Law Commons^™

A New Takings Clause? The Implications Of Cedar Point Nursery V. Hassid For Property Rights And Moratoria, Benjamin Alexander Mogren

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In part, the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution holds that “no person . . . shall [have their] private property . . . taken for public use, without just compensation.” In Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that “a California regulation that permits union organizers to enter the property of agricultural business to talk with employees about supporting a union is unconstitutional.” The purpose of this Note is to discuss what Cedar Point Nursery means generally for the future of Takings Clause analysis and will argue that Cedar Point Nursery should be seen as a …

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 so …

Beyond Headlines & Holdings: Exploring Some Less Obvious Ramifications Of The Supreme Court’S 2017 Free-Speech Rulings, Clay Calvert

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Digging behind the holdings, this Article analyzes less conspicuous, yet highly consequential aspects of the United States Supreme Court’s First Amendment rulings during the opening half of 2017. The four facets of the opinions addressed here—items both within individual cases and cutting across them—hold vast significance for future free-speech battles. Nuances of the justices’ splintering in Matal v. Tam, Packingham v. North Carolina, and Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman are examined, as is the immediate impact of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s Packingham dicta regarding online social networks. Furthermore, Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s solo concurrence in the threats case of Perez …

Stanley V. Illinois’S Untold Story, Josh Gupta-Kagan

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Stanley v. Illinois is one of the Supreme Court’s more curious landmark cases. The holding is well known: the Due Process Clause both prohibits states from removing children from the care of unwed fathers simply because they are not married and requires states to provide all parents with a hearing on their fitness. By recognizing strong due process protections for parents’ rights, Stanley reaffirmed Lochner-era cases that had been in doubt and formed the foundation of modern constitutional family law. But Peter Stanley never raised due process arguments, so it has long been unclear how the Court reached this decision. …

Extralegal Supreme Court Policy-Making, Joëlle Anne Moreno

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The Colbert Report aired its final episode on December 18, 2014.1 Nine years earlier, on the first episode, Stephen Colbert coined the word “truthiness.” Truthiness satirized contemporary disinterest in empirical information in a country increasingly “divided between those who think with their head and those who know with their heart.” Truthiness was not just the Merriam-Webster word of the year. Over the past decade, it has been the unspoken mantra of reporters who give equal time to climate science denialists, faith healers, and vaccine refusers. When Justices of the Supreme Court decide questions of scientific or empirical fact—such as whether …

Does The Supreme Court Ignore Standing Problems To Reach The Merits? Evidence (Or Lack Thereof) From The Roberts Court, Heather Elliott

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Governmental Sovereignty Actions, Ann Woolhandler

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

How To Make Sense Of Supreme Court Standing Cases— – A Plea For The Right Kind Of Realism, Richard H. Fallon Jr.

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Standing And The Role Of Federal Courts: Triple Error Decisions In Clapper V. Amnesty International Usa And City Of Los Angeles V. Lyons, Vicki C. Jackson

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Oral Dissenting On The Supreme Court, Christopher W. Schmidt, Carolyn Shapiro

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In this Article we offer the first comprehensive evaluation of oral dissenting on the Supreme Court. We examine the practice in both historical and contemporary perspective, take stock of the emerging academic literature on the subject, and suggest a new framework for analysis of oral dissenting. Specifically, we put forth several claims. Contrary to the common assumption of scholarship and media coverage, oral dissents are nothing new. Oral dissenting has a long tradition, and its history provides valuable lessons for understanding the potential and limits of oral dissents today. Furthermore, not all oral dissents are alike. Dissenting Justices may have …

In Defense Of Ideology: A Principled Apporach To The Supreme Court Confirmation Process, Lori A. Ringhand

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In this paper, Professor Ringhand offers a principled defense of an ideological approach to the Supreme Court Justice confirmation process. In constructing her argument, she does three things. First, she explores how the insights provided by recent empirical legal scholarship have created a need to rethink the role of the Supreme Court and, consequently, the process by which we select Supreme Court Justices. In doing so, Professor Ringhand explains how these insights have called into question much of our conventional constitutional narrative, and how this failure of the conventional narrative has in turn undermined traditional objections to an ideologically-based confirmation …

