Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Supreme Court of the United States

Discipline
Institution
Publication Year
Publication
Publication Type
File Type

Articles 1 - 30 of 242

Full-Text Articles in Law

Servotronics, Inc. V. Rolls-Royce Plc And The Boeing Company: Brief Of Professor Yanbai Andrea Wang As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Neither Party, Yanbai Andrea Wang, Michael H. Mcginley May 2021

Servotronics, Inc. V. Rolls-Royce Plc And The Boeing Company: Brief Of Professor Yanbai Andrea Wang As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Neither Party, Yanbai Andrea Wang, Michael H. Mcginley

Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law

Rather than expressing a view on the issues raised and ably briefed by the parties, amicus submits this brief to inform the Court of the scholarly research she has conducted regarding Section 1782 proceedings since this Court’s seminal decision in Intel. As Section 1782 applications have proliferated, the lower courts have struggled to apply the Intel factors as this Court had envisioned. Especially in the context of Section 1782 applications submitted by parties to an international proceeding (as opposed to those made by the international tribunal itself), lower courts have frequently found themselves unable to analyze and apply the ...


Preview—United States V. Cooley: What Will Happen To The Thinnest Blue Line?, Jo J. Phippin Mar 2021

Preview—United States V. Cooley: What Will Happen To The Thinnest Blue Line?, Jo J. Phippin

Public Land & Resources Law Review

The Supreme Court of the United States ("Supreme Court") will hear oral arguments in this matter on Tuesday, March 23, 2021. This case presents the narrow issue of whether a tribal police officer has the authority to investigate and detain a non-Indian on a public right-of-way within a reservation for a suspected violation of state or federal law. The lower courts, holding that tribes have no such authority, granted James Cooley’s motion to suppress evidence. The Supreme Court must decide whether the lower courts erred in so deciding. While the issue before the Supreme Court is itself narrow, it ...


Before And After Hinckley: Legal Insanity In The United States, Stephen J. Morse Feb 2021

Before And After Hinckley: Legal Insanity In The United States, Stephen J. Morse

Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law

This chapter first considers the direction of the affirmative defense of legal insanity in the United States before John Hinckley was acquitted by reason of insanity in 1982 for attempting to assassinate President Reagan and others and the immediate aftermath of that acquittal. Since the middle of the 20th Century, the tale is one of the rise and fall of the American Law Institute’s Model Penal Code test for legal insanity. Then it turns to the constitutional decisions of the United States Supreme Court concerning the status of legal insanity. Finally, it addresses the substantive and procedural changes ...


Propertizing Fair Use, Abraham Bell, Gideon Parchomovsky Feb 2021

Propertizing Fair Use, Abraham Bell, Gideon Parchomovsky

Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law

In its current form, fair use doctrine provides a personal defense that applies narrowly to the specific use by the specific user. The landmark case of Google v. Oracle, currently pending before the Supreme Court, illustrates why this is problematic. Even if the Court were to rule that Google’s use of Oracle’s Java API’s was fair, the ruling would not protect the numerous parties that developed Java applications for the Android operating system; it would only shelter Google and Google’s particular use. This is not an isolated problem; the per use/per user rule cuts across ...


Curing The First Amendment Scrutiny Muddle Through A Breyer-Based Blend Up? Toward A Less Categorical, More Values-Oriented Approach For Selecting Standards Of Judicial Review, Clay Calvert Jan 2021

Curing The First Amendment Scrutiny Muddle Through A Breyer-Based Blend Up? Toward A Less Categorical, More Values-Oriented Approach For Selecting Standards Of Judicial Review, Clay Calvert

Washington University Journal of Law & Policy

This Article argues that the United States Supreme Court should significantly alter its current categorical approach for discerning standards of judicial review in free-speech cases. The present system should become nondeterminative and be augmented with a modified version of Justice Stephen Breyer’s long-preferred proportionality framework. Specifically, the Article’s proposed tack fuses facets of today’s policy, which largely pivots on distinguishing content-based laws from content-neutral laws and letting that categorization determine scrutiny, with a more nuanced, values-and-interests methodology. A values-and-interests formula would allow the Court to climb up or down the traditional ladder of scrutiny rungs – strict, intermediate ...


