Law Commons^™

Blackmun (And Scalia) At The Bat: The Court's Separation-Of -Powers Strike Out In Freytag, Tuan Samahon

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Hiding Behind The Cloak Of Invisibility: The Supreme Court And Per Curiam Opinions, Ira Robbins

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

Per curiam--literally translated from Latin to "by the court"-is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as "[a]n opinion handed down by an appellate court without identifying the individual judge who wrote the opinion." Accordingly the author of a per curiam opinion is meant to be institutional rather than individual, attributable to the court as an entity rather than to a single judge The United States Supreme Court issues a significant number of per curiam dispositions each Term. In the first six years of Chief Justice John Roberts’ tenure, almost nine percent of the Court full opinions were per curiams. The prevalence …

May 30, 2012: Seeger—An Extraordinary Case, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “Seeger—an Extraordinary Case“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

Supreme Court Institute Annual Report, 2011-2012, Georgetown University Law Center, Supreme Court Institute

SCI Papers & Reports

During the 2011-2012 academic year--corresponding to the U.S. Supreme Court’s October Term (OT) 2011--the Supreme Court Institute (SCI) provided moot courts for advocates in over 94% of the cases heard by the Court this Term and offered over a dozen programs related to the Supreme Court. All SCI moot courts held in OT 2011, listed by 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.

Safeguarding The Safeguards: The Aca Litigation And The Extension Of Structural Protection To Non-Fundamental Liberties, Abigail Moncrieff

Faculty Scholarship

As the lawsuits challenging the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) have evolved, one feature of the litigation has proven especially rankling to the legal academy: the incorporation of substantive libertarian concerns into structural federalism analysis. The breadth and depth of scholarly criticism on this point is surprising, however, given that judges today frequently choose indirect methods for protecting substantive constitutional values, including structural and process-based methods of the kinds at issue in the ACA litigation. Indeed, indirection in the protection of constitutional liberties is a well-known and well-theorized strategy, which one scholar recently termed “semisubstantive review” and another …

The Lost Controversy Limitation Of The Federal Arbitration Act, Stephen R. Friedman

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

"If The Plaintiffs Are Right, Grutter Is Wrong": Why Fisher V. University Of Texas Presents An Opportunity For The Supreme Court To Overturn A Flawed Decision, Brooks H. Spears

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Criminal Rules Enabling Act, Max Mizner

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

April 4, 2012: Samuel Moyn’S Questions About Church, State, And The Crisis In American Secularism, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “Samuel Moyn’s Questions about Church, State, and the Crisis in American Secularism“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

The Long And Winding Road From Monroe To Connick, Sheldon Nahmod

All Faculty Scholarship

In this article, I address the historical and doctrinal development of § 1983 local government liability, beginning with Monroe v. Pape in 1961 and culminating in the Supreme Court’s controversial 2011 failure to train decision in Connick v. Thompson. Connick has made it exceptionally difficult for § 1983 plaintiffs to prevail against local governments in failure to train cases. In the course of my analysis, I also consider the oral argument and opinions in Connick as well as various aspects of § 1983 doctrine. I ultimately situate Connick in the Court’s federalism jurisprudence which doubles back to Justice Frankfurter’s view …

March 30, 2012: A Fundamental Rights Case Masquerading As A Commerce Clause Case, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “A Fundamental Rights Case Masquerading as a Commerce Clause Case“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

Healthcare Reform Hangs In The Balance, Lawrence O. Gostin

O'Neill Institute Papers

In this timely new briefing, Professor Lawrence O. Gostin, University Professor and Faculty Director, O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law, Georgetown University writes:

Prior to Tuesday’s arguments, I believed that the Supreme Court would uphold the health insurance purchase mandate by a comfortable margin. But now I believe that health care reform hangs in the balance. Here are the key arguments on which the future of President Obama’s health care reform depends: a greater freedom, cost-shifting, the health care market, acts versus omissions, limiting principles, the population-base approach, and what is necessary and proper. If the Court strikes …

Why The Affordable Care Act's Individual Purchase Mandate Is Both Constitutional And Indispensable To The Public Welfare, Lawrence O. Gostin

O'Neill Institute Papers

Integral to the Affordable Care Act's (ACA’s) conceptual design is the individual purchase mandate, which requires most individuals to pay an annual tax penalty if they do not have health insurance by 2014. Despite the vociferous opposition, the mandate is the most “market-friendly” financing device because it relies on the private sector. Ironically, less market-oriented reforms such as a single-payer system clearly would have been constitutional.

