Law Commons^™

Harmful Speech And The Culture Of Indeterminacy, Anthony D'Amato

Faculty Working Papers

I advocate two propositions in this Essay: the constitutional law of at least one category of content regulation of free speech is indeterminate, and recognition of this indeterminacy has been and ought to continue to be the Supreme Court's decisional basis for protecting speech against content regulation. Milkovich is worth examining at some length, not only because of the Court's failure to come up with general guidelines (after all, pragmatic indeterminacy predicts that failure!), but also because what the Court did say cannot even guide the lower court on remand.

Brief Of Arbitration Professors As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondents, At&T Mobility Llc V. Concepcion, 131 S.Ct. 1740 (Supreme Court Of The United States 2011) (No. 09-893), Karen H. Cross

Court Documents and Proposed Legislation

No abstract provided.

Rosy Pictures And Renegade Officials: The Slow Death Of Monroe V. Pape, 78 Umkc L. Rev. 889 (2010), Alan K. Chen

Sturm College of Law: Faculty Scholarship

The architecture of federal constitutional remedies involves a matrix of causes of action and affirmative theories of relief that facilitate protection of individual constitutional rights and the evolution of constitutional doctrine. At the same time, lawsuits by private parties to secure constitutional enforcement present a number of structural constitutional challenges that have motivated the Supreme Court to bar or substantially limit many important forms of constitutional remedies. In most cases when the Court does so, however, its decisions explicitly or implicitly leave room for alternative remedies that provide an escape hatch for the litigant whose attempt to enforce the Constitution …

Interring The Rhetoric Of Judicial Activism, Neil S. Siegel

Faculty Scholarship

For decades, leaders of the Republican Party have decried “judicial activism” and championed “judicial restraint.” For much of that time, Republican politicians have equated judicial restraint with a commitment to judicial deference, asserting that “activist” judges disrespect the will of popular majorities. More recently, as the Republican Party has solidified its control of the federal courts and made its own claims on the Constitution, Republican politicians have tended to define judicial activism in potentially conflicting ways, mixing deference frames with claims about the autonomy of law from mere politics or personal beliefs.

In this Article, I examine these two ways …

Resisting Federal Courts On Tribal Jurisdiction, Matthew L.M. Fletcher

University of Colorado Law Review

This Paper is part of a call for a paradigm-shifting reexamination by Indian tribes and Indian people about their place in the American constitutional structure. For tribal advocates to prevail in the federal judiciary, they must force federal judges to rethink everything they know about federal Indian law. There are at least two ways to do this. Tribal advocates and American Indian law scholars must first establish a baseline of knowledge and information about the realities of Indian country in the twenty-first century. This work is nascent and ongoing, if not burgeoning, but frankly is far from enough. A second …

Immigration As Invasion: Sovereignty, Security, And The Origins Of The Federal Immigration Power, Matthew Lindsay

All Faculty Scholarship

This Article offers a new interpretation of the modern federal immigration power. At the end of the nineteenth century, the Supreme Court and Congress fundamentally transformed the federal government’s authority to regulate immigration, from a species of commercial regulation firmly grounded in Congress’ commerce authority, into a power that was unmoored from the Constitution, derived from the nation’s “inherent sovereignty,” and subject to extraordinary judicial deference. This framework, which is commonly referred to as the “plenary power doctrine,” has stood for more than a century as an anomaly within American public law. The principal legal and rhetorical rationale for the …

Regulating Offensiveness: Snyder V. Phelps, Emotion, And The First Amendment, Christina E. Wells

Faculty Publications

In its upcoming term, the Court will decide in Snyder v. Phelps whether Albert Snyder can sue the Reverend Fred Phelps and other members of the Westboro Baptist Church for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress for protesting near his son’s funeral. Those arguing in favor of tort liability claim that the Phelps’ speech during a time of mourning and vulnerability is especially outrageous and injurious and that the First Amendment allows such regulation. Their arguments, however, effectively rely on the offensiveness of the Phelps’ message rather than on any external indicia of harm, such as noisy …

What The Federal Circuit Can Learn From The Supreme Court-And Vice Versa, Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Court Closes The Door On Inventors, Open A Window For Business-Method Patents, Kristin Wall

Intellectual Property Brief

No abstract provided.

Will The Real Elena Kagan Please Stand Up? Conflicting Public Images In The Supreme Court Confirmation Process, Keith J. Bybee

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

What images of judging did the Kagan confirmation process project?

