Law Commons^™

Special Justifications, Randy J. Kozel

Randy J Kozel

The Supreme Court commonly asks whether there is a “special justification” for departing from precedent. In this Response, which is part of a Constitutional Commentary symposium on Settled Versus Right: A Theory of Precedent, I examine the existing law of special justifications and describe its areas of uncertainty. I also compare the Court’s current doctrine with a revised approach to special justifications designed to separate the question of overruling from deeper disagreements about legal interpretation. The aspiration is to establish precedent as a unifying force that enhances the impersonality of the Court and of the law, promoting values the Justices …

Comparing Supreme Court Jurisprudence In Obergefell V. Hodges And Town Of Castle Rock V. Gonzales: A Watershed Moment For Due Process Liberty, Jill C. Engle

Jill Engle

“The nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times. The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed.” -- Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584, …

The Common-Law Exceptions Clause: Congressional Control Of Supreme Court Appellate Jurisdiction In Light Of British Precedent, Daniel Birk

Daniel Birk

No abstract provided.

Should The Rules Committees Have An Amicus Role?, Scott Dodson

Scott Dodson

Procedural Due Process Claims, Erwin Chemerinsky

Erwin Chemerinsky

No abstract provided.

Federalism Cases In The October 2004 Term, Erwin Chemerinsky

Erwin Chemerinsky

No abstract provided.

First Amendment Decisions From The October 2006 Term, Erwin Chemerinsky, Marci A. Hamilton

Erwin Chemerinsky

No abstract provided.

Dialogue On State Action, Martin A. Schwartz, Erwin Chemerinsky

Erwin Chemerinsky

No abstract provided.

An Overview Of The October 2006 Supreme Court Term, Erwin Chemerinsky

Erwin Chemerinsky

No abstract provided.

Absolute Immunity: General Principles And Recent Developments, Erwin Chemerinsky

Erwin Chemerinsky

No abstract provided.

Hurricanes, Fraud, And Insurance: The Supreme Court Weighs In On, But Does Not Wade Into, The Concurrent Causation Conundrum In State Farm Fire And Casualty Company V. Rigsby, Chris French

Christopher C. French

In the December 6, 2016 Supreme Court decision, State Farm v. Rigsby, a homeowner’s house was damaged by Hurricane Katrina. The homeowner had homeowners insurance with State Farm and a flood insurance policy that was administered by State Farm on behalf of the federal government. The claims adjusters assigned by State Farm to handle the homeowner’s claim allegedly were instructed by State Farm to misclassify wind damage as flood damage in order to shift State Farm’s own liability for the loss to the federal government. The claims handlers filed a lawsuit against State Farm under the False Claims Act (FCA), …

Precedent And Speech, Randy J. Kozel

Randy J Kozel

The U.S. Supreme Court has shown a notable willingness to reconsider its First Amendment precedents. In recent years the Court has departed from its prior statements regarding the constitutional value of false speech. It has revamped its process for identifying categorical exceptions to First Amendment protection. It has changed its position on corporate electioneering and aggregate campaign contributions. In short, it has revised the ground rules of expressive freedom in ways both large and small.

The Court generally describes its past decisions as enjoying a presumption of validity through the doctrine of stare decisis. This Article contends that within the …

The Confident Court, Jennifer Mason Mcaward

Jennifer Mason McAward

Despite longstanding rules regarding judicial deference, the Supreme Court’s decisions in its October 2012 Term show that a majority of the Court is increasingly willing to supplant both the prudential and legal judgments of various institutional actors, including Congress, federal agencies, and state universities. Whatever the motivation for such a shift, this Essay simply suggests that today’s Supreme Court is a confident one. A core group of justices has an increasingly self-assured view of the judiciary’s ability to conduct an independent assessment of both the legal and factual aspects of the cases that come before the Court. This piece discusses …

Keeping Up With New Legal Titles, Tina M. Brooks

Tina M. Brooks

In this book review, Tina M. Brooks discusses The Puzzle of Unanimity: Consensus on the United States Supreme Court by Pamela C. Corley, Amy Steigerwalt, and Artemus Ward.

