Law Commons^™

The Lame Ducks Of Marbury, John Copeland Nagle

Journal Articles

The election of 1800 was one of the most contested - and important - in American history. After it became clear that neither President John Adams nor a Federalist majority in Congress had been reelected, they acted during the lame-duck period to preserve their influences far into the future. They did so by appointing John Marshall as Chief Justice, ratifying the Treaty with France, creating numerous new federal judicial positions, and filling many of those positions with friends, family, and Federalists (including William Marbury). Not surprisingly, Jefferson and his supporters protested these actions as contrary to the will of the …

The Making Of The Second Rehnquist Court: A Preliminary Analysis, Thomas W. Merrill

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court is implicitly assumed to have a certain unity of character under each Chief Justice. Hence, we refer to the "Marshall Court," the "Warren Court," and the "Rehnquist Court." A closer look at history reveals that this assumption of a natural Court defined by the tenure of each Chief Justice is often misleading. The Marshall Court had a different character late in its life than it did in its early years. Similarly, the Warren Court became distinctively more liberal and activist after 1962 when Felix Frankfurter retired and was replaced by Arthur Goldberg.

Although the Rehnquist Court is …

Smolla Argues Before The Highest Court: Cross-Burning Case Explores Free-Speech Controversy, John G. Douglass

Law Faculty Publications

A First Amendment advocate's greatest burden can be his own client. Those clients range from the offbeat to the dangerous, from pornographers to neo-Nazis. Yet in standing up for the disreputable client, the free speech advocate stands for one of more cherished freedoms: "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 414 (1989). As one of the nation's leading First Amendment advocates, Allen Professor Rodney Smolla understands that burden …

Zelman V. Simmons-Harris: Is The Supreme Court's Latest Word On School Voucher Programs Really The Last Word?, Sara J. Crisafulli

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Dimension Of The Supreme Court, Paul H. Edelman

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

In a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Lawrence Sirovich introduced two novel mathematical techniques to study patterns in recent Supreme Court decisions. One of these methods, information theory, has never been applied previously. The other method, singular value decomposition, is closely related to other methods that have previously been employed.

In this paper I give an explication of these two methods and evaluate their use in the context of understanding the Supreme Court. I conclude that information theory holds some promise for furthering our understanding but singular value decomposition, as applied by Sirovich, is …

Judicial Supremacy And Its Discontents, Dale Carpenter

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

This essay examines judicial supremacy and some of its discontents, old and new. Part I surveys the curiously quiet posture of the public and their representatives today on the issue of judicial supremacy. Part II contrasts this quiet with other eras when neither the people nor their representatives willingly accepted judicial supremacy. Part III considers the views of two important contemporary critics of judicial supremacy who write from very different constitutional and political perspectives.

Michael Paulsen argues that the President, as head of the coordinate and equal executive branch of the national government, has the power to interpret the Constitution …

Adjudication, Antisubordination, And The Jazz Connection, Christopher A. Bracey

GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works

We live in the midst of a pervasive and sustained democratic crisis. Our society expresses a deep commitment to core notions of freedom, justice, and equality for all citizens. Yet, it is equally clear that our democracy tolerates a great deal of social and economic inequality. Membership in a socially disfavored group can (and often does) profoundly distort one's life chances and opportunities. Our constitutional democracy acknowledges this tension, providing for both majority rule and the protection of minority rights and interests. Although we seek to safeguard minority rights and interest through express legal prohibitions on the subordination of socially …

Looking Ahead: The Future Of Affirmative Action, Susan Low Bloch

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, race is still a serious issue in this country. Fortunately, we no longer debate whether it is legal for the government to operate segregated schools or to treat blacks as second-class citizens. We finally answered that question correctly—it is unconstitutional for the law to segregate and to treat blacks worse than whites.

