Legal History Commons^™

The Excluded: Where Did Our Rights Come From, Who Paid The Price Trying To Establish Them, And Who Is Trying To Take Them Away? The Centuries-Long Struggle For Inclusion, Jim Brosnahan

University of San Francisco Law Review

No abstract provided.

Brief In Support Of Respondents As Amici Curiae, Donald J. Trump, President Of The United States, Et Al. V. Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, Et. Al, No. 25-332, Andrea Scoseria Katz, Jonathan Gienapp

Scholarship@WashULaw

In the years since this Court’s decision in Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U.S. 197 (2020), legal historians—including originalists—have unearthed a rich body of evidence challenging the conventional wisdom concerning the scope of the President’s removal powers at the Founding. Revisiting not only the Framers’ intellectual influences, but also their driving philosophical concerns and political incentives, this scholarship explains that removal authority was not understood to be vested exclusively in the President as a matter of settled constitutional law, but rather was permissibly exercised by various actors in various ways, intentionally not settled by the …

Disagreement And Historical Argument Or How Not To Think About Removal, Andrea Scoseria Katz, Noah A. Rosenblum, Jane Manners

Scholarship@WashULaw

Scholars have debated the reach of the President’s power to remove government officers for over one hundred years. This old fight is now suddenly urgent as President Trump asserts far-reaching powers to control the federal bureaucracy and the Supreme Court transforms Unitary Executive Theory into caselaw. Yet the scholarly case for an indefeasible presidential removal power has never been weaker.

This Essay continues an ongoing conversation about how to read some critical early republic evidence about removal. It briefly recapitulates the stakes of the disagreement before offering in-depth analyses of developments in Pennsylvania removal practice, including a reading of the …

Volume 48 Masthead, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Volume 48 Masthead

Voting Matters: Materiality Considerations And The Shareholder Vote, Renee M. Jones

Seattle University Law Review

For the shareholder franchise to have meaning, shareholders must have access to relevant information to inform their voting decisions. The securities laws’ disclosure requirements play an essential role in informing the shareholder vote.

This Essay focuses on the question of the materiality of information in the context of shareholder voting. It addresses the question of whether ESG-related information is material, positioning the materiality inquiry within the context of shareholders’ voting decisions. It explores the definition of materiality with a focus on the “reasonable investor” concept embedded within the definition. The Essay argues that the implicit expectations of many commentators that …

Volume 48 Masthead, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Volume 48 Masthead

Understanding The Big Three’S Wavering Support Of Environmental And Social Shareholder Proposals, Jeff Schwartz, Jefferson Jensen

Seattle University Law Review

Because of their substantial equity portfolios, BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street (the Big 3) are central players in corporate governance. It is, therefore, critical to understand how they vote. One puzzle is that their support for shareholder proposals on environmental and social matters appears to waiver. In 2020, for instance, BlackRock supported 11.1% of environmental proposals at S&P 500 firms. In 2021, it seemingly reversed course, supporting 55.2%. It then flipped again, supporting 32.1% in 2022. Such statistics suggest that the Big 3 are constantly changing their views on these topics. This Article seeks to better understand whether this is …

Volume 48 Masthead, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Volume 48 Masthead

From The Kkk To The Modern Day: How An Accurate Understanding Of History Can Inform The Proper Standard For Punishing Civil Rights Conspiracies Under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), Bair Srivastav

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

Following the Civil War, Congress passed the Reconstruction Amendments, which secured political rights for newly freed slaves and ushered in a new era for the United States. The Union defeated white Southerners on the battlefield and removed former Confederates from the halls of political power. But white Southerners were still Confederates in spirit. Full of racial hatred, they did not perceive a new era of freedom, but a world twisted into an unnatural order where African Americans walked freely amongst white people and participated in the political process of Southern society. In response to the extension of basic freedoms to …

Concrete And Particularized Standards To Resolve The Difficulty Of Muldrow V. City Of St. Louis, Ian C. Stephens

