Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Constitutional Law (688)
- Supreme Court of the United States (431)
- Courts (395)
- Judges (228)
- State and Local Government Law (202)
-
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (172)
- Criminal Procedure (147)
- Criminal Law (146)
- First Amendment (142)
- Jurisprudence (133)
- Fourteenth Amendment (115)
- Law and Society (85)
- Fourth Amendment (80)
- Legislation (75)
- Law and Race (73)
- Legal History (72)
- Law and Politics (64)
- Civil Procedure (63)
- Election Law (63)
- Litigation (56)
- Intellectual Property Law (53)
- Law Enforcement and Corrections (51)
- Civil Law (43)
- Jurisdiction (40)
- Education Law (39)
- Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility (39)
- Labor and Employment Law (36)
- Legal Profession (34)
- President/Executive Department (33)
- Institution
-
- Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center (522)
- Maurer School of Law: Indiana University (183)
- Pepperdine University (67)
- Vanderbilt University Law School (57)
- University of Richmond (53)
-
- Fordham Law School (46)
- New York Law School (38)
- Saint Louis University School of Law (38)
- Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School (31)
- St. Mary's University (28)
- University of Miami Law School (27)
- The University of Akron (26)
- Chicago-Kent College of Law (24)
- American University Washington College of Law (21)
- University of Nevada, Las Vegas -- William S. Boyd School of Law (20)
- Seattle University School of Law (17)
- University of Oklahoma College of Law (17)
- Cleveland State University (16)
- Northwestern Pritzker School of Law (16)
- University of Georgia School of Law (15)
- Brigham Young University (11)
- Northern Illinois University (11)
- University of Arkansas, Fayetteville (11)
- Penn State Dickinson Law (10)
- St. John's University School of Law (10)
- Georgia State University College of Law (7)
- Notre Dame Law School (7)
- University of Baltimore Law (7)
- University of San Diego (7)
- University of South Carolina (7)
- Publication
-
- Touro Law Review (481)
- Indiana Law Journal (176)
- Pepperdine Law Review (65)
- Vanderbilt Law Review (55)
- University of Richmond Law Review (53)
-
- Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity (41)
- NYLS Law Review (37)
- Fordham Law Review (32)
- Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review (30)
- University of Miami Law Review (21)
- Nevada Law Journal (20)
- Saint Louis University Law Journal (20)
- Akron Law Review (17)
- Cleveland State Law Review (16)
- Saint Louis University Public Law Review (16)
- Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property (15)
- St. Mary's Law Journal (15)
- Seattle University Law Review (14)
- American University Law Review (11)
- Arkansas Law Review (11)
- Northern Illinois University Law Review (11)
- The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice (11)
- American Indian Law Review (10)
- Brigham Young University Prelaw Review (10)
- Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present) (10)
- Georgia Law Review (10)
- Northwestern University Law Review (10)
- Chicago-Kent Law Review (9)
- ConLawNOW (9)
- American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law (7)
Articles 1 - 30 of 1492
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 …
Administrative Law Judges And The Erosion Of The Administrative State: Why Jarkesy May Be The Straw That Breaks The Camel's Back, Nicholas D'Addio
Administrative Law Judges And The Erosion Of The Administrative State: Why Jarkesy May Be The Straw That Breaks The Camel's Back, Nicholas D'Addio
Catholic University Law Review
The Trump-era unitary executive movement sought to expand presidential
power and shrink the influence of the administrative state through deregulation.
This movement ripples into the present moment, as Trump’s overhaul of the
federal judiciary installed a comprehensive system to delegitimize
administrative agency action— a system that is certain to endure. The
independence and role of administrative law judges (ALJs) has proven a key
target of the movement. Most recently, in the 2022 case of Jarkesy v. Securities
and Exchange Commission, the Fifth Circuit held that the dual-tiered for-cause
removal protections of SEC ALJs violated the Take Care Clause of Article …
Once Is Enough: Why Title Ix's Pervasive Requirement Necessitates Adopting The Totality Inquiry, Evan S. Thompson
Once Is Enough: Why Title Ix's Pervasive Requirement Necessitates Adopting The Totality Inquiry, Evan S. Thompson
University of Cincinnati Law Review
No abstract provided.