My response to this question begins with a brief overview of existing public perceptions of the Supreme Court. I argue that a large portion of the public sees the justices as impartial arbiters who can be trusted to rule fairly. At the same time, a large portion of the public also sees the justices as political actors who are wrapped up in partisan disputes. Given these prevailing public views, we should expect the Kagan confirmation process to transmit contradictory images of judicial decisionmaking, with a portrait of judging as a …

Did A Switch In Time Save Nine?, Daniel E. Ho, Kevin M. Quinn

Faculty Articles

Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s court-packing plan of 1937 and the “switch in time that saved nine” animate central questions of law, politics, and history. Did Supreme Court Justice Roberts abruptly switch votes in 1937 to avert a showdown with Roosevelt? Scholars disagree vigorously about whether Roberts’s transformation was gradual and anticipated or abrupt and unexpected. Using newly collected data of votes from the 1931–1940 terms, we contribute to the historical understanding of this episode by providing the first quantitative evidence of Roberts’s transformation. Applying modern measurement methods, we show that Roberts shifted sharply to the left in the 1936 term. The …

The Irrepressible Influence Of Byrd, Richard D. Freer, Thomas Arthur

Faculty Articles

We set forth four interrelated theses in this article. First, Byrd is the only Supreme Court case since Erie itself to discuss all three of the core interests balanced, expressly or not, in every vertical choice of law case. Second, because Hanna's "twin aims" test ignores two of these three core interests, it cannot adequately serve as the standard for cases under the Rules of Decision Act ("RDA"). This fact is evidenced by the Court's eschewing the twin aims test in cases, like Gasperini, where state and federal interests must be accommodated. Third, as all three opinions in …

How Not To Lie With Judicial Votes: Misconceptions, Measurement, And Models, Daniel E. Ho, Kevin M. Quinn

Faculty Articles

In Part I, we describe the formal spatial theory often invoked to justify the statistical approach. While spatial theory has the nice feature of synthesizing theory and empirics, legal scholars may remain skeptical of its strong assumptions. Fortunately, measurement models can be illuminating even if the spatial theory is questionable.

To illustrate this, Part II provides a nontechnical overview of the intuition behind measurement models that take merits votes as an input and return a summary score of Justice-specific behavior as an output. Such scores provide clear and intuitive descriptive summaries of differences in judicial voting.

Confusion abounds, however, and …

The Wild West Of Supreme Court Employment Discrimination Jurisprudence, Henry L. Chambers, Jr.

Law Faculty Publications

This Essay considers three cases decided in the Supreme Court's 2008-2009 term and notes some of the major issues that are left open for discussion after these cases; its purpose is not to catalog every issue that these cases raise. Taken together, these cases challenge employment discrimination doctrine in a fundamental way. This provides the Fourth Circuit in particular the opportunity to continue doing what it has often done-think creatively about employment discrimination doctrine. This is an observation, not a criticism of the Fourth Circuit. It suggests that the Fourth Circuit can make a difference. Of course, the Fourth Circuit's …

Why March To A Uniform Beat? Adding Honesty And Proportionality To The Tune Of Federal Sentencing, Jelani Jefferson Exum

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

This Article fills a gap in current scholarship concerning the Federal Sentencing Guidelines ("Guidelines") by bringing together many sentencing concerns and refocusing them on the Guidelines themselves. Since United States v. Booker, in which the Supreme Court demoted the Guidelines from mandatory to advisory status and imposed reasonableness as the appellate standard of review, several scholars have written about the new, advisory Guidelines scheme. Some have focused on the constitutional problems that Booker failed to settle. Others have argued against a presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences. For some scholars, the biggest issues with the advisory Guidelines regime …

Our Forgotten Founders: Reconstruction, Public Education, And Constitutional Heroism, Thomas G. Donnelly

Law Faculty Publications

Works on the Founding generation consistently inhabit national bestseller lists. For instance, David McCullough’s book 1776 placed fifth on Publishers Weekly’s 2005 list, beating out pop culture favorites Blink and Freakonomics. Over the last decade, other similarly successful titles have included His Excellency, Founding Brothers, and John Adams. In fact, McCullough’s hagiographic biography of our nation’s second President was later transformed into an Emmy Award-winning mini-series on HBO—to say nothing of President Obama’s decision to add it to his 2009 summer reading list. In short, Americans revere their eighteenth-century Founders. ...

