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

Law Commons

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

Series

2006

Supreme Court of the United States

Institution
Keyword
Publication

Articles 1 - 30 of 75

Full-Text Articles in Law

The New Constitutional Order And The Heartening Of Conservative Constitutional Aspirations, James E. Fleming Nov 2006

The New Constitutional Order And The Heartening Of Conservative Constitutional Aspirations, James E. Fleming

Faculty Scholarship

The basic question for this conference is whether we as a people have entered, or are on the verge of entering, a new constitutional order. In 2003, Mark Tushnet published a terrific book, The New Constitutional Order, an expansion of his insightful Foreword: The New Constitutional Order and the Chastening of Constitutional Ambition in the Harvard Law Review.2 The title of that book was an inspiration for the title of this conference. And the title of that article is the basis for the title of my article. For years, liberals and progressives have been anticipating or announcing a conservative revolution …


How Antidiscrimination Law Learned To Live With Racial Inequality, Matthew Lindsay Oct 2006

How Antidiscrimination Law Learned To Live With Racial Inequality, Matthew Lindsay

All Faculty Scholarship

This Article explores a great paradox at the heart of the prevailing paradigm of American antidiscrimination law: the colorblindness ideal. In theory, and often in practice, that ideal is animated by a genuine commitment to liberal, individualist, race-neutral egalitarianism. For many of its partisans, colorblindness entails not only a negative injunction against race-conscious decisionmaking, but also, crucially, an affirmative program for the achievement of true racial equality. For these proponents, scrupulously race-neutral decisionmaking both advances the interests of racial minorities and embodies the best aspirations of the civil rights movement. In this worldview, colorblindness offers the only true antidote for …


The Supreme Court Report 2005-06, Julie M. Cheslik, Jamie Landes, Leah Pollema, Michael Shelton Oct 2006

The Supreme Court Report 2005-06, Julie M. Cheslik, Jamie Landes, Leah Pollema, Michael Shelton

Faculty Works

This article reviews the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court for the 2005-2006 term focusing on decisions of particular relevance to state and local government. The Court's 2005-06 Term began with much speculation as one, then a second new Justice joined the Court. After the close of the 2004-05 Term, the Court suffered the loss of Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who succumbed to the thyroid cancer that had plagued him during that Term. President Bush ultimately replaced him with Judge John G. Roberts, who began the new Term and authored his fi rst opinion, the traditional 9-0 opinion of a …


Grutter V. Bollinger, Clarence Thomas, Affirmative Action And The Treachery Of Originalism: "The Sun Don't Shine Here In This Part Of Town", André Douglas Pond Cummings Sep 2006

Grutter V. Bollinger, Clarence Thomas, Affirmative Action And The Treachery Of Originalism: "The Sun Don't Shine Here In This Part Of Town", André Douglas Pond Cummings

Faculty Scholarship

Careful examination of Justice Clarence Thomas's dissenting opinion in the landmark affirmative action case Grutter v. Bollinger is important for a number of reasons: First, as one of the youngest members of the U.S. Supreme Court, Thomas stands a reasonable chance of still being a member of the court in 25 years, the self imposed implosion date (sunset provision) established by Justice O'Connor's majority opinion. No doubt, Thomas relishes the idea of writing the majority opinion that kills affirmative action and racial preferences for good.

Second, much as Justice Harlan's dissenting opinion in Plessy v. Ferguson was used as a …


2006-2007 Supreme Court Preview: Contents, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School Sep 2006

2006-2007 Supreme Court Preview: Contents, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.


Section 2: The War On Terror, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School Sep 2006

Section 2: The War On Terror, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.


Section 3: The Roberts Court, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School Sep 2006

Section 3: The Roberts Court, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.


2006-2007 Supreme Court Preview: Schedule, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School Sep 2006

2006-2007 Supreme Court Preview: Schedule, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.


Section 8: Election Law, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School Sep 2006

Section 8: Election Law, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.


Section 9: Miscellaneous, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School Sep 2006

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

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.


Section 1: Moot Court, Partial Birth Abortion, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School Sep 2006

Section 1: Moot Court, Partial Birth Abortion, 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 2006

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

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.


Section 5: Criminal Procedure, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School Sep 2006

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

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.


Section 7: Civil Rights, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School Sep 2006

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

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.


