Law Commons^™

If It Is Broken, Then Fix It: Needed Reforms To Employment Discrimination Law: 2009 Annual Meeting Of The Association Of American Law Schools Section On Employment Discrimination Law, Melissa Hart, Minna Kotkin, Roberto Corrada, Deborah Widiss

Publications

No abstract provided.

The Courts Under President Obama, Scott A. Moss

Publications

No abstract provided.

Procedural Extremism: The Supreme Court's 2008-2009 Labor And Employment Cases, Melissa Hart

Publications

It has become nearly a commonplace to say that the Supreme Court under the leadership of Chief Justice John Roberts is a court of “incrementalism.” The 2008 Term, however, featured several opinions that showcase the procedural extremism of the current conservative majority. In a series of sharply divided decisions, the Court re-shaped the law that governs the workplace - or more specifically the law that governs whether and how employees will be permitted access to the courts to litigate workplace disputes. At least as important as the Court’s changes to the substantive legal standards are the procedural hurdles the five …

Business, The Environment, And The Roberts Court: A Preliminary Assessment, Jonathan H. Adler

Faculty Publications

The Roberts Court has developed a reputation for being a "pro-business" court. This article, prepared for the 2009 Santa Clara Law Review symposium on "Big Business and the Roberts Court," seeks to offer a preliminary assessment of this claim with reference to the Roberts Court's decisions in environmental cases. Reviewing the environmental law decisions of the Roberts Court to date reveals no evidence of a "pro-business" bias. This does not disprove the claim that the Roberts Court is pro-business, but it may suggest the need to refine conventional descriptions of the Roberts Court. The lack of a pro-business orientation in …

Florida V. Bostick, Yale Kamisar

Other Publications

501 U.S. 429 (1991), argued 26 Feb. 1991, decided 20 June 1991 by vote of 6 to 3; O’Connor for the Court, Marshall in dissent. What constitutes a “seizure” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment? Police practices need not be “reasonable”—indeed, are not regulated by the Fourth Amendment at all—unless they are considered “searches” or “seizures.” In this case, which involved a growing antidrug police tactic known as “working the buses” (randomly approaching a bus passenger and asking him for identification and to grant permission to search his luggage), the Court took a narrow view of what constitutes a …

Mallory V. United States, Yale Kamisar

Other Publications

354 U.S. 449 (1957), argued 1 Apr. 1957, decided 24 June 1957 by vote of 9 to 0; Frankfurter for the Court. Although the power of the Supreme Court to overturn state convictions is limited to the enforcement of Fourteenth Amendment due process rights, the Court may formulate rules of evidence in the exercise of its “supervisory power” over the administration of federal criminal justice that go well beyond due process requirements. The best-known example is the McNabb-Mallory rule.

Miranda V. Arizona, Yale Kamisar

Other Publications

384 U.S. 436 (1966), argued 28 Feb. 1966, decided 13 June 1966 by vote of 5 to 4; Warren for the Court, Clark, Harlan, White, and Stewart in dissent. The Warren Court's revolution in American criminal procedure reached its high point (or, depending upon one's perspective, its low point) on 13 June 1966. That day the Court handed down its opinion in Miranda, the most famous, and most bitterly criticized, confession case in the nation's history. To some, Miranda symbolized the legal system's determination to treat even the lowliest and most despicable criminal suspect with dignity and respect. But …

Escobedo V. Illinois, Yale Kamisar

Other Publications

378 U.S. 438 (1964), argued 29 Apr. 1964, decided 22 June 1964 by vote of 5 to 4; Goldberg for the Court, Harlan, Stewart, White, and Clark in dissent. When Danny Escobedo, a murder suspect, was taken to the police station and put in an interrogation room, he repeatedly asked to speak to the lawyer he had retained. Escobedo's lawyer soon arrived at the station house and repeatedly asked to see his client. Despite the persistent efforts of both Escobedo and his lawyer, the police prevented them from meeting. The police also failed to advise Escobedo of his right to …

