Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Constitutional Law (33)
- Courts (28)
- Judges (20)
- First Amendment (15)
- Supreme Court of the United States (14)
-
- Law and Politics (12)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (11)
- Legislation (10)
- Fourteenth Amendment (7)
- Law and Society (7)
- President/Executive Department (7)
- Taxation-Federal (7)
- Administrative Law (6)
- Criminal Procedure (6)
- Health Law and Policy (6)
- Legal History (6)
- State and Local Government Law (6)
- Juvenile Law (5)
- Law and Gender (5)
- Litigation (5)
- Business Organizations Law (4)
- Criminal Law (4)
- Medical Jurisprudence (4)
- Securities Law (4)
- Law Enforcement and Corrections (3)
- Law and Economics (3)
- Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility (3)
- Religion Law (3)
- Second Amendment (3)
- Publication Year
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 30 of 68
Full-Text Articles in Law
Quit Using Acquittals: The Unconstitutionality And Immorality Of Acquitted-Conduct Sentencing, Brenna Nouray
Quit Using Acquittals: The Unconstitutionality And Immorality Of Acquitted-Conduct Sentencing, Brenna Nouray
Pepperdine Law Review
This Comment examines the phenomenon of acquitted-conduct sentencing—a practice that allows a sentencing judge to enhance a criminal defendant’s sentence due to conduct for which he has already been acquitted. Seventeen-year-old Dayonta McClinton is one of many criminal defendants who have unjustly suffered at the hands of this practice when he received a thirteen-year enhancement because of conduct for which he already received a verdict of not guilty from a jury. This Comment argues that acquitted-conduct sentencing is unconstitutional, as it violates both the reasonable doubt standard required under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the jury …
The Word Is "Humility": Why The Supreme Court Needed To Adopt A Code Of Judicial Ethics, Laurie L. Levenson
The Word Is "Humility": Why The Supreme Court Needed To Adopt A Code Of Judicial Ethics, Laurie L. Levenson
Pepperdine Law Review
The Supreme Court is one of our most precious institutions. However, for the last few years, American confidence in the Court has dropped to a new low. Less than 40% of Americans have confidence in the Court and its decisions. Recent revelations regarding luxury trips, gifts, and exclusive access for certain individuals to the Justices have raised questions about whether the Justices understand their basic ethical duties and can act in a fair and impartial manner. As commentators have noted, the Supreme Court stood as the only court in America that was not governed by an ethical code. The question …
Partisanship "All The Way Down" On The U.S. Supreme Court, Lee Epstein
Partisanship "All The Way Down" On The U.S. Supreme Court, Lee Epstein
Pepperdine Law Review
Just as the American public is politically polarized, so too is the U.S. Supreme Court. More than ever before, a clear alignment exists between the Justices’ partisanship and their ideological leanings (known as “partisan sorting”). Disapproval of opposing-party identifiers also appears to have intensified (“partisan antipathy”). This Article offers evidence of both forms of polarization. It shows that partisan sorting has resulted in wide gaps in voting between Republican and Democratic appointees; and it supplies data on “us-against-them” judging in the form of increasing antipathy toward opposite-partisan presidents. Taken collectively, the data point not to law “all the way down,” …
The Supreme Court, Article Iii, And Jurisdiction Stuffing, James E. Pfander
The Supreme Court, Article Iii, And Jurisdiction Stuffing, James E. Pfander
Pepperdine Law Review
Reflecting on the state of the federal judiciary in the aftermath of the Biden Commission report and subsequent controversies, this Article identifies problems with the current operation of both the Supreme Court and the lower courts that make up the Article III judicial pyramid. Many federal issues have been assigned to non-Article III tribunals, courts poorly structured to offer the independent legal assessment that such Founders as James Wilson prized as they structured the federal judiciary. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court devotes growing attention to a slice of highly salient public law questions, including those presented on the shadow docket, thereby …
Using Bruen To Overturn New York Times V. Sullivan, Michael L. Smith, Alexander S. Hiland
Using Bruen To Overturn New York Times V. Sullivan, Michael L. Smith, Alexander S. Hiland
Pepperdine Law Review
While New York Times Co. v. Sullivan is a foundational, well-regarded First Amendment case, Justice Clarence Thomas has repeatedly called on the Court to revisit it. Sullivan, Thomas claims, is policy masquerading as constitutional law, and it makes almost no effort to ground itself in the original meaning of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Thomas argues that at the time of the founding, libelous statements were routinely subject to criminal prosecution—including libel of public figures and public officials. This Essay connects Justice Thomas’s calls to revisit Sullivan to his recent opinion for the Court in New York State Rifle & …
A 180 On Section 230: State Efforts To Erode Social Media Immunity, Leslie Y. Garfield Tenzer, Hayley Margulis
