Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Day 1: Health Law Experts Weigh In On The Supreme Court’S Review Of Federal Law, Chelsea Conaboy
Day 1: Health Law Experts Weigh In On The Supreme Court’S Review Of Federal Law, Chelsea Conaboy
Wendy E. Parmet
No abstract provided.
Doctrinal Conversation: Justice Kagan's Supreme Court Opinions, Laura Ray
Doctrinal Conversation: Justice Kagan's Supreme Court Opinions, Laura Ray
Laura K. Ray
In her first two terms on the Supreme Court, Justice Elena Kagan has crafted a distinctive judicial voice that speaks to her readers in a remarkably conversational tone. She employs a variety of rhetorical devices: invocations to “remember” or “pretend”; informal and even colloquial diction; a diverse assortment of similes and metaphors; and parenthetical interjections that guide the reader’s response. These strategies engage the reader in much the same way that Kagan as law professor may well have worked to engage her students, and in the context of judicial opinions they serve several purposes. They make Kagan’s opinions accessible to …
Circumstance And Strategy: Jointly Authored Supreme Court Opinions, Laura Ray
Circumstance And Strategy: Jointly Authored Supreme Court Opinions, Laura Ray
Laura K. Ray
The standard form of authorship for a Supreme Court opinion is a single author who then may be joined by any colleagues who are in agreement. There is, however, a significant and overlooked variant of this form, one used in a small cluster of major cases, most of them landmark decisions, over the past seventy years: the jointly authored opinion. In these cases, there may be as many as nine authors signing an opinion (as in Cooper v. Aaron) or as few as two (as in McConnell v. FEC). All the signatories may be credited with the entire opinion (as …
To Swear Or Not To Swear: Using Foul Language During A Supreme Court Oral Argument, Alan Garfield
To Swear Or Not To Swear: Using Foul Language During A Supreme Court Oral Argument, Alan Garfield
Alan E Garfield
This essay considers the provocative question of whether it is strategically wise for a lawyer to use foul language during a Supreme Court oral argument. This issue doesn’t come up often. But it does when a lawyer claims his client’s First Amendment rights were violated when the government punished him for using foul language. If the lawyer doesn’t use his client’s offensive words, he risks conceding that these words are so horrid they warrant suppression. But if he does use the words, he risks alienating justices who find the words unseemly. The essay uses the “fleeting expletives” case that was …
Purpose, Precedent, And Politics: Why Concepcion Covers Less Than You Think, Michael A. Helfand
Purpose, Precedent, And Politics: Why Concepcion Covers Less Than You Think, Michael A. Helfand
Michael A Helfand
This article sketches some possible limitations on the impact AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion will have going forward. While many have seen the Supreme Court’s decision as simultaneously signaling an end to the viability of class action lawsuits and undermining principles of federalism, there may be reasons to believe that it will not have implications quite so far reaching. Specifically, this article proposes three reasons why Concepcion’s impact may be limited. First, the decision lends itself to a more narrow reading, which simply demands that courts take the entire of an arbitration agreement into account before deploying common law defenses to …