Law Commons^™

Supreme Court Institute Annual Report, 2013-2014, Georgetown University Law Center, Supreme Court Institute

SCI Papers & Reports

During the 2013-2014 academic year–corresponding to the U.S. Supreme Court’s October Term (OT) 2013–the Supreme Court Institute (SCI) provided moot courts for advocates in 96% of the cases heard by the Court this Term, offered a variety of programs related to the Supreme Court, and further integrated the moot court program into the education of Georgetown Law students. A list of all SCI moot courts held in OT 2013–arranged by argument sitting and date of moot and including the name and affiliation of each advocate and the number of student observers–follows the narrative portion of this report.

Bruce Ledewitz, American Religious Democracy: Coming To Terms With The End Of Secular Politics, Thomas A. Schweitzer

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Procedure Decisions From The October 2006 Term, Susan N. Herman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Helmsley Case: An Illustration Of The Confused State Of The Law Surrounding The Manifest Disregard Of Law Doctrine As Applied To Arbitration, David Graff

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Court Of Appeals Of New York - Cubas V. Martinez, Gregory Gillen

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Court Of Appeals Of New York - New York Ex Rel. Harkavy V. Consilvio, Sardar Asadullah

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Court Of Appeals Of New York - People V. Gajadhar, Joseph Maehr

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court Of New York Appellate Division, Third Department - People V. Willette, Mark Tsukerman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court Of New York Appellate Division, Third Department - Kings Mall, Llc V. Wenk, Steven Fox

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Policing Facts, Seth W. Stoughton

Faculty Publications

The United States Supreme Court’s understanding of police practices plays a significant role in the development of the constitutional rules that regulate officer conduct. As it approaches the questions of whether to engage in constitutional regulation and what form of regulation to adopt, the Court discusses the environment in which officers act, describes specific police practices, and explains what motivates officers. Yet the majority of the Court’s factual assertions are made entirely without support or citation, raising concerns about whether the Court is acting based on a complete and accurate perception. When it comes to policing facts, the Court too …

A Tale Of Two Minority Groups: Can Two Different Minority Groups Bring A Coalition Suit Under Section 2 Of The Voting Rights Act Of 1965, Sara Michaloski

Catholic University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Federalism And Phantom Economic Rights In Nfib V. Sibelius, Matthew Lindsay

All Faculty Scholarship

Few predicted that the constitutional fate of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act would turn on Congress’ power to lay and collect taxes. Yet in NFIB v. Sebelius, the Supreme Court upheld the centerpiece of the Act — the minimum coverage provision (MCP), commonly known as the “individual mandate” — as a tax. The unexpected basis of the Court’s holding has deflected attention from what may prove to be the decision’s more constitutionally consequential feature: that a majority of the Court agreed that Congress lacked authority under the Commerce Clause to penalize people who decline to purchase health insurance. …

The Dangers Of Press Clause Dicta, Ronnell Andersen Jones

Faculty Scholarship

The United States Supreme Court has engaged in an unusual pattern of excessive dicta in cases involving the press. Indeed, a close examination of such cases reveals that it is one of the most consistent, defining characteristics of the U.S. Supreme Court’s media law jurisprudence in the last half century. The Court’s opinions in cases involving the media, while almost uniformly reaching conclusions based on other grounds, regularly include language about the constitutional or democratic character, duty, value, or role of the press — language that could be, but ultimately is not, significant to the constitutional conclusion reached. Although scholars …

March 25, 2014: What’S Going To Happen In The Hobby Lobby Case?, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “What’s Going to Happen in the Hobby Lobby Case?“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

One Less Juror: A Defendant's Right To Juror Substitution, Luzan Moore

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

"But My Attorney Didn't Tell Me I'D Be Deported!"--The Retroactivity Of Padilla, Tara M. Breslawski

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Are You Satisfied With Your Representation?--The Sixth Amendment Right To Effective Assistance Of Counsel, Dean M. Villani

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

An Effective But Unreported Application Of Lafler & Frye, Christopher M. Gavin

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Choose Your Own Path: A Defendant's Constitutional Right To Legal Representation, Luzan Moore

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Taxing Judicial Restraint: How Washington's Supreme Court Misinterpreted Its Role And The Washington State Constitution, Nicholas Carlson

