Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
-
- William & Mary Law School (16)
- University of Michigan Law School (11)
- University of Colorado Law School (7)
- American University Washington College of Law (4)
- Boston University School of Law (4)
-
- Columbia Law School (3)
- University of Baltimore Law (3)
- Vanderbilt University Law School (3)
- Washington and Lee University School of Law (3)
- Saint Louis University School of Law (2)
- Cleveland State University (1)
- Emory University School of Law (1)
- New York Law School (1)
- Roger Williams University (1)
- University of Arkansas at Little Rock William H. Bowen School of Law (1)
- University of Miami Law School (1)
- University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law (1)
- University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School (1)
- Valparaiso University (1)
- Wayne State University (1)
- Keyword
-
- United States Supreme Court (23)
- Supreme Court (9)
- Constitution (4)
- Damages (4)
- Decision making (4)
-
- First amendment (4)
- Jurisdiction (4)
- Confrontation Clause (3)
- Congress (3)
- Crawford v. Washington (3)
- Due process (3)
- First Amendment (3)
- Judicial process (3)
- Judicial review (3)
- Sixth Amendment (3)
- States (3)
- Admissibility (2)
- Authority (2)
- Brown v. Board of Education (2)
- Civil Rights (2)
- Civil rights (2)
- Class actions (2)
- Constitutional law (2)
- Court clerk (2)
- Cross-examination (2)
- Equality (2)
- Executive branch (2)
- Government speech (2)
- Laboratory reports (2)
- Litigation (2)
- Publication
-
- Articles (12)
- Supreme Court Preview (10)
- Faculty Scholarship (7)
- Publications (7)
- All Faculty Scholarship (6)
-
- Faculty Publications (5)
- Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals (4)
- Scholarly Articles (3)
- Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications (3)
- Articles & Chapters (1)
- Faculty Articles (1)
- Faculty Works (1)
- Law Faculty Articles and Essays (1)
- Law Faculty Publications (1)
- Law Faculty Research Publications (1)
- Law Faculty Scholarship (1)
- Popular Media (1)
- Studio for Law and Culture (1)
Articles 1 - 30 of 66
Full-Text Articles in Law
Under-The-Table Overruling, Christopher J. Peters
Under-The-Table Overruling, Christopher J. Peters
All Faculty Scholarship
In this contribution to a Wayne Law Review symposium on the first three years of the Roberts Court, the author normatively assesses the Court's practice of "under-the-table overruling," or "underruling," in high-profile constitutional cases involving abortion, campaign-finance reform, and affirmative action. The Court "underrules" when it renders a decision that undercuts a recent precedent without admitting that it is doing so. The author contends that underruling either is not supported by, or is directly incompatible with, three common rationales for constitutional stare decisis: the noninstrumental rationale, the predictability rationale, and the legitimacy rationale. In particular, while the latter rationale - …
The Supreme Common Law Court Of The United States, Jack M. Beermann
The Supreme Common Law Court Of The United States, Jack M. Beermann
Faculty Scholarship
The U.S. Supreme Court's primary role in the history of the United States, especially in constitutional cases (and cases hovering in the universe of the Constitution), has been to limit Congress's ability to redefine and redistribute rights in a direction most people would characterize as liberal. In other words, the Supreme Court, for most of the history of the United States since the adoption of the Constitution, has been a conservative force against change and redistribution. The Court has used five distinct devices to advance its control over the law. First, it has construed rights-creating constitutional provisions narrowly when those …
2008-2009 Supreme Court Preview: Schedule, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
2008-2009 Supreme Court Preview: Schedule, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.
2008-2009 Supreme Court Preview: Contents, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
2008-2009 Supreme Court Preview: Contents, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.
Section 1: Moot Court, Fcc V. Fox Television Stations, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Section 1: Moot Court, Fcc V. Fox Television Stations, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.
Section 3: Election Law, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Section 3: Election Law, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.
Section 4: Business, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Section 4: Business, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.
Section 2: 2008 Election And The Supreme Court, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Section 2: 2008 Election And The Supreme Court, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.
Section 6: Theories Of Interpretation, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Section 6: Theories Of Interpretation, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.
Section 5: Civil Rights, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Section 5: Civil Rights, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.
Section 7: Criminal Law, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Section 7: Criminal Law, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.
Section 8: Bush's Legal Legacy, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Section 8: Bush's Legal Legacy, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.