A 180 On Section 230: State Efforts To Erode Social Media Immunity, Leslie Y. Garfield Tenzer, Hayley Margulis
Pepperdine Law Review
The turmoil of the 2020 presidential election renewed controversy surrounding 47 U.S.C § 230. The law, adopted as part of the 1996 Communications Decency Act (CDA), shields Interactive Computer Services (ICS) from civil liability for third-party material posted on their Platforms—no matter how heinous and regardless of whether the material enjoys constitutional protection. Consequently, any ICS, which is broadly defined to include Internet service providers (ISPs) and social media platforms (Platforms), can police its own postings but remains free from government intervention or retribution. In 2022, members of the Texas and Florida legislatures passed laws aiming to limit the scope …
Second Amendment Sanctuaries: Defiance, Discretion, And Race, Nicholas J. Johnson
Second Amendment Sanctuaries: Defiance, Discretion, And Race, Nicholas J. Johnson
Pepperdine Law Review
Second Amendment Sanctuaries deploy nonenforcement policies and strategies in defiance of firearms laws of superior jurisdictions. The scholarship so far has focused on whether Second Amendment Sanctuary policies are legally enforceable. This Article advances the scholarship beyond questions of de jure validity by examining the potential for practical, de facto efficacy of Second Amendment Sanctuary policies. This Article concludes that even where Second Amendment Sanctuaries have weak claims to formal validity, defiant public officials still have broad opportunities to implement Second Amendment Sanctuary policies through the exercise of enforcement discretion. The conclusion that enforcement discretion can effectuate sanctuary policies is …
The Faux Pas Of Automatic Stay Under The Indian Arbitration Act, 1996 - The Hcc Dictum, Two-Cherry Doctrine, And Beyond, Sai Ramani Garimella, Gautam Mohanty
The Faux Pas Of Automatic Stay Under The Indian Arbitration Act, 1996 - The Hcc Dictum, Two-Cherry Doctrine, And Beyond, Sai Ramani Garimella, Gautam Mohanty
Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal
In the matter of Hindustan Construction. Co. v. Union of India, the Honorable Supreme Court of India (“SCI”) was presented with an opportunity to adjudicate upon a petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 87 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 (“1996 Act”) as inserted by Section 13 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act of 2019 (“2019 Act"). The legislative insertion stated that amendments made to the 1996 Act by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 2015 (“2015 Act”) would not apply to court proceedings arising out of, or in relation to, arbitral proceedings initiated before the …
The First Amendment And Data Privacy: Securing Data Privacy Laws That Withstand Constitutional Muster, Kathryn Peyton
The First Amendment And Data Privacy: Securing Data Privacy Laws That Withstand Constitutional Muster, Kathryn Peyton
Pepperdine Law Review
Given the growing ubiquity of digital technology’s presence in people’s lives today, it is becoming increasingly more necessary to secure data privacy protections. People interact with technology constantly, ranging from when engaging in business activates, such as corresponding through emails or doing research online, to more innocuous activities like driving, shopping, or talking with friends and family. The advances in technology have made possible the creation of digital trails whenever someone interacts with such technology. Companies aggregate data from data trails and use predictive analytics to create detailed profiles about citizen-consumers. This information is typically used for profit generating purposes. …
Court Expansion And The Restoration Of Democracy: The Case For Constitutional Hardball, Aaron Belkin
Court Expansion And The Restoration Of Democracy: The Case For Constitutional Hardball, Aaron Belkin
Pepperdine Law Review
Neither electoral politics, norms preservation, nor modest good government reform can restore the political system because they cannot mitigate the primary threat to the American democracy, Republican radicalism. Those who believe otherwise fail to appreciate how and why radicalism will continue to impede democratic restoration regardless of what happens at the ballot box, misdiagnose the underlying factors that produce and sustain GOP radicalism, and under-estimate the degree of democratic deterioration that has already taken place. Republicans do not need to prevail in every election to forestall the restoration of democracy or to prevent Democrats from governing. The only viable path …
A Call For America's Law Professors To Oppose Court-Packing, Bruce Ledewitz
A Call For America's Law Professors To Oppose Court-Packing, Bruce Ledewitz
Pepperdine Law Review
A Court-packing proposal is imminent. Mainstream Democratic Party Presidential Candidates are already supporting it. The number of Justices on the Supreme Court has been set at nine since 1869, but this is merely a statutory requirement. As soon as Democrats regain control of the Presidency and the Congress, Court-packing will be on the agenda, either expressly or under the guise of Court-reform. Now is the time for the American legal academy to join together to oppose this threat. Court-packing would threaten democracy, destroy the rule of law and undermine judicial independence. It is a pointless and unnecessary reaction born of …
