Law Commons^™

Transparency And The Supreme Court—Can Employers Refuse To Disclose How Much They Pay For Health Care?, Nicholas Bagley, Christopher Koller

Articles

For decades, the prices that hospitals and physicians charge private insurers have been treated as trade secrets. Even though inflated prices are an enormous reason why health care is so much more expensive in the United States than in other countries, we have only a hazy picture of what those prices actually are.

How The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Should Interpret Wynne, Michael S. Knoll, Ruth Mason

All Faculty Scholarship

In this special report, Knoll and Mason discuss how the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court should apply Wynne when it hears on remand First Marblehead v. Commissioner of Revenue. The authors conclude that when it originally heard the case, the Massachusetts court mistakenly considered, as part of its internal consistency analysis, whether Gate Holdings Inc. experienced double state taxation. As developed by the U.S. Supreme Court and most recently applied in Wynne, the internal consistency test is not concerned with actual double taxation that may arise from the interaction of different states’ laws. Rather, the test is designed to determine …

Adopting The Gay Family, Cynthia Godsoe

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Communicating The Canons: How Lower Courts React When The Supreme Court Changes The Rules Of Statutory Interpretation, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Crime Of Conspiracy Thrives In Decisions Of The United States Supreme Court, Paul Marcus

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Time, Institutions, And Adjudication, Gary S. Lawson

Faculty Scholarship

Some of my earliest and fondest memories regarding constitutional theory involve Mike McConnell. He was a participant at the very first Federalist Society conference in 1982, at a time when the entire universe of conservative constitutional theorists fit comfortably in the front of one classroom. More importantly, at another Federalist Society conference in 1987, he gave a speech on constitutional interpretation that, unbeknownst to him, profoundly shaped my entire intellectual approach to the field by emphasizing the obvious but oftoverlooked point that different kinds of documents call for different kinds of interpretative methods.1 In 2015, it is more than an …

Sexual Minority Stigma And System Justification Theory: How Changing The Status Quo Impacts Marriage And Housing Equality, Jordan A. Blenner

Department of Psychology: Dissertations, Theses, and Student Research

Sexual minorities (i.e. lesbians and gay men) experience systemic discrimination throughout the United States. Prior to the Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), in many states, same-sex couples could not marry and sexual minorities were not protected from sexual orientation housing discrimination (Human Rights Campaign, 2015). The current, two-experiment study applied Jost and Banaji’s (1994) System Justification Theory to marriage and housing discrimination. When sexual minorities question dissimilar treatment, thereby threatening the status quo, members of the heterosexual majority rationalize sexual minority discrimination to maintain their dominant status (Alexander, 2001; Brescoll, Uhlmann, & Newman, 2013; Citizens for Equal …

Marriage (In)Equality And The Historical Legacies Of Feminism, Serena Mayeri

All Faculty Scholarship

In this essay, I measure the majority’s opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges against two legacies of second-wave feminist legal advocacy: the largely successful campaign to make civil marriage formally gender-neutral; and the lesser-known struggle against laws and practices that penalized women who lived their lives outside of marriage. Obergefell obliquely acknowledges marriage equality’s debt to the first legacy without explicitly adopting sex equality arguments against same-sex marriage bans. The legacy of feminist campaigns for nonmarital equality, by contrast, is absent from Obergefell’s reasoning and belied by rhetoric that both glorifies marriage and implicitly disparages nonmarriage. Even so, the history …

Financing Education: An Overview Of Public School Funding, Charles J. Russo, William E. Thro, Frank M. Batz

Educational Leadership Faculty Publications

Financial resources for public education are increasingly scarce, and district leaders at all levels continue to struggle to maintain adequate levels of financial resources for their students and programs using complex funding formulas unique to their own jurisdictions. To help educators and education stakeholders better understand the dimensions of paying for public education, we begin with an overview of the historical development of school finance litigation that has shaped the funding mechanisms in most jurisdictions. The next section highlights developments in four representative jurisdictions from the funding formulas currently available in ASBO International’s Funding Formula Library. The library, available on …

Balancing Effects Across Markets, Daniel A. Crane

Articles

In Philadelphia National Bank (PNB), the Supreme Court held that it is improper to weigh a merger's procompetitive effects in one market against the merger's anticompetitive effects in another. The merger in question, which ostensibly reduced retail competition in the Philadelphia area, could not be justified on the grounds that it increased competition against New York banks and hence perhaps enhanced competition in business banking in the mid-Atlantic region. I will refer to the Supreme Court's prohibition on balancing effects across markets as a "market-specificity" rule. Under this rule, efficiencies that may counterbalance anticompetitive aspects must be specific to …

A Look Back At The "Gatehouses And Mansions" Of American Criminal Procedure, Yale Kamisar

Articles

I am indebted to Professor William Pizzi for remembering—and praising—the “Gatehouses and Mansions” essay I wrote fifty years ago. A great many articles and books have been written about Miranda. So it is nice to be remembered for an article published a year before that famous case was ever decided.