Massiah V. United States, Yale Kamisar

Other Publications

377 U.S. 201 (1964), argued 3 Mar. 1964, decided 18 May 1964 by vote of 6 to 3; Stewart for the Court, White in dissent. Massiah was decided at a time when the Warren Court's “revolution in American criminal procedure” was accelerating. According to Massiah, after the initiation of adversary judicial proceedings (by indictment, as in Massiah's case, or by information, preliminary hearing or arraignment), the Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the right to rely on counsel as the “medium” between himself and the government. Thus, once adversary proceedings have begun, the government cannot bypass the defendant's lawyer and …

Understanding The Paradoxical Case Of The Voting Rights Act, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer

Articles by Maurer Faculty

This is an article about the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and its curious handling by the U.S. Supreme Court. When the Court examines the constitutionality of the Act, for example, it blindly defers to the work of Congress, unwilling to subject the statute to any meaningful scrutiny. In contrast, this posture of deference for questions of constitutional law differs greatly from the Court’s posture when interpreting the language of the statute. This is an area where the Court defers to no one, even when the text of the statute or the clear intent of Congress demands a different outcome. …

Interrogation Of Detainees: Extending A Hand Or A Boot?, Amos N. Guiora

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The current "war on terror" provides the Bush administration with a unique opportunity to both establish clear guidelines for the interrogation of detainees and to make a forceful statement about American values. How the government chooses to act can promote either an ethical commitment to the norms of civil society, or an attitude analogous to Toby Keith's "American Way," where Keith sings that "you'll be sorry that you messed with the USofA, 'Cuz we'll put a boot in your ass, It's the American Way."

"The Threes": Re-Imagining Supreme Court Decisionmaking, Tracey E. George, Chris Guthrie

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

In this Essay--the first in a series of essays designed to reimagine the Supreme Court--we argue that Congress should authorize the Court to adopt, in whole or part, panel decision making... With respect to the prospect of different Court outcomes, we demonstrate empirically in this Essay that the vast majority of cases decided during the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries--including "Grutter", "Roe", and "Bush v. Gore" --would have come out the same way if the Court had decided them in panels rather than as a full Court.

"The Threes": Re-Imagining Supreme Court Decisionmaking, Chris Guthrie, Tracey E. George

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

In this Essay--the first in a series of essays designed to reimagine the Supreme Court--we argue that Congress should authorize the Court to adopt, in whole or part, panel decision making... With respect to the prospect of different Court outcomes, we demonstrate empirically in this Essay that the vast majority of cases decided during the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries--including "Grutter", "Roe", and "Bush v. Gore" --would have come out the same way if the Court had decided them in panels rather than as a full Court.

Nothing Improper? Examining Constitutional Limits, Congressional Action, Partisan Motivation, And Pretextual Justification In The U. S. Attorney Removals, David C. Weiss

Michigan Law Review

The forced mid-term resignations of nine U.S. Attorneys was an unprecedented event in American history. Nearly one year after the administration executed the removals, the House Judiciary Committee was still reviewing and publicizing emails, memoranda, and other documents in an effort to understand how the firings were effectuated. This Note examines many of those documents and concludes that the removals were likely carried out for partisan reasons. It then draws on the Constitution, Supreme Court precedent, and separation of powers principles to argue that Congress is constitutionally empowered to enact removal limitations for inferior officers such as U.S. Attorneys so …

Getting The Roberts Court Right: A Response To Chemerinsky, Jonathan H. Adler

Faculty Publications

Dean Erwin Chemerinsky makes a substantial contribution to the narrative of conservative ascendance [within the Roberts Court] in The Roberts Court at Age Three. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito “have been everything that conservatives could have dreamed of and liberals could have feared,” he writes. The two newest justices are forging “a solid conservative voting majority" on the Court. The result is a Court that is “notably more conservative” than its predecessors on most contentious questions. It is, Dean Chemerinsky claims, “the most conservative Court since the mid-1930s.”