Testing The First Amendment Validity Of Laws Banning Sexual Orientation Change Efforts On Minors: What Level Of Scrutiny Applies After Becerra And Does A Proportionality Approach Provide A Solution?, Clay Calvert
Pepperdine Law Review
This Article examines the standard of scrutiny courts should apply when testing the validity of laws banning speech-based sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) against First Amendment challenges. Justice Clarence Thomas’s 2018 opinion for a five-justice conservative majority of the United States Supreme Court in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra casts considerable doubt on whether a level of inquiry less stringent than strict scrutiny applies. The article analyzes how lower courts after Becerra that have reviewed anti-SOCE laws disagree on the issue. And yet, as the Article explains, the Supreme Court refuses to clarify the muddle. First, …
The Locke Exception: What Trinity Lutheran Means For The Future Of State Blaine Amendments, Christopher Tyler Prosser
The Locke Exception: What Trinity Lutheran Means For The Future Of State Blaine Amendments, Christopher Tyler Prosser
Pepperdine Law Review
At its core, this Article is about whether states have the discretion to discriminate against religious organizations by excluding them from generally available secular government aid programs. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2004 decision in Locke v. Davey, the federal courts have developed conflicting interpretations of whether the Court’s holding in Locke permits states to exclude religious organizations from generally available secular aid programs. However, the Court’s 2017 decision in Trinity Lutheran v. Comer has cast doubt on the ability of states to exclude religious organizations from such programs and seemingly restricts the Court’s prior decision in Locke …
The Business Of Guns: The Second Amendment & Firearms Commerce, Corey A. Ciocchetti
The Business Of Guns: The Second Amendment & Firearms Commerce, Corey A. Ciocchetti
Pepperdine Law Review
Does the Second Amendment protect commerce in firearms? The simple answer is: yes, to an extent. An individual’s right to possess and use a gun for self-defense in the home is black-letter law after District of Columbia v. Heller. The right to possess and use a gun requires the ability to obtain a gun, ammunition, and firearms training. Therefore, gun dealers, servicers, and training providers receive some constitutional protection as facilitators of their customers’ Second Amendment rights. Whether these constitutional rights belong to firearms-related businesses independently of their customers is unclear. The scope of the Second Amendment matters as recent, …
Sg’S Brief In Lucia Could Portend The End Of The Alj Program As We Have Known It, Jeffrey S. Lubbers
Sg’S Brief In Lucia Could Portend The End Of The Alj Program As We Have Known It, Jeffrey S. Lubbers
Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary
No abstract provided.
Hearing The States, Anthony Johnstone
Hearing The States, Anthony Johnstone
Pepperdine Law Review
The 2016 Presidential and Senate elections raise the possibility that a conservative, life-tenured Supreme Court will preside for years over a politically dynamic majority. This threatens to weaken the public’s already fragile confidence in the Court. By lowering the political stakes of both national elections and its own decisions, federalism may enable the Court to defuse some of the most explosive controversies it hears. Federalism offers a second-best solution, even if neither conservatives nor liberals can impose a national political agenda. However, principled federalism arguments are tricky. They are structural, more prudential than legal or empirical. Regardless of ideology, a …
Eight Justices Are Enough: A Proposal To Improve The United States Supreme Court, Eric J. Segall
Eight Justices Are Enough: A Proposal To Improve The United States Supreme Court, Eric J. Segall
Pepperdine Law Review
Over the last twenty-five years, some of the most significant Supreme Court decisions involving issues of national significance like abortion, affirmative action, and voting rights were five-to-four decisions. In February 2016, the death of Justice Antonin Scalia turned the nine-Justice court into an eight-Justice court, comprised of four liberal and four conservative Justices, for the first time in our nation’s history. This article proposes that an evenly divided court consisting of eight Justices is the ideal Supreme Court composition. Although the other two branches of government have evolved over the years, the Supreme Court has undergone virtually no significant changes. …
Justice As Fair Division, Ian Bartrum, Kathryn Nyman, Peter Otto
Justice As Fair Division, Ian Bartrum, Kathryn Nyman, Peter Otto
Pepperdine Law Review
The current hyperpoliticization of the Court grows out of a feedback loop between politicized appointments and politicized decision-making. This Article suggests a change in the internal procedures by which the Court hears and decides particular cases. A three-Justice panel hears and decides each case. Appeal to an en banc sitting of the entire Court would require a unanimous vote of all non-recused Justices. This Article explores several possible approaches in selecting the three-Justice panel. This Article proposes that applying a fair division scheme to the Court’s decision-making process might act to reverse this loop and work to depoliticize the Court …
