Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Series

2005

Supreme Court of the United States

Institution
Keyword
Publication

Articles 1 - 30 of 57

Full-Text Articles in Law

Documenting Discrimination In Voting: Judicial Findings Under Section 2 Of The Voting Rights Act Since 1982, Ellen D. Katz, Margaret Aisenbrey, Anna Baldwin, Emma Cheuse, Anna Weisbrodt Dec 2005

Documenting Discrimination In Voting: Judicial Findings Under Section 2 Of The Voting Rights Act Since 1982, Ellen D. Katz, Margaret Aisenbrey, Anna Baldwin, Emma Cheuse, Anna Weisbrodt

Other Publications

This year marks the fortieth anniversary of one of the most remarkable and consequential pieces of congressional legislation ever enacted. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 ("the VRA") targeted massive disfranchisement of African-American citizens in numerous Southern states. It imposed measures drastic in scope and extraordinary in effect. The VRA eliminated the use of literacy tests and other "devices" that Southern jurisdictions had long employed to prevent black residents from registering and voting. The VRA imposed on these jurisdictions onerous obligations to prove to federal officials that proposed changes to their electoral system would not discriminate against minority voters. Resistance …


The Rehnquist Court: Nineteen Years Of Tax Decisions, F. Ladson Boyle Oct 2005

The Rehnquist Court: Nineteen Years Of Tax Decisions, F. Ladson Boyle

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.


Section 1: Moot Court, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School Sep 2005

Section 1: Moot Court, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.


Section 10: Miscellaneous, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School Sep 2005

Section 10: Miscellaneous, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.


Section 3: Confirmation Politics, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School Sep 2005

Section 3: Confirmation Politics, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.


Section 6: Business Law, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School Sep 2005

Section 6: Business Law, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.


Section 2: The O'Connor Court, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School Sep 2005

Section 2: The O'Connor Court, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.


Section 4: Civil Rights, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School Sep 2005

Section 4: Civil Rights, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.


Section 5: Federalism, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School Sep 2005

Section 5: Federalism, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.


Section 8: The Rehnquist Court, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School Sep 2005

Section 8: The Rehnquist Court, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.


Section 9: Looking Ahead, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School Sep 2005

Section 9: Looking Ahead, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.


Section 7: Criminal Procedure, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School Sep 2005

Section 7: Criminal Procedure, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.


Environmental Law In The Supreme Court: Highlights From The Blackmun Papers, Robert V. Percival Sep 2005

Environmental Law In The Supreme Court: Highlights From The Blackmun Papers, Robert V. Percival

Faculty Scholarship

The papers of the late Justice Harry A. Blackmun provide a remarkably rich archive that documents how the Court, for nearly a quarter century, handled environmental cases during a period crucial to the development of environmental law. This Article reviews highlights of what the Blackmun papers reveal about the U.S. Supreme Court’s handling of environmental cases during Justice Blackmun’s service on the Court from 1970 to 1994. The Article first examines what new light the Blackmun papers shed on some of the principal findings of the author’s October 1993 article Environmental Law in the Supreme Court: Highlights from the Marshall …


The Constitutional Limits To Court-Stripping, Michael J. Gerhardt Jul 2005

The Constitutional Limits To Court-Stripping, Michael J. Gerhardt

Faculty Publications

This Article is part of a colloquy between Professor Michael J. Gerhardt and Professor Martin Redish about the constitutionality of court-stripping measures. Court-stripping measures are laws restricting federal court jurisdiction over particular subject matters. In particular, the authors discuss the constitutionality of the Marriage Protection Act of 2004. Professor Gerhardt argues that the Act is unconstitutional and threatens to destroy the principles of separation of powers, federalism and due process. It prevents Supreme Court review of Congressional action and hinders the uniformity and finality of constitutional law. Furthermore, the Act violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment Due …


A Government Of Limited Powers, Carl E. Schneider Jul 2005

A Government Of Limited Powers, Carl E. Schneider

Articles

Roscoe C. Filburn owned a small farm in Ohio where he raised poultry, dairy cows, and a modest acreage of winter wheat. Some wheat he fed his animals, some he sold, and some he kept for his family's daily bread. The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 limited the wheat Mr. Filburn could grow without incurring penalties, but his 1941 crop exceeded those limits. Mr. Filburn sued. He said Claude Wickard, the Secretary of Agriculture, could not enforce the AAI's limits because Congress lacked authority to regulate wheat grown for one's own use. He reasoned: In our federal system, the states …


