Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Publication
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
'"You Have Been In Afghanistan": A Discourse On The Van Alstyne Method, Garrett Epps
'"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 Supreme Court And The Dig: An Empirical And Institutional Analysis With Michael E. Solimine, Rafael Gely, Michael E. Solimine
The Supreme Court And The Dig: An Empirical And Institutional Analysis With Michael E. Solimine, Rafael Gely, Michael E. Solimine
Faculty Publications
Almost all cases reach the docket of the United States Supreme Court through the discretionary writ of certiorari. In the normal course of events, the vast majority of petitions for a writ are denied. For those few petitions that are granted, the case is then briefed, orally argued, and decided on the merits. However, in a small number of cases the normal course is diverted, and the Court changes its mind by dismissing the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted. This action is usually referred to by the pithy acronym “DIG,” a convention we will use as well. Few cases …
The Other Sullivan Case, Garrett Epps, Garrett Epps
The Other Sullivan Case, Garrett Epps, Garrett Epps
All Faculty Scholarship
The standard triumphalist narrative of NEW YORK TIMES V. SULLIVAN celebrates the Supreme Court's defense of free speech and press in the case's vindication of powerful journalistic institution. Ignored in this story is the story of the local defendants, civil rights leaders in Alabama who had their solvency threatened by the state courts' vindictive action against them. These defendants challenged the segregated proceedings used in court to affix liability to them—but the Supreme Court ignored their arguments and ignored the racial-equality and individual-rights aspects of the case. From their point of view, SULLIVAN might be so unalloyed a triumph.