Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Supreme Court of the United States

William & Mary Law School

Articles 1 - 30 of 549

Full-Text Articles in Law

Fixing False Truths: Rethinking Truth Assumptions And Free-Expression Rationales In The Networked Era, Jared Schroeder Jul 2021

Fixing False Truths: Rethinking Truth Assumptions And Free-Expression Rationales In The Networked Era, Jared Schroeder

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The First Amendment makes no mention of truth. Assumptions about truth, however, have become the foundations for free-expression rationales, the very bases for such freedoms in a democratic society. The Supreme Court gradually, over time, wedded Enlightenment assumptions about truth to the marketplace of ideas rationale for free expression. This Article examines, in light of massive, widespread adoption of networked technologies and AI and Supreme Court decisions that have undermined the distinctive role of truth, whether truth should be removed or replaced as a crucial, justifying concept in freedom of expression. The Article examines the marketplace approach’s history and ...


Will The Supreme Court Recover Its Own Fumble? How Alston Can Repair The Damage Resulting From Ncaa's Sports League Exemption, Alan J. Meese Jun 2021

Will The Supreme Court Recover Its Own Fumble? How Alston Can Repair The Damage Resulting From Ncaa's Sports League Exemption, Alan J. Meese

Faculty Publications

Horizontal restraints are unlawful per se unless a court can
identify some redeeming virtue that such restraints may create. In
National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Board of Regents of the
University of Oklahoma (“NCAA”), the Supreme Court rejected this
standard, refusing to condemn horizontal restraints on price and
output imposed by the NCAA without specifying any possible
redeeming virtues. The Court emphasized that other restraints not
before the Court were necessary to create and maintain athletic
competition like that supervised by the NCAA. This exemption for
sports leagues ensures that all restraints imposed by such entities
merit Rule of Reason ...


A Scapegoat Theory Of Bivens, Katherine Mims Crocker May 2021

A Scapegoat Theory Of Bivens, Katherine Mims Crocker

Faculty Publications

Some scapegoats are innocent. Some warrant blame, but not the amount they are made to bear. Either way, scapegoating can allow in-groups to sidestep social problems by casting blame onto out-groups instead of confronting such problems--and the in-groups' complicity in perpetuating them--directly.

This Essay suggests that it may be productive to view the Bivens regime's rise as countering various exercises in scapegoating and its retrenchment as constituting an exercise in scapegoating. The earlier cases can be seen as responding to social structures that have scapegoated racial, economic, and other groups through overaggressive policing, mass incarceration, and inequitable government conduct ...


Unduly Burdening Abortion Jurisprudence, Mark Strasser Apr 2021

Unduly Burdening Abortion Jurisprudence, Mark Strasser

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The undue burden standard is the current test to determine whether abortion regulations pass constitutional muster. But the function, meaning, and application of that test have varied over time, which undercuts the test’s usefulness and the ability of legislatures to know which regulations pass constitutional muster. Even more confusing, the Court has refused to apply the test in light of its express terms, which cannot fail to yield surprising conclusions and undercut confidence in the Court. The Court must not only clarify what the test means and how it is to be used, but must also formulate that test ...


The Qualitative Fourth Amendment: The Case For A Refined, Information-Focused Approach To Fourth Amendment Cases Involving Non-Trespassatory Government Surveillance, Joshua L. Wagner Apr 2021

The Qualitative Fourth Amendment: The Case For A Refined, Information-Focused Approach To Fourth Amendment Cases Involving Non-Trespassatory Government Surveillance, Joshua L. Wagner

William & Mary Law Review

In his 2001 majority opinion for Kyllo v. United States, Justice Scalia adopted his characteristic chiding tone to gently reproach what he saw as a notably liberal departure from the original textual interpretation of the Constitution. The Katz test for Fourth Amendment violations, to Scalia, was plainly “circular, and hence subjective and unpredictable.” That it was one of the most influential and oft-discussed decisions the Supreme Court has ever handed down made little difference; regardless of whatever Justice Harlan and his successors had said, the Fourth Amendment was, at its heart, a protection against government interference with property and had ...


Divided Court Issues Bright-Line Ruling On Fourth Amendment Seizures, Jeffrey Bellin Mar 2021

Divided Court Issues Bright-Line Ruling On Fourth Amendment Seizures, Jeffrey Bellin

Popular Media

No abstract provided.