Arrests: Legal And Illegal, Daniel Yeager
Arrests: Legal And Illegal, Daniel Yeager
Georgia State University Law Review
The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. An arrest—manifesting a police intention to transport a suspect to the stationhouse for booking, fingerprinting, and photographing—is a mode of seizure. Because arrests are so intrusive, they require roughly a fifty percent chance that an arrestable offense has occurred. Because nonarrest seizures (aka Terry stops), though no “petty indignity,” are less intrusive than arrests, they require roughly just a twenty-five percent chance that crime is afoot.
Any arrest not supported by probable cause is illegal. It would therefore seem to follow that any arrest supported by probable cause is legal. But it …
Pro Se Litigants In The U.S. Supreme Court: How Do They Fare?, Kyle Persaud
Pro Se Litigants In The U.S. Supreme Court: How Do They Fare?, Kyle Persaud
St. Mary's Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Growing, Growing, Gone: How Dobbs Fundamentally Altered The Way Reproductive Freedom, Private And Professional Liability, And Constitutional Rights Will Be Analyzed In A Post–Roe America, Amanda J. Sharp
San Diego Law Review
This Note examines the Dobbs decision and its implications. Part II analyzes the history of abortion rights in the United States, including the role Dobbs played in overturning precedential cases. Part III describes the legal implications of Dobbs, including the status of abortion rights and how this decision altered the state of women’s healthcare. It then addresses Dobbs’ indirect implications, including its potential impacts on the foster care system, implied liability in healthcare professions, data privacy laws, and the employer-employee relationship. Part IV briefly proposes next steps that could be taken and concludes with a call to action.
Abortion And Affirmative Action: The Fragility Of Supreme Court Political Decision-Making, William E. Nelson
Abortion And Affirmative Action: The Fragility Of Supreme Court Political Decision-Making, William E. Nelson
Indiana Journal of Law and Social Equality
This Article shows, on the basis of new evidence, that the canonical case of Marbury v. Madison has been grossly misinterpreted and that as a result of the misinterpretation we cannot understand what is wrong with contemporary cases such as Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College.
The Article will proceed as follows. Because Marbury cannot be properly understood without understanding the eighteenth-century background against which it was decided, Part I will examine legal practices in colonial and post-Revolutionary America, focusing on cases in which judicial review emerged …
The Pioneers, Waves, And Random Walks Of Securities Law In The Supreme Court, Elizabeth Pollman
The Pioneers, Waves, And Random Walks Of Securities Law In The Supreme Court, Elizabeth Pollman
Seattle University Law Review
After the pioneers, waves, and random walks that have animated the history of securities laws in the U.S. Supreme Court, we might now be on the precipice of a new chapter. Pritchard and Thompson’s superb book, A History of Securities Law in the Supreme Court, illuminates with rich archival detail how the Court’s view of the securities laws and the SEC have changed over time and how individuals have influenced this history. The book provides an invaluable resource for understanding nearly a century’s worth of Supreme Court jurisprudence in the area of securities law and much needed context for …
Three Stories: A Comment On Pritchard & Thompson’S A History Of Securities Laws In The Supreme Court, Harwell Wells
Three Stories: A Comment On Pritchard & Thompson’S A History Of Securities Laws In The Supreme Court, Harwell Wells
Seattle University Law Review
Adam Pritchard and Robert Thompson’s A History of Securities Laws in the Supreme Court should stand for decades as the definitive work on the Federal securities laws’ career in the Supreme Court across the twentieth century.1 Like all good histories, it both tells a story and makes an argument. The story recounts how the Court dealt with the major securities laws, as well the agency charged with enforcing them, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the rules it promulgated, from the 1930s into the twenty-first century. But the book does not just string together a series of events, “one …
A License To Discriminate? 303 Creative V. Elenis And Where The Supreme Court May Go, Christopher J. Manettas