To say Dean Chemerinsky overstates his case is an understatement. …

Section 6: Theories Of Interpretation, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Section 1: Moot Court, Fcc V. Fox Television Stations, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Section 7: Criminal Law, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Section 2: 2008 Election And The Supreme Court, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Section 8: Bush's Legal Legacy, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Section 5: Civil Rights, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Section 3: Election Law, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Kewanee Revisited: Returning To First Principles Of Intellectual Property Law To Determine The Issue Of Federal Preemption, Sharon K. Sandeen

Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review

In the early 1970s it was thought that states could regulate in the areas of trade secrets without interfering with federal patent policies. However, this concept was called into question in the Sixth Circuit's ruling in Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron. In 1974 the Supreme Court ruled that Ohio's trade secret law was not preempted by federal patent law. This article revisits the issues raised in Kewanee in light of the Supreme Court's current preemption jurisprudence, changes in patent law, copyright law, and trade secret law since that time. First, the article reviews the history and context of the Kewanee …

The Federalization Of Punitive Damages And The Effect On Illinois Law, Frank A. Perrecone, Lisa R. Fabiano

Northern Illinois University Law Review

Punitive damages have traditionally been a matter of state law, left to state courts and legislatures to review and regulate. But in the midst of the tort reform movement of the 1990s, the United States Supreme Court took sides in the policy debate, fashioning a novel substantive due process right limiting punitive damage awards and suppressing the power of juries to punish and deter egregious conduct. This article traces the evolution of the federalization of punitive damages based on questionable authority, criticizes the Supreme Court's intrusion into an area of state law, demonstrates how Supreme Court precedent has been misapplied …

From Judge To Justice: Social Background Theory And The Supreme Court, Tracey E. George

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

The Roberts Court Justices already have revealed many differences from one another, but they also share a (possibly) significant commonality: Presidents promoted all of them to the U.S. Supreme Court from the U.S. Courts of Appeals. This means, of course, that they initially learned how to be judges while serving on a circuit court. How might the Justices' common route to the Court affect their actions on it? Social background theory hypothesizes that prior experience influences subsequent behavior such as voting, opinion writing, and coalition formation. This Article empirically analyzes promotion to the Supreme Court and examines the implications of …

Money As Property: The Effects Of Doctrinal Misallocation On Campaign Finance Reform, Maneesh Sharma

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

By applying First Amendment jurisprudence to campaign finance measures, this Note argues that the Supreme Court has misallocated campaign finance within its doctrinal scheme. This doctrinal misallocation has stymied the ability of legislatures to enact effective reforms to reduce the role of money in politics. This Note argues that money in the political process more closely resembles property than speech and should therefore be analyzed under a less stringent property review. This Note concludes by proposing a standard of review developed from the Court's property jurisprudence.

An "Unintended Consequence": Dred Scott Reinterpreted, Sam Erman

Michigan Law Review

Austin Allen's monograph marks the 150th anniversary of the decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford with a revisionist interpretation of that oft-examined case. Many scholars have portrayed the case as a proslavery decision that fanned sectional fires. After all, the Court held that blacks were not U.S. citizens and that Congress was impotent to bar slavery in U.S. territories. Allen, by contrast, understands the case primarily as a judicial attempt to rationalize federal commerce and slavery jurisprudences. Part I argues that this ambitious reinterpretation enriches, but does not topple, existing Dred Scott historiography. In the case of the Court's citizenship …

Supreme Court Nominees And The Fourth Circuit Curse, Adam M. Gershowitz

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Meddimmune, Microsoft, And Ksr: The United States Supreme Court In 2007 Tips The Balance In Favor Of Innovation In Patent Cases, And Thrice Reverses The Federal Circuit, Sue Ann Mota

Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review

In 2007 the Supreme Court reversed three patent cases from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The three cases were MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. (holding a patent licensee does not have to breach a license agreement before seeking declaratory judgment that the underlying patent is invalid, unenforceable, or not infringed), Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp. (holding Microsoft did not supply a component of an invention from the United States that had the possibility of infringing under the Patent Act), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (holding the requirement of non-obviousness under the Patent Act is analyzed …

Back To The Beginning: An Essay On The Court, The Law Of Democracy, And Trust, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer

Articles by Maurer Faculty

The law of democracy is in a state of incoherence. The experiment begun by Baker v. Carr showed great promise yet soon gave way to disappointment. The promise was one of modest review and respect for political choices made elsewhere. A presumption was still against judicial involvement: absent self-entrenchment or distrust of political outcomes, the Court would stay its hand. But, the reality has been far from that. The presumption has now clearly shifted, and the Court intervenes in politically-charged controversies as a matter of course. This raises a question at the heart of the law of democracy: can we …