Law Commons^™

State Courts Unbound, Frederic M. Bloom

Publications

We may not think that state courts disobey binding Supreme Court precedent, but occasionally state courts do. In a number of important cases, state courts have actively defied apposite Supreme Court doctrine, and often it is the Court itself that has invited them to.

This Article shows state courts doing the unthinkable: flouting Supreme Court precedent, sometimes at the Court's own behest. The idea of state court defiance may surprise us. It is not in every case, after all, that state courts affirmatively disobey. But rare events still have their lessons, and we should ask how and why they emerge. …

Raising The Dead: How The Ninth Circuit Avoided The Supreme Court's Guidelines Concerning Aesthetic Functionality And Still Got Away With It In Au-Tomotive Gold, Yevgeniy Markov

Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

Imagining Gun Control In America: Understanding The Remainder Problem Article And Essay, Nicholas J. Johnson

Faculty Scholarship

Gun control in the United States generally has meant some type of supply regulation. Supply restrictions ranging from one-gun-a-month schemes to flat gun bans cannot work without a willingness and ability to reduce total inventory to levels approaching zero ("the supply-side ideal"). This is an impossible feat in a country that already has 300 million guns tightly held by people who think they are uniquely important tools. The average defiance ratio in places that have attempted gun confiscation and registration is 2.6 illegal guns for every legal one. In many countries defiance is far higher. None of those countries has …

Business As Usual: The Roberts Court's Continued Neglect Of Adequacy And Equity Concerns In American Education, Osamudia R. James

Articles

No abstract provided.

Self-Execution And Treaty Duality, Curtis A. Bradley

Faculty Scholarship

The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution states that, along with the Constitution and laws of the United States, treaties made by the United States are part of the "supreme Law of the Land." At least since the Supreme Court's 1829 decision in Foster v. Neilson, however, it has been understood that treaty provisions are enforceable in U.S. courts only if they are "self-executing." The legitimacy and implications of this self-execution requirement have generated substantial controversy and uncertainty among both courts and commentators. This Article attempts to clear up some of the conceptual confusion relating to the self-execution doctrine and, …

Massachusetts V Epa: Escaping The Common Law's Growing Shadow, Robert V. Percival

Faculty Scholarship

In its first full Term with its newest member, the U.S. Supreme Court marched decidedly to the right with decisions narrowing abortion rights, striking down affirmative action programs, invalidating campaign finance regulations, and making it more difficult for victims of employment discrimination to seek redress. In the face of this rightward shift the most surprising decision of the Term was the Court’s embrace of claims that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had acted unlawfully by refusing to use the Clean Air Act to combat climate change. In Massachusetts v EPA, the Court held that EPA had the authority to …

The Other Delegate: Judicially Administered Statutes And The Nondelegation Doctrine, Margaret H. Lemos

Faculty Scholarship

The nondelegation doctrine is the subject of a vast and everexpanding body of scholarship. But nondelegation literature, like nondelegation law, focuses almost exclusively on delegations of power to administrative agencies. It ignores Congress's other delegate-the federal judiciary.

This Article brings courts into the delegation picture. It demonstrates that, just as agencies exercise a lawmaking function when they fill in the gaps left by broad statutory delegations of power, so too do courts. The nondelegation doctrine purports to limit the amount of lawmaking authority Congress can cede to another institution without violating the separation of powers. Although typically considered only with …

Navigating The New Politics Of Judicial Appointments, Ryan W. Scott, David R. Stras

Articles by Maurer Faculty

This Review Essay explores the new politics of judicial appointments by addressing the important question whether Senate-specific reforms to the judicial appointments process are likely to succeed. In his recent book, The Next Justice, Chris Eisgruber proposes a two-part plan to repair the Supreme Court appointments process. Like many other scholars that have written in the area, Eisgruber's reforms focus primarily on the Senate. First, he proposes that the Senate get smart by asking penetrating questions about the judicial philosophy of Supreme Court nominees in an effort to ensure that the future Justices are moderates, rather than extremists. Second, he …

The Ada Amendments Act Of 2008, Chai R. Feldblum, Kevin Barry, Emily A. Benfer

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The goal of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was to create a civil rights law protecting people with disabilities from discrimination on the basis of their disabilities. Disability rights advocates in 1990 were victorious in their efforts to open doors for people with disabilities and to change the country's outlook and acceptance of people with disabilities. These advocates believed that the terms of the ADA, based as they were on Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, combined with the legislative history of the ADA, would provide clear instructions to the courts that the ADA was intended to provide broad …

Democracy On Trial: Terrorism, Crime, And National Security Policy In A Post 9-11 World, David A. Schultz

David A Schultz

Post 9-11 concerns in the United States, among the European Union (EU) members, and other western democracies regarding international terrorism forced convergence of the traditionally distinct policy areas of domestic criminal justice and national security. This convergence has produced several policy and institutional conflicts that pit individual rights against homeland security, domestic law and institutions against international norms and tribunals, and criminal justice agencies against national security organizations. This Article examines regime responses to international terrorism, principally in the United States, in comparison to the European Union, seeking to describe the consequences of the merger of criminal justice norms with …

Religious Arguments And The United States Supreme Court: A Review Of Amicus Curiae Briefs Filed By Religious Organizations, Andrew S. Mansfield

Andrew S Mansfield

This paper analyzes forty-five amicus curiae briefs filed by religious organizations with the Supreme Court since Brown v. Board of Education, 348 U.S. 886, decided in 1954, through the decision in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood, 546 U.S. 320, rendered in 2006. The forty-five amicus curiae briefs were filed in nineteen cases and concern issues that are often identified as “moral.” Analysis of the amicus curiae briefs filed with the Supreme Court by religious organizations provides at least three crucial insights. First, the legal arguments presented by religious organizations, as reflected in amicus curiae briefs filed with the Supreme Court, provide …

Brief Amicus Curiae Of The American Catholic Lawyers Association Pleasant Grove City, Utah, V. Summum,129 S.Ct. 1125, Edward C. Lyons

Edward C. Lyons

No abstract provided.