Seattle University Law Review

In the realm of constitutional interpretation, the judicial department reigns supreme. League of Education Voters v. State exemplifies the judiciary’s potential abuse of its interpretative role: The Washington Supreme Court misinterpreted its judicial function because it ignored the text of Washington State’s constitution and held a statute unconstitutional. The court, therefore, voided a statute because of judicial volition, not because Washington’s constitution demanded that outcome. This Note challenges the reasoning in League and makes a novel suggestion for Washington State constitutional analysis, an approach that may apply to other states. This Note details a new analytical framework for constitutional analysis …

In Search Of Justice: An Examination Of The Appointments Of John G. Roberts And Samuel A. Alito To The U.S. Supreme Court And Their Impact On American Jurisprudence, Alberto R. Gonzales

Law Faculty Scholarship

During 2005, President George W. Bush appointed Federal Circuit Court Judges John G. Roberts and Samuel A. Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court. These appointments were the culmination of years of examination of the work, character, and temperament of both men commencing during the 2000 presidential transition. Our evaluation included face-to-face interviews; an analysis of judicial opinions, speeches, and writings; and conversation with friends, colleagues, and court experts. Based on this work, a select group of Bush Administration officials developed a set of predictors that formed the basis of our recommendation to President Bush that he elevate Circuit Court Judges …

The Past, Present And Future Of Auer Deference: Mead, Form And Function In Judicial Review Of Agency Interpretations Of Regulations, Michael P. Healy

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

The law of judicial review of agency legal interpretations has undergone an important reshaping as a consequence of the Supreme Court decision in United States v. Mead Corp. That decision and the important follow-on decision in National Cable & Telecommunications Ass 'n v. Brand X Internet Services have changed the understanding of the Court's landmark 1984 decision in Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. Chevron defined a new era of judicial deference to an agency's interpretation of an ambiguous statute, but the Chevron era has itself been transformed.

These legal developments had seemed to have little consequential …

Transparent Adjudication: Promoting Democratic Dialogue On Judicial Conceptions Of Politics, Bertrall L. Ross Ii

Schmooze 'tickets'

No abstract provided.

Citizens Derided: Corporate Politics And Religion In The Roberts Court, Jamin Raskin

Schmooze 'tickets'

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court Ruling Shields Corporations From Accountability, Lauren Carasik

Media Presence

No abstract provided.

Manro V. Almeida: Piracy, Maritime Torts, And Attachment In Rem, Stephanie Owen

Legal History Publications

In 1820, Captain Joseph Almeida, on the Bolivar and under South American colors, pursued and captured the Spanish ship Santiago off the coast of the Chesapeake Bay. On board was $5000 in specie owned by a small group of Baltimore merchants. The Baltimore merchants brought a libel against Captain Almeida and requested an attachment in rem to force Captain Almeida to answer for the maritime tort. Although the attachment initially issued, the lower court restored Captain Almeida’s goods. In 1825, the United States Supreme Court ruled that attachment in rem was a proper remedy for a maritime tort.

Supreme Court Of The United States, October Term 2014 Preview, Georgetown University Law Center, Supreme Court Institute

Supreme Court Overviews

No abstract provided.

What Might Have Been: 25 Years Of Robert Bork On The United States Supreme Court, Benjamin Pomerance

Belmont Law Review

This Article tries to briefly attempt an answer to what would have happened if Robert Bork had sat on the Supreme Court bench. Part I examines the backgrounds of Judge Bork and Justice Kennedy, and then studies some of the major cases decided by the Court in four key areas — abortion, freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, and civil rights — during the last twenty-five years. Part II then evaluates the voting record of Justice Kennedy in these cases, as well as the views held by Judge Bork — based on Bork’s own writings, on opinions that …

Cultural Collisions And The Limits Of The Affordable Care Act, Jasmine E. Harris

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

No abstract provided.

When Enough Is Enough: Location Tracking, Machine Learning And The Mosaic Theory, Renee Mcdonald Hutchins, Steve Bellovin, Tony Jebara, Sebastian Zimmeck

Journal Articles

Since 1967, when it decided Katz v. United States, the Supreme Court has tied the right to be free of unwanted government scrutiny to the concept of reasonable expectations of privacy.1 An evaluation of reasonable expectations depends, among other factors, upon an assessment of the intrusiveness of government action. When making such assessment historically the Court considered police conduct with clear temporal, geographic, or substantive limits. However, in an era where new technologies permit the storage and compilation of vast amounts of personal data, things are becoming more complicated. A school of thought known as “mosaic theory” has stepped into …