Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Supreme Court

2009

Discipline
Institution
Publication
Publication Type

Articles 1 - 30 of 63

Full-Text Articles in Law

The Law Clerk Proxy Wars: Secrecy, Accountability, And Ideology In The Supreme Court, Carolyn Shapiro Dec 2009

The Law Clerk Proxy Wars: Secrecy, Accountability, And Ideology In The Supreme Court, Carolyn Shapiro

All Faculty Scholarship

This piece provides an in-depth review and analysis of two recent books about Supreme Court law clerks, Courtiers of the Marble Palace: The Rise and Influence of the Supreme Court Law Clerk, by Todd C. Peppers, and Sorcerers’ Apprentices: 100 Years of Law Clerks at the United States Supreme Court, by Artemus Ward and David L. Weiden. In addition, the essay addresses a question so obvious that it is rarely asked – why is there so much curiosity about Supreme Court law clerks in the first place? In the essay, I analyze a widespread concern – and one discussed in both books ...


Environmental Law In The Supreme Court: Highlights From The Marshall Papers, Robert V. Percival Nov 2009

Environmental Law In The Supreme Court: Highlights From The Marshall Papers, Robert V. Percival

Robert Percival

Justice Marshall served on the Court from 1967 until 1991. During that period, Congress passed all of the major federal environmental statutes and environmental regulation mushroomed. As a result, the Marshall papers reveal how the Court reached decisions that have shaped modern environmental law. The author, a former law clerk to former Justice Byron White and an associate professor of law at the University of Maryland, begins by describing the history of the Court's treatment of environmental disputes. He then discusses the steps the Justices take in deciding whether to accept cases for review; in reaching decisions on the ...


Interview With Ed King By Brien Williams, Edward 'Ed' L. King Nov 2009

Interview With Ed King By Brien Williams, Edward 'Ed' L. King

George J. Mitchell Oral History Project

Biographical Note
Edward L. “Ed” King was born November 7, 1928, in Fort Worth, Texas, to Edgar L. and Zula Mae (Birch) King. He served in the Army during World War II and the Korean War and was a career officer from 1945 to 1969. He became executive director of the Coalition for National Defense and Military Policy and testified often before the U.S. House and Senate. He was hired by Senator Mike Mansfield, and in 1975 he became Maine Senator Bill Hathaway’s administrative assistant. He also worked for Senators Tsongas, Byrd, and Mitchell, focusing most specifically on ...


Supreme Court Of The United States, October Term 2009 Preview, Update: October 26, 2009, Georgetown University Law Center, Supreme Court Institute Oct 2009

Supreme Court Of The United States, October Term 2009 Preview, Update: October 26, 2009, Georgetown University Law Center, Supreme Court Institute

Supreme Court Overviews

No abstract provided.


In Defense Of Ideology: A Principled Approach To The Supreme Court Confirmation Process, Lori A. Ringhand Oct 2009

In Defense Of Ideology: A Principled Approach To The Supreme Court Confirmation Process, Lori A. Ringhand

Scholarly Works

In this paper, Professor Ringhand offers a principled defense of an ideological approach to the Supreme Court justice confirmation process. In constructing her argument, she does three things. First, she explores how the insights provided by recent empirical legal scholarship have created a need to re-think the role of the Supreme Court and, consequently, the process by which we select Supreme Court justices. In doing so, Professor Ringhand explains how these insights have called into question much of our conventional constitutional narrative, and how this failure of the conventional narrative has in turn undermined traditional objections to an ideologically-based confirmation ...


The Hundred-Years War: The Ongoing Battle Between Courts And Agencies Over The Right To Interpret Federal Law, Nancy M. Modesitt Oct 2009

The Hundred-Years War: The Ongoing Battle Between Courts And Agencies Over The Right To Interpret Federal Law, Nancy M. Modesitt

All Faculty Scholarship

Since the Supreme Court’s 1984 Chevron decision, the primary responsibility for interpreting federal statutes has increasingly resided with federal agencies in the first instance rather than with the federal courts. In 2005, the Court reinforced this approach by deciding National Telecommunications Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Services, which legitimized the agency practice of interpreting federal statutes in a manner contrary to the federal courts' established interpretation, so long as the agency interpretation is entitled to deference under the well-established Chevron standard. In essence, agencies are free to disregard federal court precedent in these circumstances. This Article analyzes the ...


Supreme Court Of The United States, October Term 2009 Preview, Georgetown University Law Center, Supreme Court Institute, Amanda M. Boote Sep 2009

Supreme Court Of The United States, October Term 2009 Preview, Georgetown University Law Center, Supreme Court Institute, Amanda M. Boote

Supreme Court Overviews

No abstract provided.


