Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

Three Decades Of Supreme Court Copyright Decisions: A Peek Behind The Scenes, Jonathan Band

Joint PIJIP/TLS Research Paper Series

This article discusses the revelations in the case files of eight Supreme Court Justices concerning eighteen copyright-related decisions issued by the Court between 1973 and 2005. The papers show the Court as a profoundly human institution, with the Justices often struggling to craft opinions that could gain the support of a majority. The Justices clearly cared about the copyright merits, but they were also willing to compromise to achieve a certain result. In several cases, the final opinion was anything but inevitable. This was particularly so with Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984), …

Brief Amicus Curiae Of Administrative And Constitutional Law Professors In Support Of Petitioners, Robert Glicksman, Richard Pierce, Alan B. Morrison, Jeffrey Lubbers, Peter L. Strauss

Amicus Briefs & Court Filings

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT: The ninety-six temporary agricultural workers employed by respondent were allowed to come to the United States solely because Congress established the program that governs their employment. As petitioners’ brief demonstrates, in order for respondent to be eligible to bring in foreign workers, it had to submit an application to the Department of Homeland Security. As part of that process, respondent had to establish that it would not employ non-citizen workers to displace domestic workers. Included in the required showing is an agreement by respondent to pay both domestic and foreign workers the same pay, so …

Fair Use In The Supreme Court: A Peek Behind The Scenes, Jonathan Band

Joint PIJIP/TLS Research Paper Series

Between 1975 and 1994, the Supreme Court considered five cases that involved fair use: Williams & Wilkins v. United States; Sony v. Universal City Studios; Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises; Stewart v. Abend; and Campbell v. Acuff-Rose. The papers of the Supreme Court Justices that decided these cases show the Court as a profoundly human institution with the Justices often struggling to fashion opinions that could gain the support of a majority. The Justices clearly cared about the copyright merits, but they were also willing to compromise to achieve a certain result. In several …

Why Dobbs Is No Roadmap For Deciding State Constitutional Abortion Issues, Daniel A. Small

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

In deciding that Fourteenth Amendment “liberty” does not protect a woman’s decision to end her pregnancy, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization sought to distinguish the precedent that Roe and Casey relied on to recognize an abortion right. The Dobbs majority claimed that this precedent did not support a right to abortion because, in its view, destroying a fetus is more immoral than the conduct at issue in those earlier cases. However, moral concerns about fetal destruction shed no light on the nature or characteristics of a woman’s liberty interest in an abortion decision. These concerns, therefore, cannot show whether …

What Is “The Nation’S History And Tradition?”: Using History To Redefine “Liberty” And Applying A New Deeply Rooted Test To Transgender Rights, Kaori Kawaguchi

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

INTRODUCTION: “In a Constitution for a free people, there can be no doubt that the meaning of ‘liberty’ must be broad indeed.” In Roe v. Wade, the Court considered a woman’s liberty right to decide whether to continue a pregnancy or have an abortion and recognized the constitutional validity of a liberty right to abortion as part of the right to privacy. In Roe, the Court concluded, “[o]nly personal rights that can be deemed ‘fundamental’ or ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty’ are included in the guarantee of a right of personal privacy.” Liberty should be “left to …

Brief Of Amici Curiae Professors Of Constitutional And Criminal Law In Support Of Petitioner (Whitton V. Dixon - 25-580), Ira P. Robbins, Jeffrey Fagan, Michael Cassidy, Barbara O'Brien, Catherine Grosso, William W. Berry Iii, Ellen C. Yaroshefsky

Amicus Briefs & Court Filings

Brief in support of Petitioner.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT: This Court has “consistently held that a conviction obtained by the knowing use of perjured testimony is fundamentally unfair” because it “involve[s] a corruption of the truth-seeking function of the trial process.” United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 103–04 (1976). Here, the Eleventh Circuit acknowledged that the state committed a Giglio violation when it permitted a jailhouse informant to falsely testify at trial that he lacked a violent criminal record despite prosecutors knowing that he did. The Eleventh Circuit deemed this violation harmless, however, based on its erroneous consideration of …

