Law Commons^™

Chisholm V. Georgia (1793): Laying The Foundation For Supreme Court Precedent, Abigail Stanger

The Cardinal Edge

No abstract provided.

Funding Faith: The Paycheck Protection Program's Establishment Clause Violation, Brenna Jean O'Connor

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

In the early months of 2020, COVID-19 had a swift and profound impact on public health, the economy, state and local governments, and businesses across the United States. In response, on March 27, 2020, the United States Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”) to protect the American people from the worsening public health crisis and mitigate the resulting economic downturn. Additionally, within the CARES Act, Congress established the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”), which expanded the Small Business Administration’s (“SBA”) authority to guarantee forgivable loans to eligible small businesses. Among other prerequisites, the PPP …

Developments In Contract Law: The 2020-2021 Term – Appeals To Fairness, Marcus Moore

All Faculty Publications

This article analyzes important developments in Contract Law stemming from consideration by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2020-2021. Due to the large number of Contracts cases during this period, the article focuses on prominent appeals occupied with issues of fairness in Canadian Contract Law. Fairness in contracts emerges as an important concern of the SCC at this juncture. This appropriately reflects the constellation of some long-unsolved problems (e.g., control of unfair terms in standard form contracts), confusion around key concepts associated with protection of contractual fairness (e.g., unconscionability and good faith), and judicial disagreement over the merits of general …

Firearms Regulation Through Constitutional Litigation, Hillel Y. Levin, Timothy D. Lytton

Scholarly Works

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen puts the Court firmly in charge of U.S. firearms policy. The decision also marks the beginning of a new era in which constitutional litigation will replace state and federal legislation as the primary means of resolving deep and enduring disagreements over how to regulate guns.

The Court’s Bruen decision contrasts with its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, overruling Roe v. Wade, where it declared that “the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.” The …

The Suspension Clause After Department Of Homeland Security V. Thuraissigiam, Jonathan Hafetz

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

In June 2020, in Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, the Supreme Court of the United States rejected a constitutional challenge to Congress’s decision to eliminate habeas corpus jurisdiction over legal challenges to expedited removal orders by noncitizens in federal detention.

In Thuraissigiam, U.S. border patrol stopped the petitioner, Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam, a Sri Lankan national of Tamil ethnicity, shortly after he crossed the U.S.-Mexico border without inspection or an entry document. The petitioner asserted that he was fleeing persecution in his home country and sought asylum in the United States. The asylum officer concluded that Thuraissigiam had …

The Doctrine Of Contractual Absolution, Marcus Moore

All Faculty Publications

The absence of a knowledge requirement is a novel and astonishing feature of unconscionability in Canada, and one that calls for scholarly reflection. In other jurisdictions and formerly in Canada, unconscionability required that the benefiting party knew or at least should have known that its counterpart was impaired in the making of the contract. Such knowledge established a minimum level of wrongdoing, so that even without more active exploitation, it was unconscionable as an “unconscientious abuse of power.” But following the Supreme Court decision in Uber Technologies Inc. v. Heller (2020), Canadian contract law rejects this conventional approach. It does …

A New Supreme Court Case Threatens Another Body Blow To Our Democracy, Katherine A. Shaw, Leah Litman, Carolyn Shapiro

Online Publications

When the Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade, the justices in the majority insisted they were merely returning the issue of abortion to the democratic process. But a case the court has announced it will hear in its October term could make that democratic process a lot less democratic.