Brief Amicus Curiae Of Professors Keith N. Hylton, Kenneth G. Dau-Schmidt, Mark F. Grady, Jeffrey L. Harrison, Mark G. Kelman, And Thomas Ulen In Support Of Respondents In Philip Morris Usa V. Mayola Williams, Keith N. Hylton Sep 2006

Brief Amicus Curiae Of Professors Keith N. Hylton, Kenneth G. Dau-Schmidt, Mark F. Grady, Jeffrey L. Harrison, Mark G. Kelman, And Thomas Ulen In Support Of Respondents In Philip Morris Usa V. Mayola Williams, Keith N. Hylton

Faculty Scholarship

There is no dispute that the punitive damages award that was upheld by the Oregon Supreme Court in this case satisfies the most rigorous law and economic standards for rationality. The Court need not credit the analysis of the undersigned amici on this score; the fact that Petitioner’s own amici – most notably law and economics scholars A. Mitchell Polinsky and Steven Shavell – have been unable to find anything economically amiss in the decision below speaks volumes. To be sure, Professors Polinsky and Shavell have filed an amicus brief in support of Philip Morris in this case, just as …


Section 4: Advocacy, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School Aug 2006

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

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.


Due Process And Punitive Damages: The Error Of Federal Excessiveness Jurisprudence, A. Benjamin Spencer Jul 2006

Due Process And Punitive Damages: The Error Of Federal Excessiveness Jurisprudence, A. Benjamin Spencer

Faculty Publications

The Supreme Court, in a line of several cases over the past decade, has established a rigorous federal constitutional excessiveness review for punitive damages awards based on the Due Process Clause. As a matter of substantive due process, says the Court, punitive awards must be evaluated by three "guideposts" set forth in BMW of North America v. Gore: the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct, the ratio between punitive and compensatory damages, and a comparison of the amount of punitive damages to any "civil or criminal penalties that could be imposed for comparable misconduct." Following up on this pronouncement …


The Military Commissions Act, Coerced Confessions, And The Role Of The Courts, Peter Margulies Jul 2006

The Military Commissions Act, Coerced Confessions, And The Role Of The Courts, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.


Drugged, Carl E. Schneider Jul 2006

Drugged, Carl E. Schneider

Articles

The Supreme Court's recent decision in Gonzales v. Oregon, like its decision last year in Gonzales v. Raich (the "medical marijuana" case), again raises questions about the bioethical consequences of the Controlled Substances Act. When, in 1970, Congress passed that act, it placed problematic drugs in one of five "schedules," and it authorized the U.S. attorney general to add or subtract drugs from the schedules. Drugs in schedule II have both a medical use and a high potential for abuse. Doctors may prescribe such drugs if they "obtain from the Attorney General a registration issued in accordance with the …


The Democratic Prosecutor: Explaining The Constitutional Function Of The Federal Grand Jury, Niki Kuckes Jun 2006

The Democratic Prosecutor: Explaining The Constitutional Function Of The Federal Grand Jury, Niki Kuckes

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.


"Nine, Of Course": A Dialogue On Congressional Power To Set By Statute The Number Of Justices On The Supreme Court, Peter Nicolas Jun 2006

"Nine, Of Course": A Dialogue On Congressional Power To Set By Statute The Number Of Justices On The Supreme Court, Peter Nicolas

Articles

Conventional wisdom seems to hold that Congress has the power to set, by statute, the number of justices on the United States Supreme Court. But what if conventional wisdom is wrong? In this Dialogue, I challenge the conventional wisdom, hypothesizing that the United States Constitution does not give Congress the power to enact such a statute. Under this hypothesis, the number of justices on the Supreme Court at any given time is to be determined solely by the President and the individual members of the United States Senate in exercising their respective powers of nominating justices and consenting to their …


Representative Government, Representative Court? The Supreme Court As A Representative Body, Angela Onwuachi-Willig May 2006

Representative Government, Representative Court? The Supreme Court As A Representative Body, Angela Onwuachi-Willig

Faculty Scholarship

In this Symposium Essay, I propose, as a thinking matter, that we expand the number of Supreme Court justices to increase the representation of various demographic groups on the Court. In Part I, I advance the argument that the Court should be regarded as a demographically representative body of the citizens of the United States, and in Part II, I argue that the Court should be enlarged to ensure diverse representation of all voices on the most powerful judicial body of our nation.