A Peek Behind The Scenes Of Supreme Court Decision Making Concerning The Federal Ip System, Jonathan Band

Joint PIJIP/TLS Research Paper Series

In the 1970s and 80s, the Supreme Court decided three cases that continue to define the limits of the authority of the states within the federal intellectual property system: Goldstein v. California (1973); Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Oil Co. (1974); and Bonito Boats v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc. (1989). The papers of the Supreme Court Justices that decided these cases show the Court as a human institution wrestling with this complex issue. This issue has assumed new importance as state legislatures have rushed to enact laws on the use of generative artificial intelligence to replicate the voice …

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.

Legislative Reforms To End Lawfare By State And Local Prosecutors, Elizabeth Beske

Legislative Testimony & Comments

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government will hold a hearing on Tuesday, March 4, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. ET. The hearing, "Legislative Reforms to End Lawfare by State and Local Prosecutors," will examine the use of lawfare tactics by the Biden-Harris Administration to weaponize the rule of law against political opponents. It will further highlight legislative reforms to end politically motivated state and local prosecutions.

Brief Of Law Professors As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondent, Ira P. Robbins

Amicus Briefs & Court Filings

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT: "The right to trial by jury is 'of such importance and occupies so firm a place in our history and jurisprudence that any seeming curtailment of the right' has always been and 'should be scrutinized with the utmost care." SEC v. Jarkesy, 144 S. Ct. 2117, 2128 (2024) (quoting Dimick v. Schiedt, 293 U.S. 474, 486 (1935)). The Seventh Amendment reflects and enshrines that tradition, providing that in "[s]uits at common law ... the right of trial by jury shall be preserved." U.S. Const. amend. VII (quoting Dimick; see also City of …

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 …

The Ghost In The Machine: The Threat Screening Center And The Mootness Tool, Jeffrey Kahn

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

In FBI v. Fikre, the Supreme Court resolved a circuit split about the voluntary cessation exception to the mootness doctrine in what initially appears to be a plaintiff-friendly way. The Court unanimously held that the government’s “sparse declaration” was insufficient to moot lawsuits challenging the No Fly List (a list of people banned from aircraft). The declaration failed to show that the government “cannot reasonably be expected to do again in the future what it is alleged to have done in the past.” It stated only that Fikre “will not be placed on the No Fly List in the …

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.

The Downstream Consequences Of Transunion Llc V. Ramirez: Why 5 U.S.C. § 2954 Plaintiffs Have Article Iii Standing Consistent With Lower Courts’ Interpretation Of Transunion, Erin Mccoy

American University Law Review

The Supreme Court, in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, created additional standing hurdles by requiring plaintiffs to identify a common law historic-analogue when alleging a statutory harm. In doing so, the Court arguably limited informational standing—a unique Article III standing theory whereby plaintiffs may establish an injury for failure to receive information—because informational injuries did not exist at common law.

This Comment asks whether informational standing survives in a post-TransUnion universe, using 5 U.S.C. § 2954 and lower courts’ interpretation of TransUnion for guidance. The statute, § 2954, comes to light in a string of litigation involving the potential illegality …

Litigating Original Meaning From Heller To Rahimi: The Role Of Lawyering In The Confused Path Of Second Amendment Jurisprudence, Lawrence Rosenthal

American University Law Review

The Second Amendment is on a jurisprudential march. An individual right to “keep and bear arms” for purposes unrelated to militia or military service was not recognized until the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision, applying what it took to be the original meaning of the “right to keep and bear arms” found in the Second Amendment, in District of Columbia v. Heller. Subsequently, the Court, in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, invalidated a statute requiring a permit to carry concealable firearms on a showing of particularized need. Most recently, in United States v. Rahimi, …

The Constitutionality Of Barring Undocumented Immigrants From Second Amendment Protections, Abby Vorhees

American University Law Review

Under current federal law, undocumented immigrants remain unable to access one of the most fundamental rights contained within our Constitution: the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Several undocumented immigrants have challenged the constitutionality of the federal prohibition (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A)), resulting in a three-way circuit split on whether undocumented immigrants are protected by the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court, however, has remained silent on the issue, leaving undocumented immigrants unprotected.

