Law Commons^™

The Story Of Kedroff V. St. Nicholas Cathedral, Richard W. Garnett

Journal Articles

From the Lecture

As I see it, John Kedroff's real-estate case complements well and matters for reasons similar to those that make so important yet another case, one that did capture young William Rehnquist's (and many others') attention during the spring of 1952; one that law students, lawyers, scholars, and jurists alike place near the top of their "Supreme Court's greatest hits" lists. In Youngstown Sheet & Tube, the Justices famously, though not with one voice, declared that President Truman's Korean War-era seizure of most of the nation's steel mills was unconstitutional. And, even if the decision's implications remain …

The Court-Packing Plan As Symptom, Casualty, And Cause Of Gridlock, Barry Cushman

Journal Articles

This essay, prepared for the Notre Dame Law Review's Symposium, “The American Congress: Legal Implications of Gridlock,” considers three ways in which President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1937 Court-packing bill was related to the phenomenon of gridlock in the 1930s. First, as FDR's public remarks on the subject demonstrate, he believed that the early New Deal was a victim of partisan gridlock between the Democrat-controlled political branches and the Republican-controlled judiciary. Moreover, he did not believe that the impasse could be overcome through an amendment to the Constitution, for he regarded Article V's supermajority requirements as virtually encoding gridlock into the …

Certainty In A World Of Uncertainty: Proposing Statutory Guidance In Sentencing Juveniles To Life Without Parole., Sonia Mardarewich

The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice

In Miller v. Alabama, the United States Supreme Court held that mandatory life sentences without parole imposed upon juveniles was unconstitutional. The Court reasoned that the sentence was cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The Court, however, did not hold it was unconstitutional to sentence a juvenile to life without parole if there was “transferred intent” or “reckless disregard.” Nonetheless, the Court effectively abolished state discretion and required sentencing courts to consider an offender’s youth and attendant characteristics as mitigating circumstances. The Court, however, did not specify what sentencing guidelines should dictate. Thus, states are now …

Promises Made To Be Broken? Standstill Agreements In Change Of Control Transactions, Christina M. Sautter

Journal Articles

Many promises are made in the negotiation of a merger but not all promises are necessarily enforceable or consistent with a board of directors’ fiduciary duties. This article explores the enforceability of one such promise: the buyer’s standstill agreement. When a publicly traded company explores a sale, that company, the target, customarily requires each potential buyer to execute a standstill agreement. A typical standstill prevents potential buyers from publicly making or announcing a bid for the target during the sale process without the target’s prior consent and for a period of approximately twelve to eighteen months from the conclusion of …

What Is The Matter With Antigone?, Emily A. Hartigan

Faculty Articles

No abstract provided.

Introduction Of Chief Justice Roberts, At The Robert H. Jackson Center, May 17, 2013, John Q. Barrett

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

A backdrop to this event is an ongoing, if entirely friendly, War Between the States … or at least between two States.

As a boy, Robert H. Jackson and family moved from the state of his birth to a second state, where he completed grade school and high school and then embarked on life. Our honored guest, John G. Roberts, Jr., did the same thing in his boyhood. In Jackson’s case, following his birth and early boyhood on the family farm in Spring Creek Township, Warren County, Pennsylvania, the move was to Frewsburg, New York, and then to Jamestown—Pennsylvania …

Judging The Flood Of Litigation, Marin K. Levy

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court has increasingly considered a particular kind of argument: that it should avoid reaching decisions that would “open the floodgates of litigation.” Despite its frequent invocation, there has been little scholarly exploration of what a floodgates argument truly means, and even less discussion of its normative basis. This Article addresses both subjects, demonstrating for the first time the scope and surprising variation of floodgates arguments, as well as uncovering their sometimes-shaky foundations. Relying on in-depth case studies from a wide array of issue areas, the Article shows that floodgates arguments primarily have been used to protect three institutions: …

Heed Not The Umpire (Justice Ginsburg Called Nfib), Nicole Huberfeld

Faculty Scholarship

A bad reading of the facts in NFIB v. Sebelius has led to new limitations on Congress’s Commerce, Necessary and Proper, and Spending Clause powers. The decision appeared to use healthcare as a vehicle for constitutional change, leading to interpretive gymnastics that invite further litigation. This essay highlights the factual errors in Chief Justice Roberts’s and the joint dissent’s opinions and explains why Justice Ginsburg’s more fact-attuned opinion was the correct analysis of the case.

Prop 8, Doma Defenders Rely On Federalism, Arthur S. Leonard

Other Publications

No abstract provided.