No Exit: Ten Years Of "Privacy Vs. Speech" Post-Sorrell, G.S. Hans Jan 2021

No Exit: Ten Years Of "Privacy Vs. Speech" Post-Sorrell, G.S. Hans

Washington University Journal of Law & Policy

Privacy and free speech are often described as oppositional forces. This Essay analyzes First Amendment jurisprudence emphasizing the ten years after Sorrell vs. IMS Health was decided in 2011. In this Essay, Hans contextualizes First Amendment challenges to privacy laws. Hans cautions that the Supreme Court has moved perilously close towards a jurisprudence under which privacy laws are nearly impossible to craft. Hans demonstrates that the need for privacy regulation can satisfy a strict scrutiny standard of review. Hans argues that the stakes for privacy are incredibly high and warrant careful consideration by the Supreme Court.


Kent State And The Failure Of First Amendment Law, Gregory P. Magarian Jan 2021

Kent State And The Failure Of First Amendment Law, Gregory P. Magarian

Washington University Journal of Law & Policy

Since the U.S. Supreme Court decided its first free speech case 100 years ago, two very different eras have defined First Amendment law. For a half century, before 1970, the Supreme Court focused on protecting the expressive freedom of political dissidents and social reformers. In 1970, amid protests against the Vietnam War, the Ohio National Guard senselessly gunned down four students at Kent State University. The Kent State massacre exposed the fragility in our country of political protest, free speech, and democracy itself. That atrocity should have inspired First Amendment law to affirm and enhance its protection of dissenters ...


Censorship Makes The School Look Bad: Why Courts And Educators Must Embrace The "Passionate Conversation", Frank D. Lomonte Jan 2021

Censorship Makes The School Look Bad: Why Courts And Educators Must Embrace The "Passionate Conversation", Frank D. Lomonte

Washington University Journal of Law & Policy

This Article analyzes the Supreme Court’s decision in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier. The Court held that students have no freedom to choose the content of school-sponsored newspapers or other curricular vehicles, so long as the justification for censorship is “reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.” LoMonte argues the Court erred in elevating the government’s reputation to a concern of constitutional value. LoMonte urges the Supreme Court to re-think its decision as it has done with respect to persons in other categories. Young people use their talents to organize reform movements and have political opinions worth hearing ...


Rbg: Nonprofit Entrepreneur, David M. Schizer Jan 2021

Rbg: Nonprofit Entrepreneur, David M. Schizer

Faculty Scholarship

It is exceedingly rare for one person to change the world almost single-handedly, but Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was one of those people. Even before her distinguished judicial career, RBG was a trailblazing advocate for women’s rights during the 1970s. She persuaded the Supreme Court that gender discrimination violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution, winning five of the six cases she argued there. To lead this historic effort, RBG served as general counsel of the ACLU and as co-founder and the first director of its Women’s Rights Project from 1972 until she became a ...


Presidential Progress On Climate Change: Will The Courts Interfere With What Needs To Be Done To Save Our Planet?, Michael B. Gerrard Jan 2021

Presidential Progress On Climate Change: Will The Courts Interfere With What Needs To Be Done To Save Our Planet?, Michael B. Gerrard

Faculty Scholarship

The Biden Administration is undertaking numerous actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and transition away from fossil fuels as part of the fight against climate change. Many of these actions are likely to be challenged in court. This paper describes the various legal theories that are likely to be used in these challenges, assesses their prospects of success given the current composition of the Supreme Court, and suggests ways to minimize the risks.