Student Scholarship

Muldrow v. City of St. Louis shattered a widespread rule that required Title VII plaintiffs to not just be harmed but significantly harmed by unlawful discrimination. Under the old standard, "significance" was ill-defined and often left to the whims of what any particular judge thought was "bad enough," limiting access to justice for those who suffered non-pecuniary harms. But Muldrow's new standard that a plaintiff must suffer only "some harm" is equally ill-defined. All we know about the new standard is that it is not the old one. Unable to decipher the bounds of when no harm becomes some harm …

The Griffin's Case Phenomenon And The Problem Of Historical Knowledge In Legal Arguments, Rachel A. Shelden

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The sudden relevance of a formerly little-known historic case is surely not new; much of legal history is necessarily about discovery and rediscovery of the past. Still, I think the clarity with which we can outline the development of the Griffin’s Case phenomenon offers an opportunity to think carefully about the role of history in constitutional conversation. What follows, then, is a short exploration of the case’s recent (re)entry into our historical consciousness. Tracing this phenomenon highlights (at least for me) some potential difficulties embedded in the interaction between legal advocacy and what we know about the past.

This abstract …

The Enduring Relevance Of Congress Despite The Court's Shift To “Ordinary Reader” Statutory Interpretation, Abbe R. Gluck, Laila M. Robbins

Journal of Law and Policy

Has Congress become irrelevant to statutory interpretation? The dominant theoretical and doctrinal paradigm in American statutory interpretation has always been the conversation between Congress and the courts. Today, however, the Court’s new, second-generation textualists claim they have left Congress behind. They argue they have changed textualism’s perspective, from an “insider” perspective focused on Congress’s textual choices, to an “outsider” perspective based on how “ordinary people” read statutes. The Court’s self-professed shift away from a legiscentric approach, if true, would be a seismic shift in the conception of the judicial role. Whereas judges and scholars—including first-generation textualists—had for a century focused …

The Broad Church Of Modern Textualism, Nicole Steitz, Brian G. Slocum, Kevin Tobia

Journal of Law and Policy

Nearly thirty years ago, Justice Scalia’s Tanner lectures branded Holy Trinity Church v. United States (1892) as the anti-textualist archetype, a decision trumping the text’s plain meaning with a suspect judicial investigation of the law’s purpose or spirit. And so Holy Trinity seemed, until Gales and Solan’s groundbreaking empirical study supported an alternative reading of the key statutory term (“labor or service”) that would avoid this conflict between text and purpose. Taking inspiration from Gales and Solan, we reconsider Holy Trinity using the precepts of modern textualism, with its increased emphasis on context, pragmatics, anti-literalism, legal meaning, holistic meaning, non-compositionality, …

The Pet Fish Canon, William N. Eskridge Jr.

Journal of Law and Policy

Inspired by the work of the late Professor Larry Solan, this article proposes that judges recognize as one of the textualist canons of statutory construction a “pet fish” canon. Such a canon would posit that when an ordinary reader would understand two or more words to yield a meaning that is different than the sum of the two words defined separately, the statutory interpreter should not disaggregate them. The Roberts Court has already followed such a linguistic precept in some statutory cases, and this article proposes that the Court recognize this as a canon considered at least as seriously as …

Grammar & Syntax Arguments On The Roberts Court, Anita S. Krishnakumar

Journal of Law and Policy

In his excellent book, The Language of Judges, Professor Solan demonstrates how judges use grammatical or linguistic arguments to avoid acknowledging statutory ambiguity—and how they often get the grammar or linguistics wrong. Since his book was published, textualism has become the dominant interpretive approach on the U.S. Supreme Court—and we have seen increasingly prominent battles involving grammatical devices and rules. This comment takes Professor Solan’s analysis as a jumping off point to evaluate how grammar and linguistic arguments are employed on the modern Supreme Court, in the age of textualism. The comment offers a brief empirical and doctrinal assessment of …

The Politics Of Constitutional Dignity Jurisprudence, Daniel Haefke

Brooklyn Law Review

This Article traces the politics of (human) dignity in US constitutional law. It reveals that the notion has undergone a conservative shift, which has resulted from Supreme Court Justices increasingly unleashing dignity’s dormant conservative potential. Legal scholars arguing for prominently including the notion in constitutional jurisprudence reflect the belief that adopting the language of dignity would push the Supreme Court to be more sensitive to progressive political demands. This progressive constitutional dignity optimism is historically plausible yet conceptually misguided. It is historically plausible considering the legacy of constitutional dignity in previous opinions of the Court. As the Article expounds, the …

