Law Commons^™

Unitariness And Independence: Solicitor General Control Over Independent Agency Litigation, Neal Devins

Neal E. Devins

With a few exceptions, the Solicitor General controls all aspects of independent agency litigation before the Supreme Court. Solicitor General control of Supreme Court litigation creates a tension between independent agency freedom and the Solicitor General's authority. On the one hand, Solicitor General control provides the United States with a unitary voice before the Supreme Court, and provides the Court with a trustworthy litigator to explicate the government's position. On the other hand, such control may undermine the autonomy of independent agency decision making. In this Article, the author argues for a hybrid model of independent agency litigation in the …

The Last Word Debate: How Social And Political Forces Shape Constitutional Values, Neal Devins

Neal E. Devins

No abstract provided.

The D'Oh! Of Popular Constiutitonalism, Neal Devins

Neal E. Devins

No abstract provided.

The Amicus Machine, Allison Orr Larsen, Neal Devins

Neal E. Devins

The Supreme Court receives a record number of amicus curiae briefs and cites to them with increasing regularity. Amicus briefs have also become influential in determining which cases the Court will hear. It thus becomes important to ask: Where do these briefs come from? The traditional tale describes amicus briefs as the product of interest-group lobbying. But that story is incomplete and outdated. Today, skilled and specialized advocates of the Supreme Court Bar strategize about what issues the Court should hear and from whom they should hear them. They then “wrangle” the necessary amici and “whisper” to coordinate the message. …

Split Definitive, Lawrence Baum, Neal Devins

Neal E. Devins

For the first time in a century, the Supreme Court is divided solely by political party.

Social Meaning And School Vouchers, Neal Devins

Neal E. Devins

No abstract provided.

Reanimator: Mark Tushnet And The Second Coming Of The Imperial Presidency, Neal Devins

Neal E. Devins

No abstract provided.

The Structural Safeguards Of Federal Jurisdiction, Tara Leigh Grove

Tara L. Grove

Scholars have long debated Congress’s power to curb federal jurisdiction and have consistently assumed that the constitutional limits on Congress’s authority (if any) must be judicially enforceable and found in the text and structure of Article III. In this Article, I challenge that fundamental assumption. I argue that the primary constitutional protection for the federal judiciary lies instead in the bicameralism and presentment requirements of Article I. These Article I lawmaking procedures give competing political factions (even political minorities) considerable power to “veto” legislation. Drawing on recent social science and legal scholarship, I argue that political factions are particularly likely …

The Structural Case For Vertical Maximalism, Tara Leigh Grove

Tara L. Grove

Many prominent jurists and scholars, including those with outlooks as diverse as Chief Justice John Roberts and Cass Sunstein, have recently advocated a “minimalist” approach to opinion writing at the Supreme Court. They assert that the Court should issue narrow, fact-bound decisions that do not resolve much beyond the case before it. I argue that minimalism, as employed by the current Supreme Court, is in tension with the structure of the Constitution. Article III and the Supremacy Clause, along with historical evidence from the Founding Era, suggest that the Constitution creates a hierarchical judiciary and gives the Court a “supreme” …

The Supreme Court And The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination: Has The Burger Court Retreated?, Paul Marcus

Paul Marcus

No abstract provided.

The Democracy-Forcing Constitution, Neal Devins

Neal E. Devins

No abstract provided.

Congress And The Making Of The Second Rehnquist Court, Neal Devins

Neal E. Devins

No abstract provided.

Book Review Of The Second American Revolution, Neal Devins

Neal E. Devins

No abstract provided.

Book Review Of Clement Haynsworth, The Senate, And The Supreme Court, Davison M. Douglas

Davison M. Douglas

No abstract provided.

When Is Finality Final? Second Chances At The Supreme Court, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

No abstract provided.

Precedent, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

No abstract provided.

Separating Amicus Wheat From Chaff, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl, Adam Feldman

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

No abstract provided.

Controversial Gvrs And The "Degradation" Of The Gvr, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

No abstract provided.