Unilateral Refusals To Deal, Vertical Integration, And The Essential Facility Doctrine, Herbert J. Hovenkamp
Unilateral Refusals To Deal, Vertical Integration, And The Essential Facility Doctrine, Herbert J. Hovenkamp
All Faculty Scholarship
Where it applies, the essential facility doctrine requires a monopolist to share its "essential facility." Since the only qualifying exclusionary practice is the refusal to share the facility itself, the doctrine comes about as close as antitrust ever does to condemning "no fault" monopolization. There is no independent justification for an essential facility doctrine separate and apart from general Section 2 doctrine governing the vertically integrated monopolist's refusal to deal. In its Trinko decision the Supreme Court placed that doctrine about where it should be. The Court did not categorically reject all unilateral refusal to deal claims, but it placed …
Rewriting Brown, Resurrecting Plessy, James E. Fleming
Rewriting Brown, Resurrecting Plessy, James E. Fleming
Faculty Scholarship
It is an honor and a pleasure to ponder Cooper v. AaronI and the legacy of Brown v. Board of Education2 in general and to respond to David A. Strauss's wise and insightful Childress Lecture3 in particular. I want to address three topics. The first two are encapsulated in my title: Rewriting Brown, Resurrecting Plessy. I'll examine the widespread phenomenon of "rewriting Brown." And I'll document what I shall call "resurrecting Plessy": the phenomenon, evident in both liberal and conservative scholarship and opinions, of charging one's opponents with repeating the mistakes of Plessy v. Ferguson.4 I'll illustrate the liberal version …
The Failure Of Bowles V. Russell, Scott Dodson
The Failure Of Bowles V. Russell, Scott Dodson
Faculty Publications
The Supreme Court recently decided Bowles v. Russell—perhaps that Term’s most underrated case—which characterized the time to file a civil notice of appeal as jurisdictional and therefore not subject to equitable excuses for noncompliance. In so holding, the Court overstated the supporting precedent, inflated the jurisdictional importance of statutes, and undermined an important recent movement to clarify when a rule is jurisdictional and when it is not. This did not have to be. The Court missed a golden opportunity to chart a middle course—holding the rule mandatory but nonjurisdictional—that would have been more consistent with precedent while resolving the …
Review: Voices Of American Law: Us Supreme Court Cases Meet The 21st Century, Lauren M. Collins
Review: Voices Of American Law: Us Supreme Court Cases Meet The 21st Century, Lauren M. Collins
Law Faculty Articles and Essays
Review of documentary series Voices of American Law (Thomas B. Metzloff & Sarah Wood, producers)
What Lurks Beneath: Nsa Surveillance And Executive Power Symposium: The Role Of The President In The Twenty-First Century, Gary S. Lawson
What Lurks Beneath: Nsa Surveillance And Executive Power Symposium: The Role Of The President In The Twenty-First Century, Gary S. Lawson
Faculty Scholarship
It is not surprising that, nearly two and a quarter centuries after ratification of the Federal Constitution, people are still actively arguing about the extent of the American President's powers.' The concept of executive power is notoriously murky,2 so disputes about its scope and character are virtually unavoidable. It is, however, at least a tad surprising that, nearly two and a quarter centuries after ratification of the Federal Constitution, people are still arguing about the constitutional sources of presidential power. 3 It is one thing to disagree about how far the President's power extends, but it is quite another thing …
Supreme Court Nominees And The Fourth Circuit Curse, Adam M. Gershowitz
Supreme Court Nominees And The Fourth Circuit Curse, Adam M. Gershowitz
Popular Media
No abstract provided.
