Courts Commons^™

Substantive Canons And Faithful Agency, Amy Coney Barrett

Journal Articles

Federal courts have long employed substantive canons of construction in the interpretation of statutes. For example, they apply the rule of lenity, which directs that ambiguous criminal statutes be interpreted in favor of the defendant, and the avoidance canon, which directs that statutes be interpreted in a manner that prevents the court from having to address serious constitutional questions. They also apply so-called “clear statement” rules — for example, absent a clear statement from Congress, a federal court will not interpret a statute to abrogate state sovereign immunity. While some commentators have attempted to rationalize these and other substantive canons …

Girls On The Stand: How Courts Fail Pregnant Minors, O. Carter Snead

Journal Articles

Girls on the Stand: How Courts Fail Pregnant Minors by Helena Silverstein. New York, New York University Press, 2007. 256 pp. $32.00.

Abortion may be the most controversial issue in American politics. It is a domain in which disagreement is not merely overheated, but seemingly intractable. Girls on the Stand: How Courts Fail Pregnant Minors ambitiously takes aim at one of the few abortion policies about which there is widespread agreement: parental involvement laws. It appeals to social science evidence to argue that popular support for these laws is misguided because, in practice, they impose too high a burden on …

Symposium: Stare Decisis And Nonjudicial Actors: Introduction, Amy Coney Barrett

Journal Articles

This essay is as an introduction to a symposium on stare decisis and nonjudicial actors. It frames the questions explored in the symposium by pausing to reflect upon the variety of ways in which nonjudicial actors have, over time, registered their disagreement with decisions of the United States Supreme Court. Both public officials and private citizens have battled the Court on any number of occasions since its inception, and historically, they have employed a diverse range of tactics in doing so. They have resisted Supreme Court judgments. They have denied the binding effect of Supreme Court opinions. They have sought …

Congress's Power To Block Enforcement Of Federal Court Orders, Jennifer Mason Mcaward

Journal Articles

This Article considers the constitutionality and propriety of recent appropriations riders passed by the House of Representatives in response to controversial federal court rulings. The riders prohibit the use of any federal funds for the enforcement of court orders issued in specified cases. These enforcement-blocking provisions raise significant separation-of-powers concerns as between Congress and both coordinate branches of the federal government.

The Article begins by looking at the controversial First Amendment rulings that triggered the enforcement-blocking riders, and the Congressional debates over the proper way to respond to the rulings. The riders are not merely symbolic protests, but could have …

Brief Of Amici Curiae Law Professors In Support Of Petitioner Goss International Corp., Salil Kumar Mehra, Jay Tidmarsh

Court Briefs

No. 07-618
Goss International Corp. v. Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho, Ltd.

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

From the Introduction and Summary of Argument

This case presents issues of jurisdiction, equity, and international comity that require this Court’s resolution. As we understand the facts, in 2003 the petitioner, Goss International, obtained a judgment under the Antidumping Act of 1916, 15 U.S.C. § 72 (2000) (repealed 2004), against the respondents, which are a Japanese corporation and its wholly-owned American subsidiary. The consonance between the Antidumping Act and the obligations of the …

Federalism Doctrines And Abortion Cases: A Response To Professor Fallon, Anthony J. Bellia Jr.

Journal Articles

This Essay is a response to Professor Richard Fallon's article, If Roe Were Overruled: Abortion and the Constitution in a Post-Roe World. In that article, Professor Fallon argues that if the Supreme Court were to overrule Roe v. Wade, courts might well remain in the abortion-umpiring business. This Essay proposes a refinement on that analysis. It argues that in a post-Roe world courts would not necessarily subject questions involving abortion to the same kind of constitutional analysis in which the Court has engaged in Roe and its progeny, that is, balancing a state's interest in protecting life against a pregnant …

The Origins Of Article Iii "Arising Under" Jurisdiction, Anthony J. Bellia Jr.

Journal Articles

Article III of the Constitution provides that the judicial Power of the United States extends to all cases arising under the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States. What the phrase arising under imports in Article III has long confounded courts and scholars. This Article examines the historical origins of Article III arising under jurisdiction. First, it describes English legal principles that governed the jurisdiction of courts of general and limited jurisdiction--principles that animated early American jurisprudence regarding the scope of arising under jurisdiction. Second, it explains how participants in the framing and ratification of the Constitution understood arising …

What's On Your Mind? Imputing Motive In A Title Vii Case, An Analysis Of Bci Coca-Cola Bottling Co. V. Eeoc, Barbara J. Fick

Journal Articles

This article examines the case E.E.O.C. v. BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Los Angeles, which was scheduled for argument before the Supreme Court, but was dismissed before that argument occurred.

