Courts Commons^™

The Federal Courts Jurisprudence Of Justice Clarence Thomas, Barnett J. Harris

Catholic University Law Review

In “Personal Precedent at the Supreme Court,” Professor Richard Re argues that Supreme Court justices tend to rely on their “previously expressed views of the law,” including their prior separate opinions when deciding new cases. Richard M. Re, Personal Precedent at the Supreme Court, 136 Harv. L. Rev. 824, 825–26 (2023). These “previously expressed views of the law,” which Re refers to as “personal precedent,” play an extremely important and previously unrecognized role in the development of the law. Re even contends that “though typically excluded from the law, personal precedent may actually be its building block.” Richard M. Re, …

Brief Of The American Immigration Lawyers Association And Immigration Law Scholars As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondents, Lindsay Nash

Amicus Briefs

Amicus curiae brief submitted by the American Immigration Lawyers Association and immigration law scholars in support of the respondents in Mullin v. Doe and Trump v. Miot before the Supreme Court of the United States. The brief argues that the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) statute strictly limits the Executive Branch's authority to terminate TPS designations and requires continuation of protection unless the statutory conditions justifying designation no longer exist. The amici further contend that TPS serves a critical humanitarian function by protecting individuals from removal, detention, and loss of work authorization while conditions in designated countries remain unsafe.

Brief Of Amici Curiae Immigration Law Professors In Support Of Respondent, Peter L. Markowitz, Lindsay Nash

Amicus Briefs

Amicus curiae brief submitted by immigration law professors in support of the respondent in Bondi v. Lau before the Supreme Court of the United States. The brief argues that lawful permanent residents returning from travel abroad may not be treated as seeking admission unless they satisfy the statutory criteria set forth in the Immigration and Nationality Act. It further contends that ambiguities in deportation statutes should be resolved in favor of noncitizens under the longstanding immigration rule of lenity.

Let Them Hear It: Peaceful Protests Near The Homes Of Supreme Court Justices, Srikanth Reddy

Lewis & Clark Law Review

All of us—not just attorneys and politicians—need to be more critical and skeptical of the Supreme Court. Criticism by ordinary people is good and appropriate, even if it hurts the Justices’ feelings. That includes public protests. When a case matters enough to them, members of the public can and should criticize the Court and its Justices, including by peacefully gathering and protesting near a Justice’s home, or when a Justice appears out in the world.

Reconstituting A Constitution, And A Republic: The Architecture Of Authoritarian Rule, J. Maria Glover

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

A constitution can be remade without tearing it down, or even changing a single word. It is done by law.

“The judicial power is vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as Congress may establish,” whose “province and duty” it is to “say what the law is.” U.S. Const. Art. III §1; Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 1 (Cranch) 137 (1803). It is not the power to remake the Constitution that grants it.

The Supreme Court is turning the inherited powers that hold power to law into instruments of its own aggrandizement. It is taking authority from …

Cross-Talk, Alicia Bannon, John Q. Barrett, Tyler Rose Clemons, Wilfred U. Codrington Iii, Mark C. Niles

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

John Q. Barrett (“JQB”)

We now enter the exciting segment of the program called cross-talk.

Tyler Rose Clemons (“TRC”)

One of the things that this conversation has brought up for me is whom is the Court overturning precedent on behalf of? What interest? Whose interest is it that the Court is acting to vindicate when it says we got it wrong before, and it is so important that we get it right that we are willing to take this supposedly drastic remedy of overturning our own precedent?

What I was thinking about immediately during Judge Livingston’s remarks was West …

Stare Decisis And The 1l Classroom: Can Legal Reasoning Be Taught Without Judicial Respect For Precedent?, Mark C. Niles

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

I began my career as a law professor in 1998 and, in every year but one, since then I have taught at least one first-year required law school course. I have taught Civil Procedure each of these years and some version of a required Constitutional Law course in about half of them. I want to say just a little bit about stare decisis and its importance in our legal system from the perspective of a law professor teaching first-year students.