Limiting Judges: Placing Limits On Judges' Power In Hard Look Review, Tobias R. Coleman Sep 2009

Limiting Judges: Placing Limits On Judges' Power In Hard Look Review, Tobias R. Coleman

Tobias R Coleman

The “hard look” standard of review in administrative law has long provided judges broad discretion to strike down agency actions. The virtually unlimited nature of hard look review creates the danger that judges will craft decisions to achieve their desired policy outcomes. Though judges have acknowledged that this potential for outcome-oriented decisionmaking exists, they have consistently downplayed the danger of outcome-oriented decisionmaking—despite empirical evidence showing otherwise. One practical way to reduce the danger of outcome-oriented decisionmaking in hard look review is to place limit on judges’ powers. In FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., the Supreme Court began to ...


The Context Of Ideology: Law, Politics, And Empirical Legal Scholarship, Carolyn Shapiro Aug 2009

The Context Of Ideology: Law, Politics, And Empirical Legal Scholarship, Carolyn Shapiro

All Faculty Scholarship

In their confirmation hearings, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Sotomayor both articulated a vision of the neutral judge who decides cases without resort to personal perspectives or opinions, in short, without ideology. At the other extreme, the dominant model of judicial decisionmaking in political science has long been the attitudinal model, which posits that the Justices’ votes can be explained primarily as expressions of their personal policy preferences, with little or no role for law, legal reasoning, or legal doctrine.

Many traditional legal scholars have criticized such scholarship for its insistence on the primacy of ideology in judicial decisionmaking, even ...


Pacifica Reconsidered: Implications For The Current Controversy Over Broadcast Indecency, Angela J. Campbell Aug 2009

Pacifica Reconsidered: Implications For The Current Controversy Over Broadcast Indecency, Angela J. Campbell

Angela J. Campbell

This article tells the story of how and why a single letter complaining about “dirty words” in a comedy routine broadcast by a radio station ended up in the Supreme Court and how a closely divided Court found that it was constitutional for the Federal Communications Commission to admonish the station for the broadcast even though the speech was protected by the First Amendment and its distribution by other means could not be could not be prohibited. This case, FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, was controversial when it was decided in 1978, and it has become more controversial because of the ...


Ink Blot Or Not: The Meaning Of Privileges And/Or Immunities, Richard Aynes Jul 2009

Ink Blot Or Not: The Meaning Of Privileges And/Or Immunities, Richard Aynes

Akron Law Publications

This article examines the meaning of the terms privileges and immunities as used in Article IV of the U.S. Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment. It begins by tracing the American use of the terms to April 10, 1606 in the first Charter of Virginia. Building upon the work of other scholars and citing original documents, it concludes that these words has a well-established meaning as “rights” well before the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. The article notes that in Justice Miller’s decision in the Slaughter-House Cases he refers to the privileges and immunities of Corfield v. Coryell as “those ...


Sexual Politics And Social Change, Darren Lenard Hutchinson Jul 2009

Sexual Politics And Social Change, Darren Lenard Hutchinson

UF Law Faculty Publications

The Article examines the impact of social movement activity upon the advancement of GLBT rights. It analyzes the state and local strategy that GLBT social movements utilized to alter the legal status of sexual orientation and sexuality following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bowers v. Hardwick. Successful advocacy before state and local courts, human rights commissions, and legislatures fundamentally shifted public opinion and laws regarding sexual orientation and sexuality between Bowers and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Lawrence v. Texas. This altered landscape created the "political opportunity" for the Lawrence ruling and made the opinion relatively "safe".

Currently ...


The United States Supreme Court And The Freedom Of Expression, Elisabeth Zoller Jul 2009

The United States Supreme Court And The Freedom Of Expression, Elisabeth Zoller

Indiana Law Journal

Symposium: An Ocean Apart? Freedom of Expression in Europe and the United States. This Article was originally written in French and delivered as a conference paper at a symposium held by the Center for American Law of the University of Paris II (Panthèon-Assas) on January 18-19, 2008.


Ink Blot Or Not: The Meaning Of Privileges And/Or Immunities, Richard Aynes Jun 2009

Ink Blot Or Not: The Meaning Of Privileges And/Or Immunities, Richard Aynes

Richard L. Aynes

This article examines the meaning of the terms privileges and immunities as used in Article IV of the U.S. Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment. It begins by tracing the American use of the terms to April 10, 1606 in the first Charter of Virginia. Building upon the work of other scholars and citing original documents, it concludes that these words has a well-established meaning as “rights” well before the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. The article notes that in Justice Miller’s decision in the Slaughter-House Cases he refers to the privileges and immunities of Corfield v. Coryell as “those ...