Today, we face the more difficult question of ascertaining the constitutionality of “affirmative action” or “benign discrimination” programs. The Supreme Court first addressed this issue in 1978 in the landmark case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke …

The Effect Of The Supreme Court's Eleventh Amendment Jurisprudence On Environmental Citizen Suits: Gotcha!, Hope M. Babcock

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The current Supreme Court has substantially expanded the scope of protection from lawsuits accorded to states by the Eleventh Amendment and narrowed the exceptions to its application. As a result, many people are finding they are unable to vindicate federal rights in any court when the defendant is a state or a state agency. The most recent example of this is the Court's decision in South Carolina State Ports Authority v. Federal Maritime Commission, in which the Court extended the reach of the Eleventh Amendment to private administrative enforcement actions against states, thus forsaking completely any connection to the …

Supreme Court Section 1983 Decisions: (October 2001 Term), Martin A. Schwartz

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

2002 U.S. Supreme Court Term Includes Zoning Referendum Case, Patricia E. Salkin

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court Review Of State-Court Determinations Of State Law In Constitutional Cases, Henry Paul Monaghan

Faculty Scholarship

The decision in Bush v. Gore and particularly Chief Justice Rehnquist's concurring opinion were widely criticized for their unwarranted intrusion upon the "authoritative" status of the Florida Supreme Court in determining the meaning of Florida election law. This Article rejects the merits of that criticism. It proposes the thesis that the Supreme Court has ancillary jurisdiction to review state-court determinations of state law in cases where the Constitution or ftderal law imposes a duty of fidelity to prior state law (t₁) and the claim is that the state court materially and impermissibly departed from that law at a …

Ub Viewpoint – Dissolving The Shadows, Eric Easton

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The War On Terrorism And The Constitution, Michael I. Meyerson

All Faculty Scholarship

Discussion of civil liberties during wartime often omit the fact that there can be no meaningful liberty at all if our homes and offices are bombed or our loved ones are killed or injured by acts of terror. The Government must be given the tools necessary to accomplish its vital mission. The first priority must be to win the war against terrorism. There are, however, other priorities. The United States, in its just battle for freedom, must ensure that freedom is preserved during that battle as well. Moreover, care must be taken so that an exaggerated cry of “emergency” is …

Choice Programs And Market-Based Separationism, Paul E. Salamanca

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

The Supreme Court's recent decision in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris appears to clear the way for a wide variety of educational and charitable choice plans. In this decision, the Court upheld against Establishment Cause Challenge a formally neutral school choice program that encompassed a wide variety of options in the public and private sector, including private sectarian schools. The Court reasoned that, when the government makes aid available to a broad class of recipients without regard to their religious or non-religious affiliation, and when the recipients have a genuine choice as to whether to obtain that aid from a religious or …

Party Poopers: The Supreme Court Overlooks The Party In Federal Election Commission V. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee, Amanda G. Altman

Saint Louis University Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Rehnquist Court, Structural Due Process, And Semisubstantive Constitutional Review, Dan T. Coenen

Scholarly Works

Semisubstantive review, as I use that label, entails four key features. First, the subject matter of judicial inquiry is not the process applied in adjudicating a discrete dispute; rather, the matter at hand is the constitutionality of a statute or other generalized expression of legal policy. Second, some procedural omission by the lawmaker -- rather than an incurably substantive flaw in the end product of its work -- lays the groundwork for a judicial intervention that invalidates the challenged rule or negates how that rule otherwise would operate. It may be, for example, that a federal statute read as a …

Mandatory Motherhood And Frustrated Fatherhood: The Supreme Court's Preservation Of Gender Discrimination In American Citizenship Law, Erin Chlopak

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

United States V. Drayton: Supreme Court Upholds Standards For Police Conduct During Bus Searches, Andera K. Mitchell

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Spurious Interpretation Redux: Mead And The Shrinking Domain Of Statutory Ambiguity, Michael P. Healy

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

In skewering the Supreme Court's recent decision in United States v. Mead Corp., Justice Scalia's rhetoric is exceptional. He derides the decision as "one of the most significant opinions ever rendered by the Court dealing with the judicial review of administrative action. Its consequences will be enormous, and almost uniformly bad." Although Justice Scalia objects to Mead's new and uncertain limits on the applicability of the Chevron doctrine, this Article will focus instead on how Mead employs a method of interpretation imputing a clear intent to Congress, and authorizes courts to discern statutory meaning without strong deference to …

The Unhappy History Of Civil Rights Legislation, Fifty Years Later, Jack M. Beermann

Faculty Scholarship

Seldom, if ever, have the power and the purposes of legislation been rendered so impotent.... All that is left today are afew scattered remnants of a once grandiose scheme to nationalize the fundamental rights of the individual.