I have found that although teaching Civil Procedure involves a focus on a range of substantive issues including judicial …

Stare Decisis And Zombie Laws, Alicia Bannon

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

In recent years, the Supreme Court has shown little interest in stare decisis—the principle that courts should honor precedent—as an animating value in constitutional interpretation. This has put many fundamental rights in a vulnerable posture. This Essay focuses on one underappreciated dimension of the decline in respect for stare decisis as it relates to fundamental rights: the relationship between stare decisis and what I will call, and what others have called, “zombie laws.”

Zombie laws are laws that were rendered inoperative by courts but never rescinded; for example, an abortion ban that became unenforceable after Roe v. Wade. …

Doubting Thomas And Questioning Stare Decisis Under The Roberts Court, Wilfred U. Codrington Iii

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

“[S]tare decisis is ‘not an inexorable command.’ ” Frankly, every time I read these words in a judicial opinion of late, I shudder. And, in fact, it seems like I am reading these words— and shuddering—with increasing regularity.

First off, of course it is not. At times, the Supreme Court has sanctioned manifest injustices in the law. The prime example is the Court’s 1896 decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, which sustained racial segregation under the Fourteenth Amendment. With the blessing of the judiciary, this interpretation of the Reconstruction Constitution supported a regime of racial segregation until, more than …

On Stealth Overruling, Tyler Rose Clemons

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

From Loper Bright v. Raimondo to Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Roberts Court has shown itself more than willing to overturn longstanding pillars of American jurisprudence explicitly. While such cases and other pathbreaking opinions have understandably garnered the lion’s share of attention, the Court has also demonstrated an increased willingness to tweak, modify, or even functionally overrule doctrines without expressly stating that it is doing so. I call this phenomenon “stealth overruling.”

A Conversation About Stare Decisis, The Honorable Debra Ann Livingston, John Q. Barrett

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

John Q. Barrett (“JQB”)

Chief Judge Debra Ann Livingston, welcome back to St. John’s.

The Chief Judge has been a friend to us for many years. It is an honor to host someone of her talent and someone in her position: the Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

We’re going to have a conversation for the first part of the program, about judging, her work, and stare decisis.

But first, we need to meet you and hear a little bit about your background—where you are from—and the path that took you to the …

A Conversation About Stare Decisis, Debra A. Livingston, John Q. Barrett

Faculty Scholarship

John Q. Barrett (“JQB”)

Chief Judge Debra Ann Livingston, welcome back to St. John’s.

The Chief Judge has been a friend to us for many years. It is an honor to host someone of her talent and someone in her position: the Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

We’re going to have a conversation for the first part of the program, about judging, her work, and stare decisis. But first, we need to meet you and hear a little bit about your background — where you are from — and the path that took …

Evaluating The Extent And Consequences Of Polarization In The Supreme Court, Brianna Pechman

Honors Capstones

This research joins a limited number of existing studies investigating polarization on the Supreme Court by focusing on a specific policy area, reproductive rights, through an analysis of Martin-Quinn scores, a traditional measurement of judicial ideology. Following previous studies investigating polarization in the judicial system, polarization on the Supreme Court is identified through partisan sorting, the alignment of party affiliation and issue position, and traditional polarization, increasing support for extreme positions relative to more positions. Overall, the Court shows no signs of traditional polarization as moderate justices are still present on the Supreme Court and liberal and conservative justices are …

The Waiting Is The Hardest Part: The Constitutionality Of Firearm Waiting Periods, F. Lee Francis

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

This Article examines the constitutionality of firearm waiting period laws through the lens of the Supreme Court’s evolving Second Amendment jurisprudence. Although such laws are frequently defended as prudent public safety measures, their validity turns not on legislative purpose but on constitutional principle, particularly as framed in District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen.

Under those decisions, the scope of the Second Amendment is determined not by judicial balancing of contemporary interests, but by reference to the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The Article surveys that tradition and finds no …

Brennan And State Constitutions, Stephen Wermiel

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

The former Great Gorge Playboy Resort in New Jersey seems an unlikely place to help form a jurisprudential movement toward reliance on state constitutions to protect civil rights and liberties.