A License To Discriminate? 303 Creative V. Elenis And Where The Supreme Court May Go, Christopher J. Manettas
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
“Improve Your Privileges While They Stay”: A Guide To Improve The Privileges Of U.S. Citizenship For Everybody, Joshua J. Schroeder
“Improve Your Privileges While They Stay”: A Guide To Improve The Privileges Of U.S. Citizenship For Everybody, Joshua J. Schroeder
Touro Law Review
In 1767, the young Phillis Wheatley wrote from her position of slavery in the Wheatley home of Boston to “ye sons of Science” at Harvard College, telling them to “improve your privileges while they stay.” She beheld the startling privileges of learning and discovery bestowed upon an elite group of young, rich white men in Boston and celebrated their privileges. Neither did she scorn those whose luck had placed a bounty of privilege upon their laps, for she likely planned to share in that bounty herself, one day. When she was only 13 or 14, Wheatley sublimely encouraged grown men …
The Mad Hatter’S Quip: Looking For Logic In The Independent State Legislature Theory, Nicholas Maggio, Foreword By Brendan Buschi
The Mad Hatter’S Quip: Looking For Logic In The Independent State Legislature Theory, Nicholas Maggio, Foreword By Brendan Buschi
Touro Law Review
The Supreme Court is set to hear a case that threatens the bedrock of America’s democracy, and it is not clear how it will shake out. The cumbersomely named “Independent State Legislature Theory” is at the heart of the case Moore v. Harper, which is before the Supreme Court this term. The theory holds that state legislatures should be free from the ordinary bounds of state judicial review when engaged in matters that concern federal elections. Despite being defeated a myriad of times at the Supreme Court, the latest challenge stems from a legal battle over North Carolina’s redistricting maps. …
Subjectively Speaking, The Applicable Standard For Deficient Medical Treatment Of Pretrial Detainees Should Be One Of Objective Reasonableness, Benjamin R. Black
Subjectively Speaking, The Applicable Standard For Deficient Medical Treatment Of Pretrial Detainees Should Be One Of Objective Reasonableness, Benjamin R. Black
Touro Law Review
There is no uniformity amongst the circuits when it comes to pretrial detainees claims for inadequate medical care. The circuits are currently grappling with this problem, applying two separate tests to pretrial detainees’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims depending on the jurisdiction in which the incident arose. The test that should be applied across all circuits is one of objective reasonableness. However, some circuits do not see it that way, applying the deliberate indifference standard, also known as the subjective standard test. The circuits applying the subjective standard are relying on case law that does not properly analyze the rights …
Community Caretaking Exception Saves Lives . . . The Supreme Court Disagrees, Gabriella Lorenzo
Community Caretaking Exception Saves Lives . . . The Supreme Court Disagrees, Gabriella Lorenzo
Touro Law Review
As many are aware, the Fourth Amendment protects the people against unreasonable searches and seizures. A warrant is necessary for said activities. While there are a few exceptions to the warrant requirement, the Supreme Court recently held that the community caretaking exception does not extend to the home. Extending this exception to the home would allow police officers to enter and engage in functions that are unrelated to the investigation of a crime. Essentially, this exception would allow police to aid individuals and prevent serious, dangerous situations to protect the community. This Note discusses why the Supreme Court erred in …
“It’S The End Of The World As We Know It” –Redrafting Amendment To Federal Rule Of Criminal Procedure 26 To Allow Remote Testimony, Alisson Sandoval
“It’S The End Of The World As We Know It” –Redrafting Amendment To Federal Rule Of Criminal Procedure 26 To Allow Remote Testimony, Alisson Sandoval
Touro Law Review
During the COVID-19 pandemic, when society fought an aggressive and deadly virus, our connection to the outside world became predominantly virtual. Videoconference technology became essential in state and federal civil judicial proceedings. In light of the unprecedented challenges presented by the pandemic and its long-lasting impact on the criminal justice system, this Article argues for amending Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 26 to permit remote witness testimony when a witness is unavailable.
