Legislation Commons^™

Words Matter: The Rhetoric Of National Security And The Reality Of Individual Rights, Christopher J. Borgen

Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development

(Excerpt)

While the meanings of words can be flexible or contested, they are not infinitely pliable. These limits on words and their uses help define the outer bounds of legitimate state action. However, even the written law is only as stable as our interpretation of what those words mean. There is the risk that a deliberate and persistent misuse of words by states and other actors can eventually change our understanding of the law it.

Some of my work has analyzed the use of words and phrases such as “self-determination,” “sovereignty,” and “secession.” But, in this Essay, I focus on …

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 …

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 …

When Rights Require Permission: The Discriminatory History Of Licensing Laws For Firearm Possession, Bob Barr, Joseph G.S. Greenlee

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

No abstract provided.

Just To Be Safe, Let’S Keep Ignoring What “Arms” Meant In 1791, Jack Thorlin

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

The Supreme Court held in District of Columbia v. Heller and reaffirmed in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen that “arms,” referred to in the Second Amendment, are common weapons useful for lawful purposes. The majority argued that militiamen fought with whatever common weapons they had on hand for civilian purposes, such as self-defense and hunting. Therefore, under Heller, only those weapons are covered by the Second Amendment. However, Heller did little to ground the “self-defense” theory of “arms” in original public meaning or even actual history. Commonality and lawful purpose have proved difficult for lower …

A Supreme Sidestep: The Justices’ Artful Dodge On Platform Immunity, Leslie Garfield Tenzer

Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property

The foiled ISIS plot to attack Taylor Swift concerts, coordinated by teens on social media platforms with a significant US presence, illustrates the dangerous consequences of unchecked online content. This incident, coupled with other tragic cases—such as the sexual exploitation of a minor lured through Facebook and Tyler Clementi’s suicide following a privacy violation on Twitter—highlights the urgent need to reassess 47 U.S.C. § 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Enacted in 1996, this law provides broad immunity to interactive computer services, including social media platforms, shielding them from liability for user-generated content. While initially celebrated as a catalyst for …

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 …

Impacts Of Recent Us Supreme Court Administrative Law Jurisprudence On The Electricity Wholesale Markets, Joel B. Eisen

Law Faculty Publications

Recent decisions by the US Supreme Court have prompted a shift toward limiting the authority of US federal administrative agencies, including the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the agency that oversees the nation’s wholesale electricity markets. This Article explores the impact of several of the Court’s major decisions on rules and administrative orders by FERC that govern the wholesale markets. These include decisions empowering judges to overturn agency regulations, enabling challengers to agency enforcement to force agencies to pursue cases in federal courts, and allowing lawsuits to challenge agency rules long after their issuance. These decisions promise to have significant …

Major Questions, Common Sense?, Kevin Tobia, Daniel E. Walters, Brian Slocum

Faculty Scholarship

The Major Questions Doctrine (“MQD”) is the newest textualist interpretive canon, and it has driven consequential Supreme Court decisions concerning vaccine mandates, environmental regulation, and student loan relief. But the new MQD is a canon in search of legitimization. Critics allege that the MQD displaces the Court’s conventional textual analysis with judicial policymaking. Textualists have now responded that the MQD is a linguistic canon, consistent with textualism. Justice Barrett recently argued in Biden v. Nebraska that the MQD is grounded in ordinary people’s understanding of language and law, and scholarship contends that the MQD reflects ordinary people’s understanding of textual …

Examining Patent Eligibility, Charles Duan

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

A firestorm of debate has surrounded the Supreme Court of the United States’s 2014 decision Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International on the doctrine of patentable subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. As the Court’s leading articulation of doctrine, which generally excludes from patenting abstract ideas, laws of nature, and natural phenomena, Alice has been criticized as unpredictably vague and overly constrictive of patentability, with the effect of “decimating” patents, innovation, technological investment, and even the United States’ competitiveness against other nations. To support these criticisms and calls for reform, scholars and practitioners have frequently …

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 …

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 Emerging Name, Image, And Likeness Industry And The Perils Of Appropriating "Entrepreneurial" Collegiate Athletes' And "Vengeful" Minors' Property Interests - Historical And Empirical Guidance From Courts' Rights Of Publicity, Misappropriation, And Breach Of Contract Decisions, Willy E. Rice

Faculty Articles

From the late-1880s to the early-2020s, universities and the collegiate sports industry exploited millions of "college kids" as well as their parent investors by preventing "entrepreneurial athletes" from monetizing their names, images, and likenesses (NILs). Yet, during the same era, the collegiate-athletics industry like the movie and music industries appropriated young people's NILs and pocketed billions of dollars. In 2021, the Supreme Court decided NCAA v. Alston and embraced the Ninth Circuit's ruling in O'Bannon v. NCAA. Ostensibly, these decisions and thirty plus state NIL statutes terminated the "official" exploitation of students. Currently, entrepreneurial students and some parents may commercialize …

