Law Commons^™

The Second Dimension Of The Supreme Court, Joshua B. Fischman, Tonja Jacobi

Tonja Jacobi

Describing the justices of the Supreme Court as ‘liberals’ and ‘conservatives’ has become so standard—and the left-right division on the Court is considered so entrenched—that any deviation from that pattern is treated with surprise. Attentive Court watchers know that the justices are not just politicians in robes, deciding each case on a purely ideological basis. Yet the increasingly influential empirical legal studies literature assumes just that—that a left-right ideological dimension fully describes the Supreme Court. We show that there is a second, more legally-focused dimension of judicial decision-making. A continuum between legalism and pragmatism also divides the justices, in ways …

Recognizing The Limits Of Antitrust: The Roberts Court Versus The Enforcement Agencies, Thomas A. Lambert, Alden F. Abbott

Thomas A. Lambert

As Judge Frank Easterbrook famously explained three decades ago, antitrust is an inherently limited body of law. In crafting and enforcing liability rules to combat market power and encourage competition, courts and regulators may err in two directions: they may wrongly forbid output-enhancing behavior or wrongly fail to condemn output-reducing conduct. The social losses from false convictions and false acquittals, taken together, comprise antitrust’s “error costs.” While it may be possible to reduce error costs by making liability rules more nuanced, added complexity raises the “decision costs” incurred by business planners (ex ante) and adjudicators (ex post …

In Defense Of Disparate Impact: An Opportunity To Realize The Promise Of The Fair Housing Act, Valerie Schneider

Valerie Schneider

Abstract:

Twice in the past three years, the Supreme Court has granted certiorari in Fair Housing cases, and, each time, under pressure from civil rights leaders who feared that the Supreme Court might narrow current Fair Housing Act jurisprudence, the cases settled just weeks before oral argument. Settlements after the Supreme Court grants certiorari are extremely rare, and, in these cases, the settlements reflect a substantial fear among civil rights advocates that the Supreme Court’s recent decisions in cases such as Shelby County v. Holder and Fisher v. University of Texas are working to dismantle many of the protections of …

Activism, Attitudes, And The Citation Of Precedent In Supreme Court Opinions, Robert R. Robinson

Robert R Robinson

Adherence to precedent provides a legitimizing function for judges. Recent scholarship supports this contention, demonstrating that Supreme Court justices are more likely to cite well-grounded precedent when their opinions face greater scrutiny. In this paper, I continue this line of research by examining whether citation practice varies along individual-level characteristics such as judicial ideology, a propensity for activism, judicial background, and judicial roles. I find that most individual-level factors have little or no impact on how justices ground their opinions in prior precedent, with the exception of judicial activism, which has a moderate negative impact on the centrality of the …

Can The Supreme Court Be Fixed? Lessons From Judicial Activism In First Amendment And Sherman Act Jurisprudence, Warren S. Grimes

Warren S Grimes

The Supreme Court has become an unelected superlegislature that, instead of narrowly deciding cases or controversies, tends to issue sweeping policy decisions that deprive democratic institutions at federal, state and local levels of their appropriate democratic role. Part I of this paper describes content-neutral measures of judicial activism, most repeatedly acknowledged by the Court. Part II addresses specific examples of judicial activism in Supreme Court decisions involving the Sherman Act and First Amendment election law cases. Part III concludes by urging a public debate on possible reforms of the Court, some easily implemented, others more involved, that could constrain judicial …

Can The Supreme Court Be Fixed? Lessons From Judicial Activism In First Amendment And Sherman Act Cases, Warren S. Grimes

Warren S Grimes

The Court has strayed from its role as a decider of cases or controversies to become an unelected policy board that undermines democratic institutions at the federal, state, and local levels. Part I of this paper describes content-neutral measures of judicial activism, most repeatedly acknowledged by the Court. Part II addresses specific examples of judicial activism in Supreme Court decisions involving the Sherman Act and First Amendment election law cases. Part III concludes by urging a public debate on possible reforms of the Court, some easily implemented, others more involved, that could constrain judicial activism and restore the Court’s primary …

Of “Just Systems” And Lotteries: Thoughts And Reflections On Maples V. Thomas, Ryan K. Melcher

Ryan K Melcher

In 2012, the Supreme Court handed down its seven-to-two ruling in the case of Maples v. Thomas, a sad tale of attorney-ethics disasters and a seemingly broken (assuming it ever worked) Alabama criminal-justice system. Although the Court held that the “extraordinary” facts of the case warranted excusing Maples’s procedural default in his federal habeas corpus petition (namely, his failure to file a petition in time), it did not make entirely clear whether this was a one-time-only deal or a “template” (as dissenting Justice Scalia asserted) for future petitioners seeking relief based on similar falters of their post-conviction-level attorneys. This Article …