Obama's Second Chance To Make History, José F. Anderson May 2009

Obama's Second Chance To Make History, José F. Anderson

All Faculty Scholarship

This short article provides a view of the circumstances and issues surrounding President Obama's nomination of federal circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court.

With President Barack Obama's nomination of federal circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, his judicial appointment team has been presented with an early introduction to what has become one the most challenging areas of presidential governance over the last several decades.

The nominations to the nation's highest court have generated controversies going back to Ronald Reagan's failed attempt to elevate the highly controversial federal Judge Robert Bork ...


Wyeth V. Levine And Its Implications, Brian Wolfman May 2009

Wyeth V. Levine And Its Implications, Brian Wolfman

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Wyeth v. Levine sharply limited the availability of implied preemption as a defense in pharmaceutical cases. In this Analysis & Perspective, attorney Brian Wolfman discusses the decision and its implications for prescription drug litigation as well as litigation in other areas that are regulated by the federal government.

After Wyeth, Wolfman says, a defendant in a prescription drug case must demonstrate a ‘‘tight fit between the labeling change proposed by the manufacturer (and rejected by the FDA) and the labeling change that the plaintiff contends would have prevented her injuries.’’ Moreover, he says ...


La Cassazione Interviene Di Nuovo Sulle Norme Di Condotta Degli Intermediari Finanziari, Valerio Sangiovanni May 2009

La Cassazione Interviene Di Nuovo Sulle Norme Di Condotta Degli Intermediari Finanziari, Valerio Sangiovanni

Valerio Sangiovanni

No abstract provided.


Book Review: The Constitution In The Supreme Court: The First Hundred Years, 1789-1888., David S. Bogen Apr 2009

Book Review: The Constitution In The Supreme Court: The First Hundred Years, 1789-1888., David S. Bogen

David S. Bogen

No abstract provided.


Recent Decisions Of The Supreme Court In Labor Law, David S. Bogen Apr 2009

Recent Decisions Of The Supreme Court In Labor Law, David S. Bogen

David S. Bogen

No abstract provided.


Book Review: Reconstruction And Reunion, 1864-88, Part One, David S. Bogen Apr 2009

Book Review: Reconstruction And Reunion, 1864-88, Part One, David S. Bogen

David S. Bogen

No abstract provided.


The Partially Prudential Doctrine Of Mootness, Matthew I. Hall Apr 2009

The Partially Prudential Doctrine Of Mootness, Matthew I. Hall

Scholarly Works

The conventional understanding of mootness doctrine is that it operates as a mandatory bar to federal court jurisdiction, derived from the "cases or controversies" clause of the United States Constitution, Article III. In two crucial respects, however, this Constitutional model - which was first adopted by the Supreme Court less than 45 years ago - fails to account for the manner in which courts actually address contentions of mootness. First, the commonly-applied exceptions to the mootness bar are not derived from the "cases or controversies" clause and cannot be reconciled with the Constitutional account of mootness. Second, courts regularly consider and resolve ...


Factbound And Splitless: The Certiorari Process As A Barrier To Justice For Indian Tribes, Matthew L.M. Fletcher Mar 2009

Factbound And Splitless: The Certiorari Process As A Barrier To Justice For Indian Tribes, Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The Supreme Court’s certiorari process does more than help the Court parse through thousands of uncertworthy claims – the Court’s application of the process creates an affirmative barrier to justice for parties like Indian tribes and individual Indians. The negative impact of the certiorari process is all but invisible unless one studies a specific area of constitutional law. This study takes up that challenge. Statistically, there is a near zero chance the Supreme Court will grant a certiorari petition filed by tribal interests. At the same time, the Court grants certiorari in far more petitions filed by the opponents ...


Taking The Measure Of Ideology: Empirically Measuring Supreme Court Cases, Tonja Jacobi, Matthew Sag Feb 2009

Taking The Measure Of Ideology: Empirically Measuring Supreme Court Cases, Tonja Jacobi, Matthew Sag

Tonja Jacobi

Empirical legal studies have become increasingly popular and influential, but empirical analysis is only as good as its tools. Until recently, no sophisticated measure of case outcomes existed. Jacobi (2009) developed three possible measures of case outcomes, based on three common theories of how Justices balance the trade-off between outcome optimization and coalition maximization. This Article extends Jacobi’s earlier theoretical work by empirically testing those competing measures of case outcomes.

The competing measures are initially assessed against a dataset of over 8000 Supreme Court cases decided between 1953 and 2006. The measures are also assessed in a more targeted ...


