Law Commons^™

Jazz Improvisation And The Law: Constrained Choice, Sequence, And Strategic Movement Within Rules, William W. Buzbee

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

This Article argues that a richer understanding of the nature of law is possible through comparative, analogical examination of legal work and the art of jazz improvisation. This exploration illuminates a middle ground between rule of law aspirations emphasizing stability and determinate meanings and contrasting claims that the untenable alternative is pervasive discretionary or politicized law. In both the law and jazz improvisation settings, the work involves constraining rules, others’ unpredictable actions, and strategic choosing with attention to where a collective creation is going. One expects change and creativity in improvisation, but the many analogous characteristics of law illuminate why …

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.

The Supreme Court And The Ppl Montana Case: Examining The Relationship Between Navigability And State Ownership Of Submerged Lands, Richard C. Ausness

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

The United States Supreme Court held in PPL Montana v. Montana held that the State of Montana did not own the beds beneath certain rivers and, therefore, rejected the State's claim that the power company owed it millions of dollars in "back rent" for the use of the riverbeds as sites for ten of its hydroelectric power plants. The Montana Supreme Court, which had ruled in favor of the State, declared that even if portions of a river were not navigable for commercial purposes because of physical conditions, the entire river would be treated as navigable if commercial traffic could …

Novel Issues, Futile Issues, And Appelate Advocacy: The Troubling Lessons Of Bousley V. United States., Henry J. Bemporad, Sarah P. Kelly

St. Mary's Law Journal

Bousley v. United States may require appellate attorneys to raise meritless claims in order to preserve them for habeas review in the event of a change in the law. Bousley is a habeas corpus case involving the “procedural default” doctrine. The doctrine states that a prisoner may only raise issues that have been adequately preserved, and if not preserved, they have defaulted on their claims. Bousley looked with critical hindsight at the decisions made by appellate counsel and punished the defendant for their lawyer’s failure to preserve an issue rejected by eleven courts of appeals—including the court before which the …

Textualism’S Limits On The Administrative State: Of Isolated Waters, Barking Dogs, And Chevron, Michael P. Healy

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

In Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Supreme Court recently held that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) does not have authority under the Clean Water Act (the Act or the CWA) to regulate the filling of “other waters.” This decision demonstrates a major shift in the Court's approach to statutory interpretation, particularly in the context of reviewing an agency’s understanding of a statute. The significance of the case is best gauged by contrasting it with United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc. There, the Court, acting …

Standing In Environmental Citizen Suits: Laidlaw’S Clarification Of The Injury-In-Fact And Redressability Requirements, Michael P. Healy

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

In its first week of business during the new millennium, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., and provided important clarifications about the law of standing in environmental citizen suits. Specifically, the Court rejected the narrow view of environmental injury-in-fact advocated by Justice Scalia and instead adhered to the broader view of injury-in-fact established in a nonenvironmental context by the Court's decision in Federal Elections Commission v. Akins. As importantly, the Court also addressed the redressability requirement of Article III standing in Laidlaw. Here too, the Court did …

The Flathead Water Quality Standards Dispute: Legal Bases For Tribal Regulatory Authority Over Non-Indian Reservation Lands, Daniel I.S.J. Rey-Bear

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

Regulatory Takings And Wetland Protection In The Post-Lucas Era, Richard C. Ausness

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

In June 1992, the United States Supreme Court decided Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council. The case involved a claim for compensation against the State of South Carolina by a landowner who was prohibited from placing structures on two of his beachfront lots. The Court declared that the landowners must be compensated when government regulations deprive them of all economically beneficial or productive uses of their property unless the proscribed uses were not permitted as part of their original titles.

Although some legal commentators have praised the Lucas decision, others have strongly condemned it. A common criticism of Lucas …

The Preemption Of State Hazardous And Solid Waste Regulations: The Dormant Commerce Clause Awakens Once More, Michael P. Healy

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Last term, for the first time since its watershed decision in Philadelphia v. New Jersey, the Supreme Court considered the extent to which the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution constrains a state's ability to regulate the disposal of hazardous and solid waste within its borders. In two cases, Chemical Waste Management, Inc. v. Hunt and Fort Gratiot Sanitary Landfill, Inc. v. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, the Supreme Court acted to limit substantially states’ ability to respond independently to the crisis of solid and hazardous waste disposal. The Article describes the harmful impact of the Court's …

A Reasonable Belief That A Third Party Had Authority To Consent To A Search Is An Exception To The Warrant Requirement., S. Jeffrey Gately

St. Mary's Law Journal

In Illinois v. Rodriguez, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether a warrantless search is valid when police rely on consent of a third party whom they reasonably believe had common authority over an area but does not. A reasonable belief that a third party had authority to consent to a search is an exception to the warrant requirement. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects people and their possessions by prohibiting unreasonable searches by government authorities. Although this protection extends to any place where a person may claim a reasonable expectation of privacy, it especially protects …

The Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Act Of 1978: Regulating Nonfederal Property Under The Property Clause, Eugene R. Gaetke

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

In an effort to resolve the nagging controversy over the management of more than one million acres of public forests, lakes, and streams in northeastern Minnesota, Congress enacted the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Act of 1978 (BWCA Act). Despite its objective, the Act has engendered further controversy. Particularly troublesome are several provisions that regulate the use of motorboats on lakes within and partly within the area. Those provisions test the scope of congressional power over nonfederal property under the property clause of article IV of the United States Constitution.

This Article examines the aged Supreme Court cases under which …