Law Commons^™

Court Packing Is A Chimera, Brian L. Frye

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

The dream of the 1930s is alive in Washington. Democrats see

Republicans hemorrhaging voters as Trump struggles with the

economy and the pandemic and are salivating at the prospect of

retaking not only the White House, but also the Senate. Of course, you

should never sell a bearskin until you've caught the bear. But even a

blowout victory can't get Democrats the prize they really want, a

Supreme Court majority. So, in back-to-the-future fashion, many

progressives are pushing the idea of court packing. After all, in politics,

rules are made to be broken.

Against Creativity, Brian L. Frye

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

According to the Supreme Court, copyright requires both independent creation and creativity. The independent creation requirement provides that copyright cannot protect an element of a work of authorship that is copied from a previously existing work. But scholars disagree about the meaning of and justification for the creativity requirement.

The creativity requirement should be abandoned because it is irrelevant to the scope of copyrightable subject matter and distorts copyright doctrine by encouraging inefficient “creativity rhetoric.” The purpose of copyright is to encourage the production of economically valuable works of authorship, not creativity.

Proving Disparate Impact In Fair Housing Cases After Inclusive Communities, Robert G. Schwemm, Calvin Bradford

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Disparate-impact claims under the federal Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) are now a well-established part of housing discrimination law, having been recognized for decades by the lower courts and recently endorsed by the Supreme Court in Texas Department of Housing & Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. The Court in Inclusive Communities saw the impact theory as a way of bolstering the FHA’s “role in moving the Nation toward a more integrated society,” but it also set forth certain “cautionary standards” to guard against “abusive” impact claims. Under these standards, which are similar to those adopted in a 2013 HUD …

Brief Of Amici Curiae Professors Joshua A. Douglas And Michael E. Solimine, Election Law Scholars, In Support Of Petitioners, Joshua A. Douglas, Michael E. Solimine

Law Faculty Advocacy

Professor Joshua A. Douglas and Professor Michael E. Solimine are election law experts who have a particular interest in the procedural aspects of election litigation. Professors Douglas and Solimine are filing this brief because they have a keen interest in ensuring that the federal courts employ the proper procedure in election law cases, as doing so helps to resolve these disputes in a manner that best comports with the unique aspects of the electoral system. This brief explains why district courts should not use the pleading standard from Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) and Ashcroft …

Eldred & The New Rationality, Brian L. Frye

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Historically, the rational basis test has been a constitutional rubber stamp. In Eldred v. Ashcroft and Golan v. Holder, the Supreme Court applied the rational basis test and respectively held that Congress could extend the copyright term of existing works and restore copyright protection of public domain works, despite evidence that Congress intended to benefit copyright owners at the expense of the public. But in Lawrence v. Texas and United States v. Windsor, the Supreme Court seems to have applied the rational basis test and held that state and federal laws were unconstitutional because they were motivated by …

Means And Ends In City Of Arlington V. Fcc: Ignoring The Lawyer's Craft To Reshape The Scope Of Chevron Deference, Michael P. Healy

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

In last year's term, the United States Supreme Court considered the question of the scope of Chevron deference in City of Arlington v. FCC. This article discusses how the decision is an example of the work of an activist Court. The case should have been resolved by a straightforward determination under the analysis of United States v. Mead that Chevron deference simply did not apply to the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) legal determination. The Court ignored this restrained approach to the case and instead addressed the question the Justices desired to decide: the reach of Chevron deference. The article …

The Most Scholarly Justices, Brian L. Frye

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Supreme Court justices both use and produce legal scholarship. This article identifies the ten most scholarly justices, based on both productivity and impact.

(Mis)Trusting States To Run Election, Joshua A. Douglas

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

This Article critically examines recent Supreme Court election law jurisprudence, with a particular eye toward cases involving state election administration—a hotbed of litigation at the Court in recent years. Election administration entails the rules of operating an election and encompasses laws such as voter identification requirements, regulation of primaries, and other "nuts-and-bolts" aspects of the voting process. The Article focuses primarily on the last decade, mainly because that is when states have increasingly enacted stricter election regulations, supposedly in the name of "election integrity," but more likely to gain partisan advantage for the ruling party. In addition, during the first …

Brief Of Law Professors As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioner, Scott R. Bauries, Sheldon H. Nahmod, Paul M. Secunda, Joshua D. Branson

Law Faculty Advocacy

Amici curiae respectfully submit this brief in support of Petitioner, Edward Lane, encouraging the reversal of the judgment of the Eleventh Circuit, because the judgment below is inconsistent with both the Court’s general historical approach to public employee speech and the specific approach to such speech that the Court adopted in Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006).