These words were written fifty years ago by Eugene Gressman, now William Rand Kenan, Jr. Professor Emeritus, University of North Carolina School of Law, as a description of what the courts, primarily the Supreme Court of the United States, had done with the civil rights legislation passed by Congress in the wake of the Civil War. Professor Gressman's article, The Unhappy History of …

Protecting Intrastate Threatened Species: Does The Endangered Species Act Encroach On Traditional State Authority And Exceed The Outer Limits Of The Commerce Clause, Bradford Mank

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

After the Supreme Court decided Lopez, a number of commentators speculated about its impact on the Endangered Species Act. This Article reexamines the issue in light of Morrison and SWANCC. Part V demonstrates that, even after Lopez, Morrison, and SWANCC, the Commerce Clause reaches federal regulation of intrastate endangered or threatened species because conservation of such species has traditionally been a shared federal and state function that recognizes the legitimacy of federal regulation whenever the need for preservation is great and states have failed to address important conservation issues. Additionally, Part V shows federal regulation of endangered or threatened species …

Narrative Relevance, Imagined Juries, And A Supreme Court Inspired Agenda For Jury Research, Richard O. Lempert

Saint Louis University Public Law Review

No abstract provided.

Storm Clouds On The Horizon Of Darwinism: Teaching The Anthropic Principle And Intelligent Design In The Public Schools, Jeffrey F. Addicott

Faculty Articles

Professor Addicott’s article addresses the future legal ramifications that the fledgling intelligent design movement and the scientific concept known as the Anthropic Principle will have on the teaching of Darwinian evolution in public schools. Both ideas are associated with the concept that an “unnamed” intelligent designer is responsible for the creation and sustainment of life. Predicting that the Supreme Court will ultimately allow, for instance, school boards to incorporate intelligent design in the science curriculum, he believes neither of the two ideas violate the Establishment Clause and cannot be “dismissed as yet another back door attempt by creationists to get …

Clarence Thomas: The First Ten Years Looking For Consistency, Mark C. Niles

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

Ten years ago, when George Herbert Walker Bush nominated Clarence Thomas to replace Thurgood Marshall as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, I, like many Americans and most lawyers, waited with interest to hear information about this soon-to-be-powerful man. I had a vague recollection from my recent law school days of hearing about a young, conservative, black federal judge who might be inline for a nomination to the Court. This vague reference was all that I had heard of Clarence Thomas prior to the Fall of 1991.

When stories about Thomas began to appear in the …

Euclid Lives: The Survival Of Progressive Jurisprudence, Michael Allan Wolf, Charles M. Haar

Law Faculty Publications

The Supreme Court's expanded use of regulatory takings is making a highly controversial and confusing concept more difficult to apply and defend. The Court and commentators are invited to explore a different approach - Progressive jurisprudence, as represented by the Court's enduring opinion in Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. This Commentary examines the reinvigoration of the Takings Clause and, in historical and ideological terms, discusses the Progressiveness of Euclid and of the regulatory scheme the Euclid Court approved. Professors Haar and Wolf identify and explore five inquiries concerning the character of regulations affecting the use, ownership, and value …

Why The Injection Of Race In Saldano V. State Constitutes Fundamental Error, Diana L. Hoermann

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

This article examines the historical use of a person’s race in the legal system, more specifically in criminal cases. Race should not determine the quality of justice an individual receives. An enlightened criminal justice system would not allow race to determine a person’s fate. However, the Texas criminal justice system allows the consideration of a person’s race in determining whether that person should receive the death penalty. In Victor Hugo Saldano v. The State of Texas, an unpublished opinion, the Texas Criminal Court of Appeals upheld the imposition of the death penalty where the jury heard an expert witness claim …

Something Wicked This Way Comes: Constitutional Transformation And The Growing Power Of The Supreme Court, Matthew B. Stein

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

Justice Clarence Thomas: The Emergence Of A Commercial-Speech Protector, David L. Hudson Jr.

Law Faculty Scholarship

An examination of Justice Clarence Thomas' jurisprudence regarding commercial speech.

A Roundtable Discussion With Stephen L. Carter & Michael J. Gerhardt, Thomas E. Baker

Faculty Publications

Transcript of a discussion regarding the United States Supreme Court, the Supreme Court justices and justice nominees, the Senate process for confirming nominees and related issues such as fitness to serve on the court and judicial activism.