It is common sense for everyone to purchase health insurance and thus gain security against the potentially catastrophic costs of treating a serious illness or injury. However, Congress’ method of ensuring that everyone has …

Animus Thick And Thin: The Broader Impact Of The Ninth Circuit Decision In Perry V. Brown, Nan D. Hunter

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

This essay is a response to an article by: Eskridge Jr., William N., The Ninth Circuit's Perry Decision and the Constitutional Politics of Marriage Equality, in 64 Stan. L. Rev. Online 93 (2012).

This essay examines the impact of Perry v. Brown, 671 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2012), the first appellate federal court decision on the constitutional validity of marriage exclusion laws. The author argues that the major contribution of the Perry decision is to illuminate the meaning of animus, a term that is sharply contested in Equal Protection jurisprudence, and to explicate its relationship to standards of …

Overview Of The Term: The Rule Of Law & Roberts's Revolution Of Restraint, Douglas W. Kmiec

Pepperdine Law Review

In this introduction to a symposium on Chief Justice Roberts’ first term, Professor Kmiec begins with a discussion of how the addition of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito to the Supreme Court resulted in a continuation of the center-right tradition of the Rehnquist-O’Connor era, and he addresses the impact of Justice O’Connor’s retirement on Justice Kennedy’s jurisprudence. Professor Kmiec also evaluates Rehnquist’s final term, determining that, during this term, Rehnquist lost some of the hard earned constitutional advantages in the areas of religious accommodation, federalism, and the protection of property rights. Professor Kmiec ends his article with a discussion …

The Inaugural William French Smith Memorial Lecture: A Look At Supreme Court Advocacy With Justice Samuel Alito, Samuel A. Alito Jr, Douglas W. Kmiec, Carter G. Phillips, Kenneth W. Starr

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Campaign Finance Regulation And The Marketplace Of Emotions, Barry P. Mcdonald

Pepperdine Law Review

This essay examines the validity, in light of new empirical research, of the free speech theory the U.S. Supreme Court uses to justify the doctrines it currently employs to assess the constitutionality of campaign finance regulations. The Court’s model, which Professor McDonald terms the theory of 'stimulated democratic deliberation,' assumes that an unlimited quantity of campaign-related communications will result in increased public deliberation about ideas and better informed citizens, which in turn will result in better decisions about candidates for political office. In short, this model assumes that rational thought and deliberation about important issues of the day drive voter …

Amici Curiae Brief In Support Of Petitioners Urging Reversal On The Minimum Coverage Provision Issue, Department Of Health And Human Services V. State Of Florida, Wendy Parmet, Lorianne Sainsbury-Wong

Faculty Scholarship

This amicus brief was filed before the Supreme Court in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) litigation on behalf of Health Care for All and other Massachusetts organizations that have been involved in the implementation of Massachusetts’ health 2006 health reform legislation. The brief argues that Massachusetts’ health reform law, upon which the ACA is modeled, has been very effective in expanding insurance coverage within the State, but it required substantial federal support, through a Medicaid waiver, to achieve its success. In addition the Commonwealth’s experience illustrates that the health insurance and health care markets are inherently interstate commerce and that …

January 10, 2012: The Ministerial Exception Must Be Put On New Foundations, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “The Ministerial Exception Must be Put on New Foundations“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

Supreme Court Of The United States, October Term 2011 Preview, Update: January 3, 2012, Georgetown University Law Center, Supreme Court Institute

Supreme Court Overviews

No abstract provided.