Deconstructing Invisible Walls: Sotomayor's Dissents In An Era Of Immigration Exceptionalism, Karla Mckanders Mar 2021

Deconstructing Invisible Walls: Sotomayor's Dissents In An Era Of Immigration Exceptionalism, Karla Mckanders

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

No abstract provided.


Free Speech, Strict Scrutiny And A Better Way To Handle Speech Restrictions, Aaron Pinsoneault Feb 2021

Free Speech, Strict Scrutiny And A Better Way To Handle Speech Restrictions, Aaron Pinsoneault

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

When it comes to unprotected speech categories, the Roberts Court has taken an amoral and inaccurate approach. When the Court first created unprotected speech categories-- defined categories of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment-- it was unclear what rendered a category of speech unprotected. One school of thought argued that speech was unprotected if it provided little or no value to society. The other school of thought argued that speech was unprotected if it fell into a certain category of speech that was simply categorically unprotected. Then, in 2010, the Court strongly sided with the latter approach ...


From Civil Rights To Blackmail: How The Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act Of 1976 (42 U.S.C. § 1988) Has Perverted One Of America's Most Historic Civil Rights Statutes, Steven W. Fitschen Feb 2021

From Civil Rights To Blackmail: How The Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act Of 1976 (42 U.S.C. § 1988) Has Perverted One Of America's Most Historic Civil Rights Statutes, Steven W. Fitschen

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

For fourteen years, members of Congress repeatedly introduced legislation directed at a single subject. A key underpinning for the necessity of the legislation was provided by the opinions of two Supreme Court justices. Yet, for the past nine years, Congress has gone silent on the same topic. This Article argues that it is past time for Congress to reconsider this topic, and that if it will not do so, the Supreme Court can rectify the situation without engaging in judicial legislation.

Perhaps the best view of Congress's efforts can be seen by examining the high-water mark of those efforts ...


Against Congressional Case Snatching, Ronald J. Krotoszynski, Atticus Deprospro Feb 2021

Against Congressional Case Snatching, Ronald J. Krotoszynski, Atticus Deprospro

William & Mary Law Review

Congress has developed a deeply problematic habit of aggrandizing itself by snatching cases from the Article III courts. One form of contemporary case snatching involves directly legislating the outcome of pending litigation by statute. These laws do not involve generic amendments to existing statutes but rather dictate specific rulings by the Article III courts in particular cases. Another form of congressional case snatching involves rendering ongoing judicial proceedings essentially advisory by unilaterally permitting a disgruntled litigant to transfer a pending case from an Article III court to an executive agency for resolution. Both practices involve Congress reallocating the business of ...


Eager To Follow: Methodological Precedent In Statutory Interpretation, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl Dec 2020

Eager To Follow: Methodological Precedent In Statutory Interpretation, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Faculty Publications

An important recent development in the field of statutory interpretation is the emergence of a movement calling for "methodological precedent"--a regime under which courts give precedential effect to interpretive methodology. In such a system, a case would establish not only what a particular statute means but could also establish binding rules of methodology--which tools are valid, in what order, and so on. The movement for methodological precedent has attracted sharp criticism on normative grounds. But both sides of the normative debate agree on the premise that the federal courts generally do not give precedential effect to interpretive methodology today ...


The Remand Power And The Supreme Court's Role, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl Nov 2020

The Remand Power And The Supreme Court's Role, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Faculty Publications

"Reversed and remanded." Or "vacated and remanded." These familiar words, often found at the end of an appellate decision, emphasize that an appellate court's conclusion that the lower court erred generally does not end the litigation. The power to remand for further proceedings rather than wrap up a case is useful for appellate courts because they may lack the institutional competence to bring the case to a final resolution (as when new factual findings are necessary) or lack an interest in the fact-specific work of applying a newly announced legal standard to the particular circumstances at hand. The modern ...


Argument Analysis: Justices Spar Over Stare Decisis, Originalism, Text And What Counts As A Fourth Amendment “Seizure”, Jeffrey Bellin Oct 2020

Argument Analysis: Justices Spar Over Stare Decisis, Originalism, Text And What Counts As A Fourth Amendment “Seizure”, Jeffrey Bellin

Popular Media

No abstract provided.