Moore V. United States: The Constitutionality Of The Taxation Of Unrealized Gains, Loren Naldoza

Lewis & Clark Law Review

Rarely in modern tax jurisprudence does the common adage “nothing is certain except death and taxes” receive a challenge in the highest court in the land. This year, the Supreme Court is considering the most existential question concerning the federal income tax in over a century: what is “income”? The definition of “income” has gone through several developments and adjustments since the enactment of the Sixteenth Amendment. Two taxpayers have reached the Supreme Court to challenge one such aspect of the definition of “income”— whether realization is a constitutional requirement as required by the Sixteenth Amendment. When an accession to …

Fears, Faith, And Facts In Environmental Law, William W. Buzbee

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Environmental law has long been shaped by both the particular nature of environmental harms and by the actors and institutions that cause such harms or can address them. This nation’s environmental statutes remain far from perfect, and a comprehensive law tailored to the challenges of climate change is still elusive. Nonetheless, America’s environmental laws provide lofty, express protective purposes and findings about reasons for their enactment. They also clearly state health and environmental goals, provide tailored criteria for action, and utilize procedures and diverse regulatory tools that reflect nuanced choices.

But the news is far from good. Despite the ambitious …

The Supreme Court And The Challenges For Fiscal Federalism: Mineral Area Development Authority V Steel Authority Of India, Sanyukta Chowdhury, Amit Chowdhury

National Law School Journal

This case comment analyses the 2024 Supreme Court judgement in Mineral Area Development Authority v Steel Authority of India, in which the court upheld the states’ power to tax mineral rights and mineral-bearing land. The authors discuss the issues involved, the approach of the bench towards interpretation, and the implications for the parties to the case and other stakeholders. They argue that while fiscal federalism is crucial to India’s constitutional scheme, the bench had limited leeway in deciding the case on this basis due to the absence of legal, doctrinal, and factual clarity.

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 …

Protecting Minority Representation In An Era Of Political Polarization And The Hollowing Out Of Voting Rights Protections, Henry L. Chambers, Jr.

Law Faculty Publications

The United States Supreme Court has hollowed out various voting rights protections, leaving all voters—minority and nonminority—less protected in a politically polarized America. Surprisingly, the Court has continued to protect representation for minority race voters who live in racially polarized areas. However, minority race voters risk losing that protection, typically provided through majority-minority districts authorized under the Voting Rights Act, if they build cross-racial coalitions with their neighbors. Under the Court’s interpretation of the VRA, cross-racial voting coalitions may be less protected than local majorities comprised of a single race of voters. The loss of such protection could leave their …

Maurer Environmental Law Expert Is Lead Author On Science Insights Policy Forum Article, James Owsley Boyd

Keep Up With the Latest News from the Law School (blog)

The Indiana University Maurer and McKinney Schools of Law jointly will convene leading scholars and practitioners to discuss the implications of the 2023 United States Supreme Court case of Sackett v. EPA. The event, “Sackett v. EPA: What the Supreme Court’s Decision Means for Regulation and Wetlands Conservation,” will take place November 10 in the Wynne Courtroom and Steve Tuchman and Reed Bobrick Atrium at IU McKinney in Indianapolis.

Bureaucratic Overreach And The Role Of The Courts In Protecting Representative Democracy, Katie Cassady

Liberty University Journal of Statesmanship & Public Policy

The United States bureaucracy began as only four departments and has expanded to address nearly every issue of public life. While these bureaucratic agencies are ostensibly under congressional oversight and the supervision of the President as part of the executive branch, they consistently usurp their discretionary authority and bypass the Founding Fathers’ design of balancing legislative power in a bicameral Congress.

The Supreme Court holds an indispensable role in mitigating the overreach of executive agencies, yet the courts’ inability to hold bureaucrats accountable has diluted voters’ voices. Since the Supreme Court’s 1984 ruling in Chevron, U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense …

The Five Internet Rights, Nicholas J. Nugent

Washington Law Review

Since the dawn of the commercial internet, content moderation has operated under an implicit social contract that website operators could accept or reject users and content as they saw fit, but users in turn could self-publish their views on their own websites if no one else would have them. However, as online service providers and activists have become ever more innovative and aggressive in their efforts to deplatform controversial speakers, content moderation has progressively moved down into the core infrastructure of the internet, targeting critical resources, such as networks, domain names, and IP addresses, on which all websites depend. These …

The Equal Rights Amendment And The Equality Act: Closing Gaps Post-Bostock For Sexual Orientation And Gender Identity Minorities, Sarah Blazucki

University of the District of Columbia Law Review

In 2020, the Supreme Court held in Bostock v. Clayton County that the “because of sex” protection in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) included an individual’s “homosexual and transgender status.”1 This landmark decision expanded employment protections under the law, for the first time providing broad federal protections to sexual orientation and gender identity minorities.2 It was a sweeping decision, granting protections to millions of people.3 Yet many worry the protections are incomplete, for several reasons. First, the Court explicitly used the language “homosexual and transgender,”4 potentially leaving unresolved if other minority sexual orientations and …

Law's Credibility Problem, Julia Simon-Kerr

Washington Law Review

Credibility determinations often seal people’s fates. They can determine outcomes at trial; they condition the provision of benefits, like social security; and they play an increasingly dispositive role in immigration proceedings. Yet there is no stable definition of credibility in the law. Courts and agencies diverge at the most basic definitional level in their use of the category.