The Supreme Court’s 2022 Second Amendment decision, N.Y. State Pistol & Rifle Ass’n v. Bruen, upended the traditional method of constitutional review, means-end scrutiny, in favor …

Review Of Veterans Law Decisions Of The Federal Circuit 2022-2023 Edition, Yelena Duterte, Hugh Mcclean, Stacey-Rae Simcox

American University Law Review

In 2022 to 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) continued its conversation with the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”), Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”), and veterans to help sculpt the jurisprudence coming from the youngest of the federal courts, the Veterans Court. The Federal Circuit’s jurisprudence addressed ten main legal issues: class actions, petitions for writ of mandamus under the All Writs Act, defining standards of proof with the term “results from,” the benefit of the doubt doctrine post-Lynch, education benefits, less than honorable discharges, the rating schedule, implicit denials, equitable …

"Background Principles" In The Law Of Takings, David A. Dana

American University Law Review

The Supreme Court appears to be on a mission to enhance the scope of liability under the Takings Clause, the result of which could be the chilling of federal, state, and local regulation. However, the Court has acknowledged that there is no takings liability when, under “background principles,” the property owner lacked the very right she is claiming the government has taken via regulation. The rationale for, and hence proper scope of, the background principles exception to takings liability is opaque in the case law. This Article offers three possible rationales for the background principles exception that could guide courts …

American University Law Review Keynote Address, Erwin Chemerinsky

American University Law Review

My talk this morning focuses on the agenda of the current Roberts Court. I think that every Supreme Court can be said to have an agenda. Sometimes it seems conscious and deliberate, apparent from the outset. Sometimes it seems to evolve and only becomes obvious later.

Dobbs, Right-Wing Revisionism, And Public Outrage: Rodrigo's Late-Night Chronicle, Richard Delgado, Jean Stefancic

American University Law Review

When we next see Rodrigo, he has been brought into town by Giannina’s women’s rights group. The Supreme Court had just decided Dobbs and revoked a constitutional right that had existed for fifty years prior. Giannina’s organization is meeting to discuss possible responses to the Dobbs decision. While he is in town, Rodrigo decides to seek out the professor, hoping to reconnect and pick his brain on this seismic shift in the legal landscape.

The Ripple Effects Of Dobbs On Health Care Beyond Wanted Abortion, Maya Manian

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

The Supreme Court’s momentous decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization to overturn fifty years of precedent on the constitutional right to abortion represents a sea of change, not only in constitutional law, but also in the public health landscape. Although state laws on abortion are still evolving after Dobbs, the decision almost immediately wreaked havoc on the delivery of medical care for both patients seeking abortion care and those not actively seeking to terminate a pregnancy.

This Article also argues that focusing the public’s attention on the deleterious consequences of abortion bans for health care beyond wanted abortion …

Examining Patent Eligibility, Charles Duan

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

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 turned …

Maintaining Due Process By Extending Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. To Federal Class Actions, Felicia D. Sych

American University Law Review

In 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its seminal decision in Bristol Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, subsequently altering the scope of personal jurisdiction and further narrowing its interpretation of specific jurisdiction. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. held that a state court can only assert specific personal jurisdiction over a defendant when there is a meaningful nexus between the forum state and the claims at issue. The Court purposefully refrained from deciding whether its holding applies to federal courts adjudicating federal class actions. After denying a petition for writ of certiorari to resolve the issue in 2021, the question …