Affirmative Action’S Asian American Problem, Huyen Pham, Joseph Thai

Faculty Scholarship

Asian American opponents of affirmative action have received both credit and blame for their pivotal role in toppling racial preferences in university admissions in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (SFFA). Allied conservatives highlighted evidence of discrimination against Asian American applicants as a compelling reason to dismantle affirmative action; liberals either denied this discrimination existed or tolerated it as an acceptable cost of helping other minority applicants. But largely unacknowledged is the precipitating history of the Supreme Court’s marginalization of Asian American applicants and its decades of tacit approval of their exclusion from affirmative action programs. This unwritten …

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 …

The Original Meaning Of Commerce In The Indian Commerce Clause, Gregory Ablavsky

Connecticut Law Review

In Haaland v. Brackeen, the Supreme Court returned to the foundational question of federal authority over relations between the United States and Native nations, long known as “Indian affairs.” The decision reaffirmed well-established precedent affirming broad federal authority in the area, but it also underscored ongoing disagreement, as Justices Gorsuch and Thomas offered lengthy and dueling investigations of the original understanding.

This Essay explores one aspect of that history: the original meaning of “commerce” in the Indian Commerce Clause. Nearly a decade ago, I wrote an article that sought, as its title indicated, to move “beyond the Indian Commerce Clause.” …

Amending The Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act To Promote Accountability For Violations Of Peremptory Norms Of International Law, Joshua Newman

Brooklyn Journal of International Law

The current state of the United States legal system, and international law at large, fails to afford victims of violations of international law with proper redress, when those violations were facilitated by a domestic taking. The Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act provides foreign sovereigns immunity from the jurisdiction of United States courts when those foreign sovereigns effectuate of a violation of international law through domestic takings. Courts have attempted to circumvent the restrictions of the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act with exceptions such as the genocide exception. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Federal Republic of Germany v Philipp renounced the …

Admiralty, Abstention, And The Allure Of Old Cases, Maggie Gardner

Notre Dame Law Review

The current Supreme Court has made clear that history matters. But doing history well is hard. There is thus an allure to old cases because they provide a link to the past that is more accessible for nonhistorian lawyers. This Article warns against that allure by showing how the use of old cases also poses methodological challenges. The Article uses as a case study the emerging doctrine of foreign relations abstention. Before the Supreme Court, advocates argued that this new doctrine is in fact rooted in early admiralty cases. Those advocates did not, however, canvass the early admiralty practice, relying …

Pretrial Commitment And The Fourth Amendment, Laurent Sacharoff

Notre Dame Law Review

Today, the Fourth Amendment Warrant Clause governs arrest warrants and search warrants only. But in the founding era, the Warrant Clause governed a third type of warrant: the “warrant of commitment.” Judges issued these warrants to jail defendants pending trial. This Article argues that the Fourth Amendment Warrant Clause, with its oath and probable cause standard, should be understood today to apply to this third type of warrant. That means the Warrant Clause would govern any initial appearance where a judge first commits a defendant—a process that currently falls far short of fulfilling its constitutional and historical function. History supports …

Legislating Morality In The Gilded Age And Progressive Era: Moral Panic And The “White Slave” Case That Changed America, Nancy C. Unger

History

This article is based on the presidential address presented to the Society for Historians of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era at the meeting of the Organization of American Historians in Los Angeles in 2023. Its focus is Maury Diggs and Drew Caminetti, two white men from Sacramento, California, charged with violating the Mann Act (known as the White Slave Trafficking Act) in 1913. The Gilded Age and Progressive Era obsession with white slavery, a phenomenon that has particular resonance in today’s climate, reveals the power of moral panics. Examining the steps, and missteps, that various legal, social, and political …

The Antidote Of Free Speech: Censorship During The Pandemic, Christopher Keleher

Catholic University Law Review

Free speech in America stands at a precipice. The nation must decide if the First Amendment protects controversial, unconventional, and unpopular speech, or only that which is mainstream, fashionable, and government-approved. This debate is one of many legal battles brought to the fore during Covid-19. But the fallout of the free speech question will transcend Covid-19.