Curing The First Amendment Scrutiny Muddle Through A Breyer-Based Blend Up? Toward A Less Categorical, More Values-Oriented Approach For Selecting Standards Of Judicial Review, Clay Calvert Jan 2021

Curing The First Amendment Scrutiny Muddle Through A Breyer-Based Blend Up? Toward A Less Categorical, More Values-Oriented Approach For Selecting Standards Of Judicial Review, Clay Calvert

UF Law Faculty Publications

This Article argues that the United States Supreme Court should significantly alter its current categorical approach for discerning standards of judicial review in free-speech cases. The present system should become nondeterminative and be augmented with a modified version of Justice Stephen Breyer’s long-preferred proportionality framework. Specifically, the Article’s proposed tack fuses facets of today’s policy, which largely pivots on distinguishing content-based laws from content-neutral laws and letting that categorization determine scrutiny, with a more nuanced, values-and-interests methodology. A values-and-interests formula would allow the Court to climb up or down the traditional ladder of scrutiny rungs – strict, intermediate ...


Unravelling The Us Presidential Election, Lori A. Ringhand Nov 2020

Unravelling The Us Presidential Election, Lori A. Ringhand

Scholarly Works

One of the most perplexing things about US elections is the extent to which we litigate what in much of the rest of the world are routine nuts and bolts questions about how elections work. I had first-hand experience with this during the 2000 presidential election when I was living in the UK. Why, I constantly was asked, is the US Supreme Court deciding your presidential election?

It’s a good question, and also a timely one given how the current presidential election is unfolding.


Les Deux Constitutions De John Marshall : Une Relecture De L’Arrêt Marbury V. Madison, Elisabeth Zoller Sep 2020

Les Deux Constitutions De John Marshall : Une Relecture De L’Arrêt Marbury V. Madison, Elisabeth Zoller

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.


Democracy, Deference, And Compromise: Understanding And Reforming Campaign Finance Jurisprudence, Scott P. Bloomberg Aug 2020

Democracy, Deference, And Compromise: Understanding And Reforming Campaign Finance Jurisprudence, Scott P. Bloomberg

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

In Citizens United, the Supreme Court interpreted the government’s interest in preventing corruption as being limited to preventing quid pro quo— cash-for-votes—corruption. This narrow interpretation drastically circumscribed legislatures’ abilities to regulate the financing of elections, in turn prompting scholars to propose a number of reforms for broadening the government interest in campaign finance cases. These reforms include urging the Court to recognize a new government interest such as political equality, to adopt a broader understanding of corruption, and to be more deferential to legislatures in defining corruption.

Building upon that body of scholarship, this Article begins with a ...


Steiner V. Utah: Designing A Constitutional Remedy, Michael S. Knoll, Ruth Mason Mar 2020

Steiner V. Utah: Designing A Constitutional Remedy, Michael S. Knoll, Ruth Mason

Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law

In an earlier article, we argued that the Utah Supreme Court failed to follow and correctly apply clear U.S. Supreme Court precedent in Steiner v. Utah when the Utah high court held that an internally inconsistent and discriminatory state tax regime did not violate the dormant commerce clause. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court recently declined certiorari in Steiner, but the issue is unlikely to go away. Not every state high court will defy the U.S. Supreme Court by refusing to apply the dormant commerce clause, and so the Court will sooner or later likely find itself facing conflicting interpretations ...


The Majoritarian Press Clause, Sonja R. West Jan 2020

The Majoritarian Press Clause, Sonja R. West

Scholarly Works

In early 2018, stories began circulating that something troubling was happening at the United States-Mexico border. The reports claimed that the United States government was separating migrant families and then holding children (as well as adults) by the thousands in crowded, possibly inhumane environments. There were alarming accounts of children who were sick, dirty, hungry, neglected, and sleeping on concrete floors.

Americans, of course, demanded answers: What was happening at these migrant detention centers? Why was it happening? What were the official policies involved? Were the government's actions appropriate? Were they legal? In other words, this was a textbook ...


