Law Commons^™

Zivotofsky Ii's Two Visions For Foreign Relations Law, Harlan G. Cohen

Scholarly Works

The five opinions in Zivotofsky v. Kerry – four by the Supreme Court’s Republican-nominated Justices – exposed fault-lines over foreign relations law that have remained hidden in many of the Court’s other cases. This short essay, part of an AJIL Unbound Agora on the case, explores the most notable of these fissures – that between Justice Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion, and Chief Justice Roberts, who dissented. Their disagreement in this case highlights the two Justices’ very different visions of U.S. foreign relations law and reveals the dynamic that has defined the direction of the Court over the last …

The Supreme Court's Emerging Majority: Restraining The High Court Or Transforming Its Role?, Christopher E. Smith

Akron Law Review

This article will analyze the decisions and arguments about judicial restraint emanating from the increasingly dominant Reagan appointees on the Supreme Court in order to question whether these justices are achieving their purported goal or are merely continuing "activist"judicial behavior in the service of conservative political values.

Three Variations Of The Supreme Court's Legal Mind, Albert Lebowitz

Akron Law Review

With their independence, the Justices emerged, not, as Madison imagined them, a unified definition of reason but with diverging strains of legal mindedness that, as they almost inevitably clashed with each other, developed that added strength which emerges from dialectic. Madison's vision may have been too simple.

Constitutional theory is heavily concentrated in the area of judicial review, and the three issues raised in Marbury v. Madison are still subjects of heated debate and controversy. It is remarkable how topical this opinion remains.

Clouds In The Crystal Ball: Presidential Expectations And The Unpredictable Behavior Of Supreme Court Appointees, Christopher E. Smith, Kimberly A. Beuger

Akron Law Review

This article will analyze the pitfalls that presidents face in hoping that their nominees' judicial performance will comport with presidential expectations.

Unanimity On The Rehnquist Court, Thomas R. Hensley, Scott P. Johnson

Akron Law Review

The unanimous decision making process is an intriguing phenomenon. However, the process of justices with different backgrounds, attitudes, and perceptions uniting on a decision raises many difficult questions for judicial scholars. Despite these challenges, the limited amount of knowledge in the area of unanimous decision making is troubling because such decisions constitute a sizable portion of judicial decisions. For example, nearly one-half of the Court's decisions were unanimous during the 1996-1997 term. Given the Court's penchant for unanimity, it is obvious that research into this area can contribute substantially toward explaining the behavior of the Justices on the Court. Thus, …

The Epa Is Only “Sort Of” Permitted To Regulate Greenhouse Gases Under The Clean Air Act: How Utility Air Regulatory Group V. Epa Shows The Supreme Court Is Still Hot And Cold On Climate Change, Kristen Curley

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Supreme Court In Real Time: Haste, Waste, And Bush V. Gore, Michael Herz

Akron Law Review

The legal proceedings following the 2000 election had their moments of humor. The oral argument in Bush v. Gore may have produced the most guffaws, as Joseph Klock struggled to name the Justices of the Supreme Court, or even to limit himself to those currently living. But if one finds humor in the absurd, the comic highpoint came 34 hours later (34 hours!) when the Court released its decision. Network “runners”―presumably the employees who had distinguished themselves at company picnics, the network softball league, or summer corporate challenge races―grabbed copies, dashed outside, and handed them to on-air reporters who were …

King V Burwell: Subsidizing Us Health Insurance For Low- And Middle-Income Individuals, Lawrence O. Gostin, Mary C. Debartolo, Daniel Hougendobler

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In King v. Burwell, the U.S. Supreme Court once again saved the Affordable Care Act (ACA) by upholding subsidies (tax credits) offered to low- and middle-income individuals for insurance bought on federal exchanges. A contrary opinion would have put at risk health insurance for 6.4 million Americans and threatened to destabilize insurance markets for millions more.

The ACA is supported by four interlocking reforms, each of which are necessary to realize its promise of expanding health care coverage: (1) guaranteed issue (prohibiting discrimination based on pre-existing conditions), (2) community rating (barring insurers from imposing higher premiums based on health …

A Triumphant Day In Pace Law School’S History: Justice Sonia Sotomayor’S November 12, 2012 Visit To Our Campus, Emily Gold Waldman

Pace Law Review

“Read through and then we can discuss. Don’t forward to anyone,” stated a March 2012 e-mail from Dean Emeritus Michelle Simon to me. The e-mail’s subject line was unremarkable – “FW: Your Pace Visit” – but its actual subject was anything but: Associate Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor had officially agreed to visit Pace Law School. It was time for intensive planning to begin. The fruition of that planning – Justice Sotomayor’s full-day visit to our campus on November 12, 2012, the first-ever visit of a Supreme Court Justice to Pace Law School – was a wonderful highlight of Michelle’s …

June 27, 2015: The Supreme Court's Week, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “The Supreme Court's Week“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

Gerry Bradley Was Quoted In The Wall Street Journal Law Blog The Gay Marriage Case: How The Supreme Court Could Rule, Gerard V. Bradley

NDLS in the News

Gerry Bradley was quoted in the Wall Street Journal Law Blog The Gay Marriage Case: How the Supreme Court Could Rule on June 23, 2015.