Eliminating Fear Through Recreating Community In Rwanda: The Role Of The Gacaca Courts, Christine M. Venter

Journal Articles

This article describes the institution of the Gacaca Courts in Rwanda, which were set up to try people charged with participating in the 1994 Rwandan genocide. The author examines the options available to the Rwandan government in seeding to prosecute people charged with crimes related to the genocide, and concludes that, while flawed, the gacaca courts were the best option available. The article explores how the courts were developed based on the participatory and restorative ideals of African indigenous legal systems, and how these courts provide an opportunity for some form of "truth telling" in post-genocide Rwanda.

Brief For Professors Of Electronic Privacy Law And Internet Law As Amici Curiae Supporting The Appellee And Urging Affirmance, Patricia L. Bellia, Susan Freiwald

Court Briefs

No. 06-4092
Steven Warshak v. United States of America

On appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati

From the Summary of Argument

Electronic mail (“e-mail’) has become an essential medium of communication and assumed a vital role in our lives. The contents of our e-mail accounts reveal extensive and detailed information about our interests, our views, and our actions. Yet, the Government in this case claims the right to obtain the entirety of our personal e-mail accounts from our service providers, without first establishing probable cause or providing us notice, so long …

Brief Amici Curiae Of Christian Legal Society, National Association Of Evangelicals, Pro-Life Legal Defense Fund, Alliance Defense Fund And Concerned Women For America In Support Of Petitioner, Gregory S. Baylor, Steven H. Aden, Richard W. Garnett, Michael Stokes Paulsen

Court Briefs

No. 05-1382
Alberto R. Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc.

On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

From the Summary of Argument

For as long as the American public has known about partial-birth abortion, we have—by comfortable and consistent margins—agreed with former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan that this gruesome practice is “infanticide, and one would be too many.” Meet the Press (NBC television broadcast, Mar. 2, 1997). Whether we oppose elective abortions as a matter of moral principle or regard a woman’s legal access to abortion as a component of …

The Judicial Experiment With Privatizing Religion, Gerard V. Bradley

Journal Articles

1984 was the high water mark of the U.S. Supreme Court's campaign to privatize religion - to strip public life bare of the sacred. It may also prove to be the mid-point: the "naked public square" was mandated by the Supreme Court in 1962, and there is good reason to think that now, in 2007, the Court might finally put an end to their misbegotten experiment.

"Privatization" of religion is tantamount to "secularism." Neither term denotes atheism, the claim that there is no God and that religion is, basically, an illusion. Privatization and secularism refer not to the denial of …

The Supervisory Power Of The Supreme Court, Amy Coney Barrett

Journal Articles

Relying on something it calls supervisory power or supervisory authority, the Supreme Court regularly prescribes rules of procedure and evidence for inferior courts. Both scholars and the Court have treated the Court's exercises of this authority as unexceptional exercises of the inherent authority that Article III grants every federal court to regulate procedure in the course of adjudication. Article III's grant of inherent authority, however, is conventionally understood as permitting a federal court to regulate its own proceedings. When the Supreme Court exercises supervisory power, it regulates the proceedings of other federal courts. More than a reference to every court's …

State Courts And The Interpretation Of Federal Statutes, Anthony J. Bellia Jr.

Journal Articles

Scholars have long debated the separation of powers question of what judicial power federal courts have under Article III of the Constitution in the enterprise of interpreting federal statutes. Specifically, scholars have debated whether, in light of Founding-era English and state court judicial practice, the judicial power of the United States should be understood as a power to interpret statutes dynamically or as faithful agents of Congress. This Article argues that the question of how courts should interpret federal statutes is one not only of separation of powers but of federalism as well. State courts have a vital and often …

The Federal Constitutional Court: Guardian Of German Democracy, Donald P. Kommers

Journal Articles

Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court rivals the Supreme Court of the United States in protecting political democracy. Its jurisprudence of democracy has shaped the course and character of German politics while upholding the rule of law and defending the constitutionally prescribed “free democratic basic order.” In furtherance of these objectives, the Constitutional Court has invalidated regulations limiting the rights of minor parties and constitutionalizing measures designed to stabilize Germany’s system of parliamentary government. These purposes have been served by constitutional decisions on voting rights, public funding of election campaigns, dissolution of Parliament, and proportional representation, including the limiting 5 percent clause. …

State Courts And The Making Of Federal Common Law, Anthony J. Bellia Jr.