Consider a real-world example. An immigration judge denies asylum despite the applicant’s plausible and unrefuted account of persecution in their country of origin. The applicant appeals, pointing to the fact that Congress enacted a “rebuttable presumption of credibility” for asylum-seekers “on appeal.” …

We Clerked For Justices Scalia And Stevens. America Is Getting Heller Wrong., Katherine A. Shaw, John Bash

Online Publications

In the summer of 2008, the Supreme Court decided District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the court held for the first time that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to gun ownership. We were law clerks to Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion, and Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the lead dissent.

Returning To The Start? Federal Bipa Claims After Transunion V. Ramirez, Michael Goodyear

Articles & Chapters

The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, more commonly known as “BIPA,” was the first statute to protect biometric privacy in the United States when it was passed in 2008. Although Texas and Washington have since passed their own biometric privacy laws, and other states have protected biometric information as part of more general data privacy legislation, BIPA remains the most powerful such law in the country due to being the only biometric privacy law to contain a private right of action. BIPA has also proven to be an important precedent for other states, such as New York, that are currently …

Department Of Homeland Security V. Regents Of The University Of California And Its Implications, Brian Wolfman

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Trump Administration's effort to get rid of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, failed before the Supreme Court in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, 140 S. Ct. 1891, 1896 (2020). In this essay -- based on a presentation given to an American Bar Association section in September 2020 -- I review DACA, the Supreme Court's decision, and its potential legal implications.

The failure of the Trump Administration to eliminate DACA may have had significant political consequences, and it surely had immediate and momentous consequences for many of DACA’s hundreds of thousands …

Self-Determination In American Discourse: The Supreme Court’S Historical Indoctrination Of Free Speech And Expression, Jarred Williams

Honors Program: Senior Projects (Public)

Within the American criminal legal system, it is a well-established practice to presume the innocence of those charged with criminal offenses unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Such a judicial framework-like approach, called a legal maxim, is utilized in order to ensure that the law is applied and interpreted in ways that legislative bodies originally intended.

The central aim of this piece in relation to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution is to investigate whether the Supreme Court of the United States has utilized a specific legal maxim within cases that dispute government speech or expression regulation. …

Neither Safe, Nor Legal, Nor Rare: The D.C. Circuit’S Use Of The Doctrine Of Ratification To Shield Agency Action From Appointments Clause Challenges, Damien M. Schiff

Seattle University Law Review

Key to the constitutional design of the federal government is the separation of powers. An important support for that separation is the Appointments Clause, which governs how officers of the United States are installed in their positions. Although the separation of powers generally, and the Appointments Clause specifically, support democratically accountable government, they also protect individual citizens against abusive government power. But without a judicial remedy, such protection is ineffectual—a mere parchment barrier.

Such has become the fate of the Appointments Clause in the D.C. Circuit, thanks to that court’s adoption—and zealous employment—of the rule that agency action, otherwise unconstitutional …

The Supreme Court And The 117th Congress, Andrew K. Jennings, Athul K. Acharya

Faculty Articles

If the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s successor is confirmed before the 2020 presidential election or in the post-election lame-duck period, and if Democrats come to have unified control of government on January 20, 2021, how can they respond legislatively to the Court’s new 6-3 conservative ideological balance? This Essay frames a hypothetical 117th Congress’s options, discusses its four simplest legislative responses—expand the Court, limit its certiorari discretion, restrict its jurisdiction, or reroute its jurisdiction—and offers model statutory language for enacting those responses.

Ordinary Causation: A Study In Experimental Statutory Interpretation, James Macleod

Indiana Law Journal

In a series of recent split decisions interpreting criminal and tort-like legislation, the Supreme Court has purported to give statutory causation requirements their ordinary, plain meaning. Armed with dictionaries, examples from everyday speech, and commonsense intuitions, the Court’s majority has explained that statutory phrases like “because of” and “results from” entail but-for causation as a matter of ordinary usage. There’s just one problem: The Court’s majority (and the many state and federal courts following its lead) is wrong on the facts—specifically, the facts about how people ordinarily interpret, understand, and use causal language.

This Article considers a novel approach to …