Law Commons^™

Justices Citing Justices, Jay D. Wexler

Faculty Scholarship

Scholars have long paid attention to how often and for what reasons Supreme Court justices cite law review articles and academic books in their opinions. More recently, a new area of scholarship has begun to look at how Justices create their own lines of “personal precedent” through not only their prior opinions but also their academic writings. At the intersection of these two areas of inquiry lies questions of how often and for what reasons Supreme Court justices cite the journal articles and books of the various justices sitting on the Court, including their own. With the exception of one …

The Antiregulatory Arsenal, Antidemocratic Can(N)Ons, And The Waters Wars, William W. Buzbee

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Clean Water Act (CWA) has become a centerpiece in an enduring multifront battle against both environmental regulation and federal regulatory power in all of its settings. This article focuses on the emergence, elements, and linked uses of an antiregulatory arsenal now central to battles over what are federally protected “waters of the United States.” This is the key jurisdictional hook for CWA jurisdiction, and hence, logically, has become the heart of CWA contestation. The multi-decade battle over Waters protections has both drawn on emergent antiregulatory moves and generated new weapons in this increasingly prevalent and powerful antiregulatory arsenal. This …

Jazz Improvisation And The Law: Constrained Choice, Sequence, And Strategic Movement Within Rules, William W. Buzbee

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

This Article argues that a richer understanding of the nature of law is possible through comparative, analogical examination of legal work and the art of jazz improvisation. This exploration illuminates a middle ground between rule of law aspirations emphasizing stability and determinate meanings and contrasting claims that the untenable alternative is pervasive discretionary or politicized law. In both the law and jazz improvisation settings, the work involves constraining rules, others’ unpredictable actions, and strategic choosing with attention to where a collective creation is going. One expects change and creativity in improvisation, but the many analogous characteristics of law illuminate why …

Oral Argument In Moore V. Harper And The Perils Of Finding “Compromise” On The Independent State Legislature Theory, Katherine A. Shaw

Online Publications

The Supreme Court’s cert grant last June in Moore v. Harper was an ominous note on which to end an explosive term. The grant seemed to broadcast an openness to embracing what’s known as the “independent state legislature theory,” or ISLT. It is a once-fringe idea that the U.S. Constitution, and in particular Article I’s “elections clause,” grants to state legislatures alone, and withholds from other state entities (think: courts and constitutions), the power to regulate elections for federal office.

Lower Court Originalism, Ryan C. Williams

Boston College Law School Faculty Papers

Originalism is among the most significant and contentious topics in all of constitutional law and has generated a massive literature addressing almost every aspect of the theory. But curiously absent from this literature is any sustained consideration of the distinctive role of lower courts as expositors of constitutional meaning and the particular challenges that such courts may confront in attempting to incorporate originalist interpretive methods into their own decisionmaking. Like most constitutional theories, originalism has tended to focus myopically on a select handful of decisionmakers—paradigmatically, the Justices of the Supreme Court—as the principal expositors of constitutional meaning. While this perspective …

Brief Of Patent Law Professors As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioners, Christa J. Laser

Law Faculty Briefs and Court Documents

This Court should reverse the Federal Circuit and hold that IPR estoppel extends only to grounds that were raised or could have been raised during the IPR proceeding. Estoppel would therefore extend to instituted grounds, whether raised during the proceeding or not. Estoppel would not extend to uninstituted grounds, such as grounds which might have been challenged in the petition for review but were not.

Rethinking The Supreme Court’S Impact On American Federalism And Centralization, Michael Dichio, Ilya Somin

Utah Law Faculty Scholarship

This article challenges the conventional wisdom about of the Supreme Court’s impact on federalism and centralization. In particular, we argue that the centralization impact of the Court is far less pronounced if decisions that uphold federal and state/local laws against challenge are classified as neutral rather than as centralizing and decentralizing, respectively. This reclassification dramatically alters our understanding of the Court’s role in establishing federal–state boundaries of power. After presenting our theoretical arguments, we briefly discuss the potential empirical effects of these revisions. Our analysis calls into question the traditional picture of the Court as a consistent force for centralization. …

Abortion Litigation And Second Amendment Litigation After Dobbs And Bruen, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law At The College Of William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

The Court And Religion, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law At The College Of William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Judging Hard Cases, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law At The College Of William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

The Roberts Court After A Seismic Term, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law At The College Of William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

The Roberts Court And Race, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law At The College Of William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

2022-2023 Supreme Court Preview: Schedule Of Events, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law At The College Of William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

The Court And Limits On The Administrative State, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law At The College Of William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Moot Court, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law At The College Of William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Granted Cases, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law At The College Of William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

2022-2023 Supreme Court Preview: Panelist Biographies, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law At The College Of William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

2022-2023 Supreme Court Preview: Digital Notebook (Cover Page), Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law At The College Of William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Amicus Curiae Conference Of Chief Justices In Support Of Neither Party, Moore V. Harper, No. 21-1271 (U.S. Sept. 6, 2022), Evan Caminker, Carter G. Phillips, Virginia A. Seitz, Kathleen M. Mueller

Appellate Briefs

Founded in 1949, amicus curiae Conference of Chief Justices (the “Conference”) is comprised of the Chief Justices or Chief Judges of the courts of last resort in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealths of Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Territories of American Samoa, Guam, and the Virgin Islands. For over 70 years, the Conference has been a leading national voice on important issues concerning the administration of justice in state courts, the operation of state courts and judicial systems, and the role of state courts in our federal system.

