Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

The Insidious Effect Of Soundbites: Why Fences Aren't Punishment, Theresa Gabaldon

American University Law Review

This Article was inspired by two recent Supreme Court decisions dealing with the ability of the Securities and Exchange Commission to seek disgorgement of unlawfully obtained profits. The topic, however, is not disgorgement. That is a different article, published by the author in the Cornell Lazu Reviezu in 2020, on which this one builds. This Article focuses instead on jurisprudential methodology. The Court has begun to exhibit an unfortunate penchant for jurisprudence by soundbite—the functional equivalent of Googling its ozun precedents for pithy quotes taken out of context from inapt cases. The results are, to put it politely, mischievous.

This …

Piercing The Veil: Reconciling Fisa And The State Secrets Privilege In The Schrems Ii Era, Chris Baumohl

American University Law Review

Twenty years after 9/11 and the beginning of the “War on Terror,” access to judicial redress arising out of national security programs remains mired in a labyrinth of procedural hurdles, including the state secrets privilege. Nearly seventy years after the Supreme Court first enunciated the modern state secrets privilege, courts still struggle to articulate a practicable standard that appropriately balances the government’s need to protect its secrets and plaintiffs’ need to vindicate their constitutional rights. This issue is particularly acute in surveillance litigation, where broad construction of the privilege precludes plaintiffs from establishing standing. However, as the Ninth Circuit found …

Comparing Dadd V. Anoka County With Corbitt V. Vickers: Why Defendants Should Bear The Burden Of Establishing Qualified Immunity In A Motion To Dismiss, Aisha Green

American University Law Review

In the wake of last summer’s George Floyd protests, qualified immunity is once again at the forefront of the debate. Officials, such as police officers, can raise qualified immunity as an affirmative defense in response to allegations that they have violated an individual’s constitutional rights. The different interpretations of qualified immunity’s meaning, use, and scope among the circuit courts have contributed to the development of strong opinions on both sides of the defense.

Particularly, circuit courts are split over who bears the burden of establishing qualified immunity when defendants use it as a basis for a motion to dismiss under …

A Right For Retirement Unconscionable Contracts, The Right (Not) To Associate, And Citizens United, Paul S. Miller

American University Law Review

The doctrine of unconscionable contracts is an equity doctrine. As such, it does not ask whether an agreement is or is not an enforceable contract; legality has no bearing. Rather, the doctrine asks whether it would be it be fit and proper . . . would it be fair . . . for a court to enforce such a contract. Using the doctrine, courts examine whether the price paid for a good or service far outstrips any benefit gained.

What if that price is the surrender of a basic right, the Right (Not) to Associate? The Supreme Court says that …

Property Rights: Fiercely Contested, Strongly Guarded, And Continually Defended. How The Supreme Court's Decision In Cedar Point Emphasized The Court's Devotion To Private Property Rights, Sarah Haddon

American University Law Review

In 1975, California’s Agricultural Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) enacted a regulation allowing union organizers to access agricultural employers’ private properties “for the purpose of meeting and talking with employees and soliciting their support” (the “access regulation”). The access regulation does not require the union organizers to obtain consent before entering employers’ properties; instead, union organizers must only file a “written notice of intention to take access.” The notice provides the union organizers access to an employer’s property for three hours a day up to 120 days each year during the hour before the workday, during lunch, and after the …

2001 Supreme Court Redux, Mary Stevens

Sustainable Development Law & Policy

No abstract provided.

Revisiting Cook V. Food And Drug Administration: A Lens For Analyzing The Current State Of Fda Enforcement And Assurance Of Product Quality – Increased Oversight Or Not Enough?, Catherine Gould

Upper Level Writing Requirement Research Papers

No abstract provided.

James Madison, Citizens United, And The Constitutional Problem Of Corruption, Anthony J. Gaughan

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Elegy For Anti-Corruption Law: How The Bridgegate Case Could Crush Corruption Prosecutions And Boost Liars, Ciara Torres-Spelliscy

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Ferc's Tether Tantrum: Why Suppressing State Support For Renewable Energy Violates The Federal Power Act And Threatens U.S. Climate Leadership, Philip N. Killeen

American University Law Review

The United States’ role as a proactive leader on combatting climate change reached its high-water mark during the presidency of Barack Obama. At the United Nation’s 2015 Paris Climate Conference, the United States acknowledged the scientifically observed link between anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and global warming and negotiated a deal with other nations to adapt to and prevent its consequences. Among the commitments that emerged from this deal was the United States’ ambitious but achievable target to reduce economy-wide GHG emissions 26 to 28% below 2005 levels by 2025. The most consequential effort to meet this goal was the …

The Decade Of Democracy's Demise, James Sample

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Antitrust Regulation And The Federal-State Balance: Restoring The Original Design, Alan J. Meese

American University Law Review

The U.S. Constitution divides authority over commerce between states and the national government. Passed in 1890, the Sherman Act (“the Act”) reflects this allocation of power, reaching only those harmful agreements that are “in restraint of . . . commerce among the several States.” This Article contends that the Supreme Court erred when it radically altered the balance between state and national power over trade restraints in 1948, abruptly abandoning decades of precedent recognizing exclusive state authority over most intrastate restraints. This revised construction of the Act contravened the statute’s apparent meaning, unduly expanded the reach of federal antitrust regulation, …