Lafler And Frye: A New Constitutional Standard For Negotiation, Rishi Batra

Faculty Articles

The Sixth Amendment guarantees "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense." In 1984, the Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington established the standard for ineffective assistance of counsel that is a violation of this right. In a pair of decisions handed down in 2012, Lafler v. Cooper and Missouri v. Frye the Supreme Court extended the holding in Strickland to cover ineffective assistance by defense counsel in the plea-bargaining phase. Recognizing that pleas account for ninety-five percent of all criminal convictions, the court stated that "the negotiation …

Will Supreme Court Rule On Doma?, Arthur S. Leonard

Other Publications

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court Nixes Requirement For Anti-Prostitution Pledge, Arthur S. Leonard

Other Publications

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court Strikes Down Doma’S Key Provision, Ducks On Prop 8, Arthur S. Leonard

Other Publications

No abstract provided.

The Anomaly Of Executions: The Cruel And Unusual Punishments Clause In The 21st Century, John Bessler

All Faculty Scholarship

This Article describes the anomaly of executions in the context of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Eighth Amendment jurisprudence. While the Supreme Court routinely reads the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause to protect prisoners from harm, the Court simultaneously interprets the Eighth Amendment to allow inmates to be executed. Corporal punishments short of death have long been abandoned in America’s penal system, yet executions — at least in a few locales, heavily concentrated in the South — persist. This Article, which seeks a principled and much more consistent interpretation of the Eighth Amendment, argues that executions should be declared unconstitutional as …

Chief Justice Robert's Individual Mandate: The Lawless Medicine Of Nfib V. Sebelius, Gregory P. Magarian

Scholarship@WashULaw

After the U.S. Supreme Court in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius held nearly all of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act constitutional, praise rained down on Chief Justice John Roberts. The Chief Justice’s lead opinion broke with his usual conservative allies on the Court by upholding the Act’s individual mandate under the Taxing Clause. Numerous academic and popular commentators have lauded the Chief Justice for his political courage and institutional pragmatism. In this essay, Professor Magarian challenges the heroic narrative surrounding the Chief Justice’s opinion. The essay contends that the opinion is, in two distinct senses, fundamentally …

The Roberts Court And The Law Of Human Resources, Matthew T. Bodie

All Faculty Scholarship

The rise of human resources departments parallels the increase in the myriad statutory and regulatory requirements that govern the workplace. The Supreme Court's decisions in labor and employment law cases are largely monitored and implemented by HR professionals who must carry out these directives on a daily basis. This article looks at the Roberts Court's labor and employment law cases through the lens of human resources. In adopting an approach that is solicitous towards HR departments and concerns, the Roberts Court reflects a willingness to empower these private institutional players. Even if labor and employment law scholars do not agree …

Foreword: Supreme Court Narratives: Law, History, And Journalism, James F. Simon

Articles & Chapters

No abstract provided.

Oasis Or Mirage: The Supreme Court's Thirst For Dictionaries In The Rehnquist And Roberts Eras, James J. Brudney, Lawrence Baum

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court’s use of dictionaries, virtually non-existent before 1987, has dramatically increased during the Rehnquist and Roberts Court eras to the point where as many as one-third of statutory decisions invoke dictionary definitions. The increase is linked to the rise of textualism and its intense focus on ordinary meaning. This Article explores the Court’s new dictionary culture in depth from empirical and doctrinal perspectives. We find that while textualist justices are heavy dictionary users, purposivist justices invoke dictionary definitions with comparable frequency. Further, dictionary use overall is strikingly ad hoc and subjective. We demonstrate how the Court’s patterns of …

Protecting Elites: An Alternative Take On How United States V. Jones Fits Into The Court's Technology Jurisprudence, Tamara Rice Lave

Articles

This Article argues that the Supreme Court's technology jurisprudence can be best understood as protecting the privacy interest of elites. After providing an overview of the major technology cases from Olmstead to Kyllo, the Article focuses on the recent case of United States v Jones. The Article does not contend that the Court intended to protect elites, but instead posits that this motive likely operated at a more unconscious level because of the Justices' greater relative affluence and elevated social position.

Is Prayer Constitutional At Municipal Council Meetings?, Thomas A. Schweitzer

Scholarly Works

The author discusses Galloway v. Town of Greece, a case which challenges official prayers at town council meetings. To provide the necessary background information for understanding the issues in Galloway, the author begins with a brief discussion of two other cases, Lemon v. Kurtzman and Marsh v. Chambers. The author then examines the district and circuit court decisions in Galloway and the Establishment Clause issues posed by the case. Next, the author notes issues raised by other lower court decisions involving legislative prayer after Marsh.