Journal Articles

The authority of federal courts to make federal common law has been a controversial question for courts and scholars. Several scholars have propounded theories addressing primarily whether and when federal courts are justified in making federal common law. It is a little-noticed phenomenon that state courts, too, make federal common law. This Article brings to light the fact that state courts routinely make federal common law in as real a sense as federal courts make it. It further explains that theories that focus on whether the making of federal common law by federal courts is justified are inadequate to explain …

Time Is Money--But Is It Compensable Work? An Analysis Of Ibp, Inc. V. Alvarez, Barbara J. Fick

Journal Articles

This article previews the Supreme Court case IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez, 546 U.S. 21 (2005). The issues raised in that case were: Is the time employees spend walking and waiting in line during the process of donning and doffing required safety equipment considered compensable work such that employers must pay them for that time?

Statutory Stare Decisis In The Courts Of Appeals, Amy Coney Barrett

Journal Articles

The Supreme Court has long given its cases interpreting statutes special protection from overruling. Two rationales exist for this practice. One line of thought interprets congressional silence following the Supreme Court's interpretation of a statute as approval of that interpretation. According to this way of thinking, a refusal to overrule statutory precedent is a refusal to veer from an interpretation that Congress has effectively approved. Another line of thought emphasizes that statutory interpretation inevitably involves policymaking, and that policymaking is an aspect of legislative, rather than judicial, power. According to this second way of thinking, the Supreme Court should refuse …

Brief Amicus Curiae Of Professors David L. Callies, James T. Ely, Paula A. Franzese, Nicole Stelle Garnett, James E. Krier, Daniel R. Mandelker, John Copeland Nagle, John Nolon, J.B. Ruhl, Shelley Ross Saxer, A. Dan Tarlock, Laura Underkuffler, And Edward F. Ziegler In Support Of Petitioners, David L. Callies, Nicole Stelle Garnett, John Copeland Nagle

Court Briefs

No. 04-108
Susette Kelo v. City of New London

On Writ Of Certiorari To The Supreme Court of Connecticut

From the Summary of Argument

The Connecticut Supreme Court's decision was in keeping with Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229 (1984), which provides that legislative assertions of public use should be subjected to rational basis review. The application of such broadly deferential review in public use cases is inappropriate. Application of rational basis review to the exercise of eminent domain in cases such as this effectively eviscerates the Fifth Amendment's public use limitation. Moreover, lower courts' responses to …

Brief On Rehearing En Banc For Senator Patrick J. Leahy As Amicus Curiae Supporting The United States And Urging Reversal, Patricia L. Bellia, Peter P. Swire

Court Briefs

No. 03-1383
United States v. Bradford C. Councilman

On appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts

From the Summary of Argument

Congress passed ECPA to update the existing surveillance law framework for new technologies. Recognizing the threat to privacy posed by the continuous, systematic acquisition of electronic communications during their transmission, Congress extended existing prohibitions against the unauthorized “intercept[ion]” of wire and oral communications, enacted in Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, Pub. L. No. 90-351, tit. III, §§ 801–804, 82 Stat. 211 (codified as amended at 18 …

Federal Courts, International Tribunals, And The Continuum Of Deference: A Postscript On Lawrence V. Texas, Roger P. Alford

Journal Articles

Last year, in the pages of this journal, I published an article addressing the role of international tribunal decisions in federal courts.1 In that article, it was suggested that federal courts should confer varying degrees of deference to international tribunal decisions depending on the circumstances presented. Such degrees of deference were plotted along a "continuum of deference." See: Federal Courts, International Tribunals, and the Continuum of Deference

The purpose of this brief Postscript is to reconsider the "no deference" model in light of the Supreme Court's decisions in Bowers and Lawrence. The Postscript elucidates why Lawrence relied on an international …

Does Title Ix Protect Academic Whistle Blowers? An Analysis Of Jackson V. Birminghan Board Of Education, Barbara J. Fick

Journal Articles

This article previews the Supreme Court case Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education, 544 U.S. 167 (2005). The author expected the Court to decide whether Title IX's ban on discrimination allows a private individual to sue for retaliation when a recipient of federal funds engages in adverse action against that individual because of his complaints that the recipient is violating Title IX?

