Law Commons^™

Justice Scalia, The Establishment Clause, And Christian Privilege, Caroline Mala Corbin

Articles

No abstract provided.

Commentary: Justice Who Follows Scalia's Path Would Hurt The Working Class, Bruce A. Larson

Political Science Faculty Publications

During the campaign, Donald Trump released a list of 21 conservatives from which he promised to pick Supreme Court justices, should he win the election. With President-elect Trump apparently nearing a decision on a nominee to replace the late Justice Scalia, Senate Republicans are no doubt eagerly awaiting the chance to confirm Trump's pick and restore a conservative majority on the court. [excerpt]

Difficult Questions For The Senate Minority, John M. Greabe

Law Faculty Scholarship

This column is the first in a biweekly Constitutional Connections series that will examine the constitutional implications of various topics in the news. The author, John Greabe, teaches constitutional law and related subject at the University of New Hampshire School of Law. He also serves on the board of trustees of the New Hampshire Institute for Civics Education.

Friends With Benefits: Redefining Personal Gain In Insider Trading Under Salman V. United States, Wendy R. Becker

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Since Congress has not enacted a statute outlawing insider trading, or the trading of securities based on non-public information, outright, courts have struggled to define what constitutes insider trading. The Supreme Court held that a fiduciary duty was breached when the insider privy to the information receives a “personal benefit.” This Commentary analyzes a pending Supreme Court case, Salman v. United States, which addresses whether pecuniary gain is needed to constitute the personal benefit necessary for insider trading, or if certain relationships are enough for the tip to inherently create a personal benefit for the insider. The author argues …

The Amicus Machine, Allison Orr Larsen, Neal Devins

Faculty Publications

The Supreme Court receives a record number of amicus curiae briefs and cites to them with increasing regularity. Amicus briefs have also become influential in determining which cases the Court will hear. It thus becomes important to ask: Where do these briefs come from? The traditional tale describes amicus briefs as the product of interest-group lobbying. But that story is incomplete and outdated. Today, skilled and specialized advocates of the Supreme Court Bar strategize about what issues the Court should hear and from whom they should hear them. They then “wrangle” the necessary amici and “whisper” to coordinate the message. …

Update On School Searches, Charles J. Russo

Educational Leadership Faculty Publications

School safety continues to present significant challenges for education leaders. Yet as educators work to maintain school safety, boards face a steady stream of litigation because officials have searched students suspected of putting themselves or others in danger. For example, students have been searched because they were suspected of bringing into schools such prohibited items as alcohol, weapons, and drugs.

Education leaders must develop up-to-date policies that ensure safety but that also comply with the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures.

The Choice Between Right And Easy: Pena-Rodriguez V. Colorado And The Necessity Of A Racial Bias Exception To Rule 606(B), Kevin Zhao

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Traditionally, under Rule 606(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, jurors are barred from testifying towards matters within juror deliberations. However, many jurisdictions in the United States have adopted an exception to this rule for racial prejudice. That is, if a juror comes forward post-verdict to testify that another juror made racially charged comments within the jury room, then the verdict may be overturned. The Supreme Court will address this issue in its upcoming decision in Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado. This commentary will argue that a racial bias exception is necessary to protect defendants' rights to a fair trial and …

Further Punishing The Wrongfully Accused: Manuel V. City Of Joliet, The Fourth Amendment, And Malicious Prosecution, James R. Holley

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Manuel v. City of Joliet is before the Supreme Court to determine whether detention before trial without probable cause is a violation of the Fourth Amendment, or whether it is merely a violation of the Due Process Clause. Every circuit except the Seventh Circuit treats this type of detention as being a violation of the Fourth Amendment; only the Seventh Circuit considers this question under the Due Process Clause. This commentary argues that the Supreme Court should look to its precedent, which clearly treats pretrial detention without probable cause as being a Fourth Amendment issue, and reverse the Seventh Circuit. …

Legal Scholarship Highlight: The Amicus Machine, Allison Orr Larsen, Neal Devins

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Brief Of The National Association For Public Defense As Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioner, Christensen V. United States Of America (U.S. November 7, 2016) (No. 16-461)., Janet Moore

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

The jury is essential to our structure of government, available to criminal defendants as the final arbiter of guilt. As this Court has recognized time and again, the jury serves an important role both structurally within the balance of powers and as a check on governmental power, adding a layer of protection for individual defendants.

The rule applied by the Ninth Circuit and some other courts, allowing dismissal of a holdout juror if a judge sees no reasonable possibility that his view is connected to the merits of the case, threatens the fundamental role of the jury. In contrast to …

What Lurks Below Beckles, Leah Litman, Shakeer Rahman

Articles

This Essay argues that if the Supreme Court grants habeas relief in Beckles v. United States, then it should spell out certain details about where a Beckles claim comes from and who such a claim benefits. Those details are not essential to the main question raised in the case, but the federal habeas statute takes away the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to hear just about any case that would raise those questions. For that reason, this Essay concludes that failing to address those questions now could arbitrarily condemn hundreds of prisoners to illegal sentences and lead to a situation where the …

Mississippi V. Tennessee: Resolving An Interstate Groundwater Dispute, Peter G. Berris

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

This commentary explores the legal background and potential ramifications of Mississippi v. Tennessee: an original jurisdiction case involving a dispute over aquifer groundwater. Although the Supreme Court has addressed water disputes between states in the past, Mississippi v. Tennessee is the first such case to center exclusively on groundwater. As a result the Court has the opportunity to resolve a question of great relevance in an era where access to water is a recurring news story; is aquifer groundwater an interstate resource subject to equitable apportionment, or an intrastate resource subject to state sovereign ownership.