The Colonel's Finest Campaign: Robert R. Mccormick And Near V. Minnesota, Eric Easton
The Colonel's Finest Campaign: Robert R. Mccormick And Near V. Minnesota, Eric Easton
All Faculty Scholarship
Today, media corporations and their professional and trade associations, along with organizations like Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and the American Civil Liberties Union, carefully monitor litigation that implicates First Amendment values and decide whether, when, and how to intervene. It was not always so. Litigation by an institutional press to avoid or create doctrinal precedent under the First Amendment really began with the appointment of Col. Robert R. McCormick to head the ANPA's Committee on Freedom of the Press in the spring of 1928 and his involvement in Near v. Minnesota beginning that fall. Because of McCormick's …
Abbott Labs V. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (1967), Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl
Abbott Labs V. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (1967), Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl
Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
Ideological Cohesion And Precedent (Or Why The Court Only Cares About Precedent When Most Justices Agree With Each Other), Neal Devins
Faculty Publications
This Article examines the profound role that ideological cohesion plays in explaining the Supreme Court's willingness to advance a coherent vision of the law - either by overruling precedents inconsistent with that vision or by establishing rule-like precedents intended to bind the Supreme Court and lower courts in subsequent cases. Through case studies of the New Deal, Warren, and Rehnquist Courts, this Article calls attention to key differences between Courts in which five or more Justices pursue the same substantive objectives and Courts which lack a dominant voting block. In particular, when five or more Justices pursue the same substantive …
The Sit-Ins And The Failed State Action Revolution, Christopher W. Schmidt
The Sit-Ins And The Failed State Action Revolution, Christopher W. Schmidt
Studio for Law and Culture
This article revises the traditional account of why the Supreme Court, when faced in the early 1960s with a series of cases arising out of the lunch counter sit-in movement, refused to hold racial discrimination in public accommodations unconstitutional. These cases are the great aberration of the Warren Court. At a time when the justices confidently reworked one constitutional doctrine after another, often in response to the moral challenges of the civil rights movement and often in the face of considerable public resistance, they broke pattern in the sit-in cases. And they did so despite a transformation in popular opinion …
Frozen In Time: The State Action Doctrine's Application To Amateur Sports, Dionne L. Koller
Frozen In Time: The State Action Doctrine's Application To Amateur Sports, Dionne L. Koller
All Faculty Scholarship
The state action doctrine has as its central goal the preservation of liberty by limiting the intrusion of the government into the "private" sphere. It achieves this by applying the Constitution only to government, and not private, action. Traditionally, amateur sports regulators such as the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) have been viewed by courts as private. As a result, this article explains that courts generally give great deference to amateur sports organizations such as the NCAA and USOC to regulate sports with little judicial interference, including in the area of constitutional litigation. …
Constitutional Law And Values - Version '08 (Not Necessarily And Upgrade), Nadine Strossen
Constitutional Law And Values - Version '08 (Not Necessarily And Upgrade), Nadine Strossen
Articles & Chapters
No abstract provided.
Heller And Insurrectionism, Carl Bogus
Death By A Thousand Cuts Or Hard Bargaining?: How The Supreme Court's Indecision In Wilkie V. Robbins Improperly Eviscerates The Bivens Action, Natalie Banta
Law Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
A Different Take On The Roberts Court: The Court As An Institution, Ideology, And The Settled Nature Of American Constitutional Law, Robert A. Sedler
A Different Take On The Roberts Court: The Court As An Institution, Ideology, And The Settled Nature Of American Constitutional Law, Robert A. Sedler
Law Faculty Research Publications
No abstract provided.
William Thaddeus Coleman, Jr.: Breaking The Color Barrier At The U.S. Supreme Court, Todd C. Peppers
William Thaddeus Coleman, Jr.: Breaking The Color Barrier At The U.S. Supreme Court, Todd C. Peppers
Scholarly Articles
The purpose of this essay is twofold: It will endeavor to succinctly summarize the important events of Coleman’s life and professional career, while making the argument that these achievements were as groundbreaking in the legal community as Robinson’s were to baseball. Admittedly, looking to our national pastime is hardly an original literary maneuver; The myriad similarities and links between baseball and the law have offered rich material for many legal writers.2 Moreover, this article does not wish to diminish Coleman’s accomplishments by comparing them to a mere “game.” By drawing upon the sixtieth anniversary of Robinson’s debut, my hope is …
Law Clerk Influence On Supreme Court Decision Making: An Empirical Assessment, Todd C. Peppers, Christopher Zorn
Law Clerk Influence On Supreme Court Decision Making: An Empirical Assessment, Todd C. Peppers, Christopher Zorn
Scholarly Articles
Here, we undertake the first effort at assessing the existence and extent of law clerk influence in the U.S. Supreme Court. Drawing upon original survey data on the political ideology of 532 former law clerks, we evaluate the extent to which both the Justice's personal policy preferences and those of his or her law clerks exert an independent influence on the Justice's votes. While our results are preliminary, they nonetheless support the contention that--over and above "selection effects" due to Justices choosing like-minded clerks--clerks' ideological predilections exert an additional, and not insubstantial, influence on the Justices' decisions on the merits. …
The Return Of Reasonableness: Saving The Fourth Amendment From The Supreme Court, Melanie D. Wilson
The Return Of Reasonableness: Saving The Fourth Amendment From The Supreme Court, Melanie D. Wilson
Scholarly Articles
Although there is no recipe for defining Fourth Amendment reasonableness, the Supreme Court produces its most anomalous Fourth Amendment outcomes when it decides "mixed" questions of reasonableness, assessing issues that turn on how ordinary, prudent citizens think and behave. The Court treats these mixed issues, combinations of fact and law, as if they raise purely legal questions. But mixed issues are more complex and require someone to determine historical facts, apply those facts to principles of Fourth Amendment law, and consider the totality of the circumstances, including taking into account community and cultural influences. The Supreme Court will take its …