Case Preview: When Is A Fleeing Suspect “Seized”?, Jeffrey Bellin Oct 2020

Case Preview: When Is A Fleeing Suspect “Seized”?, Jeffrey Bellin

Popular Media

The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable “searches” and “seizures.” On Wednesday, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral argument in Torres v. Madrid, a case that will provide important guidance on what constitutes a Fourth Amendment seizure. Here’s a rundown of the case starting with the relevant facts and procedural history, followed by a discussion of the legal issues and finally a couple of things to watch for at the argument.


Janus-Faced Judging: How The Supreme Court Is Radically Weakening Stare Decisis, Michael Gentithes Oct 2020

Janus-Faced Judging: How The Supreme Court Is Radically Weakening Stare Decisis, Michael Gentithes

William & Mary Law Review

Drastic changes in Supreme Court doctrine require citizens to reorder their affairs rapidly, undermining their trust in the judiciary. Stare decisis has traditionally limited the pace of such change on the Court. It is a bulwark against wholesale jurisprudential reversals. But, in recent years, the stare decisis doctrine has come under threat.

With little public or scholarly notice, the Supreme Court has radically weakened stare decisis in two ways. First, the Court has reversed its long-standing view that a precedent, regardless of the quality of its reasoning, should stand unless there is some special, practical justification to overrule it. Recent ...


Courts, Culture, And The Lethal Injection Stalemate, Eric Berger Oct 2020

Courts, Culture, And The Lethal Injection Stalemate, Eric Berger

William & Mary Law Review

The Supreme Court’s 2019 decision in Bucklew v. Precythe reiterated the Court’s great deference to states in Eighth Amendment lethal injection cases. The takeaway is that when it comes to execution protocols, states can do what they want. Events on the ground tell a very different story. Notwithstanding courts’ deference, executions have ground to a halt in numerous states, often due to lethal injection problems. State officials and the Court’s conservative Justices have blamed this development on “anti-death penalty activists” waging “guerilla war” on capital punishment. In reality, though, a variety of mostly uncoordinated actors motivated by ...


As She Lies In State, A Tribute To Justice Ginsburg, Katherine Mims Crocker Sep 2020

As She Lies In State, A Tribute To Justice Ginsburg, Katherine Mims Crocker

Popular Media

No abstract provided.


2020-2021 Supreme Court Preview: Biographies Of 2020 Supreme Court Preview Panelists, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law At The College Of William & Mary Law School Sep 2020

2020-2021 Supreme Court Preview: Biographies Of 2020 Supreme Court Preview Panelists, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law At The College Of William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.


2020-2021 Supreme Court Preview: Schedule Of Events, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law At The College Of William & Mary Law School Sep 2020

2020-2021 Supreme Court Preview: Schedule Of Events, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law At The College Of William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.


What Is The Future Of The Supreme Court? Potential Reforms, Their Likelihood, And Their Implications, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law At The College Of William & Mary Law School Sep 2020

What Is The Future Of The Supreme Court? Potential Reforms, Their Likelihood, And Their Implications, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law At The College Of William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

On Saturday, September 12 at 4:15pm, the Supreme Court Preview will feature a panel on "What is the Future of the Supreme Court? Potential Reforms, Their Likelihood, and Their Implications." Democrats recently unveiled “structural court reforms” as part of their platform. These potential reforms include, among others, adding seats to the Supreme Court, making changes to the confirmation process, and shortening the Justices’ terms of office. This panel will discuss which reforms seem most likely to be adopted and what concerns are motivating them. Twenty-five W&M students will also bring their questions to the panel about the future ...


Transparency And The Shadow Docket, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law At The College Of William & Mary Law School Sep 2020

Transparency And The Shadow Docket, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law At The College Of William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

On Saturday, September 12 at 2:00pm, the Supreme Court Preview will feature a panel on "Transparency and the Shadow Docket." “The shadow docket” is a phrase used to describe the significant volume of orders and summary decisions that the Supreme Court issues without full briefing and oral argument. This panel will discuss what is new and what is not about the shadow docket. The panelists will speculate on the ways in which the Court will use these orders going forward, and will discuss the upsides and downsides of doing so.


2020-2021 Supreme Court Preview: Notebook Cover Page, Allison Orr Larsen, Neal Devins, Rebecca Green, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law At The College Of William & Mary Law School Sep 2020

2020-2021 Supreme Court Preview: Notebook Cover Page, Allison Orr Larsen, Neal Devins, Rebecca Green, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law At The College Of William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

Our traditional notebook will not be available this year due to the virtual setting. However, we have compiled this virtual notebook to provide all participating in the Supreme Court Preview an opportunity to learn more about the upcoming docket and the issues facing the Court. We hope you enjoy the wealth of information available throughout this virtual notebook.