Compelled Speech And Doctrinal Fluidity, David Han

Indiana Law Journal

Even within the messy and complicated confines of First Amendment jurisprudence, compelled speech doctrine stands out in its complexity and conceptual murkiness— a state of affairs that has only been exacerbated by the Supreme Court’s decisions in NIFLA v. Becerra and Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees. This Essay observes that as the Court’s compelled speech jurisprudence has grown increasingly complex, it has also manifested a troubling degree of fluidity, where the doctrinal framework has grown so incoherent, imprecise, and unstable that it can be readily shaped by courts to plausibly justify a wide range of …

Ministerial Employees And Discrimination Without Remedy, Charlotte Garden

Indiana Law Journal

The Supreme Court first addressed the ministerial exemption in a 2012 case, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC. The ministerial exemption is a defense that religious employers can invoke in discrimination cases brought by employees who qualify as “ministerial,” and it is rooted in the First Amendment principle that government cannot interfere in a church’s choice of minister. However, Hosanna-Tabor did not set out a test to determine which employees are covered by this exemption, and the decision was susceptible to a reading that the category was narrow. In 2020, the Court again took up the ministerial exemption, …

The Pledge Of Allegiance And Compelled Speech Revisited: Requiring Parental Consent, Caroline Mala Corbin

Indiana Law Journal

Since the Supreme Court decided West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette in 1943, free speech law has been clear: public schools may not force students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Nevertheless, in two states—Texas and Florida— students may decline to participate only with parental permission. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law on the grounds that the parental requirement furthered parents’ substantive due process right to control the upbringing of their children.

The Eleventh Circuit decision is flawed both in its understanding of the First Amendment right to be free of compelled speech and the …

Compelled Speech And The Regulatory State, Alan K. Chen

Indiana Law Journal

Since the Supreme Court’s 1943 decision in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, it has been axiomatic that the First Amendment prohibits the government not only from censoring speech, but also from compelling it. The central holding of Barnette itself is largely uncontroversial—it seems obvious that the First Amendment’s free speech clause means that no government may require people to espouse or reproduce an ideological statement against their will. But the Court has extended the compelled speech doctrine to stop the government from forcing people to make even truthful, factual statements. These claims have resulted in some of the …

Compelled Disclosure And The Workplace Rights It Enables, Catherine Fisk

Indiana Law Journal

Worker and consumer protection laws often rely on the regulated entity to notify workers or consumers of their legal rights because it is effective and efficient to provide information at the time and place where it is most likely to be useful. Until the Supreme Court ruled in NIFLA v. Becerra in 2018 that a California law regulating crisis pregnancy centers was an unconstitutional speaker-based, contentdiscriminatory regulation of speech, mandatory disclosure laws were constitutionally uncontroversial economic regulation. Yet, the day after striking down a disclosure law in NIFLA, the Court in Janus v. AFSCME Council 31 expanded the right of …

The Link Between Voting Rights And The Abortion Ruling, Katherine A. Shaw, Leah Litman, Melissa Murray

Online Publications

The Supreme Court’s opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization gives states the maximum amount of freedom to restrict abortion. The decision is so sweeping that, under its logic, states could ban abortion even in cases of rape or incest; they may even be able — as the dissent notes — to prohibit abortions in circumstances in which a doctor believes the procedure is necessary to preserve the life or health of the pregnant person.

Homogenous Diversity, Melissa Mortazavi

Other Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Is Corporate Law Nonpartisan?, Ofer Eldar, Gabriel V. Rauterberg

Articles

Only rarely does the United States Supreme Court hear a case with fundamental implications for corporate law. In Carney v. Adams, however, the Supreme Court had the opportunity to address whether the State of Delaware’s requirement of partisan balance for its judiciary violates the First Amendment. Although the Court disposed of the case on other grounds, Justice Sotomayor acknowledged that the issue “will likely be raised again.” The stakes are high because most large businesses are incorporated in Delaware and thus are governed by its corporate law. Former Delaware governors and chief justices lined up to defend the state’s “nonpartisan” …

Is Corporate Law Nonpartisan?, Ofer Eldar, Gabriel V. Rauterberg

Law & Economics Working Papers

Only rarely does the United States Supreme Court hear a case with fundamental implications for corporate law. In Carney v. Adams, however, the Supreme Court had the opportunity to address whether the State of Delaware’s requirement of partisan balance for its judiciary violates the First Amendment. Although the Court disposed of the case on other grounds, Justice Sotomayor acknowledged that the issue “will likely be raised again.” The stakes are high because most large businesses are incorporated in Delaware and thus are governed by its corporate law. Former Governors and Chief Justices of Delaware lined up to defend the state’s …