How The Prohibition On "Under-Ruling" Distorts The Judicial Function (And What To Do About It), A. Christopher Bryant, Kimberly Breedon
How The Prohibition On "Under-Ruling" Distorts The Judicial Function (And What To Do About It), A. Christopher Bryant, Kimberly Breedon
Pepperdine Law Review
Lower courts face a dilemma when forced to choose between older Supreme Court precedent that directly controls the present legal dispute and an intervening Supreme Court ruling that relies on rationale which erodes or undermines the rationale of the direct precedent. Nearly thirty years ago, the Supreme Court announced a rule requiring lower courts to follow the older precedent and disregard any inconsistency resulting from intervening rulings, effectively barring lower courts from “under-ruling” the older Supreme Court precedent. This prohibition on “under-ruling,” here referred to as the “Agostini Rule,” reflects a departure from the core rule-of-law values requiring similar cases …
The Pirate’S Code: Constitutional Conventions In U.S. Constitutional Law, Mark Tushnet
The Pirate’S Code: Constitutional Conventions In U.S. Constitutional Law, Mark Tushnet
Pepperdine Law Review
A convention is a practice not memorialized in a formal rule but regularly engaged in out of a sense of obligation, where the sense of obligation arises from the view that adhering to the practice serves valuable goals of institutional organization and the public good. Constitutional conventions are important in making it possible for the national government to achieve the goals set out in the Preamble. Over the past twenty years or so, however, such conventions have eroded. This article addresses the role and importance of constitutional conventions in the United States, arguing that conventions’ erosion has been accompanied by …
What Are The Judiciary’S Politics?, Michael W. Mcconnell
What Are The Judiciary’S Politics?, Michael W. Mcconnell
Pepperdine Law Review
What are the politics of the federal judiciary, to the extent that the federal judiciary has politics? Whose interests do federal judges represent? This Essay puts forward five different kinds of politics that characterize the federal judiciary. First, the federal judiciary represents the educated elite. Second, the federal judiciary represents past political majorities. Third, the federal judiciary is more politically balanced than the legislative or executive branches. Fourth, the federal judiciary is organized by regions, and between those regions there is significant diversity. Fifth, to the extent that the judiciary leans one way or the other, it leans toward the …
How Law Employs Historical Narratives: The Great Compromise As An Example, Louis J. Sirico Jr.
How Law Employs Historical Narratives: The Great Compromise As An Example, Louis J. Sirico Jr.
Pepperdine Law Review
Although historians base their interpretations on facts, they often use the same facts to tell a variety of stories. Of the varying stories, which gain acceptance by society and the courts? To explore this question, this Article examines the historiography of the Great Compromise. At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, the deputies debated how to elect members of the House and Senate. Should each state have equal representation or should each state have representation based on its population? The heavily populated states wanted population-based (proportional) representation while the less populated states wanted a one-state-one-vote system. After difficult debates, the Convention, by …
Nothing New Under The Sun: The Law-Politics Dynamic In Supreme Court Decision Making, Stephen M. Feldman
Nothing New Under The Sun: The Law-Politics Dynamic In Supreme Court Decision Making, Stephen M. Feldman
Pepperdine Law Review
Recent events have seemed to inject politics into American judicial institutions. As a result, many observers worry that the Supreme Court, in particular, has become politicized. According to this view, the Justices should decide cases in accordance with the rule of law and be unmoved by political concerns. These worries arise from a mistaken assumption: that law and politics can be separate and independent in the process of judicial decision making. But at the Supreme Court (as well as in the lower courts, for that matter), decision making arises from a law-politics dynamic. Adjudication in accord with a pure rule …
Elonis V. United States: Why The Supreme Court Punted On Free Speech, David Barney
Elonis V. United States: Why The Supreme Court Punted On Free Speech, David Barney
Pepperdine Law Review
In Elonis v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2001 (2015), the Supreme Court had a chance to interpret the boundaries of a federal statute forbidding threats transmitted in interstate or foreign commerce and to consider the constitutional implications of regulating such threats. In its statutory analysis, the Court hesitated to declare how the law should be applied, and instead, only provided guidance as to how it should not be. It likewise refrained from any further analysis on constitutional grounds entirely. This contest winning student case note explores the opinion in depth and comments on its potential implications.
