Law and Politics Commons^™

The Supreme Court Under Threat: Early Lessons In Judicial Self-Protection, Curtis A. Bradley, Neil S. Siegel

Faculty Scholarship

This Essay explores how the U.S. Supreme Court, despite being vulnerable to defiance of its decisions and political retaliation, has developed tools of judicial self-protection to preserve its institutional authority and thus its capacity to sustain the Constitution and the rule of law. Arguing that the Court performs not only a legal role that requires interpretation of the law but also a political one that demands institutional preservation, the Essay examines how the Court has historically navigated political threats by using a range of tools—including avoidance, delay, narrow rulings, strategic dicta, and rhetorical appeals. The Essay focuses on three nineteenth-century …

Defining Civil Rico's "Injury To Business Or Property" Requirement: The Supreme Court Takes A Few Steps, Says It Punts, But Actually Fumbles, Randy D. Gordon

Faculty Scholarship

Throughout its history, the RICO statute has presented lawyers with something of an interpretive parlor game. It is indefinite along multiple dimensions and thereby given multiple interpretations, even down to the word level. In Medical Marijuana v. Horn, the Supreme Court set out to define one of RICO's civil-standing provisions: Namely, whether the statute's "injury to business or property" requirement can be satisfied when a plaintiff suffers both economic and personal injuries. In a 5-4 decision, members of the Court engaged in an interpretive battle over the meaning of the phrase and succeeded only in holding that civil RICO does …

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.

Reclaiming Abortion As A Moral—And Religious—Decision, Linda C. Mcclain

Faculty Scholarship

Elizabeth Sepper, Free Exercise of Abortion, 49 BYU L. Rev. 177 (2023).

In 1973, before the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, two members of a group of clergy committed to helping women receive abortion care stated: “every woman must possess the freedom, guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, to follow her religious conscience in the determination of whether she will or will not bear a child.”1 Religious supporters of abortion access also cited the Establishment Clause: states were adopting, in a religiously diverse nation, a religious view about when life begins and how to value fetal and maternal life. …

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 …

Unraveling The Ties That Bind: How Dobbs And Loper Bright Might Reconfigure American Party Politics, Gregory A. Elinson

College of Law Faculty Publications

What happens to partisan politics when long-standing doctrinal equilibria are upended? In search of answers, this essay engages in an extended comparison of two recent landmark Supreme Court rulings: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overruled Roe v. Wade, and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overruled Chevron USA v. Natural Resources Defense Council.

It begins with the observation that opposition to abortion and judicial deference on the right, and support for abortion and judicial deference on the left, helped unite the major party coalitions, forging durable alliances among elected officials, organized interests, donors, activists, …

The Administrative State's Second Face, Emily R. Chertoff, Jessica Bulman-Pozen

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

We often assume that there is one administrative state, with one body of administrative law that governs it. In fact, the administrative state has two distinct faces: one turned toward regulation and benefits distribution, and one turned toward physical force and surveillance. The two faces are growing further apart under the Roberts Court, which has hemmed in the first face with decisions like Loper Bright while showing solicitude for national security and law enforcement agencies.

This Article delineates the two faces of the administrative state. It provides a descriptive account of the second face and the distinctive administrative law that …

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 …

Minor V. Happersett, Dobbs V. Jackson Women's Health Organization, And The Supreme Court's Refusal To Reconstruct America, Henry L. Chambers, Jr.

Law Faculty Publications

One hundred and fifty years ago, in the wake of the ratification of the Reconstruction Amendments, the United States Supreme Court decided Minor v. Happersett. In Minor, the Court ruled Missouri could continue to deny women the right to vote based on their sex. The decision was simply reasoned. In the absence of clear constitutional text requiring Missouri to provide the right to vote to women or proof that the right to vote was a right of citizenship, Missouri had no obligation to allow women to vote. Some states had banned women citizens from voting since the country’s founding. Missouri …

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 …

Reproductive Rights: How Voting Behavior Illustrates Shifting Political Attitudes, Keavy Callwood