Dissent, Disagreement And Doctrinal Disarray: Free Expression And The Roberts Court In 2020, Clay Calvert Jan 2020

Dissent, Disagreement And Doctrinal Disarray: Free Expression And The Roberts Court In 2020, Clay Calvert

UF Law Faculty Publications

Using the United States Supreme Court’s 2019 rulings in Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, Nieves v. Bartlett, and Iancu v. Brunetti as analytical springboards, this Article explores multiple fractures among the Justices affecting the First Amendment freedoms of speech and press. All three cases involved dissents, with two cases each spawning five opinions. The clefts compound problems witnessed in 2018 with a pair of five-to-four decisions in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra and Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees. Partisan divides, the Article argues, are only one problem with First ...


Book Review (Reviewing Louis Fisher's Congress: Protecting Individual Rights), Adeen Postar Aug 2019

Book Review (Reviewing Louis Fisher's Congress: Protecting Individual Rights), Adeen Postar

Adeen Postar

Fisher is currently the Scholar in Residence at the Constitution Project, and is well known for his many years as Senior Specialist on Separation of Powers at the Congressional Research Service and as Specialist in Constitutional Law at the Law Library of Congress. He has extensive experience testifying before Congress on topics that include Congress and the constitution, war powers, executive power and privilege, and several aspects of the federal budget and its processes. He has written numerous books on these topics, including (to name only a few) The President and Congress: Power and Policy (1972); Defending Congress and the ...


Correspondence With The Chief Justice Of The Supreme Court Of The United States, William H. Rehnquist, Lewis F. Powell Jr. Jun 2019

Correspondence With The Chief Justice Of The Supreme Court Of The United States, William H. Rehnquist, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Powell Correspondence

No abstract provided.


Correspondence With Fellow Associate Justices Of The Supreme Court Of The United States, Lewis F. Powell, Jr. Jun 2019

Correspondence With Fellow Associate Justices Of The Supreme Court Of The United States, Lewis F. Powell, Jr.

Powell Correspondence

No abstract provided.


Correspondence With The Chief Justice Of The Supreme Court Of The United States, Warren E. Burger, Lewis F. Powell, Jr. Jun 2019

Correspondence With The Chief Justice Of The Supreme Court Of The United States, Warren E. Burger, Lewis F. Powell, Jr.

Powell Correspondence

No abstract provided.


Panel 2: Justice Kennedy's Prose — Style And Substance Apr 2019

Panel 2: Justice Kennedy's Prose — Style And Substance

Georgia State University Law Review

Moderator: Eric Segall

Panelists: Eric Berger, Michael Dorf, and Jamal Greene


Panel 6: The Median Justice Apr 2019

Panel 6: The Median Justice

Georgia State University Law Review

Moderator: Eric Segall

Panelists: Jonathan Adler, Lee Epstein, and Sasha Volokh


Article Ii And Antidiscrimination Norms, Aziz Z. Huq Jan 2019

Article Ii And Antidiscrimination Norms, Aziz Z. Huq

Michigan Law Review

The Supreme Court’s opinion in Trump v. Hawaii validated a prohibition on entry to the United States from several Muslim-majority countries and at the same time repudiated a longstanding precedent associated with the Japanese American internment of World War II. This Article closely analyzes the relationship of these twin rulings. It uses their dichotomous valences as a lens on the legal scope for discriminatory action by the federal executive. Parsing the various ways in which the internment of the 1940s and the 2017 exclusion order can be reconciled, the Article identifies a tension between the Court’s two holdings ...


Kennedy's Legacy: A Principled Justice, Mitchell N. Berman, David Peters Jan 2019

Kennedy's Legacy: A Principled Justice, Mitchell N. Berman, David Peters

Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law

After three decades on the Court, Justice Anthony Kennedy remains its most widely maligned member. Concentrating on his constitutional jurisprudence, critics from across the ideological spectrum have derided Justice Kennedy as “a self-aggrandizing turncoat,” “an unprincipled weathervane,” and, succinctly, “America’s worst Justice.” We believe that Kennedy is not as bereft of a constitutional theory as common wisdom maintains. To the contrary, this Article argues, his constitutional decisionmaking reflects a genuine grasp (less than perfect, more than rudimentary) of a coherent and, we think, compelling theory of constitutional law—the account, more or less, that one of has introduced in ...


