Law Commons^™

Hollow Hopes And Exaggerated Fears: The Canon/Anticanon In Context, Mark A. Graber

Faculty Scholarship

Students of American constitutionalism should add constitutional decisions made by elected officials to the constitutional canon and the constitutional anticanon. Neither the canonical nor the anticanonical constitutional decisions by the Supreme Court have produced the wonderful results or horrible evils sometimes attributed to them. In many cases, elected officials made contemporaneous constitutional decisions that had as much influence as the celebrated or condemned judicial rulings. More often than not, judicial rulings matter more as a result of changing the political dynamics than by directly changing public policy. Law students and others interested in constitutional change, for these reasons, need to …

Hosanna-Tabor And Supreme Court Precedent: An Analysis Of The Ministerial Exception In The Context Of The Supreme Court’S Hands-Off Approach To Religious Doctrine, Samuel J. Levine

Samuel J. Levine

The United States Supreme Court‘s review of the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in the case of Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. EEOC could lead to a major development in the Court‘s Religion Clause jurisprudence. On one level, Hosanna-Tabor presents important questions regarding the interrelationship between employment discrimination laws and the constitutional rights of religious organizations. The narrow issue at the center of the case is the ministerial exception, a doctrine that precludes courts from adjudicating discrimination claims arising out of disputes between religious institutions and their ministerial employees. This Essay …

Separation Of Powers And The Middle Way, Jack M. Beermann

Shorter Faculty Works

Composer Arnold Schoenberg famously once quipped that “the middle way is the one that surely does not lead to Rome.” The idea behind this thought, I gather, is that intellectual compromise does not lead to the truth. John Manning’s recently published article, Separation of Powers as Ordinary Interpretation, 124 Harv. L. Rev. 1940 (2011), proves Schoenberg’s principle wrong, at least with regard to separation of powers. In this article, Manning, the Bruce Bromley Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, persuasively demonstrates that neither extreme in current debates about separation of powers is correct, and that a true understanding …

November 2, 2011: The Establishment Clause In Shambles, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “The Establishment Clause in Shambles“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

Supreme Court Criminal Law Jurisprudence: Fair Trials, Cruel Punishment, And Ethical Lawyering - October 2009 Term, Richard Klein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Three Vital Issues: Incorporation Of The Second Amendment, Federal Government Power, And Separation Of Powers - October 2009 Term, Michael C. Dorf, Erwin Chemerinsky

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

First Amendment Freedom Of Speech And Religion - October 2009 Term, Burt Neuborne, Michael C. Dorf

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

October 9, 2011: Why Does There Need To Be A Ministerial Exception?, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “Why Does There Need to be a Ministerial Exception?“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

Lochner V. New York (1905) And Kennedy V. Louisiana (2008): Judicial Reliance On Adversary Argument, Douglas E. Abrams

Faculty Publications

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist called Lochner v. New York (1905) “one of the most ill-starred decisions that [the Supreme Court ever rendered.” The Justices’ deliberations preceding the 5-4 decision demonstrate the courts’ reliance on advocacy in the adversary system of civil and criminal justice. The stark imbalance between the state’s “incredibly sketchy” brief and Joseph Lochner’s sterling submission may have determined Lochner’s outcome, and thus may have changed the course of constitutional history, by leading two Justices to join the majority on the central question of whether New York’s maximum-hours law for bakery workers was a reasonable public health …

Reconciling Chevron, Mead, And The Review Of Agency Discretion: Source Of Law And The Standards Of Judicial Review, Michael P. Healy

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Although the Supreme Court's watershed decision in Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. has been understood by many as defining the framework for judicial review of agency legal determinations, there have been longstanding questions about the application of the standards for reviewing administrative action. These questions have become more troublesome following the Supreme Court's 2001 decision in United States v. Mead Corp. Mead established that Chevron review only applies when defined requirements are met and held that so-called Skidmore deference applies when Chevron deference does not apply. Surveying the aftermath of Mead and its effect on the …

Polls, The Public, And Popular Perspectives On Constitutional Issues, Bruce G. Peabody, Peter J. Woolley

Res Gestae

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court Of The United States, October Term 2011 Preview, Georgetown University Law Center, Supreme Court Institute

Supreme Court Overviews

No abstract provided.

Infinite Hope And Finite Disappointment: The Story Of The First Interpreters Of The Fourteenth Amendment, Elizabeth Reilly

University of Akron Press Publications

Infinite Hope and Finite Disappointment details the aspirations and promises of the 14th Amendment in the historical, legal, and sociological context within which it was framed. Part of the Reconstruction Amendments collectively known as "The Second Founding," the 14th Amendment fundamentally altered the 1787 Constitution to protect individual rights and altered the balance of power between the national government and the states. The book also shows how initial Supreme Court interpretations of the Amendment's reach hindered its applicability. Finally, the contributors investigate the current impact of the 14th Amendment.

