Law Commons^™

December 22, 2008: A New Kind Of Faith, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “A New Kind of Faith“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

December 7, 2008: The Conclusion Of For The Establishment Of Religion, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “The Conclusion of For the Establishment of Religion “ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

Brown And The Colorblind Constitution, Christopher W. Schmidt

All Faculty Scholarship

This Essay offers the first in-depth examination of the role of colorblind constitutionalism in the history of Brown v. Board of Education. In light of the recent Supreme Court ruling in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1 (2007), such an examination is needed today more than ever. In this case, Chief Justice John Roberts drew on the history of Brown to support his conclusion that racial classifications in school assignment policies are unconstitutional. Particularly controversial was the Chief Justice's use of the words of the NAACP lawyers who argued Brown as evidence for his colorblind …

Bizarre Love Triangle: The Spending Clause, Section 1983, And Medicaid Entitlements, Nicole Huberfeld

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

The first two terms of the Roberts Court signal a willingness to revisit precedent, even decisions that have been considered long-settled, and the United States Supreme Court may be ready to reinterpret another area of jurisprudence: the private enforcement of conditions on federal spending against states through actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The most recent pre-Roberts Court precedent is Gonzaga University v. Doe, a 2002 decision that made it more difficult for individuals harmed by violations of federal laws to enforce rights through § 1983 actions. Federal courts have inconsistently and confusingly applied the Gonzaga framework, but the …

The Judicial Behavior Of Justice Souter In Criminal Cases And The Denial Of A Conservative Counterrevolution, Scott P. Johnson

The University of New Hampshire Law Review

[Excerpt] “The following article documents the judicial career of Justice David Souter from his time served as an attorney general and state judge in New Hampshire until his recent tenure on the U.S. Supreme Court. Based upon his written opinions and individual votes, Justice Souter clearly has evolved into a more liberal jurist than ideological conservatives would have preferred in the area of criminal justice. Over the course of his judicial career, Justice Souter has gained respect as an intellectual scholar by attempting to completely understand both sides of a dispute and applying precedent and legal rules in a flexible—albeit …

November 25, 2008: Pleasant Grove City V. Summum, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “ Pleasant Grove City v. Summum“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

Overvaluing Uniformity, Amanda Frost

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

"E NSURING the uniform interpretation of federal law has long been considered one of the federal courts' primary objectives, and uniformity is regularly cited in some of the most intractable debates about the structure and function of the federal court system. For example, specialized courts are lauded for their ability to ensure uniformity in the areas of law over which they have jurisdic- tion. Similarly, proponents of exclusive federal jurisdiction contend that the federal courts provide greater consistency in the interpre- tation of federal law than could fifty different state courts. Some commentators claim that Congress' power to create exceptions …

Overvaluing Uniformity, Amanda Frost

Amanda Frost

Under-The-Table Overruling, Christopher J. Peters

All Faculty Scholarship

In this contribution to a Wayne Law Review symposium on the first three years of the Roberts Court, the author normatively assesses the Court's practice of "under-the-table overruling," or "underruling," in high-profile constitutional cases involving abortion, campaign-finance reform, and affirmative action. The Court "underrules" when it renders a decision that undercuts a recent precedent without admitting that it is doing so. The author contends that underruling either is not supported by, or is directly incompatible with, three common rationales for constitutional stare decisis: the noninstrumental rationale, the predictability rationale, and the legitimacy rationale. In particular, while the latter rationale - …

Courts & Congress: America's Unwritten Constitution, Charles D. Kelso

charles D. Kelso

This review presents a concise summary of the contents of the book, and suggests an analysis of judicial decisionmaking within which to view Professor Quirk’s work.

Justiciable Generalized Grievances, Kimberly L. Wehle

All Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court's prevailing test for Article III standing - injury-in-fact, causation, and redressability - generally restricts suits to remedy injuries affecting broad segments of the public in substantially equal measure. In Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court appeared to depart from this proposition in holding that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has standing to sue the EPA to prompt it to slow global warming, a harm that affects everyone on Earth. The dissenting Justices assailed the majority for finding justiciable a so-called “generalized grievance” in contravention of prior standing precedent that is based on the notion that if parties seek …

The Supreme Common Law Court Of The United States, Jack M. Beermann

Faculty Scholarship

The U.S. Supreme Court's primary role in the history of the United States, especially in constitutional cases (and cases hovering in the universe of the Constitution), has been to limit Congress's ability to redefine and redistribute rights in a direction most people would characterize as liberal. In other words, the Supreme Court, for most of the history of the United States since the adoption of the Constitution, has been a conservative force against change and redistribution. The Court has used five distinct devices to advance its control over the law. First, it has construed rights-creating constitutional provisions narrowly when those …

Judicial Independence: A Call For Reform, Terence J. Lau

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Gender And Justice: Parity And The United States Supreme Court, Paula A. Monopoli

Paula A Monopoli

There is a deep concern among many American women that only one woman remains on the United States Supreme Court. When Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was sworn in on September 25, 1981, most people never imagined that twenty-five years later there would still be only one woman on the Court. It appears that it will be many more years before there is a critical mass of women sitting on the high court. Given its central role, the Court should better represent the gender balance in American society. In a number of other countries, voluntary or involuntary parity provisions have been …

September 23, 2008: Excerpt From For The Establishment Of Religion, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “Excerpt from For the Establishment of Religion“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

Judging In Chambers: The Powers Of A Single Justice Of The Supreme Court, Daniel M. Gonen

Daniel Gonen

A relatively obscure power of individual federal judges is the power to grant interim relief to a litigant pending appellate review of a lower court’s judgment or order. Individual judges routinely use this power, exercising virtually unfettered discretion to control the interim outcome of cases during the months and years it can take for the appellate process to conclude. In some cases, an individual judge has the power to decide if a case will be kept in a reviewable posture at all. This article explores this power, largely focusing on the Supreme Court level, and offers a critical assessment of …