What Is The Time Limit For Filing A Lawsuit? It Depends On What Your Definition Of "Arising Under" Is! An Analysis Of Jones V. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., Barbara J. Fick

Journal Articles

This article previews the Supreme Court case Jones et. al. v. R.R. Donnelly & Sons Co., 541 U.S. 369 (2004). The author predicted that the case would require the court to determine the appropriate statute of limitations to apply in a class action race-discrimination lawsuit filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

What Is An Employer's Liability For Constructive Discharge Under Title Vii? An Analysis Of Pennsylvania State Police V. Suders, Barbara J. Fick

Journal Articles

This article previews the Supreme Court case Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders, 542 U.S. 129 (2004). In this case involving Title VII, the author expected the Court to analyze whether whether a constructive discharge caused by supervisory harassment is a tangible employment action for purposes of imposing striet liability.

Article Iii And The Cause Of Action, Anthony J. Bellia Jr.

Journal Articles

This Article undertakes a systematic exploration of the concept of the "cause of action" as it is used by courts and scholars in making arguments about the scope of the federal judicial power. The concept of the cause of action figures prominently in debates about such fundamental questions as what kinds of cases Congress may empower federal courts to adjudicate (jurisdiction), who may initiate a case in federal court (standing), and when a federal court may afford a plaintiff a private remedy for the violation of a federal regulatory scheme (implied rights of action). Federal courts have answered these questions, …

The United States Supreme Court Rulings On Detention Of "Enemy Combatants" - Partial Vindication Of The Rule Of Law, Douglass Cassel

Journal Articles

In three rulings on prolonged military detention of so-called "unlawful enemy combatants" in the "war" against terrorism, the United States Supreme Court in June 2004 shielded the rule of law from some of the more extreme excesses of the Bush Administration. However, the Court also yielded some ground and left open a number of troublesome questions.

Brief Of Amicus Curiae National Association Of Criminal Defense Lawyers In Support Of The Petitioner, Richard W. Garnett, Joshua L. Dratel, Richard A. Greenberg

Court Briefs

No. 03-44
Basim Omar Sabri v. United States of America

On Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Eighth Circuit

From the Summary of the Argument

This case considers the constitutional validity of a relatively novel but increasingly employed federal criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 666, that has engendered fierce debate about some of the "oldest questions" of constitutional law. See New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 149 (1992) ("[t]he constitutional question is as old as the Constitution: It consists of discerning the proper division of authority between the Federal Government and …

Brief Of Amici Curiae The Becket Fund For Religious Liberty, The Catholic League For Religious And Civil Rights, And Historians And Legal Scholars In Support Of Respondent, Richard W. Garnett, Kevin J. Hasson, Roman P. Storzer, Anthony R. Picarello Jr., Gerard V. Bradley

Court Briefs

No. 02-1315
Gary Locke v. Joshua Davey

On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

From the Summary of the Argument

The Washington State law at issue in this case disqualifies a student from an otherwise available government benefit, only because the student would use the benefit for a religious purpose. That is the core constitutional offense identified by the court below, and this Court may affirm on that basis alone.

Brief Of Amicus Curiae National Association Of Criminal Defense Lawyers In Support Of The Petition For Writ Of Certiorari, Joshua L. Dratel, Richard W. Garnett

Court Briefs

No. 03-44
Basim Omar Sabri v. United States of America

On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Eighth Circuit

From the Statement of the Case

The relevant facts of this case, as well as its procedural history, are set out clearly and completely in Mr. Sabri' s Petition, in the Appendix to that Petition, and in the opinions of the courts below. See United States v. Sabri, 183 F. Supp. 2d 1145 (D. Minn. 2002), rev 'd, 326 F.3d 937 (8th Cir. 2003). For purposes of this amicus curiae …

Introductory Note To U.S. Court Of Appeals For The District Of Columbia Circuit: Nemariam, Et. Al. V. Ethiopia, Roger P. Alford

Journal Articles

Nemariam v. Ethiopia is one of the most important United States decisions to date addressing whether an international tribunal may be an adequate forum for purposes of dismissing pending litigation based on forum non conveniens. The decision essentially suggests that diplomatic espousal claims before international tribunals can never afford claimants an adequate forum justifying dismissal based on forum non conveniens absent some guarantee of individual relief for meritorious claims.