forum-Selection Clause Enforcement Circuit Split: Giving Erie A Second Chanc, Kelly A. Blair

Georgia Law Review

In The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., the Supreme
Court established the federal standard of enforcing forum-
selections clauses as presumptively reasonable. The Court,
however, first addressed the enforceability of forum-
selection clauses in a diversity case in Stewart
Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., in which the Court held
that under Erie, federal law, specifically 28 U.S.C.
§ 1404(a), governs the enforceability of forum-selection
clauses. After Stewart, a split within the United States
Courts of Appeals developed when litigants used Rule 12
motions to dismiss-a procedural vehicle unaddressed by
the Stewart Court-to enforce these clauses. The circuit
split has two …

The First Amendment, Public School Students, And The Need For Clear Limits On School Officials' Authority Over Off-Campus Student Speech, Rory A. Weeks

Georgia Law Review

When, if ever, can school officials punish a student's off-
campus speech? The Supreme Court's student-speech
jurisprudence does not provide a clear answer. But this
much is clear: School officials do not possess absolute
authority over students' on-campus speech. Public school
students do not shed their First Amendment rights at the
schoolhouse gate. And yet during school or school-related
activities, public school students do not have coequal First
Amendment rights with adults in other contexts. During
school or school-related activities, school officials may
proscribe otherwise-permitted speech in order to fulfill the
school's basic educational mission, which includes
instructingstudents in civility. …

State Amici, Collective Action, And The Development Of Federalism Doctrine, Michael E. Solimine

Georgia Law Review

State attorneys general (SAGs) have been individually
and collectively active on many legal and regulatory fronts
in recent years. One of those activities has been the filing
of amicus curiae briefs in the United States Supreme

Court, especially in cases impacting the states and
federalism doctrine. Frequently SAGs will join in one
amicus brief, and briefs signed by forty or more states are
not uncommon. This phenomenon has been the subject of
attention by legal scholars and political scientists, but the
normative jurisprudential significance of such briefs has
not. In their opinions, the Justices vary in how much legal
weight, …

Playing Well With Others-But Still Winning: Chief Justice Roberts, Precedent, And The Possibilities Of A Multi-Member Court, William D. Araiza

Georgia Law Review

This Essay considers methods by which a Supreme
Court Justice inclined to weaken precedent may do so
without explicitly overruling cases. Adding to the
literature examining "stealth overruling" and the

dynamics of multi-judge courts, it examines instances
from the first five years of the Roberts Court where Chief
Justice Roberts acted in a way consistent with that of a
judge who strategically situates himself among his
colleagues so as to erode precedent while appearing to
uphold it. The Essay does not speculate that the Roberts
Court, or Chief Justice Roberts himself, is any more
inclined than past Courts or Justices …

The Political Economy Of Criminal Procedure Litigation, Anthony O'Rourke

Georgia Law Review

Criminal procedure has undergone several well-
documented shifts in its doctrinal foundations since the
Supreme Court first began to apply the Constitution's
criminal procedure protections to the states. This Article
examines the ways in which the political economy of
criminal litigation-specifically, the material conditions
that determine which litigants are able to raise criminal
procedure claims, and which of those litigants' cases are
appealed to the United States Supreme Court-has
influenced these shifts. It offers a theoretical framework
for understanding how the political economy of criminal
litigation shapes constitutional doctrine, according to
which increases in the number of indigent defense
organizations …