Lochner: Another Time, Another Place Symposium: Lochner Centennial Conference, Larry Yackle Jun 2005

Lochner: Another Time, Another Place Symposium: Lochner Centennial Conference, Larry Yackle

Faculty Scholarship

Professor Lynn Baker's contribution to this symposium' extends her longterm project both to defend and to critique the Supreme Court's decisions on the scope of congressional power.2 I find this work valuable and not a little provocative. If Baker's account of the decisions thus far is even partly right, the Court is poised to assume decision-making responsibility that has long been ceded to Congress. If her proposals for the future are adopted, we are in for a cataclysmic constitutional event that rivals the convulsive period when the nation confronted the judicial arrogation of authority associated (rightly or wrongly) with the …


Reflections On The Teaching Of Constitutional Law, William W. Van Alstyne Apr 2005

Reflections On The Teaching Of Constitutional Law, William W. Van Alstyne

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.


The Invisible Pillar Of Gideon, Adam M. Gershowitz Apr 2005

The Invisible Pillar Of Gideon, Adam M. Gershowitz

Faculty Publications

In 1996, the State of South Carolina charged Larry McVay with common-law robbery. McVay, who was employed part-time and took home less than $160 per week after taxes, claimed that after paying his basic living expenses he had no money left with which to hire an attorney. A South Carolina court disagreed and denied McVay’s request for appointed counsel. Seven years later, Scott Peterson was arrested for the murder of his wife and unborn child in California. Although Peterson owned a home, drove an expensive SUV, and was carrying $10,000 in cash when he was captured, he claimed to be …


'"You Have Been In Afghanistan": A Discourse On The Van Alstyne Method, Garrett Epps Apr 2005

'"You Have Been In Afghanistan": A Discourse On The Van Alstyne Method, Garrett Epps

All Faculty Scholarship

This essay pays tribute to William Van Alstyne, one of our foremost constitutional scholars, by applying the methods of textual interpretation he laid out in a classic essay, "Interpreting This Constitution: On the Unhelpful Contribution of Special Theories of Judicial Review." I make use of the graphical methods Van Alstyne has applied to the general study of the First Amendment to examine the Supreme Court's recent decisions in the context of the Free Exercise Clause, in particular the landmark case of "Employment Division v. Smith". The application of Van Alstyne's use of the burden of proof as an interpretive tool …


The Irrational Supreme Court, Michael I. Meyerson Jan 2005

The Irrational Supreme Court, Michael I. Meyerson

All Faculty Scholarship

Rationality is prized by lawyers. The 'rational review' test provides the constitutional minimum for due process and equal protection analysis. Unfortunately, even in an idealized world populated by perfectly rational people not all causes of irrational decision-making can be avoided. The basic nature of group decision-making inevitably creates the possibility of certain kinds of irrationality. The core of the problem is that, while deciding which party prevails is a binary decision [either one side or the other wins], there are often multiple issues that need to be decided in any particular case. The task of creating a system for selecting …


The Supreme Court, Democracy And Institutional Reform Litigation, Ross Sandler, David Schoenbrod Jan 2005

The Supreme Court, Democracy And Institutional Reform Litigation, Ross Sandler, David Schoenbrod

Articles & Chapters

In an unexpected portion of its unanimous opinion in Frew v. Hawkins, 540 U.S. 431 (2004), the SupremeCourt broke new ground on an important question involving consent decrees. The case began when Texas state officials invoked the Eleventh Amendment in their resistance to a federal Medicaid consent decree. TheCourt quickly disposed of that argument, but Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the unanimous Court,took the opportunity to forcefully state that consent decrees that intrude on the policy making prerogatives of state and local officials more than is necessary to protect rights undercut the effective functioning of elected state and local governments. …


God In The Machine: A New Structural Analysis Of Copyright's Fair Use Doctrine, Matthew Sag Jan 2005

God In The Machine: A New Structural Analysis Of Copyright's Fair Use Doctrine, Matthew Sag

Faculty Articles

Recognition of the structural role of fair use has the potential to mitigate some of the uncertainty of current fair use jurisprudence. The statutory framework for fair use both mitigates and causes uncertainty. It mitigates uncertainty by providing a consistent framework of analysis the four statutory factors. However, when judges apply the statutory factors without articulating or justifying their own assumptions, they increase uncertainty. The statutory factors mean nothing without certain a priori assumptions as to the scope of the copyright owner's rights. A more stable and predictable fair use jurisprudence would begin to emerge if those assumptions were made …


Deterrence Versus Brutalization: Capital Punishment's Differing Impacts Among States, Joanna M. Shepherd Jan 2005

Deterrence Versus Brutalization: Capital Punishment's Differing Impacts Among States, Joanna M. Shepherd

Faculty Articles

Recent empirical studies by economists have shown, without exception, that capital punishment deters crime. Using large data sets that combine information from all fifty states over many years, the studies show that, on average, an additional execution deters many murders. The studies have received much publicity, and death penalty advocates often cite them to show that capital punishment is sound policy.