Williams Honors College, Honors Research Projects

This research project intends to explore a causal link between the Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022) and shifting political attitudes as modeled through voting behaviors. Research will be conducted by using data from government and reputable sources that are representative of the general public to show that political attitudes have shifted since the release of the Dobbs decision. Additionally, the question will be analyzed through discussing several political theories and applying them to the current issues being studied. This research could help show how the Supreme Court is an important actor in the political …

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 …

Climate Change, Democracy, And The Major Questions Doctrine, Joshua Ulan Galperin

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

This brief Essay progresses in four parts. I will first argue that climate change is impacting the Court’s decisionmaking. Next, I will show that the significance of climate change as a modern political issue has caused the Court to downplay the statutory arrangement Congress created in the Clean Air Act. Third, I will suggest that the Court is not genuinely failing to appreciate the design of the Clean Air Act. Instead, the Court is aware of that design and feels the design goes beyond a constitutionally acceptable delegation of legislative power. Confronting the Nondelegation Doctrine head-on, however, would force the …

Bridging Silos: Environmental And Reproductive Justice In The Climate Crisis, Sara A. Colangelo

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The climate crisis is a perilous yet underexamined example of the intersection of environmental injustice and reproductive injustice. The physical manifestations of the climate crisis affect key elements of reproductive justice: women’s rights to have children, to not have children, and to parent children in healthy, sustainable communities. Reams of studies document climate disaster-driven gender violence, loss of access to healthcare and reproductive services, as well as direct and deadly health effects of climate change on maternal health, fetal development, infants, and children. Despite these profound impacts, the environmental and reproductive justice movements remain largely siloed, particularly in the legal …

The Anti-Innovation Supreme Court: Major Questions, Delegation, Chevron And More, Jack M. Beermann

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court of the United States has generally been a very aggressive enforcer of legal limitations on governmental power. In various periods in its history, the Court has gone far beyond enforcing clearly expressed and easily ascertainable constitutional and statutory provisions and has suppressed innovation by the other branches that do not necessarily transgress widely held social norms. Novel assertions of legislative power, novel interpretations of federal statutes, statutes that are in tension with well-established common law rules and state laws adopted by only a few states are suspect simply because they are novel or rub up against tradition. …

Anti-Press Bias: A Response To Andersen Jones And West's Presuming Trustworthiness, Erin C. Carroll

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Professors RonNell Andersen Jones and Sonja R. West’s Presuming Trustworthiness is a deeply depressing read. That is what makes it so good. The article is a clear-eyed, data-driven approach to assessing just how endangered the legal status of the free press is. Given the universality of the agreement that a free press is central to democracy, Andersen Jones and West’s message is vital. Presuming Trustworthiness should raise alarms.

In response, I hope this essay can serve as a bullhorn. I want to amplify what Andersen Jones and West’s research and data bear out. Not only has the Supreme Court ceased …

Partisanship "All The Way Down" On The U.S. Supreme Court, Lee Epstein

Pepperdine Law Review

Just as the American public is politically polarized, so too is the U.S. Supreme Court. More than ever before, a clear alignment exists between the Justices’ partisanship and their ideological leanings (known as “partisan sorting”). Disapproval of opposing-party identifiers also appears to have intensified (“partisan antipathy”). This Article offers evidence of both forms of polarization. It shows that partisan sorting has resulted in wide gaps in voting between Republican and Democratic appointees; and it supplies data on “us-against-them” judging in the form of increasing antipathy toward opposite-partisan presidents. Taken collectively, the data point not to law “all the way down,” …

Unintended Consequences Of Fetal Personhood Statutes: Examples From Tax, Trusts, And Estates, Bridget J. Crawford, Alexis C. Borders, Katherine Keating

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

The laws of taxation, trusts, and estates are new fronts in the culture wars over abortion. After the Supreme Court's 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, some anti-abortion states enacted fetal personhood statutes that have the potential to unsettle and destabilize longstanding legal doctrines that otherwise create predictability and stability in the laws of taxation and succession. This Article makes three principal claims: descriptive, predictive, and normative. First, the Article explores how Dobbs opened the door for states like Georgia to treat zygotes-embryos-fetuses as “dependents” for state income tax purposes. Second, the Article identifies some of the …