From Andy Warhol To Barbie: Copyright’S Fair Use Doctrine After Andy Warhol Foundation V. Goldsmith, Niki Kuckes
From Andy Warhol To Barbie: Copyright’S Fair Use Doctrine After Andy Warhol Foundation V. Goldsmith, Niki Kuckes
Roger Williams University Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Curious Case Of Justice Neil Gorsuch, Justin Burnworth
The Curious Case Of Justice Neil Gorsuch, Justin Burnworth
Pace Law Review
Justice Gorsuch has a propensity for unexpected decisions. His opinions in Bostock v. Clayton County, United States v. Vaello Madero, and McGirt v. Oklahoma confounded the legal community at large. Some argue that his Western upbringing played a role. Others argue that his time clerking for Justice Kennedy primed him for unpredictable decisions. These explanations do not get at the core of Justice Gorsuch’s legal reasoning. This article dives into the depths of these opinions to extract his “Enduring” theories of law. I argue that legal scholarship has incorrectly viewed these three decisions as isolated incidents when they are best …
Case Law On American Indians: October 2022 - August 2023, Thomas P. Schlosser
Case Law On American Indians: October 2022 - August 2023, Thomas P. Schlosser
American Indian Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Does The Discourse On 303 Creative Portend A Standing Realignment?, Richard M. Re
Does The Discourse On 303 Creative Portend A Standing Realignment?, Richard M. Re
Notre Dame Law Review Reflection
Perhaps the most surprising feature of the last Supreme Court Term was the extraordinary public discourse on 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. According to many commentators, the Court decided what was really a “fake” or “made-up” case brought by someone who asserted standing merely because “she worries.” As a doctrinal matter, these criticisms are unfounded. But what makes this episode interesting is that the criticisms came from the legal Left, which has long been associated with expansive principles of standing. Doubts about standing in 303 Creative may therefore portend a broader standing realignment, in which liberal Justices become jurisdictionally hawkish. …
The Applications Docket, Greg Goelzhauser
The Applications Docket, Greg Goelzhauser
Georgia Law Review
The Supreme Court’s applications docket, often misleadingly called the “shadow docket” or “emergency docket,” is controversial, complex, and poorly understood. Using original data spanning nearly two decades, I unravel the docket’s empirical foundations. Applications practice changed fundamentally in recent years. Contrary to conventional wisdom, dispositions declined on average, but this conceals divergent trends: among applications involving stays and injunctions, capital dispositions decreased while noncapital dispositions increased. Moreover, noncapital applications now comprise a larger share of the docket than capital applications. This shift enhances docket salience because, as I show, most capital applications are denied simultaneous to denying plenary review, while …
121st Sibley Lecture: American Democracy In Peril, J. Michael Luttig
121st Sibley Lecture: American Democracy In Peril, J. Michael Luttig
Georgia Law Review
No abstract provided.
Parting The Red Sea: Prescriptions For The Rluipa Equal Terms Provision's Expanding Circuit Split, Braden T. Meadows
Parting The Red Sea: Prescriptions For The Rluipa Equal Terms Provision's Expanding Circuit Split, Braden T. Meadows
Georgia Law Review
Congress unanimously passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) in 2000. The Act marked the culmination of a decades-long dialogue between Congress and the Supreme Court. RLUIPA’s passage embodied Congress’s resolve to provide religious free exercise protections—particularly as it pertained to religious land use. Since 2000, however, RLUIPA’s Equal Terms Provision has been subject to differing judicial interpretations, resulting in an expanding circuit split. This Note analyzes the circuit split and offers guidance to future interpreters.