Retaining Judicial Authority: A Preliminary Inquiry On The Dominion Of Judges, Larry Catá Backer

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Why do the people and institutions of democratic states, and in particular those of the United States, obey judges ? This article examines the foundations of judicial authority in the United States. This authority is grounded on principles of dominance derived from the organization of institutional religion. The judge in Western states asserts authority on the same basis as the priest - but not the priest as conventionally understood. Rather, the authority of the judge in modern Western democratic states is better understood when viewed through the analytical lens of priestly function developed in the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche. Focusing …

Federalism And Formalism, Allison H. Eid

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Many commentators have criticized the Supreme Court's New Federalism decisions as "excessively formalistic. " In this Article, Professor Eid argues that this "standard critique" is wrong on both a descriptive and normative level. Descriptively, she argues that the standard critique mistakenly downplays the extent to which the New Federalism decisions consider the values that federalism serves, and contends that they employ the same sort of formalism/functionalism blend that is found in the Court's separation of powers jurisprudence. Professor Eid then contends that the standard critique's normative prescription - a case-by-case balancing test that would weigh the federal interest against the …

Understanding Prophylactic Remedies Through The Looking Glass Of Bush V. Gore, Tracy A. Thomas

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Using the context of Bush v. Gore as a vehicle for discussion, Professor Thomas examines the use and legitimacy of prophylactic remedies. In this Article, Professor Thomas advances the argument that the broad prophylactic remedy provided by the U.S. Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore may be viewed as contrary to the law of remedies in that it operated to negate, rather than enforce, legal rights. In particular, prophylactic remedies which are untailored and unachievable, as in Bush v. Gore, threaten the legitimacy of prophylaxis. Professor Thomas argues that the use of prophylactic remedies itself is not problematic, but concludes …

The Business Of Expression: Economic Liberty, Political Factions And The Forgotten First Amendment Legacy Of Justice George Sutherland, Samuel R. Olken

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In The Business of Expression: Economic Liberty, Political Factions And The Forgotten First Amendment Legacy of Justice George Sutherland, Samuel Olken traces the dichotomy that emerged in constitutional law in the aftermath of the Lochner era between economic liberty and freedom of expression. During the 1930s, while a deeply divided United States Supreme Court adopted a laissez faire approach to economic regulation, it viewed with great suspicion laws that restricted the manner and content of expression. During this period, Justice George Sutherland often clashed with the majority consistently insisting that state regulation of private economic rights bear a close and …

Who Speaks For The State?: Religious Speakers On Government Platforms And The Role Of Disclaiming Endorsement, Steven H. Aden

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The recent Supreme Court decision in Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe prohibits prayer at school-sponsored events. In this Article the author analyzes the development of Supreme Court jurisprudence in the area of religion in public schools. Noting the tension between the Establishment and Free Speech Clauses, the author proposes the use of disclaimers to allow student expression at school events to avoid violating the Establishment Clause.

Loyal Lieutenant, Able Advocate: The Role Of Robert H. Jackson In Franklin D Roosevelt's Battle With The Supreme Court, Stephen R. Alton

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Before his appointment to the Supreme Court, Justice Robert H. Jackson played a highly visible role in Franklin D. Roosevelt's failed "court packing plan. " Roosevelt's legislation would have increased the size of the Supreme Court and could have dramatically altered the functioning of our government. Jackson supported the plan from his post as Assistant Attorney General. This Article uses a chronological narrative to examine Jackson's role in Roosevelt's court fight. The Article examines his role in light of the surrounding history and the tension between the backers of the New Deal and the Supreme Court. Jackson's testimony before the …

Seventh Amendment Right To Jury Trial In Non-Article Iii Proceedings: A Study In Dysfunctional Constitutional Theory, Martin H. Redish, Daniel J. La Fave

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The right to a jury trial in civil cases, as enumerated in the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, is an integral part of the Bill of Rights. Nevertheless, in this Article, Professor Redish and Mr. La Fave argue that the Supreme Court has failed to preserve this right when Congress has relegated claims to a non-Article III forum. Furthermore, they argue, the Court has done so without providing any basis in constitutional theory to justify such a relinquishment.

Professor Redish and Mr. La Fave first examine the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Seventh Amendment in instances where Congress …