Resentencing In The Shadow Of Johnson V. United States, Leah Litman

Articles

On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court handed down a decision many years in the making—Johnson v. United States. Johnson held that the ‘‘residual clause’’ of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) is unconstitutionally vague. Although Johnson may have been overshadowed in the final days of a monumental Supreme Court term, the decision is a significant one that will have important consequences for the criminal justice system. ACCA’s residual clause imposed a severe 15-year mandatory minimum term of imprisonment, and many federal prisoners qualify for ACCA’s mandatory minimum. Johnson did away with ACCA’s residual clause such that defendants will no …

The Importance Of Understanding School Law, Charles J. Russo

Educational Leadership Faculty Publications

In an increasingly litigious society wherein parents and their children file a broad spectrum of claims against school systems, it is essential that education leaders have at a minimum a basic understanding of school law.

Before 1954, the Supreme Court addressed only a handful of cases involving K–12 schools and higher education. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954), perhaps the Supreme Court’s most important education-related decision, ushered in an era of equal educational opportunities and key legislations, such as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, now the No Child Left Behind Act (2002); Title IX of …

2015-2016 Supreme Court Preview: Contents, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Section 2: Did The Roberts Court Turn Leftward?, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Section 1: Moot Court: Friedrichs V. California Teachers Association, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Section 3: Election Law, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Section 4: Business Law, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Section 7: Supreme Court Bar, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

2015-2016 Supreme Court Preview: Schedule And Panel Members, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Section 8: Looking Ahead: Abortion And The Aca Contraception Mandate, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Section 6: Criminal, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Section 5: Race, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Amici Curiae Constitutional Law Scholars In Support Of Petitioners, Richard W. Garnett, Ryan A. Shores, William J. Haun

Court Briefs

“[I]n a complex society and an era of pervasive governmental regulation, defining the proper realm for free exercise can be difficult.” Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751, 2781, 2785 (2014) (Kennedy, J., concurring). The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”)2 addresses that difficulty by harmonizing religious freedom and the interests of third parties. RFRA will not exempt free exercise from a law’s command simply because the law substantially burdens religion—nor will it deny a religious exemption simply because the exemption would affect a third party.

Brief Of Law Professors Bruce P. Frohnen, Robert P. George, Alan J. Meese, Michael P. Moreland, Nathan B. Oman, Michael Stokes Paulsen, Rodney K. Smith, Steven D. Smith, And O. Carter Snead As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioners, O. Carter Snead, Robert P. George, Alan J. Meese, Michael P. Moreland, Nathan B. Oman, Michael` Stokes Paulsen`, Rodney K. Smith, Steven D. Smith

Court Briefs

Suppose a federal law required government officials to enter a Catholic church and use church property to distribute contraceptives and abortifacients over church’s objection. Such a law would surely burden the church’s religion, even if the government paid for the objectionable medications and compensated the church for the use of its resources. By commandeering church property, such a law would force the church to be complicit in activity to which it has serious religious objections

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 …

Scott V. Harris And The Future Of Summary Judgment, Tobias Barrington Wolff

All Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court’s decision in Scott v. Harris has quickly become a staple in many Civil Procedure courses, and small wonder. The cinematic high-speed car chase complete with dash-cam video and the Court’s controversial treatment of that video evidence seem tailor-made for classroom discussion. As is often true with instant classics, however, splashy first impressions can mask a more complex state of affairs. At the heart of Scott v. Harris lies the potential for a radical doctrinal reformation: a shift in the core summary judgment standard undertaken to justify a massive expansion of interlocutory appellate jurisdiction in qualified immunity cases. …

The Nlrb, The Courts, The Administrative Procedures Act, And Chevron: Now And Then, Theodore J. St. Antoine

Articles

Decisions of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), like those of other administrative agencies, are subject to review by the federal judiciary. Standards of review have evolved over time. The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 provides that administrative decisions must be in accord with law and required procedure, not arbitrary or capricious, not contrary to constitutional rights, within an agency's statutory jurisdiction, and supported by substantial evidence. In practice, more attention is paid to two Supreme Court decisions, Skidmore (1944) and Chevron (1984). For many years Chevron seemed the definitive test. A court must follow a clear intent of Congress, …

Measuring Party Polarization In Congress: Lessons From Congressional Participation In Amicus Curiae, Neal Devins

Faculty Publications

First, I will detail the prevalence of party polarization and how party polarization has limited congressional interest in its institutional prerogatives vis-à-vis the executive. Second, I will discuss my research findings governing congressional amicus briefs. I will consider patterns in bipartisan filings over time (comparing the less polarized 1974–1985 Supreme Court terms with the more polarized 2002–2013 terms). I will also consider the types of issues lawmakers and their institutional counsel have pursued in their filings. This investigation will reveal a decline in briefs in institutional cases and an upswing in briefs on politically salient issues that divide the parties …

The Forms Had A Function: Rule 84 And The Appendix Of Forms As Guardians Of The Liberal Ethos In Civil Procedure, A. Benjamin Spencer

Faculty Publications

The Appendix of Forms that, from the time of their adoption have accom - panied the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, are a seeming anachronism, more appropriate for a much simpler time that hardly characterizes modem day federal civil litigation. Perhaps the form for a negligence complaint is the most striking in this regard, offering only that at a certain time and place "the defendant negligently drove a motor vehicle against the plaintiff," causing harm.2 Not only does such a complaint fail to typify the negligence claims one might find on any federal docket, but it also fails to reflect …