One need only turn back the clock to 1976 to find the story of one of the most significant moments in the rise of state constitutions. Anyone who is steeped in this movement is likely familiar with the lead article in the January 1977 issue of the Harvard Law Review, “State Constitutions and the Protection of Individual Rights.” The author was U.S. Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan Jr.

National Origin Bias And U.S. Public Opinion On Supreme Court Nominees: Evidence From A Conjoint Experiment, Christopher P. Dinkel, Andrew Ifedapo Thompson, Marc C. Mcallister

Pace Law Review

As the ultimate arbiter of the interpretation of federal law and the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court has a significant impact on businesses and individuals across an increasingly diverse country. Although the vast majority of the Justices who have served on the Court have been white males, recent Presidents have appointed nominees who have brought greater racial and gender diversity to the Court. Despite these efforts, however, not a single U.S. Supreme Court Justice in the past six decades has been born abroad, even though Americans who were born outside the United States constitute nearly a tenth of the …

Book Review The Making Of A Justice: Reflections On My First 94 Years By John Paul Stevens, Stephen Wermiel

Book Reviews

The autobiography of Justice John Paul Stevens, published just a few months before he died, is an enticing travelogue for Supreme Court nerds. Other travelers may want to pick a different landscape.

In The Making of a Justice: Reflections on My First 94 Years, Stevens who died in July 2019, at age 99, spent 130 pages on his life before he joined the Supreme Court and then 394 pages describing the decisions during his thirty-four year as a Justice. Stevens was an agile writer and did as good a job as anyone can of making the narrative accessible, but it …

Interpreting Congress, Joshua Ulan Galperin

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

This Article introduces the concept of congressional interpretation. Congressional interpretation describes a strategy on which the Supreme Court relies, but rarely acknowledges. It occurs when courts try to understand what the law is by looking beyond a specific statute, or even a specific statute’s legislative history, and instead turning to vague beliefs about congressional behavior. Courts use congressional interpretation to: understand the relationship between a substantive statute and subsequent appropriations; evaluate statutes on the basis of post-enactment congressional inaction; and impose assumptions about congressional norms through clear statement rules. For instance, a court considers whether Congress granted statutory authority when …

Our Partisan Supreme Court And An Essential First Step Toward Reclaiming What's Been Lost, Gary Simson

Articles

Partisan decision-making by even only one Supreme Court Justice in a single case is not a trivial matter. The ill effects are greatly compounded when five or more Justices of a similar partisan bent regularly deliberate about, and decide, cases in a partisan way. At that point, we’ve got what can fairly be described as a partisan Supreme Court.

I argue in this Article that, to all of our great misfortune, a partisan Supreme Court is very much what we’ve got today. On a more hopeful note, though, I also argue that although reforming the Court to be a much …

Channel The Panel To Improve State Supreme Court Independence, Aditya Medicherla

Mitchell Hamline Law Journal of Public Policy and Practice

No abstract provided.

May Federal Courts Answer Questions When Not Deciding Cases?, Benjamin B. Johnson

UF Law Faculty Publications

Conventional wisdom says that Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement prevents federal courts from answering legal questions when they are not deciding cases. This is only partially correct. This Article shows conditions under which a federal court may answer questions even when not deciding a case. To do so, it traces the appellate power back to its origins in English common law courts and through the early American judiciary. For centuries, common law judges have answered questions sent to them by lower courts when doing so would help those lower courts to decide pending cases. In England, the “case stated” procedure facilitated …

Dobbs V. Brown, Benjamin H. Barton

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization1is the most important and impactful Supreme Court decision since at least Roe v. Wade, and potentially since Brown v. Board of Education. Past survey data show that most Americans can only name two Supreme Court opinions: Roe and Brown. Dobbs will surely join that list. This Article compares the history, drafting, and opinions of Dobbs and Brown to show what a missed opportunity Dobbs represents. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the opinion, it should be clear that Dobbs was one of those unique times (like that of Brown) where the Court …

How Does The Modern Supreme Court Treat The Idea Of Retribution In The Context Of Capital Punishment?, Paige Forsberg

Honors Undergraduate Theses

This thesis explores the modern U.S. Supreme Court's treatment of retribution in the context of capital punishment, analyzing how justices have framed and justified the death penalty as a form of justice. Through the examination of key Supreme Court rulings and legal arguments, this study evaluates the evolving role of retribution in the Court’s decisions on death penalty cases, highlighting how judicial reasoning has shifted over time in response to legal, philosophical, and societal developments.

