Law Commons^™

The Fight For Equal Protection: Reconstruction-Redemption Redux, Kermit Roosevelt Iii, Patricia Stottlemyer

All Faculty Scholarship

With Justice Scalia gone, and Justices Ginsburg and Kennedy in their late seventies, there is the possibility of significant movement on the Supreme Court in the next several years. A two-justice shift could upend almost any area of constitutional law, but the possible movement in race-based equal protection jurisprudence provides a particularly revealing window into the larger trends at work. In the battle over equal protection, two strongly opposed visions of the Constitution contend against each other, and a change in the Court’s composition may determine the outcome of that struggle. In this essay, we set out the current state …

Justice Scalia's Bottom-Up Approach To Shaping The Law, Meghan J. Ryan

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

Justice Antonin Scalia is among the most famous Supreme Court Justices in history. He is known for his originalism and conservative positions, as well as his witty and acerbic legal opinions. One of the reasons Justice Scalia's opinions are so memorable is his effective use of rhetorical devices, which convey colorful images and understandable ideas. One might expect that such powerful opinions would be effective in shaping the law, but Justice Scalia's judicial philosophy was often too conservative to persuade a majority of his fellow Justices on the Supreme Court. Further, his regular criticisms of his Supreme Court colleagues were …

The Original Meaning Of "God": Using The Language Of The Framing Generation To Create A Coherent Establishment Clause Jurisprudence, Michael I. Meyerson

All Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court’s attempt to create a standard for evaluating whether the Establishment Clause is violated by religious governmental speech, such as the public display of the Ten Commandments or the Pledge of Allegiance, is a total failure. The Court’s Establishment Clause jurisprudence has been termed “convoluted,” “a muddled mess,” and “a polite lie.” Unwilling to either allow all governmental religious speech or ban it entirely, the Court is in need of a coherent standard for distinguishing the permissible from the unconstitutional. Thus far, no Justice has offered such a standard.

A careful reading of the history of the framing …

Creating Kairos At The Supreme Court: Shelby County, Citizens United, Hobby Lobby, And The Judicial Construction Of Right Moments, Linda L. Berger

Scholarly Works

Kairos is an ancient rhetorical concept that was long neglected by rhetorical scholars, and its significance to legal argument and persuasion has been little discussed. Through their use of two words for time, chronos and kairos, the Greeks were able to view history as a grid of connected events spread across a landscape punctuated by hills and valleys. In chronos, the timekeeper-observer constructs a linear, measurable, quantitative accounting of what happened. In kairos, the participant-teller forms a more qualitative history by shaping individual moments into crises and turning points. From a rhetorical perspective, chronos is more closely allied with the …

A Pragmatic Approach To Interpreting The Federal Rules, Suzette M. Malveaux

Publications

No abstract provided.

Upending A Global Debate: An Empirical Analysis Of The U.S. Supreme Court’S Use Of Transnational Law To Interpret Domestic Doctrine,, Ryan C. Black, Ryan J. Owens, Daniel E. Walters, Jennifer L. Brookhart

Faculty Scholarship

Over the last ten years, judges, scholars, and policymakers have argued — quite vehemently at times — about whether U.S. courts should use transnational sources of law to interpret domestic legal doctrine. All eyes in this debate focus on the U.S. Supreme Court and its use, misuse, and alleged use of transnational law. And almost all the debates are normative. Some scholars and judges argue the Court is correct to use transnational law. Others believe to do so is constitutional apostacy. Still, the controversy seems to have generated more heat than light. Among the clamor can be found little empirical …

Constitutional Venue, Peter L. Markowitz, Lindsay C. Nash

Articles

A foundational concept of American jurisprudence is the principle that it is unfair to allow litigants to be haled into far away tribunals when the litigants and the litigation have little or nothing to do with the location of such courts. Historically, both personal jurisdiction and venue each served this purpose in related, but distinct ways. Personal jurisdiction is, at base, a limit on the authority of the sovereign. Venue, in contrast, aims to protect parties from being forced to litigate in a location where they would be unfairly disadvantaged. The constitutional boundaries of these early principles came to be …

Advice And Consent Vs. Silence And Dissent? The Contrasting Roles Of The Legislature In U.S. And U.K. Judicial Appointments, Mary Clark

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

The Senate‘s role in judicial appointments has come under increasingly withering criticism for its uninformative and spectacle-like nature. At the same time, Britain has established two new judicial appointment processes - to accompany its new Supreme Court and existing lower courts - in which Parliament plays no role. This Article seeks to understand the reasons for the inclusion and exclusion of the legislature in the U.S. and U.K. judicial appointment processes adopted at the creation of their respective Supreme Courts.

The Article proceeds by highlighting the ideas and concerns motivating inclusion of the legislature in judicial appointments in the early …

Notes On Borrowing And Convergence, Robert Tsai, Nelson Tebbe

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

his is a response to Jennifer E. Laurin, "Trawling for Herring: Lessons in Doctrinal Borrowing and Convergence," 111 Colum. L. Rev. 670 (2011), which analyzes the Supreme Court's resort to tort-based concepts to limit the reach of the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule. We press three points. First, there are differences between a general and specific critique of constitutional borrowing. Second, the idea of convergence as a distinct phenomenon from borrowing has explanatory potential and should be further explored. Third, to the extent convergence occurs, it matters whether concerns of judicial administration or political reconstruction are driving doctrinal changes.