August 3, 2008: Is There A Common Core To Religion?, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “Is There a Common Core to Religion?“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

The Wages Of Originalist Sin: District Of Columbia V. Heller, Jeffrey M. Shaman

Jeffrey M. Shaman

This essay analyzes and critiques the Supreme Court’s recent decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which ruled that that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms unconnected with service in a militia. The focus of the essay is on Justice Scalia’s majority opinion in Heller, which adheres strictly to an extreme view of originalism holding that the Constitution should be interpreted by ascertaining its original meaning at the time it was adopted. Justice Scalia believes that the Constitution has a static meaning, and that changes in the world around us are of no relevance to constitutional …

Interview With Barbara Atkins And Janet Mitchell By Andrea L’Hommedieu, Barbara M. Atkins, Janet F. Mitchell

George J. Mitchell Oral History Project

Biographical Note
Barbara (Mitchell) Atkins was born in July, 1935, in Waterville, Maine. She grew up with four older brothers: John, Paul, Robert, and George Mitchell (Sr.). Her mother, Mintaha, was a weaver in the woolen mills in Waterville, and her father, George, Sr., was with the Central Maine Power Company and with the Colby College maintenance department. The family practiced the Maronite Roman Catholic rite of Lebanese descent. Her mother was born in Lebanon and immigrated in 1920. Barbara attended St. Joseph’s elementary school, Waterville Junior High School, and Waterville High School, where she played volleyball, basketball, was a …

July 6, 2008: For The Establishment Of Religion: Where Are We Now?, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “For the Establishment of Religion: Where Are We Now?“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

No Civilized System Of Justice, Book Review: The Day Freedom Died: The Colfax Massacre, The Supreme Court, And The Betrayal Of Reconstruction, Sonja R. West

Scholarly Works

A book review of The Day Freedom Died: The Colfax Massacre, The Supreme Court, and The Betrayal of Reconstruction by Charles Lane (Henry Holt 2008).

June 28, 2008: The Kennedy Court On Religion, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “The Kennedy Court on Religion“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

Why Arbitrate? The Questionable Quest For Efficiency In Hallstreet Street Associates, Llc V. Mattel, Inc., David K. Kessler

David K Kessler

The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) makes arbitration agreements between private parties legally enforceable. The policy favoring arbitration underlying the FAA has been justified as serving two ends: it protects freedom of contract, and it creates an efficient alternative dispute resolution system. Previous decisions by the Court have indicated a belief that, when those two goals come into conflict, the result that preserves freedom of contract should prevail. In Hallstreet Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., however, a recent case involving the Federal Arbitration Act, the Court’s decision preserved perceived efficiency at the expense of freedom of contract. The Court held that …

May 21, 2008: For The Establishment Of Religion, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “For the Establishment of Religion “ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

Dear President Bush: Leaving A Legacy On The Federal Bench, Carl Tobias

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

The $62 Million Question: Is Virginia's New Center To House Sexually Violent Prisoners Money Well Spent?, Molly T. Geissenhainer

University of Richmond Law Review

This comment examines Virginia's current civil commitment statute for sexual predators and attempts to identify areas where Virginia should concentrate its limited resources in order to address more adequately the ever-increasing problem of what to do with sex offenders. Part II briefly describes why sex offenders present law enforcement with unique problems in prevention and deterrence. Part III details the history of civil commitment legislation. Part IV examines Supreme Court of the United States jurisprudence regarding the constitutionality of sex offender civil commitment statutes. Part V examines the Virginia Sexually Violent Predator Act. Part VI briefly considers current violent sexual …

Give A Hoot, Don’T Pollute: The Roberts Court And The Environment, David A. Schultz

David A Schultz

Analysis and predictions on the jurisprudential direction of the Roberts Court have thus far produced articles examining its possible impact on several areas of law, but so far none have assessed the Court’s treatment of environmental issues in a comprehensive fashion, even though it has decided seven cases in this area in the 2005 and 2006 terms. This Article reviews these seven decisions, concluding that based on them there is no discernable pro-business bias thus far as some had predicted. However, the Court is very divided ideologically on environmental issues, suggesting that the next presidential appointment could have a major …

Does The Supreme Court Still Matter?, Timothy B. Dyk

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Stoneridge V. Scientific-Atlanta: Do Section 10(B) And Rule 10b-5 Require A Misstatement Or Omission? (Pre-Publication Draft), Rodney D. Chrisman

Faculty Publications and Presentations

This version is a draft submitted for publication and accepted prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling. The final version, published by QLR and also posted on Digital Commons, was modified subsequently to the Supreme Court ruling. Stoneridge v. Scientific-Atlanta promises to be the most important securities litigation case to reach the Supreme Court since Central Bank of Denver. In this important case, Stoneridge presents the Supreme Court with the opportunity to clarify the application of its ruling in Central Bank to liability for secondary actors under section 10(b) and rule 10b-5. This Article points out that the fundamental question plaguing …

Standing In The Way Of Clarity: Hein V. Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., Mark Wankum

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

This article deals with the often misunderstood and maligned issue of taxpayer standing. It seeks to explore the Court's standing jurisprudence as it has evolved from "cases and controversies" to a modern constitutional doctrine. The article begins with a discussion of the Framers' judiciary and the development of a modern standing doctrine. It then turns to the area of taxpayer and citizen suits, exploring the judicial landmarks and landmines from Frothigham v. Mellon to Flast. Next, applications and limitations of the Flast test during the Burger, Rehnquist, and early Roberts Courts are explored, before turning to the most recent decision …