Jurisdiction To Adjudicate: A Revised Analysis, A. Benjamin Spencer Apr 2006

Jurisdiction To Adjudicate: A Revised Analysis, A. Benjamin Spencer

Faculty Publications

Personal jurisdiction doctrine as articulated by the Supreme Court is in disarray. As a constitutional doctrine whose contours remain imprecise, the law of personal jurisdiction has generated confusion, unpredictability, and extensive satellite litigation over what should be an uncomplicated preliminary issue. Many commentators have long lamented these defects, making suggestions for how the doctrine could be improved. Although many of these proposals have had much to offer, they generally have failed to articulate (or adequately justify or explain) a simple and sound approach to jurisdiction that the Supreme Court can embrace. This Article revises the law of personal jurisdiction by …


'There Is Only One Equal Protection Clause': An Appreciation Of Justice Stevens's Equal Protection Jurisprudence, James E. Fleming Mar 2006

'There Is Only One Equal Protection Clause': An Appreciation Of Justice Stevens's Equal Protection Jurisprudence, James E. Fleming

Faculty Scholarship

"There is only one Equal Protection Clause. It requires every State to govern impartially. It does not direct the courts to apply one standard of review in some cases and a different standard in other cases."1 These words open Justice John Paul Stevens's famous concurring opinion in Craig v. Boren.2 That was the first case in which the U.S. Supreme Court applied "intermediate" scrutiny to gender-based classifications and thus carved out a third tier of equal protection analysis between strict scrutiny and deferential rational basis scrutiny. Craig was decided in 1976, at the beginning of Justice Stevens's long and distinguished …


Should The Supreme Court Fear Congress?, Neal Devins Jan 2006

Should The Supreme Court Fear Congress?, Neal Devins

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.


Beyond Abstraction: The Law And Economics Of Copyright Scope And Doctrinal Efficiency, Matthew Sag Jan 2006

Beyond Abstraction: The Law And Economics Of Copyright Scope And Doctrinal Efficiency, Matthew Sag

Faculty Articles

Uncertainty as to the optimum extent of protection generally limits the capacity of law and economics to translate economic theory into coherent doctrinal recommendations in the realm of copyright. This Article explores the relationship between copyright scope, doctrinal efficiency, and welfare from a theoretical perspective to develop a framework for evaluating specific doctrinal recommendations in copyright law.

The usefulness of applying this framework in either rejecting or improving doctrinal recommendations is illustrated with reference to the predominant law and economics theories of fair use. The metric-driven analysis adopted in this Article demonstrates the general robustness of the market-failure approach to …


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 Jan 2006

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

The Voting Rights Initiative ("VRI") at the University of Michigan Law School was created during the winter of 2005 to help inform [...] the debates that led to this latest congressional reauthorization and the legal challenge to it that is certain to follow. A cooperative research venture involving 100 students working under faculty direction set out to produce a detailed portrait of litigation brought since 1982 under Section 2. This Report evaluates the results of that survey. The comprehensive data set may be found in a searchable form at http://www.votingreport.org or http://www.sitemaker.umich.edu/votingrights. The aim of this report and the accompanying …


Witnesses In The Confrontation Clause: Crawford V. Washington, Noah Webster, And Compulsory Process, Randolph N. Jonakait Jan 2006

Witnesses In The Confrontation Clause: Crawford V. Washington, Noah Webster, And Compulsory Process, Randolph N. Jonakait

Articles & Chapters

No abstract provided.


Gender Stereotyping: Expanding The Boundaries Of Title Vii: Proceedings Of The 2006 Annual Meeting, Association Of American Law Schools, Section On Employment Discrimination Law, Michelle A. Travis, Arthur S. Leonard, Joann Williams, Mirriam Cherry Jan 2006

Gender Stereotyping: Expanding The Boundaries Of Title Vii: Proceedings Of The 2006 Annual Meeting, Association Of American Law Schools, Section On Employment Discrimination Law, Michelle A. Travis, Arthur S. Leonard, Joann Williams, Mirriam Cherry

Articles & Chapters

No abstract provided.


Reining In The Supreme Court: Are Term Limits The Answer?, Arthur D. Hellman Jan 2006

Reining In The Supreme Court: Are Term Limits The Answer?, Arthur D. Hellman

Book Chapters

Once again, life tenure for Supreme Court Justices is under attack. The most prominent proposal for reform is to adopt a system of staggered non-renewable terms of 18 years, designed so that each President would have the opportunity to fill two vacancies during a four-year term. This book chapter, based on a presentation at a conference at Duke Law School, addresses the criticisms of life tenure and analyzes the likely consequences of moving to a system of 18-year staggered terms for Supreme Court Justices.

One of the main arguments for term limits is, in essence, that the Supreme Court should …