The Myth Of Morrison: Securities Fraud Litigation Against Foreign Issuers, Robert Bartlett, Matthew D. Cain, Jill E. Fisch, Steven Davidoff Solomon Jan 2019

The Myth Of Morrison: Securities Fraud Litigation Against Foreign Issuers, Robert Bartlett, Matthew D. Cain, Jill E. Fisch, Steven Davidoff Solomon

Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law

Using a sample of 388 securities fraud lawsuits filed between 2002 and 2017 against foreign issuers, we examine the effect of the Supreme Court's decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd. We find that the description of Morrison as a steamroller, substantially ending litigation against foreign issuers, is a myth. Instead, we find that Morrison did not significantly change the type of litigation brought against foreign issuers, which, both before and after this case, focused on foreign issuers with a U.S. listing and substantial U.S. trading volume. Although dismissal rates rose post-Morrison, we find no ...


Foreword: Abolition Constitutionalism, Dorothy E. Roberts Jan 2019

Foreword: Abolition Constitutionalism, Dorothy E. Roberts

Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law

In this Foreword, I make the case for an abolition constitutionalism that attends to the theorizing of prison abolitionists. In Part I, I provide a summary of prison abolition theory and highlight its foundational tenets that engage with the institution of slavery and its eradication. I discuss how abolition theorists view the current prison industrial complex as originating in, though distinct from, racialized chattel slavery and the racial capitalist regime that relied on and sustained it, and their movement as completing the “unfinished liberation” sought by slavery abolitionists in the past. Part II considers whether the U.S. Constitution is ...


The Security Court, Matt Steilen Sep 2018

The Security Court, Matt Steilen

Maryland Law Review Online

The Supreme Court is concerned not only with the limits of our government’s power to protect us, but also with how it protects us. Government can protect us by passing laws that grant powers to its agencies or by conferring discretion on the officers in those agencies. Security by law is preferable to the extent that it promotes rule of law values—certainty, predictability, uniformity, and so on—but, security by discretion is preferable to the extent that it gives government the room it needs to meet threats in whatever form they present themselves. Drawing a line between security ...


Will The Supreme Court Still “Seldom Stray Very Far”?: Regime Politics In A Polarized America, Kevin J. Mcmahon Aug 2018

Will The Supreme Court Still “Seldom Stray Very Far”?: Regime Politics In A Polarized America, Kevin J. Mcmahon

Chicago-Kent Law Review

This Article examines the concept of a “minority Justice,” meaning a Supreme Court Justice appointed by a President who had failed to win the popular vote and confirmed with the support of a majority of senators who had garnered fewer votes in their most recent elections than their colleagues in opposition. Specifically, Neil Gorsuch was the first “minority Justice,” receiving the support of senators who had collected nearly 20 million fewer votes than those in opposition (54,098,387 to 73,425,062). From there, the Article considers the significance this development, first by examining some of the foundational work ...


The Forgotten Issue? The Supreme Court And The 2016 Presidential Campaign, Christopher W. Schmidt Aug 2018

The Forgotten Issue? The Supreme Court And The 2016 Presidential Campaign, Christopher W. Schmidt

Chicago-Kent Law Review

This Article considers how presidential candidates use the Supreme Court as an issue in their election campaigns. I focus in particular on 2016, but I try to make sense of this extraordinary election by placing it in the context of presidential elections over the past century.

In the presidential election of 2016, circumstances seemed perfectly aligned to force the Supreme Court to the front of public debate, but neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton treated the Court as a central issue of their campaigns. Trump rarely went beyond a brief mention of the Court in his campaign speeches; Clinton basically ...