Law Commons^™

The Orwell Court: How The Supreme Court Recast History And Minimized The Role Of The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines To Justify Limiting The Impact Of Johnson V. United States, Brandon E. Beck

Buffalo Law Review

In recent years, federal criminal defendants have enjoyed great success in challenging “residual clauses” within the United States Code as unconstitutional. This began in 2015 when the United States Supreme Court, in Johnson v. United States,1 struck a portion of the Armed Career Criminal Act2 as void for vagueness. Johnson’s holding at first appeared monumental because it invalidated a provision commonly used to enhance the prison sentences of offenders with certain qualifying prior convictions. Subsequent developments, however, significantly dulled the impact of Johnson, thwarting the dramatic reduction in sentences it once foreshadowed.

This Article is about how Johnson came to …

The Security Court, Matthew J. Steilen

Journal Articles

The Supreme Court is concerned not only with the limits of our government’s power to protect us, but also with how it protects us. Government can protect us by passing laws that grant powers to its agencies or by conferring discretion on the officers in those agencies. Security by law is preferable to the extent that it promotes rule of law values—certainty, predictability, uniformity, and so on—but, security by discretion is preferable to the extent that it gives government the room it needs to meet threats in whatever form they present themselves. Drawing a line between security by law and …

The Supreme Court’S Original Jurisdiction Over Disputes Between The United States And A State, Lochlan F. Shelfer

Buffalo Law Review

Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction to hear controversies between a state and the United States? Although the Supreme Court has asserted this power, commentators have puzzled over the question for decades. Because Article III does not enumerate controversies between a state and the United States, many scholars have concluded that the Court’s exercise of this power is illegitimate, or at least atextual. This Article argues that the Constitution’s text does give the Supreme Court the power to hear such controversies, but to understand why it is necessary to understand the way that the framers would, for the sake of …