Retribution, long considered one of the primary justifications for capital punishment, is examined through a nuanced lens in this study. While historically viewed as a …

The Impact The Supreme Court's Decision Has On Public Opinion, Mckenzie Dunigan

Williams Honors College, Honors Research Projects

By creating a survey, the analyzation of Akron college students public opinion shifts in regard to the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization occurred. The data gathered allowed for the support of different trends that were able to assist in providing information towards the research question.

Emergency Oversight, Catherine Baylin Duryea

Faculty Publications

This Article examines one of the most pressing questions in administrative law: How much judicial oversight should administrative agencies face during an emergency? This issue was particularly salient during the COVID epidemic, but it is not new. The Second World War saw a significant expansion and consolidation of the power of administrative agencies as well as experimentation with the appropriate oversight role for courts. This Article analyzes one such experiment: judicial oversight of agencies implementing wartime anti-inflationary measures, i.e., price controls and rationing. During the war, Congress created a specialized court, the Emergency Court of Appeals (ECA), to hear disputes …

Not-So-Special Solicitude, Katherine Mims Crocker

Faculty Scholarship

In a high-profile case last term about state standing to sue in federal court, Justice Gorsuch deemed it “hard not to wonder why” the majority said “nothing about ‘special solicitude.’” The silence was indeed surprising, for in a landmark decision several years earlier, the Supreme Court had declared that states were “entitled to special solicitude”—presumably meaning some sort of preferential treatment—“in [the] standing analysis.” And since then, commentators had depicted the concept as permitting opportunistic states to wage ideological crusades in courts across the country, especially through administrative-law attacks on federal-government defendants.

But what if “special solicitude” is not so …

Chevron Deference Is Dead, Long Live Deference, Jack M. Beermann

Faculty Scholarship

The demise of Chevron deference standing alone may turn out to be much less important for the future of administrative law and agency regulation than many believe. The Court explicitly approved of deference under the Skidmore factors, which instruct reviewing courts to “resort for guidance, even on legal questions” to “the interpretations and opinions of the relevant agency, made in pursuance of official duty and based upon specialized experience.”8 Further, the Court had already created numerous limitations to the reach of Chevron deference and, as the Court noted, it had not deferred under Chevron in nearly a decade. Chevron deference …

The Problem With Direct Collateral Review, Jaden M. Lessnick

Pepperdine Law Review

Federal habeas review of state convictions is sharply circumscribed for a reason: Granting the writ of habeas corpus disrupts the federalism and finality interests that lie at the heart of state sovereignty over criminal law. Both the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) and the Supreme Court’s equitable bars to relief reflect the structural dangers inherent in collateral review of state convictions. Given the increasing unavailability of federal habeas relief, state prisoners have turned to another vehicle for collateral federal review, one that bypasses AEDPA’s demanding standard: direct review of state post-conviction proceedings. And regrettably, the Court has entertained …

Obstructing Precedent, Bill Watson

Northwestern University Law Review

Critics of the Supreme Court sometimes accuse the Justices of disrespecting or being unfaithful to precedent—of undermining certain precedents while leaving them formally in place. Yet it remains unclear what exactly these criticisms mean or why they point to anything objectionable. This Article proposes that critics are often drawing attention to a particular practice: obstructing precedent. A better grasp of what obstructing precedent is and when it is legitimate is important to understanding the Roberts Court’s treatment of precedent in a range of cases.

A court obstructs precedent when it refuses to cooperate with its prior self in building a …

Book Review: John Paul Stevens, The Making Of A Justice: Reflections On My First 94 Years, New York, Little, Brown And Co., 2019, Pp. 549, $35.00 (Hardback), Stephen Wermiel

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

The autobiography of Justice John Paul Stevens, published just a few months before he died, is an enticing travelogue for Supreme Court nerds. Other travelers may want to pick a different landscape.