Slaughtering Slaughter-House: An Assessment Of 14th Amendment Privileges Or Immunities Jurisprudence, Caleb Webb

Senior Honors Theses

In 1872, the Supreme Court decided the Slaughter-House Cases, which applied a narrow interpretation of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14^th Amendment that effectually eroded the clause from the Constitution. Following Slaughter-House, the Supreme Court compensated by utilizing elastic interpretations of the Due Process Clause in its substantive due process jurisprudence to cover the rights that would have otherwise been protected by the Privileges or Immunities Clause. In more recent years, the Court has heard arguments favoring alternative interpretations of the Privileges or Immunities Clause but has yet to evaluate them thoroughly. By applying the …

A Progressive Judiciary? Judicial Review And National Politics From Reconstruction To The Present, Joshua Braver, Gregory A. Elinson

College of Law Faculty Publications

Within legal academia, the conventional historical narrative is that the Supreme Court has regularly interfered with legislative and executive efforts to protect minority rights and remedy economic inequality. Citing this reactionary tendency, an influential and vocal group of progressive legal scholars have argued that progressives ought to stop defending judicial review and instead devote their energies to eliminating it, or at least aggressively curbing its use. These progressive critics of judicial review (our term) proffer two related historical claims. First, they assert, the Supreme Court has consistently been less progressive than congressional majorities and Presidents. Second, they suggest, even landmark …

The Pioneers, Waves, And Random Walks Of Securities Law In The Supreme Court, Elizabeth Pollman

Seattle University Law Review

After the pioneers, waves, and random walks that have animated the history of securities laws in the U.S. Supreme Court, we might now be on the precipice of a new chapter. Pritchard and Thompson’s superb book, A History of Securities Law in the Supreme Court, illuminates with rich archival detail how the Court’s view of the securities laws and the SEC have changed over time and how individuals have influenced this history. The book provides an invaluable resource for understanding nearly a century’s worth of Supreme Court jurisprudence in the area of securities law and much needed context for …

Derailing Democracy, Shrinking Responsibility: The New Election Law Landscape, Cory Conley, Tonja Jacobi

Faculty Articles

In democracy jurisprudence, the Roberts Court wears two faces. Its most recent duo of cases illustrates the inconsistency. In Rucho v. Common Cause, the Court ruled that even grossly partisan gerrymanders are nonjusticiable in federal courts. Yet, in Moore v. Harper, the Court rejected granting unreviewable authority to state lawmakers to regulate federal elections—for now. This combination of rulings is not ideological moderation or judicial restraint, as the Court claims. These recent cases are emblematic of broader unpredictability and selectivity in election law. The assertions of judicial humility in Rucho stand in stark contrast to the bald activism …

Three Stories: A Comment On Pritchard & Thompson’S A History Of Securities Laws In The Supreme Court, Harwell Wells

Seattle University Law Review

Adam Pritchard and Robert Thompson’s A History of Securities Laws in the Supreme Court should stand for decades as the definitive work on the Federal securities laws’ career in the Supreme Court across the twentieth century.1 Like all good histories, it both tells a story and makes an argument. The story recounts how the Court dealt with the major securities laws, as well the agency charged with enforcing them, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the rules it promulgated, from the 1930s into the twenty-first century. But the book does not just string together a series of events, “one …

The Rhetoric Of Abortion In Amicus Briefs, Jamie Abrams, Amanda Potts

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

The amicus briefs filed in landmark abortion cases before the U.S. Supreme Court serve as a barometer revealing how various constituencies talk about abortion, women, fetuses, physicians, rights, and harms over time. This article conducts an interdisciplinary legal-linguistic study of the amicus briefs that were filed in the milestone abortion cases of Roe v. Wade, Doe v. Bolton, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health. As the first large-scale study of all amicus briefs submitted in these key cases, this article identifies the roles of amicus briefs, analyzes their rhetorical strategies, and describes how their authors engage …