The Pro-Employee Bent Of The Roberts Court, Lisa D. Taylor

Lisa D Taylor

A surprising yet readily discernible trend is emerging from recent United States Supreme Court decisions – a trend favoring the rights of individual employees in cases requiring interpretation of federal employment statutes. Though marquee employment-context cases like Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes may be touted as exemplifying the pro-business tendencies of the Roberts Court, a closer and more comprehensive look suggests that the Court does not favor business interests at all, at least in the workplace. Indeed, the relative dark-horses of the Court’s last Term suggest the opposite – all three of the Court’s most recent decisions interpreting federal employment …

The Extension Clause And The Supreme Court's Jurisdictional Independence, Alex Glashausser

Alex Glashausser

This Article challenges the prevailing doctrinal, political, and academic view that the Extension Clause—which provides that “[t]he judicial Power shall extend” to nine types of cases and controversies—justifies legislative attempts to strip the Supreme Court of appellate jurisdiction. Legislators have repeatedly introduced bills seeking to prevent the Court from hearing cases on politically charged topics such as marriage, religion, and abortion. Scholars have relied on the Extension Clause to advance three arguments in support of such jurisdiction-stripping: (1) that “judicial Power” is not jurisdiction, and thus jurisdiction is not constitutionally protected; (2) that “shall” is not mandatory, and thus the …

Cooperation And Division: An Empirical Analysis Of Voting Similarities And Differences During The Stable Rehnquist Court Era—1994 To 200, Mark S. Klock

Mark S Klock

The Stable Rehnquist Court Era (SRCE) covers the period from the appointment of Justice Breyer to the passing of Chief Justice Rehnquist. There has been only one longer period of stability in the Court’s history, and that was in the early nineteenth century when far fewer cases were decided. Thus the SRCE presents a unique opportunity with a large number of observations to conduct statistical analysis of the Justices’ votes while the composition of the Court is held constant. I present a statistical empirical analysis of voting for this period both for the potentially interesting results that can be learned, …

Conflict In The Court? Supreme Court Recusal From Marbury To The Modern Day, James Sample

James Sample

For justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, controversies pitting personal conflicts ¬¬— whether actual or merely alleged — against the constitutional commitment to the rule of law increasingly form the basis of a caustic and circular national dialogue that generates substantially more heat than light. While the profile of these controversies is undoubtedly waxing, the underlying tensions stretch back at least to Marbury v. Madison. For all its seminal import, in Marbury, Chief Justice John Marshall adjudicated a case involving, inter alia, the validity of judicial commissions Marshall had himself signed and sealed while serving simultaneously as the outgoing Secretary …

Mr. Justice Horace Gray: Judicial Philosophy And Supreme Court Jurisprudence, Nick John Peter Meros

Nick John Peter Meros

The vast majority of contemporary biographic paradigms of Supreme Court Justice Horace Gray classify him as a ``nationalist,'' or ardent supporter of the federal government's interest and sovereignty over state and local governments. Legal historians and scholars cite decisions and opinions in which he promoted ``substantial and effective national government power'' over interstate commerce and upheld state government’s police powers as evidence for his ``nationalism.''

My research, however, reveals that Justice Gray repeatedly ruled against the federal government and for state and local interests. Moreover, Gray's opinions in favor of the federal government highlighted not its superiority over state and …

Arbitration Agreements Used By Nursing Homes: An Empirical Study And Critique Of At&T Mobility V. Concepcion, Lisa Tripp

Lisa Tripp

Although the health care industry had historically been one of the fields that had not embraced pre-dispute binding arbitration agreements, that reluctance appears to be changing in at least one sector of the health care field. An examination of admission contracts used by North Carolina nursing homes and telephone survey of North Carolina nursing homes revealed that 43 percent of nursing homes now incorporate pre-dispute binding arbitration provisions into their admission contracts. All of the major nursing home chains operating in North Carolina use pre-dispute binding arbitration agreements in at least some of their facilities, while smaller operators use them …

Fantasyscotus: Crowdsourcing A Prediction Market For The Supreme Court, Josh Blackman, Adam Aft, Corey Carpenter

Josh Blackman

Every year the Supreme Court of the United States captivates the minds and curiosity of millions of Americans - yet the inner-workings of the Court are not fully transparent. The Court, without explanation, only decides the cases it wishes. They deliberate and assign authorship in private. The Justices hear oral arguments, and without notice, issue an opinion months later. They sometimes offer enigmatic clues during oral arguments through their questions. Between arguments and the day the Court issues an opinion, the outcome of a case is essentially a mystery. Sometimes the outcome falls along predictable lines; other times the outcome …

Justice Stevens, Religion, And Civil Society, Gregory P. Magarian

Gregory P. Magarian

Did Justice John Paul Stevens, who retired from the Supreme Court last year, harbor a bias against religion? During his 35 years on the Court, Justice Stevens showed little favor for religious claimants. In Establishment Clause cases he advocated a strong doctrine of separation between church and state. In the most contentious Free Exercise Clause cases, he flatly opposed exempting religious believers from laws that interfered with their religious exercise. This combination of positions, unique among the Justices of the Burger, Rehnquist, and Roberts Courts, has led commentators to charge Justice Stevens with disdain for religion. In this article, Professor …