During the pandemic, the federal government took unprecedented steps to pressure private entities to push messages it approved and squelch those it did not. The Supreme Court will soon grapple with the issue of censorship during the pandemic. This article examines this litigation, along …

Puerto Rican Presidential Voting Rights: Why Precedent Should Be Overturned, And Other Options For Suffrage, Sigrid Vendrell-Polanco

Brooklyn Law Review

The United States has continued to hold Puerto Rico as a colony, much like the British empire did the US colonies, and has given it no clear path to incorporation, statehood, or independent sovereignty. It has also denied its citizens the right to vote for their president and have voting representation in Congress. Current case law regarding Puerto Rican presidential voting rights and voting representation in Congress rests on precedent that dates almost as far back as its acquisition—the infamous Insular Cases. This case law is inconsistent with prior precedent, constitutional principles, and does not account for Puerto Rico’s contributions …

Outcome Reasons And Process Reasons In Normative Constitutional Theory, Lawrence B. Solum

Faculty Scholarship

Constitutional theory is a mess. Disagreements about originalism and living constitutionalism have become intractable. Constitutional theorists make some arguments that seem clearly fallacious and advance proposals that are pie in the sky. One of the reasons for the mess is an overreliance by constitutional theorists on “outcome reasons,” justifications that rely on the theorist’s beliefs about what outcomes are good and what outcomes are bad. This outcome-drive approach is exemplified by the so-called “canonical cases” argument, which evaluates positions in normative constitutional theory on the basis of its counterfactual implications for a handful of prior decisions of the Supreme Court. …

Corpus Linguistics And The Original Public Meaning Of The Sixteenth Amendment, Thomas R. Lee, Lawrence B. Solum, James C. Phillips, Jesse A. Egbert

Faculty Scholarship

Moore v. United States raises the question whether unrealized gains, such as an increase in property value or a stock portfolio, constitute “incomes, from whatever source derived” under the original meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment. Moore is widely viewed as the most important tax case to reach the United States Supreme Court in decades. It is also an opportunity for the Court to refine its theory and method of finding original meaning.

We focus here on the original public meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment—the ordinary, common meaning attributed to its text by the general public in 1913. So far, the …

What Roosevelt Did To Brown V. Board Of Education, Or Race And Court Packing, Jill M. Fraley

Scholarly Articles

Roughly one-third of American schools remain segregated. Scholars have offered a variety of explanations, mostly social and cultural, but sometimes legal, for why desegregation did not proceed effectively after Brown v. Board of Education. This Article articulates a less expected and previously undocumented cause: President Roosevelt's prior attempt at court packing slowed--even derailed--desegregation.

The story of what Roosevelt's court packing did to make the work of integration harder is a cautionary tale, particularly for those who want to alter the U.S. Supreme Court now in furtherance of a modern cause. The only reasonable route for reforming the Supreme Court must …

Henderson And The Objective Observer Standard: The Future Of Race-Conscious Standards Post-Students For Fair Admissions, Gabriela Dionisio

Seattle University Law Review

On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, which struck down race-conscious admissions policies. Within just a year after its ruling, Students for Fair Admissions has already had a sweeping impact, reaching beyond higher education. Although the Supreme Court did not indicate whether Students for Fair Admissions applies to sectors beyond higher education, law firms, and other employers have already modified their diversity policies and initiatives, erasing race and company diversity considerations. Given those dramatic changes, there is growing fear that Students for Fair Admissions …

Same Crime, Different Time: Sentencing Disparities In The Deep South & A Path Forward Under The Fourteenth Amendment, Hailey M. Donovan

Seattle University Law Review

The United States has the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world. The American obsession with crime and punishment can be tracked over the last half-century, as the nation’s incarceration rate has risen astronomically. Since 1970, the number of incarcerated people in the United States has increased more than sevenfold to over 2.3 million, outpacing both crime and population growth considerably. While the rise itself is undoubtedly bleak, a more troubling truth lies just below the surface. Not all states contribute equally to American mass incarceration. Rather, states have vastly different incarceration rates. Unlike at the federal level, …