The (Perhaps) Unintended Consequences Of King V. Burwell, Kristin E. Hickman
The (Perhaps) Unintended Consequences Of King V. Burwell, Kristin E. Hickman
Pepperdine Law Review
The Supreme Court’s decision in King v. Burwell surprised many people, not because of its outcome but because, even as the Court ultimately agreed with the IRS’s interpretation of the statute, the Court expressly denied the IRS Chevron deference. As regards that result, this Essay makes three points. First, the Chevron discussion in King was not incidental, but the IRS and taxes were not foremost on the Court’s mind. Rather, King reflects a careful effort by Chief Justice Roberts to accomplish, through alternative framing, a broader curtailment of Chevron’s scope that he advocated unsuccessfully two terms earlier in City of …
Is The Chief Justice A Tax Lawyer?, Stephanie Hoffer, Christopher J. Walker
Is The Chief Justice A Tax Lawyer?, Stephanie Hoffer, Christopher J. Walker
Pepperdine Law Review
In our contribution to this symposium on King v. Burwell, we explore two aspects of the Chief Justice’s opinion where it is hard to ignore the fingerprints of a tax lawyer. First, in the Chief’s approach to statutory interpretation one sees a tax lawyer as interpreter with an approach that tracks tax law’s substance-over-form doctrine. Second, as to King’s sweeping administrative law holding, the Chief crafts a new major questions doctrine that could significantly cut back on federal agency lawmaking authority. Yet he seems to develop this doctrine against the backdrop of tax exceptionalism, and thus this development may have …
The Rise And Fall Of Chevron In Tax: From The Early Days To King And Beyond, Steve R. Johnson
The Rise And Fall Of Chevron In Tax: From The Early Days To King And Beyond, Steve R. Johnson
Pepperdine Law Review
Chevron is receding in tax, not because of any resurgence of tax exceptionalism but because it is receding everywhere. The case will continue to be cited by courts and masticated by commentators, but the unresolved – indeed worsening — conceptual, definitional, and practical incongruities of its doctrine rob it of operational force. King, which the Supreme Court conspicuously chose to resolve without “help” from Chevron, is another mile-marker on Chevron’s downward road. This article maps that road.
King V. Burwell And Tax Court Review Of Regulations, Ellen P. Aprill
King V. Burwell And Tax Court Review Of Regulations, Ellen P. Aprill
Pepperdine Law Review
In King v. Burwell, the Supreme Court did not rely on Chevron to hold valid tax regulations allowing tax credits for taxpayers who enroll in an insurance plan through a federal rather than a state exchange. It instead concluded, relying in good measure on Brown and Williamson, that Congress had not delegated the question at issue to the IRS. It thus introduced a so-called Chevron Step 0. This essay reviews the Tax Court’s use of Chevron and Brown & Williamson to conclude that the Tax Court may well make use of King v. Burwell to review and reject tax regulations …
Foreword—King V. Burwell Symposium: Comments On The Commentaries (And On Some Elephants In The Room), David Gamage
Foreword—King V. Burwell Symposium: Comments On The Commentaries (And On Some Elephants In The Room), David Gamage
Pepperdine Law Review
As an introduction to the Symposium, this invited response essay reviews the pieces submitted for the Pepperdine Law Review symposium on the King v. Burwell case. The thrust of this essay’s response commentary is to praise the submitted essays for their excellence and insightfulness, but to suggest that the submitted essays nonetheless might benefit from focusing more on the role of the political mobilization that resulted in the King v. Burwell dispute. Ultimately, this essay suggests that what may have motivated the Supreme Court to develop and apply its new “deep economic and political significance” test in this this case …
A Proposal For Improving Argument Before The United States Supreme Court, Louis J. Sirico Jr.
A Proposal For Improving Argument Before The United States Supreme Court, Louis J. Sirico Jr.
Pepperdine Law Review
This Article offers a simple solution for reducing the overload of questions at oral argument. Justices, individually or collectively, could pose written questions on facts and law to the litigants' counsel before oral argument and expect written responses. The submitted questions might inquire about the facts of the case, about the litigant's interpretation of the relevant law, about the response that the litigant would make to a hypothetical scenario, or about the precise holding that the litigant wishes the Court to propound. The responses should allow for more thought-out answers than oral argument can produce and might both reduce the …