Defining Corruption And Constitutionalizing Democracy, Deborah Hellman

Faculty Scholarship

The central front in the battle over campaign finance laws is the definition of corruption. The Supreme Court has allowed restrictions on giving and spending money in connection with elections only when they serve to avoid corruption or its appearance. The constitutionality of such laws, therefore, depends on how the Court defines corruption. Over the years, campaign finance cases have conceived of corruption in both broad and narrow terms, with the most recent cases defining it especially narrowly. While supporters and critics of campaign finance laws have argued for and against these different formulations, both sides have missed the more …

Chevron Without The Courts? The Supreme Court's Recent Chevron Jurisprudence Through An Immigration Lens, Shruti Rana

Faculty Scholarship

The limits of administrative law are undergoing a seismic shift in the immigration arena. Chevron divides interpretive and decision-making authority between the federal courts and agencies in each of two steps. The Supreme Court may now be transforming this division in largely unrecognized ways. These shifts, currently playing out in the immigration context, may threaten to reshape deference jurisprudence by handing more power to the immigration agency just when the agency may be least able to handle that power effectively.

An unprecedented surge in immigration cases—now approximately 90% of the federal administrative docket—has arrived just as the Court is whittling …

Open Secret: Why The Supreme Court Has Nothing To Fear From The Internet, Keith J. Bybee

Institute for the Study of the Judiciary, Politics, and the Media at Syracuse University

The United States Supreme Court has an uneasy relationship with openness: it complies with some calls for transparency, drags its feet in response to others, and sometimes simply refuses to go along. I argue that the Court’s position is understandable given that the internet age of fluid information and openness has often been heralded in terms that are antithetical to the Court’s operations. Even so, I also argue the Court actually has little to fear from greater transparency. The understanding of the Court with the greatest delegitimizing potential is the understanding that the justices render decisions on the basis of …

Is Medicaid Constitutional?, Timothy Stoltzfus Jost

Scholarly Articles

Not available.

Supreme Court Of The United States, October Term 2012 Preview, Georgetown University Law Center, Supreme Court Institute

Supreme Court Overviews

No abstract provided.

Liberty Of The Exercise Of Religion In The Peace Of Westphalia, Gordon A. Christenson

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

This essay honors my dear friend of half a century, Burns Weston. In it, I take a fresh look at the backdrop and structure of toleration and religious freedom in the Peace of Westphalia of 1648 and in the American Constitution, with special focus on a recent unanimous Supreme Court decision of first impression. That important decision protects inner church freedoms in ecclesiastical employment, the so-called "ministerial exception" to federal and state employment discrimination laws.

"Of all the great world religions past and present," writes the noted historian Perez Zagorin, "Christianity has been by far the most intolerant." Violence and …

The Quad (The 2012 Alumni Magazine), Southern Methodist University, Dedman School Of Law

The Quad (Law Alumni Magazine), 1988-present

• Historic Rule of Law Forum - SMU Dedman School of Law hosts Saudi policymakers
• $57 Million+ raised to date in law campaign
• Getting Down to Business: Ten alumni GCs speak about the evolving role of the general counsel
• Alumni Sweep Ethics Awards
• 2012 Distinguished Alumni Awards Ceremony

Gender And Securities Law In The Supreme Court, Lyman P.Q. Johnson, Michelle Harner, Jason A. Cantone

Scholarly Articles

The 2010 appointment of Elena Kagan to the United States Supreme Court meant that, for the first time, three female justices would serve together on that court. Less clear is whether Justice Kagan’s gender will really matter in how she votes as a justice. This question is an especially visible aspect of a larger issue: do female judges display gendered voting patterns in the cases that come before them?

This article makes a novel contribution to the growing literature on female voting patterns. We investigated whether female justices on the United States Supreme Court voted differently than, or otherwise influenced, …

Sorrell V. Ims Health And The End Of The Constitutional Double Standard, Ernest A. Young

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Faa Law, Without The Activism: What If The Bellwether Cases Were Decided By A Truly Conservative Court, Richard C. Reuben

Faculty Publications

The U.S. Supreme Court has decided an extraordinary number of cases under the Federal Arbitration Act in the last half century, a pattern that continues today at the pace of a case or two a year. During this time, Republican presidential candidates have made much political hay out of the Supreme Court, running against the Warren Court’s “liberal activism” by promising to appoint judges who would decide cases more conservatively. In this article, I analyze whether this promise has been fulfilled in the context of the Supreme Court’s FAA jurisprudence by identifying the core principles of judicial conservatism – restraint, …