Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Turtles All The Way Down: A Clearer Understanding Of The Scope Of Waters Of The United States Based On The U.S. Supreme Court Decisions, Jesse J. Richardson Jr., Tiffany Dowell Lashmet, Gatlin Squires
Turtles All The Way Down: A Clearer Understanding Of The Scope Of Waters Of The United States Based On The U.S. Supreme Court Decisions, Jesse J. Richardson Jr., Tiffany Dowell Lashmet, Gatlin Squires
William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review
The meaning of “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) has been debated in Congress, federal agencies, and courtrooms across the country for almost fifty years. Despite the longstanding attention to the term, most consider the term even more unclear today than in 1972 when the CWA was adopted. However, a methodical examination of the statutory and regulatory history and the U.S. Supreme Court decisions on the issue reveal more consensus than previously understood. In addition, this focused examination shows that the debate centers on one problem that the arguments rarely acknowledge: wetlands adjacent to a …
The Qualitative Fourth Amendment: The Case For A Refined, Information-Focused Approach To Fourth Amendment Cases Involving Non-Trespassatory Government Surveillance, Joshua L. Wagner
William & Mary Law Review
In his 2001 majority opinion for Kyllo v. United States, Justice Scalia adopted his characteristic chiding tone to gently reproach what he saw as a notably liberal departure from the original textual interpretation of the Constitution. The Katz test for Fourth Amendment violations, to Scalia, was plainly “circular, and hence subjective and unpredictable.” That it was one of the most influential and oft-discussed decisions the Supreme Court has ever handed down made little difference; regardless of whatever Justice Harlan and his successors had said, the Fourth Amendment was, at its heart, a protection against government interference with property and had …
Free Speech, Strict Scrutiny And A Better Way To Handle Speech Restrictions, Aaron Pinsoneault
Free Speech, Strict Scrutiny And A Better Way To Handle Speech Restrictions, Aaron Pinsoneault
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
When it comes to unprotected speech categories, the Roberts Court has taken an amoral and inaccurate approach. When the Court first created unprotected speech categories-- defined categories of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment-- it was unclear what rendered a category of speech unprotected. One school of thought argued that speech was unprotected if it provided little or no value to society. The other school of thought argued that speech was unprotected if it fell into a certain category of speech that was simply categorically unprotected. Then, in 2010, the Court strongly sided with the latter approach, …
Against Congressional Case Snatching, Ronald J. Krotoszynski, Atticus Deprospro
Against Congressional Case Snatching, Ronald J. Krotoszynski, Atticus Deprospro
William & Mary Law Review
Congress has developed a deeply problematic habit of aggrandizing itself by snatching cases from the Article III courts. One form of contemporary case snatching involves directly legislating the outcome of pending litigation by statute. These laws do not involve generic amendments to existing statutes but rather dictate specific rulings by the Article III courts in particular cases. Another form of congressional case snatching involves rendering ongoing judicial proceedings essentially advisory by unilaterally permitting a disgruntled litigant to transfer a pending case from an Article III court to an executive agency for resolution. Both practices involve Congress reallocating the business of …
The Guiding Hand Of Counsel, For A Price: Juvenile Public Defender Fees And Their Effects, Hannah R. Gourdie
The Guiding Hand Of Counsel, For A Price: Juvenile Public Defender Fees And Their Effects, Hannah R. Gourdie
William & Mary Law Review
When he was thirteen, Jonathan, a teenager from New Hampshire, was charged with simple assault after a fight with his father. During his hearing in juvenile court, his father refused to pay the $275 New Hampshire public defender fee, and Jonathan—unable to afford the price of counsel—waived his right to an attorney. He was placed on probation and struggled to meet his probation requirements, resulting in his arrest for probation violations. Because the court was deciding whether to detain Jonathan, Jonathan was appointed a juvenile defender. The attorney brought Jonathan’s unstable home life to the judge’s attention, and the judge …