The Languishing Public Safety Doctrine, Brian Gallini

Brian Gallini

Section 1983 Cases In The October 2004 Term, Martin A. Schwartz

Martin A. Schwartz

No abstract provided.

Governance And Anarchy In The S.2(B) Jurisprudence: A Comment On Vancouver Sun And Harper V. Canada, Jamie Cameron

Jamie Cameron

The article identifies and explains a double standard in the Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence. The contrast is between the open court jurisprudence, which is a model of good constitutional governance – or principled decision making – and the Court’s s.2(b) methodology, which is “anarchistic” or capricious and undisciplined, in the sense of this article. Two landmark cases decided in 2004 illustrate the double standard: the first is Re Vancouver Sun, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 332, which dealt with the open court principle under Parliament’s anti-terrorism provision for investigative hearings, it represents a high water mark for open court and s.2(b) …

Second Thoughts About The First Amendment, Randy J. Kozel

Randy J Kozel

The U.S. Supreme Court has shown a notable willingness to reconsider — and depart from — its First Amendment precedents. In recent years the Court has marginalized its prior statements regarding the constitutional value of false speech. It has revamped its process for identifying categorical exceptions to First Amendment protection. It has rejected its past decisions on corporate electioneering and aggregate campaign contributions. And it has revised its earlier positions on union financing, abortion protesting, and commercial speech. Under the conventional view of constitutional adjudication, dubious precedents enjoy a presumption of validity through the doctrine of stare decisis. This Article …

Will The Economic Substance Doctrine Get Lost In The Woods? (Amicus Brief), Andy Grewal

Andy Grewal

This fall, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in U.S. v. Woods, a tax case involving complex jurisdictional and penalty issues that no emotionally healthy person should take an interest in. But behind those issues lie important questions about the economic substance doctrine, which involves the allocation of lawmaking authority between the legislature and the judiciary.This amicus brief, submitted in support of neither party, informs the Court about the issues hiding in this case. It urges the Court to take a cautious approach in deciding Woods -- the phrase "economic substance doctrine" has never appeared in a Court opinion, …

Supreme Guidance For Wet Growth: Lessons From The High Court On The Powers And Responsibilities Of Local Governments, Michael Allan Wolf

Michael A Wolf

Before the merger of water law and land use planning can occur, local and state regulators need strong guidance from experts in the field, not only in extra-legal fields such as planning, hydrology, geology, engineering, biology, and transportation, but also in mainstream legal areas including legislation (local, state, and federal), administrative law, and enforcement. The purpose of this article is to identify a somewhat unorthodox source of guidance - the United States Supreme Court, specifically the Rehnquist Court from October, 1984, through June, 2005, a period of remarkable stability for the nation’s highest tribunal.

Rick Garnett Was A Guest Speaker And Quoted In Several Media Sources On The Scotus Hobby Lobby Case Decision On July 1, Richard Garnett

Richard W Garnett

Rick Garnett was a guest speaker and quoted in several media sources on the Hobby Lobby decision. The Columbus Dispatch article Supreme Court rules in favor of Hobby Lobby in contraceptive case on July 1. NPR article High Court Allows Some Companies To Opt Out Of Contraceptives Mandate on July 1. On Point with Tom Ashbrook discussing A Win For Hobby Lobby, And What It Means on July 1. Obama, Congress Likely Face Tough Decision on Contraceptive Coverage Wall Street Journal Becket Fund makes its mark by testing limits of religious liberty Deseret News

Rick Garnett Was Quoted In The Religion News Service Article Does Hobby Lobby Have Religious Rights? The Supreme Court Will Decide, March 18, 2014, Richard Garnett

Richard W Garnett

On March 18, Rick Garnett was quoted in the Religion News Service article Does Hobby Lobby have religious rights? The Supreme Court will decide. Notre Dame Law School professor Rick Garnett, who writes about religious freedom, said the court may well agree that corporations have religious rights, but he also suggests that such an outcome won’t be as momentous as many assume. “It doesn’t mean every single business is going to be invoking RFRA to get out of regulations it doesn’t like,” he said.