The Story Of Bob Jones University V. United States: Race, Religion, And Congress' Extraordinary Acquiescence, Olatunde C.A. Johnson

Faculty Scholarship

On May 25, 1983, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that the United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS) had authority to deny tax-exempt status to Bob Jones University, Goldsboro Christian School, and other private and religious schools with racially discriminatory educational policies. The Court relied on the statute’s broad purpose and placed significant weight on Congress’ failure to enact legislation to overturn the IRS policy. A complete account of the legislative history, provided here, both supports and undercuts the Court’s opinion. More importantly, this story provides an account of the dynamic interaction among a Supreme Court critical of racial integration, a …

Business-Like: The Supreme Court's 2009-2010 Labor And Employment Decisions, Melissa Hart

Publications

The 2009-10 Term at the Supreme Court was a relatively quiet one for labor and employment law. While the Justices were in the news for decisions on corporate political donations and the Second Amendment, the Court’s work-related docket grabbed no headlines. In fact, though, the Court considered 7 work law cases this Term, in areas ranging from standards for arbitration agreements to employee privacy rights in new technology to time limitations for filing Title VII disparate impact claims. This article discusses the Court’s labor and employment cases for the Term. While they may not have made much news, several of …

The Consequences Of Congress’S Choice Of Delegate: Judicial And Agency Interpretations Of Title Vii, Margaret H. Lemos

Faculty Scholarship

Although Congress delegates lawmaking authority to both courts and agencies, we know remarkably little about the determinants-and even less about the consequences-of the choice between judicial and administrative process. The few scholars who have sought to understand the choice of delegate have used formal modeling to illuminate various aspects of the decision from the perspective of the enacting Congress. That approach yields useful insight into the likely preferences of rational legislators, but tells us nothing about how (or whether) those preferences play out in the behavior of courts and agencies. Without such knowledge, we have no way of testing the …

School Choice And The Challenges That Remain: A Comment On Richard D. Komer's "School Choice And State Constitutions' Religion Clauses", Richard W. Garnett

Journal Articles

Richard Komer’s paper helpfully and carefully shows that, after the Supreme Court’s 2002 ruling in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, a formidable obstacle to choice-based educational reform has been removed, and also that other, no-less-formidable obstacles remain, in the form of anti-aid provisions contained in various states’ own constitutions. This brief, appreciative Comment notes, first, that uncertainties remain about the implementation and interpretation of Zelman, and even—considering the possibility of new appointments to the Court—the decision’s fate. Next, and moving beyond the Court’s First Amendment doctrine, this Comment suggests that the effort to implement choice-based educational reform is, and will remain, as …

Diversity And The Federal Bench, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

Justice Sonia Sotomayor's appointment was historic. She is the first Latina Supreme Court member and President Barack Obama's initial appointment. Her confirmation is the quintessential example of his commitment to increasing ethnic and gender diversity in the judiciary; it epitomizes how the administration has nominated and appointed people of color and women to the appellate and district courts. Enhancing diversity honors valuable goals. Selection across a presidency's initial fifteen months also creates the tone. These ideas suggest that the nascent administration's judicial selection merits evaluation, which this paper conducts. Part I briefly assesses modern chief executives' divergent records in naming …

Converging Trajectories: Interest Convergence, Justice Kennedy, And Jeannie Suk's "The Trajectory Of Trauma", Jennifer S. Hendricks

Publications

This essay responds to Jeannie Suk's recent article in the Columbia Law Review, The Trajectory of Trauma: Bodies and Minds of Abortion Discourse. Suk argues that feminists are responsible for legitimizing a paternalistic attitude towards women that came home to roost in Gonzales v. Carhart. This essay argues that Suk's critique of feminist paternalism needs to be supplemented with a discussion of traditional paternalism and its influence on how feminist advocacy enters the law. In particular, it suggests that Derrick Bell's theory of interest convergence provides a useful framework for understanding the cultural, legal, and rhetorical evidence adduced …

The Tao Of Pleading: Do Twombly And Iqbal Matter Empirically, Patricia W. Moore

Faculty Articles

In 2007, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, sending “shockwaves” through the federal litigation bar. Seemingly without prior warning, the Court abrogated “the accepted rule that a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief”—the standard for deciding 12(b)(6) motions first stated fifty years earlier in Conley v. Gibson. To replace the old rule, the Court announced a new “plausibility” standard: that a complaint …