Towards the end of the article, to clarify and decide the constitutional issues, the author …

Supreme Court Fortifies Qualified Immunity For Law Enforcement Officers In Warrant Cases, Martin Schwartz

Scholarly Works

This article analyzes the significance of the United States Supreme Court decision in Messerschmidt v. Millender, 132 S.Ct. 1652 (2012), upon §1983 Fourth Amendment claims asserted against state and local law enforcement officers who apply for and enforce warrants. Millender held that police officers who sought and executed a very broad warrant authorizing them to search a residence for guns and gang related material were protected by qualified immunity. The author asserts that §1983 plaintiffs, who seek to recover damages based upon either the application or execution of an allegedly unconstitutional warrant, will now have to overcome various layers of …

The Second Amendment: An Analysis Of District Of Columbia V. Heller, Eileen Kaufman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Qualified Immunity Developments: Not Much Hope Left For Plaintiffs, Karen Blum, Erwin Chemerinsky, Martin A. Schwartz

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

No Small Feat: Who Won The Health Care Case (And Why Did So Many Law Professors Miss The Boat)?, Randy E. Barnett

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In this essay, prepared as the basis for the 2013 Dunwody Distinguished Lecture in Law at the Fredric G. Levin College of Law, University of Florida, I describe five aspects of the Supreme Court’s decision in NFIB v. Sebelius that are sometimes overlooked or misunderstood. (1) The Court held that imposing economic mandates on the people was unconstitutional under the Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses; (2) Whether viewed from a formalist or realist perspective, Chief Justice Roberts’ reasoning was the holding in the case; (3) The Court did not uphold the constitutionality of the individual insurance mandate under the …

The Gravitational Force Of Originalism, Randy E. Barnett

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In part I of this essay, prepared for the Fordham conference on “The New Originalism and Constitutional Law,” I describe four aspects of the New Originalism: (1) The New Originalism is about identifying the original public meaning of the Constitution rather than the original framers intent; (2) The interpretive activity of identifying the original public meaning of the text is a purely descriptive empirical inquiry; (3) But there is also a normative tenet of the New Originalism that contends that the original public meaning of the text should be followed; (4) Distinguishing between the activities of interpretation and construction identifies …

“Fine Distinctions” In The Contemporary Law Of Insider Trading, Donald C. Langevoort

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

William Cary’s opinion for the SEC in In re Cady, Roberts & Co. built the foundation on which the modern law of insider trading rests. This paper—a contribution to Columbia Law School’s recent celebration of Cary’s Cady Roberts opinion, explores some of these—particularly the emergence of a doctrine of “reckless” insider trading. Historically, the crucial question is this: how or why did the insider trading prohibition survive the retrenchment that happened to so many other elements of Rule 10b-5? It argues that the Supreme Court embraced the continuing existence of the “abstain or disclose” rule, and tolerated constructive fraud notwithstanding …

Understanding Causation In Private Securities Lawsuits: Building On Amgen, James D. Cox

Faculty Scholarship

With Amgen, the Supreme Court’s majority once again holds that inquiry into the alleged market impact of a misrepresentation is not required to invoke fraud on the market approach to causation so that the class can be certified. Rather than just leaving matters where they have been since the Supreme Court’s muddled encounter with causation in Basic Inc. v. Levinson, the Supreme Court’s most recent decision appears to relax some earlier-held tenets with respect to markets believed sufficiently efficient for fraud on the market to be invoked. This Article not only identifies the central flaw of Basic that has over …

Algorithms And Speech, Stuart M. Benjamin

Faculty Scholarship

One of the central questions in free speech jurisprudence is what activities the First Amendment encompasses. This Article considers that question in the context of an area of increasing importance – algorithm-based decisions. I begin by looking to broadly accepted legal sources, which for the First Amendment means primarily Supreme Court jurisprudence. That jurisprudence provides for very broad First Amendment coverage, and the Court has reinforced that breadth in recent cases. Under the Court’s jurisprudence the First Amendment (and the heightened scrutiny it entails) would apply to many algorithm-based decisions, specifically those entailing substantive communications. We could of course adopt …

Protecting The Right Of Citizens To Aggregate Small Claims Against Businesses, Paul D. Carrington

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Professor Stephen E. Sachs As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Neither Party, Stephen E. Sachs

Faculty Scholarship

The parties in this case defend two sides of a many-sided circuit split. This brief argues that a third view is correct.

If a contract requires suit in a particular forum, and the plaintiff sues somewhere else, how may the defendant raise the issue? Petitioner Atlantic Marine Construction Company suggests a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) or 28 U.S.C. § 1406, on the theory that the contract renders venue improper. Respondent J-Crew Management, Inc. contends that venue remains proper, and that the defendant¹s only remedy is a transfer motion under § 1404.

Both sides are wrong. Forum-selection …