Contents Infinite Hope: The Framers as First Interpreters The Antebellum Political …

Pliva V. Mensing And Its Implications, Brian Wolfman, Dena Feldman

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in PLIVA Inc. v. Mensing will immunize generic drug manufacturers facing failure-to-warn claims from state-law liability, and may also have implications for preemption jurisprudence more generally, says attorney Brian Wolfman and co-author Dena Feldman in this BNA Insight. The authors analyze the ruling, and offer their views on the questions that PLIVA raises about the ongoing vitality of the presumption against preemption, the standard for determining ‘‘impossibility’’ preemption, and the propriety of deference to an agency’s views on preemption.

Defendants Win "Round One" Of Climate Change Litigation In United States Supreme Court, Richard O. Faulk, John S. Gray

Richard Faulk

In American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut (“AEP”), the United States Supreme Court held that federal common law public nuisance claims seeking injunctive relief against emitters of greenhouse gases (“GHG”) were displaced by the Clean Air Act (“CAA”) and EPA’s regulatory implementation of the Act’s provisions. In hindsight, this holding seems an inevitable outgrowth of Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), which held that GHGs are pollutants subject to CAA regulation. Building on that precedent in a unanimous 8-0 opinion, the AEP Court gave the defendant utility companies a clear-cut victory by precluding judicial direct regulation of GHG through …

Schneckloth V. Bustamonte: History’S Unspoken Fourth Amendment Anomaly, Brian Gallini

School of Law Faculty Publications and Presentations

The officer walking the beat has numerous tools at her disposal to effectuate a warrantless search, the most popular of which is the consent search. Academics, courts, and the public appear skeptical of current consent search practices; so, how did we get here? Step back to 1969 when President Nixon appointed Warren Burger to replace Earl Warren as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. At that time, many believed Burger’s “law and order” background foretold Miranda’s overruling. That never happened; a handful of commentators and historians therefore view the Burger Court’s criminal procedure decisions as anticlimactic. That view overlooks the …

Schneckloth V. Bustamonte: History’S Unspoken Fourth Amendment Anomaly, Brian Gallini

Brian Gallini

The Supreme Court’S Analysis Of Issues Raised By Death Penalty Litigants In The Court's 2004 Term, Richard Klein

Richard Daniel Klein

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court Criminal Law Jurisprudence: Fair Trials, Cruel Punishment, And Ethical Lawyering—October 2009 Term, Richard Klein

Richard Daniel Klein

No abstract provided.

An Analysis Of Death Penalty Decisions From The October 2006 Supreme Court Term (Nineteenth Annual Supreme Court Review, October 2006 Supreme Court Term), Richard Klein

Richard Daniel Klein

No abstract provided.

Death Penalty And Right To Counsel Decisions In The October 2005 Term, Richard Klein

Richard Daniel Klein

No abstract provided.

Lawyering Decisions—October 2009 Term, Eileen Kaufman

Eileen Kaufman

No abstract provided.

The Supreme Court And Judicial Review: Two Views, Thomas A. Schweitzer

Thomas A. Schweitzer

No abstract provided.

July 2, 2011: What Did I Learn From The Huffington Post Piece?, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “What Did I Learn From the Huffington Post Piece?“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

Snyder V. Phelps: The Destruction Of The Equilibrium Between The Right To Free Speech And The Right To Protection From It, Stewart Berkeley

University of Miami National Security & Armed Conflict Law Review

No abstract provided.

Snyder V. Phelps: Finding The Light At The End Of The Tort, Brendan Mackesey

University of Miami National Security & Armed Conflict Law Review

No abstract provided.

Snyder V. Phelps: The Demise Of Constitutional Avoidance, Emily Horowitz

University of Miami National Security & Armed Conflict Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Short History Of Sex And Citizenship: The Historians' Amicus Brief In Flores-Villar V. United States, Kristin Collins

Faculty Scholarship

The historians’ amicus brief that accompanies this essay was submitted to the Supreme Court in Flores-Villar v. United States, an equal protection challenge to federal statutes that regulate the citizenship status of foreign-born children of American parents. When the parents of such children are unmarried, federal law encumbers the ability of American fathers to secure citizenship for their children, while providing American mothers with a nearly unfettered ability to do the same. The general question before the Court in Flores-Villar – and a question that the Court has addressed in sum and substance on two other occasions during the last …

June 26, 2011: The Political Irresponsibility Of Douglas Laycock, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “The Political Irresponsibility of Douglas Laycock“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

Lessons From The Damages Decisions Following United States V. Winstar Corp., Rodger D. Citron

Rodger Citron

No abstract provided.