Equality Is A Brokered Idea, Robert Tsai

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

This essay examines the Supreme Court's stunning decision in the census case, Department of Commerce v. New York. I characterize Chief Justice John Roberts' decision to side with the liberals as an example of pursuing the ends of equality by other means – this time, through the rule of reason. Although the appeal was limited in scope, the stakes for political and racial equality were sky high. In blocking the administration from adding a citizenship question to the 2020 Census, 5 members of the Court found the justification the administration gave to be a pretext. In this instance, that lie …

The Sherman Act Is A No-Fault Monopolization Statute: A Textualist Demonstration, Robert H. Lande, Richard O. Zerbe

American University Law Review

The drafters of the Sherman Act originally designed Section 2 to impose sanctions on all monopolies and attempts to monopolize, regardless whether the firm had engaged in anticompetitive conduct. This conclusion emerges from the first ever textualist analysis of the language in the statute, a form of interpretation originally performed only by Justice Scalia but now increasingly used by the Supreme Court, including in its recent Bostock decision.

Following Scalia’s methodology, this Article analyzes contemporaneous dictionaries, legal treatises, and cases and demonstrates that when the Sherman Act was passed, the word “monopolize” simply meant that someone had acquired a monopoly. …

Employing Smith To Prevent A Constitutional Right To Discriminate Based On Faith: Why The Supreme Court Should Affirm The Third Circuit In Fulton V. City Of Philadelphia, Margaret Smiley Chavez

American University Law Review

In the interest of the children in the Philadelphia foster care system, the City of Philadelphia prohibits its contracting foster care agencies from discriminating against prospective foster care parents on account of race, religion, and sexual orientation, among other things. Despite this requirement, in 2018, two foster care agencies—Catholic Social Services (CSS) and Bethany Christian Services— that have annual contracts with Philadelphia refused to certify same-sex couples as foster parents for religious reasons. While Bethany Christian Services reached an agreement with the city, CSS did not. As a result, the city froze foster care placement referrals to CSS and did …

President Trump's Crusade Against The Transgender Community, Brendan Williams

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

No abstract provided.

Tweeting With A Purpose: Interpreting "Corrupt Persuasion" In 18 U.S.C. § 1512(B), Jessica Ochoa

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

No abstract provided.

Why The Categorical Approach Should Not Be Used When Determining Whether An Offense Is A Crime Of Violence Under The Residual Clause Of 18 U.S.C. § 924 (C), Mary Frances Richardson

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Reining In A 'Renegade' Court: Tc Heartland And The Eastern District Of Texas, Jonas Anderson

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

In TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands, the Supreme Court tightened the venue requirement for patent cases, making it more difficult for a plaintiff to demonstrate that a district court has venue over a defendant. Many commentators, however, view TC Heartland as merely a “reshuffling” of the district courts that receive patent cases. Whereas before the case, a large percentage of patent cases were filed in the Eastern District of Texas, now, after TC Heartland, various other U.S. district courts (principally, the District of Delaware) have experienced an increase in patent infringement filings. Some commentators are unconvinced that this …

Playing Outside The Joints: Where The Religious Freedom Restoration Act Meets Title Vii, Amanda Brennan

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Federal Death Penalty Scheme Is Not A Model For State Reform Of Capital Punishment Laws, Mark J. Macdougall, Karen D. Williams

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Linguistic Critique Of Tag Jurisdiction: Justice Scalia And The Zombie Metonymy, Andrea D. Coles-Bjerre

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Using The Supreme Court's Enigmatic Commerce Clause Holding In Sebelius To Challenge Congress's Broken Renewable Fuel Standard, Corey J. Walker

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Jesner V. Arab Bank, Rebecca Hamilton

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

The exclusion of transnational human rights litigation from U.S. federal courts is, for most practical purposes, now complete. On April 24, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a 5–4 ruling in Jesner v. Arab Bank, deciding that foreign corporations cannot be sued under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS).

Think Of An Elephant? Tweeting As "Framing" Executive Power, Fernando R. Laguarda

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

No abstract provided.

We "Kent" Keep Transferring Kids Without A Hearing: Using Recent Supreme Court Jurisprudence To Revive Kent V. United States And End Mandatory Transfer For Juveniles, Summer Woods

Criminal Law Practitioner

No abstract provided.

"[R]Elegated Through No Fault Of Their Own To A More Difficult" System: Applying The Obergefell Opinion To Custody Principles, Melanie Kalmanson

The Modern American

No abstract provided.

Carpenter V. United States: Brief Of Scholars Of Criminal Procedure And Privacy As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioner, Andrew Ferguson

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

Amici curiae are forty-two scholars engaged in significant research and/or teaching on criminal procedure and privacy law. This brief addresses issues that are within amici’s particular areas of scholarly expertise. They have a shared interest in clarifying the law of privacy in the digital era, and believe that a review of scholarly literature on the topic is helpful to answering the question in this case. This brief is co-authored by Harry Sandick, Kathrina Szymborski, & Jared Buszin of Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP.Carpenter v. United States presents an opportunity to reconsider the Fourth Amendment in the digital age. Cell …

The Perils And Possibilities Of Refugee Federalism, Burch Elias

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Fair For Whom? Why Debt-Collection Lawsuits In St. Louis Violate The Procedural Due Process Rights Of Low-Income Communities, Aimee Constantineau

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.