Federal Judicial Power And Federal Equity Without Federal Equity Powers, John Harrison

Notre Dame Law Review

This Article discusses the ways in which the federal courts do and do not have equity powers. Article III courts have the judicial power, which enables them to apply the law, primary and remedial. Applicable remedial law often includes the law of equitable remedies, so the federal courts have the power and obligation to give remedies pursuant to equitable principles. The law of equitable remedies, written and unwritten, is external to the courts, not created by them, the same way written law is external to the courts. Because the unwritten law of equitable remedies is found largely in judicial practice, …

A Responsive Remedy For Unconstitutional Removal Restrictions, William C. Eisenhauer

Notre Dame Law Review

The Supreme Court has inconsistently approached the remedies in unlawful removal restriction cases. This inconsistency fails to redress plaintiffs injured by unlawful executive power, blurs the separation of powers, and discourages other constitutional actors from considering their actions’ implications.3 This Note proposes a straight-forward solution to those problems.

It begins in Part I by laying out the mechanics of appointment and removal, with special attention to the constitutional and precedential intricacies of the removal power. Part II introduces the remedial problem by describing the Supreme Court’s two most recent removal cases and identifying the problematic inconsistencies. Part III dis-cusses in …

We Clerked For Justices Scalia And Stevens. America Is Getting Heller Wrong., Katherine A. Shaw, John Bash

Online Publications

In the summer of 2008, the Supreme Court decided District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the court held for the first time that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to gun ownership. We were law clerks to Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion, and Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the lead dissent.

Calling Balls And Strikes? Chief Justice Roberts In October Term 2019, Meghan Dalton

Notre Dame Law Review

Part I of this Note will outline the scope of the assignment power, focusing on the strategic considerations a Chief Justice can make in assigning opinions. Part II will analyze Roberts’s voting and assignment patterns in October Term 2019, specifically applying the earlier discussions to his assignment choices in three key cases decided this term. Part III will focus on Chief Justice Roberts’s jurisprudential values and explore how these concerns might have informed his decision making in October Term 2019. Finally, this Note concludes by asking to what extent Roberts’s recent assignment choices are consistent with his signature promise to …

Ideological Preferences Of Supreme Court Justices: The Shift Throughout Tenure, Amelia Ver Woert

Political Science Undergraduate Honors Theses

For this thesis, I will analyze the tenure of five Supreme Court justices across the decades, ranging from the year 1940 up to the present year of 2022. The analysis will examine the variation between the justices' decisions at the beginning of their term compared to the decisions near the end of their term. The purpose of this study is to properly distinguish whether Supreme Court justices who have served on the bench for more than a decade are impacted by ideological drift and preference shifts throughout their career. The importance of this analysis is to determine the impact of …

The Demise Of The Bivens Remedy Is Rendering Enforcement Of Federal Constitutional Rights Inequitable But Congress Can Fix It, Henry Rose

Northern Illinois University Law Review

A federal statute allows a person whose federal constitutional rights are violated by state actors to sue for damages. There is no analogous federal statute that allows a person whose constitutional rights are violated by federal actors to sue for damages. In 1971, the United States Supreme Court allowed a suit for damages against federal law enforcement officials who allegedly violated Fourth Amendment rights to proceed directly under the Constitution, creating the Bivens remedy. Beginning in 1983, the Supreme Court reversed course and issued ten consecutive decisions in which it denied a Bivens remedy because no federal statute authorizes suits …

Preview—Oklahoma V. Castro-Huerta: A Test Of State And Tribal Sovereignty, Genevieve Antonioli Schmit