First, this Note examines the social, legislative, and judicial history leading to RLUIPA’s enactment. Second, it analyzes the contours of interpretations …
What’S Your Damage?! The Supreme Court Has Wrecked Temporary Takings Jurisprudence, Timothy M. Harris
What’S Your Damage?! The Supreme Court Has Wrecked Temporary Takings Jurisprudence, Timothy M. Harris
University of Miami Law Review
In Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, the U.S. Supreme Court unnecessarily expanded the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. In doing so, the Court veered away from established precedent and overturned prior case law—without expressly admitting to doing so.
In 2021, the Court held that a California law allowing union organizers to access private property under certain conditions took away a landowner’s right to exclude others and was (apparently) immediately compensable under the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. Prior law had subjected temporary takings to an uncertain, unpopular, and ambiguous balancing test—but the Cedar Point holding turned temporary takings jurisprudence on its head …
The News Media Engagement Principle: Why Social Media Has Not Actually Overrun The Limited Purpose Public Figure Category, Zachary R. Cormier
The News Media Engagement Principle: Why Social Media Has Not Actually Overrun The Limited Purpose Public Figure Category, Zachary R. Cormier
University of Miami Law Review
Has the rise of social media ruined the limited purpose public figure category of the First Amendment’s actual malice privilege? Justice Gorsuch believes so—and he has recently invited courts to get rid of it. He argues that the category now includes vast numbers of otherwise private citizens that have “become ‘public figures’ on social media overnight.” With so many people qualifying as limited purpose public figures (and having to overcome the actual malice standard to prevail on a defamation claim), he claims that the category has evolved to provide an unjustified shield for the masses of misinformation-peddlers on social media. …
You Can’T Teach Old Katz New Tricks: It’S Time To Revitalize The Fourth Amendment, Jeremy Connell
You Can’T Teach Old Katz New Tricks: It’S Time To Revitalize The Fourth Amendment, Jeremy Connell
University of Miami Law Review
For over half a century, the Court’s decision in Katz v. United States has been the lodestar for applying the Fourth Amendment. The Katz test has produced a litany of confusing and irreconcilable decisions in which the Court has carved exceptions into the doctrine and then carved exceptions into the exceptions. These decisions often leave lower courts with minimal guidance on how to apply the framework to new sets of facts and leave legal scholars and commenters befuddled and frustrated with the Court’s explanations for the rulings. The Court’s decision in Carpenter v. United States represents the apex of Katz’s …
For Freedom Or Full Of It? State Attempts To Silence Social Media, Grace Slicklen
For Freedom Or Full Of It? State Attempts To Silence Social Media, Grace Slicklen
University of Miami Law Review
Freedom of speech is, unsurprisingly, foundational to the “land of the free.” However, the “land of the free” has undergone some changes since the First Amendment’s ratification. Unprecedented technological evolution has ushered in a digital forum in which the volume, speed, and reach of words transcend the Framers’ visions of the First Amendment’s aims. Social media platforms have become central spaces for public discourse, where opportunities to create—and repress—speech are endless. From enabling individuals to freely express their views, to allowing state actors to limit open exchanges, it is about time that the Supreme Court tackles this complex issue of …
Inconsistencies In State Court Decisions Regarding Public School Financing Are Violating The Constitutional Rights Of Citizens: Why The Nevada Court In Shea V. State Should Have Intervened, Corinne Milnamow
University of Miami Law Review
In 1973, the Supreme Court decided the landmark case, San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, which held there was no fundamental right to education under the United States Constitution. In the years that have followed Rodriguez, state courts across the country have been left to decide issues related to public school financing. Many plaintiffs in these cases will argue that education is a fundamental right under their state’s constitution and that their respective state’s public school financing structure—one that heavily relies on local property taxes—is unconstitutional because of the discrepancies in the quality of education one will receive in …