Lessons Learned From The Evolution Of Evolving Standards, Corinna Barrett Lain

Law Faculty Publications

In the discussion that follows, I explore the evolution of the "evolving standards" doctrine to make a point about its legitimacy and Supreme Court decisionmaking under the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause more generally. In Part I, I trace the origins of the doctrine to its present state. In Part II, I turn to lessons learned from the evolution of "evolving standards," questioning the textual defense of the doctrine and the constraining power of law itself. I conclude that while the "evolving standards" doctrine is problematic, it is not the crux of the problem. Supreme Court decisionmaking in the death …

The Doctrinal Side Of Majority Will, Corinna Barrett Lain

Law Faculty Publications

What is the Supreme Court's relationship with public opinion? Barry Friedman's answer in The Will of the People scours some 200 years of history to provide a distinctly political view of the Court, and the story he tells is compelling. Yet it is also incomplete. The Will of the People presents a largely external account of the law; it sees the influence of majority will as a force that moves outside the jurisprudence we lawyers spend so much of our time researching, writing, and talking about. By this account, there is what the Justices say is driving their decisionmaking-legal …

Resurrecting The Promise Of Brown: Understanding And Remedying How The Supreme Court Reconstitutionalized Segregated Schools, Kimberly J. Robinson

Law Faculty Publications

The Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education held that separate educational facilities were "inherently unequal." After tolerating substantial delay and evasion of the requirements of Brown, the Court eventually required school districts to dismantle the dual systems by eliminating all traces of separate schools and creating integrated schools. In contrast to numerous scholars that have contended that many of the Court's later school desegregation decisions withdrew from or grew weary of school desegregation, this Article argues that the effect of many of the Court's leading school desegregation decisions was to reconstitutionalize segregated schools. Furthermore, the Court's …

A Popular Approach To Popular Constitutionalism: The First Amendment, Civic Education, And Constitutional Change, Thomas G. Donnelly

Law Faculty Publications

Popular constitutionalists fear that our constitutional culture is becoming less popular. At the same time, these scholars often ignore key popular sources of constitutional meaning. Their accounts focus,  instead, on the elite conflicts that give rise to constitutional change, particularly the ongoing debates between elected officials, movement leaders, and the Supreme Court. Although these studies are essential to understanding the pathways for promoting non-Article V constitutional change, they are "popular" only in the sense that they focus on non-judicial actors and politically salient controversies. The constitutional life of the average citizen is generally ignored. If legal scholars are serious about …

Who Judges? Who Cares? History Now And Then, Barbara Aronstein Black

Faculty Scholarship

There are two strands of history: Call them strand A and strand B. A: "How independent are those who judge?" B: "Where is the judicial power located?" At a high enough level of abstraction the strands merge (as, at a high enough level of abstraction, what does not?). The issue then becomes whether in a given society all judging is in the hands of independent judges. And the point is that there are two ways of avoiding the decision of cases by independent judges, corresponding, naturally, to the two strands of history:

[A] Through the judges: Punish them, reward them, …

Panel I: The Patent Landscape With Bilski On The Map, Jeanne C. Fromer, James W. Dabney, Clarisa Long, Brian P. Murphy

Faculty Scholarship

Welcome to the 2009 Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal’s Symposium titled, “Functionality: At the Crossroads of IP.” My name is Regina Schaffer-Goldman, and I am the Editor-in- Chief of the 20th Volume of the Journal, which is more affectionately known as the IPLJ.

We are so pleased to see the culmination of many months of preparation today. It is the IPLJ’s 20th Anniversary Edition, and we wanted to commemorate this occasion with a fantastic Symposium. As you will see, we have assembled a truly all-star group of legal scholars and practitioners today.

Introductory Note To The United States Supreme Court: Graham V. Florida & The Federal Court Of Australia: Habib V. Australia, Chris Jenks

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

This introductory note considers two different and completely unrelated cases: Graham, a U.S. Supreme Court criminal case on the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the U.S. Constitution and Habib, an Australian civil case involving a former Guantanamo Bay detainee. This note focuses on one aspect of the disparate nature of the cases, starkly contrasting judicial attitudes towards the role of “foreign law” in domestic jurisprudence. Juxtaposed, the two cases offer an interesting view of not only the obvious differences between the U.S. inward and the Australian outward looking judicial philosophies, but perhaps a broader sense of how the two …