Justice Stevens' Temperance, Jamal Greene

Faculty Scholarship

On the last opinion day of the last of his 35 Terms on the Supreme Court, Justice John Paul Stevens issued his valedictory opinion, a 57-page dissent in McDonald v. City of Chicago. Justice Stevens laid out an expansive vision of constitutional interpretation that Justice Alito aptly called "eloquent" in his plurality opinion. Not one for sentimental farewells, Justice Scalia was less generous: "Justice Stevens' approach," he wrote in the last line of his concurring opinion," puts democracy in peril."

Under-The-Table Overruling, Christopher J. Peters

All Faculty Scholarship

In this contribution to a Wayne Law Review symposium on the first three years of the Roberts Court, the author normatively assesses the Court's practice of "under-the-table overruling," or "underruling," in high-profile constitutional cases involving abortion, campaign-finance reform, and affirmative action. The Court "underrules" when it renders a decision that undercuts a recent precedent without admitting that it is doing so. The author contends that underruling either is not supported by, or is directly incompatible with, three common rationales for constitutional stare decisis: the noninstrumental rationale, the predictability rationale, and the legitimacy rationale. In particular, while the latter rationale - …

The Incompatibility Principle, Harold H. Bruff

Publications

No abstract provided.

Due Process And Punitive Damages: The Error Of Federal Excessiveness Jurisprudence, A. Benjamin Spencer

Faculty Publications

The Supreme Court, in a line of several cases over the past decade, has established a rigorous federal constitutional excessiveness review for punitive damages awards based on the Due Process Clause. As a matter of substantive due process, says the Court, punitive awards must be evaluated by three "guideposts" set forth in BMW of North America v. Gore: the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct, the ratio between punitive and compensatory damages, and a comparison of the amount of punitive damages to any "civil or criminal penalties that could be imposed for comparable misconduct." Following up on this pronouncement …

Taking Miranda's Pulse, William T. Pizzi, Morris B. Hoffman

Publications

No abstract provided.

The Right To A Jury Decision On Questions Of Fact Under The Seventh Amendment, Paul F. Kirgis

Faculty Law Review Articles

In a series of decisions over the last decade, the Supreme Court has reconsidered an aspect of the Seventh Amendment that has been long overlooked: the allocation of particular questions to the judge or the jury in a case where the right to a jury trial applies. Breaking with historical practice, the Court has emphasized considerations other than the fact-law distinction as a basis for identifying the questions that must go to the jury. Most prominently, in Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., the Court focused on 'functional considerations" in assigning a question of patent claim construction to the judge. In …

Marbury V. Madison And Modern Judicial Review, Robert F. Nagel

Publications

This Article compares the realist critique of Marbury with several revisionist defenses of that decision. Realists claim to see Marbury as essentially political and thus as the fountainhead of modern judicial review. Revisionists claim to see the decision as legalistically justified and thus inconsistent with current practices. Close examination, however, indicates that, despite sharp rhetorical differences, these two accounts are largely complementary rather than inconsistent. Each envisions Marbury as embodying elements of both political realism and legal formalism. Once the false argument about whether Marbury was either political or legal is put aside, it is possible to trace the influence …

Justice White And Judicial Review, Philip J. Weiser

Publications

No abstract provided.

Western Justice, Richard B. Collins

Publications

No abstract provided.

Six Opinions By Mr. Justice Stevens: A New Methodology For Constitutional Cases?, Robert F. Nagel

Publications

No abstract provided.

Privatization And Political Accountability, Jack M. Beermann

Faculty Scholarship

This article is an attempt to draw some general connections between privatization and political accountability. Political accountability is to be understood as the amenability of a government policy or activity to monitoring through the political process. Although the main focus of the article is to examine different types of privatization, specifically exploring the ramifications for political accountability of each type, I also engage in some speculation as to whether there are there situations in which privatization might raise constitutional concerns related to the degree to which the particular privatization reduces political accountability for the actions or decisions of the newly …

The Supreme Court's Backwards Proportionaility Jurisprudence: Comparing Judicial Review Of Excessive Criminal Punishments And Excessive Punitive Damages Award, Adam M. Gershowitz

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The United States Supreme Court And Indigenous Peoples: Still A Long Way To Go Toward A Therapeutic Role, S. James Anaya

Publications

No abstract provided.

Forty Years In The Desert, Paul F. Campos

Publications

The author uses Brown v. Board of Education and the volumes of commentary it has provoked to illustrate that coherent constitutional interpretation is a useless exercise. He argues that the decision should be accepted as political reality and moral necessity and that we should cease debating its merit as constitutional interpretation.

A Heterodox Catechism, Paul Campos

Publications

No abstract provided.

Book Review Of The Constitution Besieged, By Howard Gillman, Edward A. Purcell Jr.

Other Publications

No abstract provided.

A Mirror For The Magistrate, Paul Campos

Publications

No abstract provided.

Meeting The Enemy, Robert F. Nagel

Publications

No abstract provided.

The Formulaic Constitution, Robert F. Nagel

Publications

The Supreme Court's constitutional jurisprudence of late has been filled with formulae - tests that must be met, hurdles that must be overcome. This multi-pronged analytical technique is, according to Professor Nagel, distancing the Justices from both their audience, the American public, and their text, the Constitution. In an effort to retain the authority of that text, the Court is instead displacing it; in an effort to persuade that audience, the Court is instead excluding it. Furthermore, the Court's attempt to constrain judges has actually created an irresponsible judicial freedom, while its attempt to locate a middle ground between the …

Rules And Standards, Pierre Schlag

Publications

No abstract provided.

Legislative Formality, Administrative Rationality, Harold H. Bruff

Publications

No abstract provided.