Indeed, deterrence is the central basis that many policymakers and courts cite for capital punishment. For example, President Bush believes that capital punishment deters crime and that deterrence is the only valid reason for capital punishment. Likewise, the Supreme …


“Stop Me Before I Get Reversed Again”: The Failure Of Illinois Appellate Courts To Protect Their Criminal Decisions From United States Supreme Court Review, 36 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 893 (2005), Timothy P. O'Neill Jan 2005

“Stop Me Before I Get Reversed Again”: The Failure Of Illinois Appellate Courts To Protect Their Criminal Decisions From United States Supreme Court Review, 36 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 893 (2005), Timothy P. O'Neill

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.


The Majoritarian Difficulty: Affirmative Action, Sodomy, And Supreme Court Politics, Darren L. Hutchinson Jan 2005

The Majoritarian Difficulty: Affirmative Action, Sodomy, And Supreme Court Politics, Darren L. Hutchinson

Faculty Articles

This Article challenges liberal and conservative assessments of Lawrence, Gratz, and Grutter. Although the outcome of these cases might indeed prove helpful to the agendas of social movements for racial and sexual justice, progressive scholars and activists should not receive these cases with elation. Instead, the research of constitutional theorists, critical legal scholars, and political scientists allows for a more contextualized and guarded account of and reaction to these decisions. Instead of representing extraordinary victories for oppressed classes, these cases reflect majoritarian and moderate views concerning civil rights, and the opinions contain many doctrinal elements that reinforce, …


A Response To Professor Bix, Robert F. Nagel Jan 2005

A Response To Professor Bix, Robert F. Nagel

Publications

No abstract provided.


True Integration: Advancing Brown's Goal Of Educational Equity In The Wake Of Grutter, Lia Epperson Jan 2005

True Integration: Advancing Brown's Goal Of Educational Equity In The Wake Of Grutter, Lia Epperson

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

The late Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, founder of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund ("LDF"), and head of the legal team that litigated Brown v. Board of Education,' knew well the challenges that desegregation posed in a nation founded on a system of racial subjugation and white supremacy. A full thirty years after Brown, he acknowledged: Desegregation is not and was never expected to be an easy task. Racial attitudes ingrained in our Nation's childhood and adolescence are not quickly thrown aside in its middle years.... In the short run, it may seem to be the easier course to allow …


Crawford Surprises: Mostly Unpleasant, Richard D. Friedman Jan 2005

Crawford Surprises: Mostly Unpleasant, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

Crawford v. Washington should not have been surprising. The Confrontation Clause guarantees a criminal defendant the right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him." The doctrine of Ohio v. Roberts, treating the clause as a general proscription against the admission of hearsay-except hearsay that fits within a "firmly rooted" exception or is otherwise deemed reliable-had so little to do with the constitutional text, or with the history or principle behind it, that eventually it was bound to be discarded. And the appeal of a testimonial approach to the clause seemed sufficiently strong to yield high hopes that ultimately the …


Taking Miranda's Pulse, William T. Pizzi, Morris B. Hoffman Jan 2005

Taking Miranda's Pulse, William T. Pizzi, Morris B. Hoffman

Publications

No abstract provided.


The Great Writ Of Incoherence: An Analysis Of Supreme Court's Rulings On "Enemy Combatants", Gregory Dolin Jan 2005

The Great Writ Of Incoherence: An Analysis Of Supreme Court's Rulings On "Enemy Combatants", Gregory Dolin

All Faculty Scholarship

On June 28, 2004, the United States Supreme Court released its much awaited decisions in the cases posing a challenge to the Executive's self-professed authority to detain and indefinitely hold individuals designated as "enemy combatants." The cases arose from the "war on terrorism" that was launched after the attack on the United States on September 11, 2001. When each decision is looked at individually, the result seems to make sense and, given the outcome (affording detainees rights of judicial review), feels good. Yet when these decisions are looked at collectively, it is hard to believe that they were issued by …