Factbound And Splitless: Certiorari And Indian Law, Matthew L.M. Fletcher Feb 2009

Factbound And Splitless: Certiorari And Indian Law, Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The Supreme Court has long maintained that the certiorari process is a neutral and objective means of eliminating patently frivolous petitions from consideration, but it is well known that the Court is far more likely to grant a cert petition when it questions the outcome below. This qualitative empirical study of preliminary memoranda drafted by the Supreme Court law clerk pool demonstrates the likelihood that the Court’s certiorari process is neither objective nor neutral – and may prejudice certain classes of petitioners. Cert pool clerks applying the subjective certiorari criteria – such as whether there is a legitimate split in lower ...


Trivialising Justice: Reservation Under The Rule Of Law, Ashok Agrwaal Jan 2009

Trivialising Justice: Reservation Under The Rule Of Law, Ashok Agrwaal

Ashok Agrwaal

The idea for the paper was born out of a consultation called by the Calcutta Research Group (CRG), on critically engaging with the issue of social justice in India. The discussions ranged over a broad spectrum, from the gritty essence of social justice issues in daily life, to theoretical constructs based upon accepted cannons, to the notion of examining the matter afresh, from first principles. After several false starts, I realised that I was allowing the vastness of the issue to overwhelm me. Finally, I decided to choose a theme and strictly adhere to the limitations imposed by my choice ...


Contempt Of Court And Free Expression - Need For A Delicate Balance, G.V Mahesh Nath Jan 2009

Contempt Of Court And Free Expression - Need For A Delicate Balance, G.V Mahesh Nath

G.V Mahesh Nath

Free expression is the fundamental fountain-head of democracy. The right of free expression does not however confer right to denigrate others right of person and reputation as such the right of free expression is subject to reasonable restrictions. Bonafide criticism of any system or institution including the judiciary cannot be objected on any pretext, be it under the conferred constitutional power or the statutory contempt law. The freedom of speech bestowed under the constitution and the independence of the judiciary are the two essential and most important constitutes of democracy in a country. Reconciling these two competing public interest issues ...


Heller, High Water(Mark)? Lower Courts And The New Right To Keep And Bear Arms, Brannon P. Denning, Glenn H. Reynolds Jan 2009

Heller, High Water(Mark)? Lower Courts And The New Right To Keep And Bear Arms, Brannon P. Denning, Glenn H. Reynolds

Brannon P. Denning

This article, written for a symposium held at the University of California-Hastings, surveys lower court decisions applying Heller and the right to keep and bear arms it recognized to federal, state, and local gun laws. While no laws have, to date, been invalidated -- in part because of the strong signals sent by the Heller Court in the opinion -- the Court's recognition that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right has altered the way in which courts treat gun ownership and, in some cases, has caused non-judicial actors to legislate "in the shadow" of Heller.


The "New Protectionism" And The American Common Market, Brannon P. Denning, Norman R. Williams Jan 2009

The "New Protectionism" And The American Common Market, Brannon P. Denning, Norman R. Williams

Brannon P. Denning

For nearly two centuries, the U.S. Constitution through the dormant Commerce Clause has protected the American common market from protectionist commercial state regulations and taxes. During the past two terms,however, the U.S. Supreme Court created a new exception to the dormant Commerce Clause for protectionist state and local taxes and regulations that favor public rather than private entities. In this Article, we describe this “New Protectionism” and argue that the Court’s embrace of it is profoundly misguided. As we document, there is no material difference, economically or constitutionally, between public protectionism and private protectionism. As illustrated ...


Not Dead Yet: The Enduring Miranda Rule 25 Years After The Supreme Court’S October Term 1984, William F. Jung Jan 2009

Not Dead Yet: The Enduring Miranda Rule 25 Years After The Supreme Court’S October Term 1984, William F. Jung

Saint Louis University Public Law Review

No abstract provided.


Culture, Religion, And Indigenous People, David S. Bogen, Leslie F. Goldstein Jan 2009

Culture, Religion, And Indigenous People, David S. Bogen, Leslie F. Goldstein

David S. Bogen

The Constitution treats culture, religion, and government as separate concepts. Different clauses of the First Amendment protect culture and religion from government. For several decades, the Supreme Court of the United States interpreted the First Amendment as offering religion greater protection against interference than was offered to culture, but the Supreme Court largely dissolved these constitutional differences when confronted with issues posed by the religious practices of Native Americans. With some indigenous Americans, the lines between culture, religion, and even government blur – challenging the Supreme Court’s assumptions about the Constitution. The uniqueness of the claims of Native Americans pushed ...