Public Land & Resources Law Review

Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta challenges the reach of the United States Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in McGirt v. Oklahoma and tests the settled criminal jurisdiction scheme within Indian Country. On April 27, 2022, beginning at 10:00 a.m. EST., the U.S. Supreme Court will hear argument on the sole question of whether a state court has concurrent jurisdiction with a federal court to prosecute non-Indians who commit crimes against Indians in Indian country. The State of Oklahoma (“Petitioner”) argues that it has concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute such crimes. Castro-Huerta (“Respondent”) argues that the Court should adopt the current understanding that the …

Elucidation Strategies: A Case Study Of The U.S Supreme Court, Gordon Carroll

[Archive] Belmont University Research Symposium (BURS)

The research encompassed a study on the consistency in judicial interpretations and factors that influenced U.S. Supreme Court decisions. To do this, the study explored literature and theoretical perspectives relating to judicial interpretations and decisions. The target population entailed officers in the Office of the Solicitor General for their experience in Court rulings. Interviews were conducted among ten respondents, with data collected, coded, and analyzed. The study results were then presented, discussed, and conclusions derived from them. Generally, the study found serious inconsistencies in interpretations not only between justices but also in almost similar cases. Decisions by justices were conflicting …

Court Legitimacy & The Shadow Docket, Colton Tilley

Honors Capstones

No abstract provided.

Rewriting Whren V. United States, Devon W. Carbado, Jonathan Feingold

Faculty Scholarship

In 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Whren v. United States—a unanimous opinion in which the Court effectively constitutionalized racial profiling. Despite its enduring consequences, Whren remains good law today. This Article rewrites the opinion. We do so, in part, to demonstrate how one might incorporate racial justice concerns into Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, a body of law that has long elided and marginalized the racialized dimensions of policing. A separate aim is to reveal the “false necessity” of the Whren outcome. The fact that Whren was unanimous, and that even progressive Justices signed on, might lead one to conclude that …

The Local Community Standard: Modernizing The Supreme Court's Obscenity Jurisprudence, Jacob S. Gordon

Helm's School of Government Conference - 2021-2024

Paper presentation on the Supreme Court's outdated case law on obscenity and how it needs to be modernized to in order to combat the dissemination of inappropriate materials in the age of decentralized digital media.

Outside Tinker’S Reach: An Examination Of Mahanoy Area School District V. B. L. And Its Implications, Michelle Hunt

Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy

In the 1969 landmark case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, the Supreme Court reassured students that they do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” Ever since then, the exact scope of students’ free speech rights has been unclear, but the high court has used Tinker’s substantial disruption test to clarify its scope in successive legal challenges. In 2017, B. L., a Mahanoy Area School District student, was suspended from her cheerleading team after using vulgar language off-campus that made its way back to her coaches. She …

The Shadow Docket: What Is Happening And What Should Be Done, Collin Mitchell

Brigham Young University Prelaw Review

In light of recent emergency decisions made by the Court ranging from issues addressing the COVID-19 pandemic, religious freedom, abortion rights, and polarized redistricting plans, the Supreme Courts use of the shadow docket has come under renewed scrutiny. This paper argues that the Court's use of the shadow docket, while permissible in the past, is threatening the legitimacy of the Supreme Court and unduly burdening the American Judicial System at large. Due to these effects, this paper advocates to reduce the Supreme Court's use of the shadow docket through the creation of a new specialized court system to handle emergency …

Administrative Investigations, Aram A. Gavoor, Steven A. Platt

Indiana Law Journal

This Article establishes the subject of federal administrative investigations as a new area of study in administrative law. While the literature has addressed investigations by specific agencies and congressional investigations, there is no general account for the trans-substantive constitutional value of administrative investigations. This Article provides such an account by exploring the positive law, agency behaviors, and constraints pertaining to this unresearched field. It concludes with some urgency that the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946—the statute that stands as a bill of rights for the Administrative State—does not serve to regulate administrative investigations and that Article III courts have held …