The Conference files briefs …

A New Supreme Court Case Threatens Another Body Blow To Our Democracy, Katherine A. Shaw, Leah Litman, Carolyn Shapiro

Online Publications

When the Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade, the justices in the majority insisted they were merely returning the issue of abortion to the democratic process. But a case the court has announced it will hear in its October term could make that democratic process a lot less democratic.

For The Right Reasons: The Rules Of The Game For Institutionalists, Rick Joslyn

Connecticut Law Review

The United States judiciary demonstrates better than any other constitutional institution the inherent fragility of American democracy. There is a reasonable debate to be had over when and exactly how the Supreme Court squandered the precious legitimacy on which its very existence rests. Yet, today, observers must confront with renewed urgency the impact crater of discontent that has been driven into the institution. The Court has been weaponized, politicized, and villainized; it has been lionized for its institutional heft. But increasingly loud voices have called for foundational reforms. There is a scramble for solutions to check the Court’s newly-emboldened right-wing …

The Link Between Voting Rights And The Abortion Ruling, Katherine A. Shaw, Leah Litman, Melissa Murray

Online Publications

The Supreme Court’s opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization gives states the maximum amount of freedom to restrict abortion. The decision is so sweeping that, under its logic, states could ban abortion even in cases of rape or incest; they may even be able — as the dissent notes — to prohibit abortions in circumstances in which a doctor believes the procedure is necessary to preserve the life or health of the pregnant person.

The Next Fight Over Guns In America, Timothy Zick, Diana Palmer

Popular Media

With Thursday’s Supreme Court decision [in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen], the only real remaining question is not whether Americans can carry firearms, but where.

Most Favored Racial Hierarchy: The Ever-Evolving Ways Of The Supreme Court's Superordination Of Whiteness, David Simson

Articles & Chapters

This Article engages in a critical comparative analysis of the recent history and likely future trajectory of the Supreme Court’s constitutional jurisprudence in matters of race and religion to uncover new aspects of the racial project that Reggie Oh has recently called the “racial superordination” of whiteness—the reinforcing of the superior status of whites in American society by, among other things, prioritizing their interests in structuring constitutional doctrine. This analysis shows that the Court is increasingly widening the gap between conceptions of, and levels of protection provided for, equality in the contexts of race and religion in ways that prioritize …

We Clerked For Justices Scalia And Stevens. America Is Getting Heller Wrong., Katherine A. Shaw, John Bash

Online Publications

In the summer of 2008, the Supreme Court decided District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the court held for the first time that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to gun ownership. We were law clerks to Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion, and Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the lead dissent.

Three Observations About Justice Alito's Draft Opinion In Dobbs - Commentary, John M. Greabe

Law Faculty Scholarship

[Excerpt] "There is much to say about Justice Samuel Alito's draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which was leaked from the United States Supreme Court on May 2 [2022].

Obviously, the most significant direct consequence of the proposed decision, which overrules Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) while upholding the constitutionality of a Mississippi law that outlaws most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, would be the restriction or elimination of abortion services throughout much of the nation. This will have all sorts of attendant consequences, large and smaller, many of which …

Is The End Of Roe V. Wade Near? Leaked Scotus Brief Says Yes, Nicole Huberfeld, Linda C. Mcclain

Shorter Faculty Works

Protesters on both sides of the abortion debate descended on the US Supreme Court Monday night and into Tuesday after a leaked secret draft of a US Supreme Court opinion indicated that a majority of justices support overturning Roe v. Wade, after almost 50 years of legalized abortion rights in America. If finalized, possibly as soon as this summer, the bombshell could trigger a cultural tsunami across American life, forcing some women to travel to another state for an abortion and putting the divisive issue at the heart of the fall midterm elections.

Elucidation Strategies: A Case Study Of The U.S Supreme Court, Gordon Carroll

Belmont University Research Symposium (BURS)

The research encompassed a study on the consistency in judicial interpretations and factors that influenced U.S. Supreme Court decisions. To do this, the study explored literature and theoretical perspectives relating to judicial interpretations and decisions. The target population entailed officers in the Office of the Solicitor General for their experience in Court rulings. Interviews were conducted among ten respondents, with data collected, coded, and analyzed. The study results were then presented, discussed, and conclusions derived from them. Generally, the study found serious inconsistencies in interpretations not only between justices but also in almost similar cases. Decisions by justices were conflicting …

Rewriting Whren V. United States, Jonathan Feingold, Devon Carbado

Faculty Scholarship

In 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Whren v. United States—a unanimous opinion in which the Court effectively constitutionalized racial profiling. Despite its enduring consequences, Whren remains good law today. This Article rewrites the opinion. We do so, in part, to demonstrate how one might incorporate racial justice concerns into Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, a body of law that has long elided and marginalized the racialized dimensions of policing. A separate aim is to reveal the “false necessity” of the Whren outcome. The fact that Whren was unanimous, and that even progressive Justices signed on, might lead one to conclude that …

“She’S Earned This”: Angela Onwuachi-Willig Rejoices In Historic Confirmation, Angela Onwuachi-Willig

Shorter Faculty Works

Angela Onwuachi-Willig, the dean of Boston University’s School of Law—the first Black woman to be dean of a top-20 law school—is rejoicing. The first Black woman has been confirmed to the US Supreme Court.

Onwuachi-Willig has had Ketanji Brown Jackson’s back from the moment President Biden announced he would nominate the federal judge to the nation’s highest court.