How The Sentencing Commission Does And Does Not Matter In Beckles V. United States, Leah Litman, Luke C. Beasley

Articles

Two years ago, in Johnson v. United States, the Supreme Court held that the so-called “residual clause” of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) is unconstitutionally vague. Last spring, the Court made this rule retroactive in Welch v. United States. Then in June, the Court granted certiorari in Beckles v. United States to resolve two questions that have split lower courts in the wake of Johnson and Welch: (1) whether an identically worded “residual clause” in a U.S. Sentencing Guideline—known as the career offender Guideline—is unconstitutionally void for vagueness; and (2) if so, whether the rule invalidating the Guideline’s residual …

The Sec, Administrative Usurpation, And Insider Trading, Adam C. Pritchard

Articles

The history of insider trading law is a tale of administrative usurpation and legislative acquiescence. Congress has never enacted a prohibition against insider trading, much less defined it. Instead, the SEC has led in defining insider trading, albeit without the formality of rulemaking, and subject to varying degrees of oversight by the courts. The reason why lies in the deference that the Supreme Court gave to the SEC in its formative years. The roots of insider trading law are commonly traced to the SEC’s decision in Cady, Roberts & Co. Cady, Roberts was only made possible, however, by the …

The Death Knell For The Death Penalty And The Significance Of Global Realism To Its Abolition From Glossip V. Gross To Brumfield V. Cain, Linda A. Malone

Faculty Publications

The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence regarding the death penalty, whether or not cruel, has most certainly been unusual in the annals of criminal punishment. In the short span of four years, the Court foreclosed and then reopened this form of punishment in Furman v. Georgia and Gregg v. Georgia. One year later the Court would categorically exclude the punishment for the rape of an adult. Five years later the Court would again preclude the punishment, for any defendant convicted of felony-murder who did not participate or share in the homicidal act or intent. In 1986 the Court would struggle with …

Affirmative Action Returns To The Supreme Court, Charles J. Russo

Educational Leadership Faculty Publications

One of the most hotly contested issues in education during the past-half century is affirmative action, also known as race-based admissions policies. Supporters defend the practice as one designed to take “affirmative” steps to eliminate the present effects of past discrimination. Critics respond that these policies do not address how granting preferences today remedies past harms, especially because individuals who are passed over when affirmative action is applied played no role in creating past inequities.

Insofar as debate over affirmative action has heated up yet again, this column briefly examines the history of Fisher v. University of Texas II (2016) …

An Empirical Study Of Implicit Takings., James E. Krier, Stewart E. Sterk

Articles

Takings scholarship has long focused on the niceties of Supreme Court doctrine, while ignoring the operation of takings law "on the ground" in the state and lower federal courts, which together decide the vast bulk of all takings cases. This study, based primarily on an empirical analysis of more than 2000 reported decisions ovcr the period 1979 through 2012, attempts to fill that void. This study establishes that the Supreme Court's categorical rules govern almost no state takings cases, and that takings claims based on government regulation almost invariably fail. By contrast, when takings claims arise out of government action …

My Turn: 'We The People' And The Garland Nomination, John M. Greabe

Law Faculty Scholarship

[Excerpt] "Because I teach constitutional law, a friend recently asked me whether Judge Merrick Garland or President Obama might successfully sue to compel the Senate to take action on the nomination of Judge Garland to fill the vacancy on the United States Supreme Court.

Almost certainly not, I told him. Under settled precedent, a judge would dismiss such a case as raising a non-legal ''political" question. It would be very difficult to develop acceptable decisional standards for such a claim. Moreover, courts are reluctant to entertain lawsuits challenging mechanisms that the Senate uses to oversee the judiciary."

2016-2017 Supreme Court Preview: Contents, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

2016-2017 Supreme Court Preview: Schedule And Panel Members, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Section 2: The Court And The 2016 Election, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Section 1: Moot Court: Pena-Rodriguez V. Colorado, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

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

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

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

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

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

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Section 5: Civil Rights And Liberties, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

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

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Fair Share Fees, Teacher Unions, And The Supreme Court, Charles J. Russo

Educational Leadership Faculty Publications

Disputes over whether teachers who are not union members must pay for the benefits they receive under their bargaining contracts have been litigated for almost 40 years. Amid conflict over the ability of teachers’ unions to collect fair share fees from nonmembers, the Supreme Court re-entered the controversy in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (2016), leaving the door open to future litigation on the status of fair share fees.

Justice Scalia’S Originalism And Formalism: The Rule Of Criminal Law As A Law Of Rules, Stephanos Bibas

All Faculty Scholarship

Far too many reporters and pundits collapse law into politics, assuming that the left–right divide between Democratic and Republican appointees neatly explains politically liberal versus politically conservative outcomes at the Supreme Court. The late Justice Antonin Scalia defied such caricatures. His consistent judicial philosophy made him the leading exponent of originalism, textualism, and formalism in American law, and over the course of his three decades on the Court, he changed the terms of judicial debate. Now, as a result, supporters and critics alike start with the plain meaning of the statutory or constitutional text rather than loose appeals to legislative …

The Aftermath Of United States V. Texas, Shoba S. Wadhia

Journal Articles

On June 23, 2016, the Supreme Court issued a 4-4 ruling in the immigration case of United States v. Texas, blocking two “deferred action” programs announced by President Obama on November 20, 2014: extended Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA Plus) and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Legal Residents (DAPA). The 4-4 ruling by the justices creates a non-precedential non-decision, upholding an injunction placed by a panel of federal judges in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. While the future of these programs remains uncertain in the long term, the immediate effects are pronounced, as millions of …