Amici are law professors who teach and write about the constitutional rights of public employees and have published a number of scholarly articles on these topics. Amici have no financial stake in the outcome of this case, and in this brief …

Procedural Predictability And The Employer As Litigator: The Supreme Court’S 2012-2013 Term, Scott R. Bauries

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

In this contribution to the University of Louisville Law Review’s Annual Carl A. Warns Labor and Employment Institute issue, I examine the Supreme Court’s labor and employment-related decisions from the October Term 2012 (OT 2012). I argue that the Court’s decisions assisted employers as litigators—as repeat players in the employment dispute resolution system—in two ways. First, the Court established simple contract drafting strategies that employers may use to limit their exposure to employment claims. Second, the Court adopted bright-line interpretations of employment statutes. Both forms of assistance served a formalist interest in what I term “procedural predictability”—enhanced employer predictability and …

Keeping Up With New Legal Titles, Tina M. Brooks

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

In this book review, Tina M. Brooks discusses The Puzzle of Unanimity: Consensus on the United States Supreme Court by Pamela C. Corley, Amy Steigerwalt, and Artemus Ward.

The Right To Vote Under State Constitutions, Joshua A. Douglas

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

This Article provides the first comprehensive look at state constitutional provisions explicitly granting the right to vote. We hear that the right to vote is "fundamental," the "essence of a democratic society," and "preservative of all rights." But courts and scholars are still searching for a solution to the puzzle of how best to protect voting rights, especially because the U.S. Supreme Court has underenforced the right to vote. The answer, however, is right in front of us: state constitutions. Virtually every state constitution includes direct, explicit language granting the right to vote, as contrasted with the U.S. Constitution, which …

Election Law Pleading, Joshua A. Douglas

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

This Article explores how the Supreme Court’s recent pleading decisions in Twombly and Iqbal have impacted election litigation. It explains how Twombly and Iqbal’s “factual plausibility” standard usually does not help in an election case, because there is often little factual dispute regarding the operation of the election practice. Instead, the real question in a motion to dismiss is whether the plaintiff has stated a viable cause of action against the government defendant who is administering the election. But Twombly and Iqbal’s rule does not assist in answering this question. That is, Twombly and Iqbal are incongruent with …

Justice John Marshall Harlan: Professor Of Law, Brian L. Frye, Josh Blackman, Michael Mccloskey

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

From 1889 to 1910, while serving on the United States Supreme Court, the first Justice John Marshall Harlan taught at the Columbian College of Law, which became the George Washington University School of Law. For two decades, he primarily taught working-class evening students in classes as diverse as property, torts, conflicts of law, jurisprudence, domestic relations, commercial law, evidence-and most significantly-constitutional law.

Harlan's lectures on constitutional law would have been lost to history, but for the enterprising initiative-and remarkable note-taking-of one of Harlan's students, George Johannes. During the 1897-98 academic year, George Johannes and a classmate transcribed verbatim the twenty-seven …

Justice John Marshall Harlan: Lectures On Constitutional Law, 1897-98, Brian L. Frye, Josh Blackman, Michael Mccloskey

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

From 1889 to 1910, while serving on the United States Supreme Court, the first Justice John Marshall Harlan taught at the Columbian College of Law, which later became The George Washington School of Law. During the 1897–1898 academic year, one of Harlan’s students, George Johannes, along with a classmate, transcribed verbatim the twenty-seven lectures Justice Harlan delivered on constitutional law. In 1955, Johannes sent his copy of the transcripts to the second Justice Harlan, who eventually deposited them in the Library of Congress.

To create this annotated transcript of Justice Harlan’s lectures, Professor Frye purchased a microfilm copy of Johannes’s …

Plunging Into Endless Difficulties: Medicaid And Coercion In National Federation Of Independent Business V. Sebelius, Nicole Huberfeld, Elizabeth Weeks Leonard, Kevin Outterson

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Until the 2011 Term, no Supreme Court decision since the New Deal had struck down an act of Congress as exceeding the federal spending power. The question of unconstitutionally coercive conditions was also novel. Indeed, no federal court had ever found any legislation to be an unconstitutionally coercive exercise of the spending power until the Court decided National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (NFIB) on June 28, 2012. This Article proceeds as follows: Part I discusses the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion in the context of the history and purpose of the Medicaid Act, paying particular attention to facts …

The Supreme Court And The Ppl Montana Case: Examining The Relationship Between Navigability And State Ownership Of Submerged Lands, Richard C. Ausness

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

The United States Supreme Court held in PPL Montana v. Montana held that the State of Montana did not own the beds beneath certain rivers and, therefore, rejected the State's claim that the power company owed it millions of dollars in "back rent" for the use of the riverbeds as sites for ten of its hydroelectric power plants. The Montana Supreme Court, which had ruled in favor of the State, declared that even if portions of a river were not navigable for commercial purposes because of physical conditions, the entire river would be treated as navigable if commercial traffic could …

The Dialectic Of Obscenity, Brian L. Frye

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Until the 1960s, pornography was obscene, and obscenity prosecutions were relatively common. And until the 1970s, obscenity prosecutions targeted art, as well as pornography. But today, obscenity prosecutions are rare and limited to the most extreme forms of pornography.

So why did obscenity largely disappear? The conventional history of obscenity is doctrinal, holding that the Supreme Court’s redefinition of obscenity in order to protect art inevitably required the protection of pornography as well. In other words, art and literature were the vanguard of pornography.