In Defense Of Disparate Impact: An Opportunity To Realize The Promise Of The Fair Housing Act, Valerie Schneider

School of Law Faculty Publications

Abstract:

Twice in the past three years, the Supreme Court has granted certiorari in Fair Housing cases, and, each time, under pressure from civil rights leaders who feared that the Supreme Court might narrow current Fair Housing Act jurisprudence, the cases settled just weeks before oral argument. Settlements after the Supreme Court grants certiorari are extremely rare, and, in these cases, the settlements reflect a substantial fear among civil rights advocates that the Supreme Court’s recent decisions in cases such as Shelby County v. Holder and Fisher v. University of Texas are working to dismantle many of the protections of …

Newsroom: Logan On Judicial Diversity, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court 2000-2001 Term: First Amendment Cases, Erwin Chemerinsky

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

New Issues Arising Under Section 1983, Martin A. Schwartz

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Transformation: Turning Section 2 Of The Voting Rights Act Into Something It Is Not, J. Christian Adams

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Five Justices Have Transformed The First Amendment’S Freedom Of Religion To Freedom From Religion, Gerald Walpin

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court Institute Annual Report, 2014-2015, Georgetown University Law Center, Supreme Court Institute

SCI Papers & Reports

During the 2014-2015 academic year-–corresponding to the U.S. Supreme Court’s October Term (OT) 2014-–the Supreme Court Institute (SCI) provided moot courts for advocates in 100% of the cases heard by the Supreme Court, offered a variety of programs related to the Supreme Court, and continued to integrate the moot court program into the education of Georgetown Law students. A list of all SCI moot courts held in OT 2014-–arranged by argument sitting and date of moot and including the name and affiliation of each advocate and the number of observers-–follows the narrative portion of this report.

Judicial Activism’S Effect On Judicial Elections, Nick Fernandes

Student Scholar Symposium Abstracts and Posters

High profile Supreme Court cases have become increasingly commonplace, particularly with the Citizens United court decision granting unprecedented rights to corporations. Many in the media have decried these as examples of increasing “judicial activism”. This trend has trickled down to the state supreme courts as justices have increasingly played a more active role in developing policy. Gay marriage has become legalized in numerous states due to this trend. While public sentiment is unlikely to affect the appointed Supreme Court, it could have a substantial impact on state judicial elections.

This paper will specifically be looking at judicial elections in Kentucky. …

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 …

Voter Rights And Civil Rights Era Cold Cases: Section Five And The Five Cities Project, Paula C. Johnson

Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity

No abstract provided.

Reverse Nullification And Executive Discretion, Michael T. Morley

Scholarly Publications

The President has broad discretion to refrain from enforcing many civil and criminal laws, either in general or under certain circumstances. The Supreme Court has not only affirmed the constitutionality of such under-enforcement, but extolled its virtues. Most recently, in Arizona v. United States, it deployed the judicially created doctrines of obstacle and field preemption to invalidate state restrictions on illegal immigrants that mirrored federal law, in large part to ensure that states do not undermine the effects of the President’s decision to refrain from fully enforcing federal immigration provisions.

Such a broad application of obstacle and field preemption is …

Does The Right To Elective Abortion Include The Right To Ensure The Death Of, Stephen G. Gilles

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Formalism And Distrust: Foreign Affairs Law In The Roberts Court, Harlan G. Cohen

Scholarly Works

When it comes to foreign relations, the Roberts Court has trust issues. As far as the Court is concerned, everyone — the President, Congress, the lower courts, plaintiffs — has played hard and fast with the rules, taking advantage of the Court’s functionalist approaches to foreign affairs issues. This seems to be the message of the RobertsCourt foreign affairs law jurisprudence.

The Roberts Court has been active in foreign affairs law, deciding cases on the detention and trial of enemy combatants, foreign sovereign immunity, the domestic effect of treaties, the extraterritorial reach of federal statutes, the preemption of state laws, …

Supreme Court Argument On Same-Sex Marriage Clouds Predictions, Lauren Carasik

Media Presence

No abstract provided.

Courtroom To Classroom: Judicial Policymaking And Affirmative Action, Dylan Britton Saul

Political Science Honors Projects

The judicial branch, by exercising judicial review, can replace public policies with ones of their own creation. To test the hypothesis that judicial policymaking is desirable only when courts possess high capacity and necessity, I propose an original model incorporating six variables: generalism, bi-polarity, minimalism, legitimization, structural impediments, and public support. Applying the model to a comparative case study of court-sanctioned affirmative action policies in higher education and K-12 public schools, I find that a lack of structural impediments and bi-polarity limits the desirability of judicial race-based remedies in education. Courts must restrain themselves when engaging in such policymaking.

An “Equal Sovereignty” Principle Born In Northwest Austin, Texas, Raised In Shelby County, Alabama, David Kow

Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity

No abstract provided.

The Path Forward From Shelby County V. Holder, Janet W. Steverson

Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity

No abstract provided.

Grandpa, Charles Walker

Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity

No abstract provided.

Arc Of Injustice: Pre- And Post-Decision Thoughts On Shelby County V. Holder, Janai S. Nelson

Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity

No abstract provided.