The Confident Court, Jennifer Mason Mcaward

Jennifer Mason McAward

Despite longstanding rules regarding judicial deference, the Supreme Court’s decisions in its October 2012 Term show that a majority of the Court is increasingly willing to supplant both the prudential and legal judgments of various institutional actors, including Congress, federal agencies, and state universities. Whatever the motivation for such a shift, this Essay simply suggests that today’s Supreme Court is a confident one. A core group of justices has an increasingly self-assured view of the judiciary’s ability to conduct an independent assessment of both the legal and factual aspects of the cases that come before the Court. This piece discusses …

Legislative Prayer Gets Supreme Court Review, Richard Garnett

Richard W Garnett

Rick Garnett was quoted in the Associated Press article by MARK SHERMAN

The article was also published in

Wall Street Journal, Businessweek, NPR. NBC News, Fox News, Yahoo! News

Richard Garnett, a University of Notre Dame law professor and former Supreme Court clerk, said it is likely that the court will reverse the appeals court and that a narrow ruling of the sort sought by the administration could cause some liberal justices to join their conservative colleagues.

But because the case can be resolved narrowly, Garnett said it probably is not one the justices will use to order judges to …

The Origins Of Article Iii "Arising Under" Jurisdiction, Anthony J. Bellia

Anthony J. Bellia

Article III of the Constitution provides that the judicial Power of the United States extends to all cases arising under the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States. What the phrase arising under imports in Article III has long confounded courts and scholars. This Article examines the historical origins of Article III arising under jurisdiction. First, it describes English legal principles that governed the jurisdiction of courts of general and limited jurisdiction--principles that animated early American jurisprudence regarding the scope of arising under jurisdiction. Second, it explains how participants in the framing and ratification of the Constitution understood arising …

The Conflict Between Stare Decisis And Ov Erruling In Constitutional Adjudication, Steven J. Burton

steven J. burton

This article argues that the Constitution constrains the Supreme Court's power to overrule its constitutional precedents. It bases this argument on the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause and the conjunction of Marbury v. Madison, Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, Cohens v. Virginia, and the "case or controversy" limit on federal court jurisdiction.

Encyclopedia Of American History, Jeffrey Morris, Richard Morris

Jeffrey B. Morris

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Litigation Under Section 1983 And The Bivens Doctrine In The October 2008 Term, Martin A. Schwartz

Martin A. Schwartz

Section 1983 is the major enforcer of individual federal constitutional rights. It authorizes individuals to enforce their constitutional rights against state and local officials; for example,prison officers and police officers, and against municipalities. It is the most important civil statute in American law. To its credit, the United States Supreme Court understands the significance of § 1983. For the past three decades, in virtually every single Term of theCourt, it has decided a substantial number of cases dealing with different facets of § 1983 litigation. Last Term, there was anunusual number of § 1983 decisions rendered by the United States …

Justice John Marshall Harlan I, Richard Maloy

Richard Maloy

No abstract provided.

Washington Was Right: The Supreme Court Could Have Intervened To Interpret French Treaties, Kevin P. Chapman

Kevin P. Chapman

In the early days of his presidency, George Washington faced his first international crisis when French Ambassador Genet demanded that the United States honor its treaty obligations and provide support to the new French Republic in its ongoing war with Great Britain. Concerned about the legal effect that the French Revolution had on the viability of these obligations, Washington asked the Supreme Court to render an opinion. Chief Justice John Jay replied that the Constitution did not authorize the Supreme Court to render advisory opinions.

If Jay was correct, why did Washington, who presided over the very convention that produced …