The Supreme Court And The 2020 Election: What Challenges Are Likely And What Will Be The Supreme Court's Role In Deciding Them?, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law At The College Of William & Mary Law School Sep 2020

The Supreme Court And The 2020 Election: What Challenges Are Likely And What Will Be The Supreme Court's Role In Deciding Them?, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law At The College Of William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

On Friday, September 11 at 5:30pm, the Supreme Court Preview will feature a panel on "The Supreme Court and the 2020 Election What Challenges are likely and what will be the Supreme Court's Role in Deciding them?" As we approach a historic election in November 2020, many anticipate that election challenges will wind up in federal court. This panel will discuss trends in COVID-related election cases at the Court so far, anticipate which challenges are likely going forward, and will speculate what the Supreme Court’s role will be in deciding them. What has changed at the Court ...


Moot Court, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law At The College Of William & Mary Law School Sep 2020

Moot Court, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law At The College Of William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.


Granted Cases, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law At The College Of William & Mary Law School Sep 2020

Granted Cases, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law At The College Of William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.


Who Is The Real John Roberts? Predicting The Surprises Of The Fall Term, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law At The College Of William & Mary Law School Sep 2020

Who Is The Real John Roberts? Predicting The Surprises Of The Fall Term, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law At The College Of William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

On Saturday, September 12 at 3:00pm, the Supreme Court Preview will feature a panel on "Who is the Real John Roberts? Predicting the Surprises of the Fall Term." Chief Justice Roberts cast several votes in high-profile cases last Term that many found to be surprising, and it led to a debate over whether the Chief Justice should be described as a moderate or not. This panel will anticipate which cases in the 2020-2021 Term will provide an opportunity for the Chief Justice to cast the deciding vote, and will address whether the Chief Justice’s voting pattern in 2020 ...


Secondary Meaning And Religion: An Analysis Of Religious Symbols In The Courts, Eric D. Yordy, Elizabeth Brown Jul 2020

Secondary Meaning And Religion: An Analysis Of Religious Symbols In The Courts, Eric D. Yordy, Elizabeth Brown

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In the Supreme Court’s most recent freedom of religion case, Justice Alito and Justice Ginsburg disagreed about the actual and potential meaning of the Latin cross, a traditional symbol of Christianity in which the upright leg of the cross is longer than the horizontal arms of the cross. Justice Alito stated that the Latin cross, while not losing its religious meaning, has acquired what might be called a “secondary meaning” as a symbol of World War I. He couched his analysis in language suggesting that a religious symbol’s meaning may depend on its circumstances. While he also denied ...


Dissent, Disagreement And Doctrinal Disarray: Free Expression And The Roberts Court In 2020, Clay Calvert Jul 2020

Dissent, Disagreement And Doctrinal Disarray: Free Expression And The Roberts Court In 2020, Clay Calvert

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Using the United States Supreme Court’s 2019 rulings in Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, Nieves v. Bartlett, and Iancu v. Brunetti as analytical springboards, this Article explores multiple fractures among the Justices affecting the First Amendment freedoms of speech and press. All three cases involved dissents, with two cases each spawning five opinions. The clefts compound problems witnessed in 2018 with a pair of five-to-four decisions in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra and Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees. Partisan divides, the Article argues, are only one problem with First ...


United States Patent And Trademark Office V. Booking.Com B.V.: How Do We Know When Something Is A Name?, Laura A. Heymann Jul 2020

United States Patent And Trademark Office V. Booking.Com B.V.: How Do We Know When Something Is A Name?, Laura A. Heymann

Popular Media

No abstract provided.


Kill Cammer: Securities Litigation Without Junk Science, J. B. Heaton May 2020

Kill Cammer: Securities Litigation Without Junk Science, J. B. Heaton

William & Mary Business Law Review

Securities litigation is a hotbed of junk science concerning market efficiency. This Article explains why and suggests a way out. In its 1988 decision in Basic v. Levinson, the Supreme Court endorsed the fraud on the market presumption for securities traded in an efficient market. Faced with the task of determining market efficiency, courts throughout the nation embraced the ad hoc speculations of a first-mover district court that proclaimed, in Cammer v. Bloom, how to allege (and presumably prove) facts that would do just that. The Cammer court’s analysis did not rely on financial economics for its notions, but ...