The Disability Docket, Jasmine E. Harris, Karen M. Tani, Shira Wakschlag

American University Law Review

The monumental changes emanating from the contemporary Supreme Court have now generated abundant commentary—but it remains possible to glean new insights if we review the Court’s work from an alternative perspective, one that does not often inform mainstream accounts. Drawing on insights from Disability Legal Studies and other critical approaches to law, as well as from the trenches of disability advocacy and civil litigation, this Article applies a “disability lens” to the Supreme Court’s 2021 and 2022 Terms. Our review of the Court’s published decisions and broader docket suggests three themes. We highlight (1) the role of disability cases in …

The Absurd Reach Of A "Colorblind" Constitution, David Hinojosa, Genevieve Bonadies Torres

American University Law Review

Affirmative action has long spurred debates over whether the Equal Protection Clause and subsequent civil rights legislation were intended to permit policies aimed at disrupting racial hierarchies, dismantling systemic discrimination, and ensuring equal opportunity for Black people and other historically marginalized groups. The current lawsuits pending before the Supreme Court challenging affirmative action admissions programs at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC) and Harvard College are no exception. Like prior lawsuits, the plaintiff in both cases—Students for Fair Admissions (“SFFA”)—and its amici seek to turn back the clock on racial diversity at selective universities by urging the …

The Purcell Principle And The Antiblackness Of Constitutional Fundamentalism, Brittany Carter

American University Law Review

In Milligan v. Merrill, a district court in Alabama found that the state legislature designed Alabama’s new congressional district map in a way that diminished Black political power, and ordered the legislature to redraw its map to remedy the violation. Two weeks later, the Supreme Court stayed the district court’s order, allowing Alabama’s congressional elections to proceed under the discriminatory maps. The only stated rationale, offered by Justices Kavanaugh and Alito in a concurring opinion, was the so-called Purcell principle – the notion that federal courts should not enjoin a state’s election laws in the period close to an election. …

The Judicial Activism Of Justice Anthony Kennedy, Carlos A. Ball

American University Law Review

Few recent Supreme Court justices have had a greater impact on constitutional law than Anthony Kennedy. Although commentators have explored the substance of Justice Kennedy’s jurisprudence in some detail, legal scholars have not systematically analyzed the extent of his judicial activism. This Article uses the term “judicial activism” descriptively rather than normatively to help account for a judge’s willingness to strike down federal, state, and local laws on constitutional grounds. It finds that, under a descriptive definition, when compared to the justices with whom he served, Justice Kennedy was a singularly judicial activist judge.

This conclusion rests on three findings. …

When Amicus Curiae Briefs Are Inimicus Curiae Briefs: Amicus Curiae Briefs And The Bypassing Of Admissibility Standards, David Dematteo, Kellie Wiltsie

American University Law Review

Amicus curiae briefs are being submitted at historically high levels by a range of individuals and entities, and there is compelling evidence that these briefs are highly influential in judicial decision-making, including in the Supreme Court of the United States. Although amicus curiae briefs have been an ingrained aspect of the U.S. legal system for hundred-plus years, various legal scholars, researchers, commentators, and judges, including Supreme Court Justices, have raised concerns about their use, including that amicus curiae briefs contain redundant information and often function as advocacy tools. This Article addresses an aspect of amicus curiae briefs that has received …

Litigating The Separation Of Powers, Elizabeth Earle Beske

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

No abstract provided.

Solving The Procedural Puzzles Of The Texas Heartbeat Act And Its Imitators: The Limits And Opportunities Of Offensive Litigation, Howard M. Wasserman, Charles W. Rhodes

American University Law Review

The Texas Heartbeat Act, enacted in 2021 as Senate Bill 8 (S.B. 8), prohibits abortions following detection of a fetal heartbeat, a constitutionally invalid ban under current Supreme Court precedent. But the method of enforcement in the Texas law is unique—it prohibits enforcement by government officials in favor of private civil actions brought by “any person,” regardless of injury. Texas sought to burden reproductive-health providers and rights advocates with costly litigation and potentially crippling liability.

In a series of articles, we explore how S.B. 8's reliance on exclusive private enforcement at the expense of public enforcement creates procedural and jurisdictional …