Following Lower-Court Precedent, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

This Article examines the role of lower-court precedent in the US Supreme Court’s decisions. The Supreme Court is rarely the first court to consider a legal question, and therefore the Court has the opportunity to be informed by and perhaps even persuaded by the views of the various lower courts that have previously addressed the issue. This Article considers whether the Court should give weight to lower-court precedent as a matter of normative theory and whether the Court in fact does so as a matter of practice. To answer the normative question, this Article analyzes a variety of potential reasons …

The Trouble With Amicus Facts, Allison Orr Larsen

Allison Orr Larsen

The number of amicus curiae briefs filed at the Supreme Court is at an all-time high. Most observers, and even some of the Justices, believe that the best of these briefs are filed to supplement the Court’s understanding of facts. Supreme Court decisions quite often turn on generalized facts about the way the world works (Do violent video games harm children? Is a partial birth abortion ever medically necessary?). To answer these questions, the Justices are hungry for more information than the parties and the record can provide. The consensus is that amicus briefs helpfully add factual expertise to the …

The Amicus Machine, Allison Orr Larsen, Neal Devins

Allison Orr Larsen

The Supreme Court receives a record number of amicus curiae briefs and cites to them with increasing regularity. Amicus briefs have also become influential in determining which cases the Court will hear. It thus becomes important to ask: Where do these briefs come from? The traditional tale describes amicus briefs as the product of interest-group lobbying. But that story is incomplete and outdated. Today, skilled and specialized advocates of the Supreme Court Bar strategize about what issues the Court should hear and from whom they should hear them. They then “wrangle” the necessary amici and “whisper” to coordinate the message. …

Legal Scholarship Highlight: Confronting Supreme Court Fact Finding, Allison Orr Larsen

Allison Orr Larsen

No abstract provided.

Allison Orr Larsen On Intensely Empirical Amicus Briefs And Amicus Opportunism At The Supreme Court, Allison Orr Larsen

Allison Orr Larsen

No abstract provided.

Confronting Supreme Court Fact Finding, Allison Orr Larsen

Allison Orr Larsen

No abstract provided.

The Color Of Perspective: Affirmative Action And The Constitutional Rhetoric Of White Innocence, Cecil J. Hunt Ii

Cecil J. Hunt II

This Article discusses the Supreme Court's use of the rhetoric of White innocence in deciding racially-inflected claims of constitutional shelter. It argues that the Court's use of this rhetoric reveals its adoption of a distinctly White-centered perspective, representing a one-sided view of racial reality that distorts the Court's ability to accurately appreciate the true nature of racial reality in contemporary America. This Article examines the Court's habit of using a White-centered perspective in constitutional race cases. Specifically, it looks at the Court's use of the rhetoric of White innocence in the context of the Court's concern with protecting "innocent" Whites …

Stare Decisis As Judicial Doctrine, Randy J. Kozel

Randy J Kozel

Stare decisis has been called many things, among them a principle of policy, a series of prudential and pragmatic considerations, and simply the preferred course. Often overlooked is the fact that stare decisis is also a judicial doctrine, an analytical system used to guide the rules of decision for resolving concrete disputes that come before the courts.

This Article examines stare decisis as applied by the U.S. Supreme Court, our nation’s highest doctrinal authority. A review of the Court’s jurisprudence yields two principal lessons about the modern doctrine of stare decisis. First, the doctrine is comprised largely of malleable factors …

The Scope Of Precedent, Randy J. Kozel

Randy J Kozel

The scope of Supreme Court precedent is capacious. Justices of the Court commonly defer to sweeping rationales and elaborate doctrinal frameworks articulated by their predecessors. This practice infuses judicial precedent with the prescriptive power of enacted constitutional and statutory text. The lower federal courts follow suit, regularly abiding by the Supreme Court’s broad pronouncements. These phenomena cannot be explained by—and, indeed, oftentimes subvert—the classic distinction between binding holdings and dispensable dicta. This Article connects the scope of precedent with recurring and foundational debates about the proper ends of judicial interpretation. A precedent’s forward- looking effect should not depend on the …

The Supreme Court 1997 Term -- Foreword: The Limits Of Socratic Deliberation, Michael C. Dorf

Michael C. Dorf

No abstract provided.

Foreward: The Most Confusing Branch, Michael C. Dorf

Michael C. Dorf

No abstract provided.

High Courts And Election Law Reform In The United States And India, Manoj Mate

Manoj S. Mate