Students For Fair Admissions: Affirming Affirmative Action And Shapeshifting Towards Cognitive Diversity?, Steven A. Ramirez

Seattle University Law Review

The Roberts Court holds a well-earned reputation for overturning Supreme Court precedent regardless of the long-standing nature of the case. The Roberts Court knows how to overrule precedent. In Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (SFFA), the Court’s majority opinion never intimates that it overrules Grutter v. Bollinger, the Court’s leading opinion permitting race-based affirmative action in college admissions. Instead, the Roberts Court applied Grutter as authoritative to hold certain affirmative action programs entailing racial preferences violative of the Constitution. These programs did not provide an end point, nor did they require assessment, review, periodic expiration, or revision for greater …

The News Media Engagement Principle: Why Social Media Has Not Actually Overrun The Limited Purpose Public Figure Category, Zachary R. Cormier

University of Miami Law Review

Has the rise of social media ruined the limited purpose public figure category of the First Amendment’s actual malice privilege? Justice Gorsuch believes so—and he has recently invited courts to get rid of it. He argues that the category now includes vast numbers of otherwise private citizens that have “become ‘public figures’ on social media overnight.” With so many people qualifying as limited purpose public figures (and having to overcome the actual malice standard to prevail on a defamation claim), he claims that the category has evolved to provide an unjustified shield for the masses of misinformation-peddlers on social media. …

For Freedom Or Full Of It? State Attempts To Silence Social Media, Grace Slicklen

University of Miami Law Review

Freedom of speech is, unsurprisingly, foundational to the “land of the free.” However, the “land of the free” has undergone some changes since the First Amendment’s ratification. Unprecedented technological evolution has ushered in a digital forum in which the volume, speed, and reach of words transcend the Framers’ visions of the First Amendment’s aims. Social media platforms have become central spaces for public discourse, where opportunities to create—and repress—speech are endless. From enabling individuals to freely express their views, to allowing state actors to limit open exchanges, it is about time that the Supreme Court tackles this complex issue of …

What’S Your Damage?! The Supreme Court Has Wrecked Temporary Takings Jurisprudence, Timothy M. Harris

University of Miami Law Review

In Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, the U.S. Supreme Court unnecessarily expanded the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. In doing so, the Court veered away from established precedent and overturned prior case law—without expressly admitting to doing so.

In 2021, the Court held that a California law allowing union organizers to access private property under certain conditions took away a landowner’s right to exclude others and was (apparently) immediately compensable under the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. Prior law had subjected temporary takings to an uncertain, unpopular, and ambiguous balancing test—but the Cedar Point holding turned temporary takings jurisprudence on its head …

You Can’T Teach Old Katz New Tricks: It’S Time To Revitalize The Fourth Amendment, Jeremy Connell

University of Miami Law Review

For over half a century, the Court’s decision in Katz v. United States has been the lodestar for applying the Fourth Amendment. The Katz test has produced a litany of confusing and irreconcilable decisions in which the Court has carved exceptions into the doctrine and then carved exceptions into the exceptions. These decisions often leave lower courts with minimal guidance on how to apply the framework to new sets of facts and leave legal scholars and commenters befuddled and frustrated with the Court’s explanations for the rulings. The Court’s decision in Carpenter v. United States represents the apex of Katz’s …

Inconsistencies In State Court Decisions Regarding Public School Financing Are Violating The Constitutional Rights Of Citizens: Why The Nevada Court In Shea V. State Should Have Intervened, Corinne Milnamow

University of Miami Law Review

In 1973, the Supreme Court decided the landmark case, San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, which held there was no fundamental right to education under the United States Constitution. In the years that have followed Rodriguez, state courts across the country have been left to decide issues related to public school financing. Many plaintiffs in these cases will argue that education is a fundamental right under their state’s constitution and that their respective state’s public school financing structure—one that heavily relies on local property taxes—is unconstitutional because of the discrepancies in the quality of education one will receive in …