But the conventional history of obscenity is incomplete. While it accounts for the development of obscenity …

Post-Reform Medicaid Before The Court: Discordant Advocacy Reflects Conflicting Attitudes, Nicole Huberfeld

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

The United States Supreme Court heard two Medicaid cases this term that raise major questions about the program and the tensions it creates between the federal and state governments. On October 3, 2011, the Court heard oral arguments in Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California, a dispute between California and its Medicaid providers regarding reimbursement cuts resulting from California's budget crisis. The Medicaid providers argued that the proposed cuts are so extreme as to violate federal law and thus the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. Their contention hinged on the Equal Access Provision of the Medicaid …

Conditional Spending And Compulsory Maternity, Nicole Huberfeld

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

More than forty-six million Americans are uninsured, and many more are seeking government assistance, which makes congressional spending for federal programs a significant issue. Federal funding often comes with prerequisites in the form of statutory conditions. This Article examines the impact that conditions placed on federal healthcare spending have on the individuals who rely on that spending by exploring the ongoing disconnect between Spending Clause jurisprudence and women's reproductive rights. The first Part reviews the foundational Supreme Court precedents and places them in context from both a statutory and theoretical perspective. The second Part studies what the author denominates "pure …

The Impact Of Wyeth V. Levine On Fda Regulation Of Prescription Drugs, Richard C. Ausness

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

On March 4, 2009, the United States Supreme Court decided Wyeth v. Levine. In that case, the Court concluded that the plaintiff's failure to warn claim against the makers of the drug Phenergan was not impliedly preempted by the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). In doing so, the Court rejected the argument of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that tort claims of this nature stand as an obstacle to federal regulatory objectives. This article evaluates the Court's opinion in Wyeth and examines that decision's impact on subsequent litigation in the area of prescription drug labeling. In …

Nihilism With A Happy Ending? The Interstate Commerce Commission And The Emergence Of The Post-Enlightenment Paradigm, Mark F. Kightlinger

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

This Article examines early Supreme Court opinions about the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC)—the first federal administrative agency—in an effort to identify the intellectual roots of the modern administrative state. The Article argues that the Court's effort to explain and justify the function of the newborn ICC shows the traces of a post-Enlightenment crisis in the field of moral philosophy—i.e., the growing conviction that it is no longer possible for reasonable people to agree on what constitutes a true, objective, universally valid standard of reasonable or just conduct. From this essentially nihilistic starting point, the Court helped to fashion a new …

The Peculiar Story Of United States V. Miller, Brian L. Frye

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

On April 18, 1938, the Arkansas and Oklahoma state police stopped Jack Miller and Frank Layton, two washed-up Oklahoma bank robbers. Miller and Layton had an unregistered sawed-off shotgun, so the police arrested them for violating the National Firearms Act (“NFA”). Surprisingly, the district court dismissed the charges, holding the NFA violates the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court reversed in United States v. Miller, holding the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to keep and bear a sawed-off shotgun as a matter of law.

Seventy years later, Miller remains the only Supreme Court opinion construing the Second Amendment. …

Eliminating The Exception? Lawrence V. Texas And The Arguments For Extending The Right To Marry To Same-Sex Couples, Tyler S. Whitty

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Supreme Court's Mixed Messages On The Public Domain: Cases Interpreting Section 43 Of The Lanham Act, William Scott Hunt

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

For The Rest Of Their Lives: Seniors And The Fair Housing Act, Robert G. Schwemm, Michael Allen

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

America's population is growing older. According to the 2000 census, more than 35 million people in the United States (12% of the total population) are over 65 years old. These figures are expected to grow dramatically in the early decades of the twenty-first century as the "Baby Boom" generation reaches retirement age and as improvements in health care make it possible for more people to live to an advanced age.

Providing housing for this segment of the American population is already a massive industry and one that will certainly grow as the number of, older persons increases. One of the …

Preemption Of State Tort Law By Federal Safety Statutes: Supreme Court Preemption Jurisprudence Since Cipollone, Richard C. Ausness

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

This article shall attempt to trace the twists and turns of Supreme Court preemption jurisprudence. Part I provides a brief overview of federal preemption law, considering the constitutional sources of preemption and the traditional preemption categories. Part II analyzes Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., the source of modem Supreme Court doctrine regarding preemption of state tort law by federal safety legislation. Part III reviews seven post-Cipollone Supreme Court preemption cases: CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Easterwood, Freightliner Corp. v. Myrick, Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Shanklin, Geier v. American Honda Motor …

On Preemption, Congressional Intent, And Conflict Of Laws, Mary J. Davis

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Conflicts scholars and jurists for centuries have sought an answer to the question of "what law controls?" by balancing a number of considerations. Chief among those considerations are the legitimate political and policy concerns of conflicting sovereigns. This article analyzes the Supreme Court's recent preemption decisions with an understanding of these theories and their underlying considerations. That analysis reveals that the Court's recent preemption decisions incorporate two modem conflict of laws theories: Governmental Interest Analysis and its corollary, Comparative Impairment. Each of these theories builds on the notion that a choice of law analysis should be motivated by selecting the …

Affirmative Action In The Workplace: The Significance Of Grutter?, Rebecca Hanner White

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Federalism And The Federal Prosecution Of State And Local Corruption, Peter J. Henning

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.