Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

Going To Hell In A Hhs Notice: The Contraceptive Mandate's Next Impermissible Burden On Religious Freedom, Trey O'Callaghan

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that eligible religious organizations submit a notice objecting to providing their employees contraceptive coverage if they religiously object to contraception or abortifacients is as simple as filing a piece of paper. But to a collection of Catholic petitioners, complying with this requirement gives rise to “scandal” and causes them to “materially cooperate” with sin. Filing a piece of paper may seem far outside any exercise of religion, but these groups sincerely believe that the one page notice burdens their religious beliefs.

Zubik v. Burwell, like Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, presents a conflict between …

Asking The Right Federal Questions: Merrill Lynch V. Manning And The Exclusive Jurisdiction Provisions Of The Securities Exchange Act, Seth Taylor

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Suppose you run a small corporation in the business of auctioneering stamps, coins, and other collectibles. Sensing that your corporation’s financial prospects are on the decline, large financial institutions drive the price of the company’s stock down. Your shareholders sue in state court alleging a breach of state law in manipulating stock prices while also referencing breaches of federal securities law.

Can the defendant financial institutions remove the case to federal court? This question is set to be answered by the Supreme Court in Manning v. Merrill Lynch, which deals specifically with whether section 27 of the Securities Exchange …

Ocasio V. United States: The Scope Of A Conspiracy To Commit Hobbs Act Extortion, Benjamin Ludewig

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Ocasio v. United States presents the question of whether a conviction under the general federal conspiracy statute may be based on Hobbs Act extortion when a public official defendant has formed an agreement to obtain property from someone within the conspiracy. There is currently a circuit split on the question presented in Ocasio v. United States, which the Supreme Court will address. This commentary argues that the Court should allow a conviction under the general federal conspiracy statute to be based on Hobbs Act extortion when the property is obtained from someone within the conspiracy. This holding is consistent …

Utah V. Strieff And The Future Of The Exceptions To The Exclusionary Rule, Zack Gong

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

In the recent case State v. Strieff, the Supreme Court of Utah held that police’s discovery of a lawful outstanding warrant during an unlawful investigatory stop cannot save the evidence obtained during that arrest from suppression under the attenuation doctrine. To reach that decision, the court reasoned that the inevitable discovery doctrine, instead of the attenuation doctrine, is appropriate for this situation. However, the court failed to address whether the inevitable discovery doctrine can ultimately save the evidence from suppression.

The theoretical foundation of how the Fourth Amendment guaranty gives rise to the exclusionary rule has never been steadfast; …

Ring Around The Jury: Reviewing Florida's Capital Sentencing Framework In Hurst V. Florida, Richard Guyer

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

This commentary discusses Hurst v. Florida, a case in which the Supreme court will review Florida's death sentencing scheme to determine whether it violates the Sixth of Eighth Amendments. The author argues that Florida's capital sentencing framework violates the Sixth Amendment. A jury, rather than a judge, better reflects society's moral views, which are critical to weigh when deciding whether to impose the death penalty.

Gutting Public Sector Unions: Friedrichs V. California Teachers Association, Jake Wasserman

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

In Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, public-sector unions face a constitutional challenge that could lead to their demise. In California, all public school employees are represented by a union--whether or not they are union members--and are required to pay an agency fee. This requirement seems to run contrary to the First Amendment, which generally prohibits the government from compelling citizens to support the speech and expressive activities of a private organization. This commentary argues that the Court should not overrule its decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education and uphold the validity of agency-shop agreements.

Districtly Speaking: Evenwel V. Abbott And The Apportionment Population Debate, Joey Herman

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, promises substantial equality of population within state legislative districts under the “one-person, one-vote” rule. Most frequently, total population is the basis for state reapportionament, but state citizenship and voter registration populations have also been acceptable bases in certain situations. The case of Evenwel v. Abbott, provides the Court with the opportunity to resolve the permissible population basis for reapportionment of state legislative districts. This Commentary argues that a state may rely upon total population as the basis for apportionment because such an approach is consistent …

Revisiting Erisa Preemption In Gobeille V. Liberty Mutual, Nicole B. Gage

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Under the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, federal law preempts state law. In 1974 Congress passed the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) governing benefits offered by employers to their employees. The purpose of this statute was ensuring the uniformity of the law applicable to employee benefts. The Supreme Court case of Gobeille v. Liberty Mutual concerns the limits of ERISA’s preemption of state law, specifically whether a state law governing employee benefits is merely peripheral to the core ERISA functions. This Commentary argues that ERISA does not preempt a state law which does not interfere with the administration of ERISA …

Of All The Gin Joints: Harris And The Supreme Court’S Reluctant Jurisprudence On Partisanship In Redistricting, Andrew Bellis

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

As interpreted by the Supreme Court, the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause protects the voting power of citizens. Thus, drawing state legislative districts resulting in dilution of citizens’ voting power may violate the Constitution. However, the question of what factors a state may take into account when redistricting has not been settled. In the upcoming Supreme Court case of Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, the Court faces the question of whether partisan makeup of the population and whether an attempt by a state to obtain federal preclearance for redistricting are valid factors a state can take into account …

Tyson Foods, Inc. V. Bouaphakeo: The Use Of Statistical Evidence In Class Actions, Wenbo Zhang

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Statistical analysis potentially plays an important role in class-action litigation, but the use of such evidence is limited at the class-certification stage of such suits. This Commentary previews an upcoming Supreme Court case that deals with the question of whether inferential evidence may be used to certify a class in a class-action lawsuit. Because this case deals with a violation of a duty, imposed by statute, on the defendant, this Commentary argues that under existing precedent, inferential statistical evidence is appropriate for determining the question of class-certification.

The Young And The Redemptionless? Juvenile Offenders Before Miller V. Alabama, Katherine Johnson

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits excessive criminal sanctions, and the Supreme Court has held that this provision has special application in situations dealing with juvenile offenders. This Commentary looks at the recent Supreme Court case of Montgomery v. Louisiana, in which the Court held that there was a constititutional prohibition of life sentences without parole for juvenile offenders. This Commentary argues that this is the correct result under the Court’s Eighth Amendment jurisprudence but that the Court should also have held that the sole remedy for such constitutional violations is resentencing.

Foster V. Chatman: Clarifying The Batson Test For Discriminatory Peremptory Strikes, Meghan Daly

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Historically, peremptory challenges were thought necessary to ensure fair and impartial juries, but the tactic has also been widely used by prosecutors for racially discriminatory purposes. This Commentary previews an upcoming Supreme Court case, Foster v. Chatman, that deals with alleged discriminatory peremptory challenges which led to striking all black jurors from a jury trial. Even though the prosecution had offered race-neutral reasons for those strikes, this Commentary argues that the evidence shows that the underlying rational was, in reality, racial discrimination. For that reason, this Commentary argues that the Court should find this case to fall under the …

A Power Struggle: Demand Response And The Limits Of Ferc’S Authority, Adrien Dumoulin-Smith, Geoffrey Wright

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

This Commentary details a recent Supreme Court case which dealt with the question of the extent of a federal agency’s authority to regulate retail markets for electric power or whether the agency was restricted only to regulation of wholesale markets. In this case, the Court held that the federal agency had jurisdiction over wholesale markets, regardless of the impact in retail markets. This Commentary argues that the Court reached the correct result as a matter of statutory interpretation but also argues that the Court was insufficiently deferential to the agency in interpreting the extent of that agency’s jurisdiction under the …

Hurdles To The Court: The Doctrine Of Standing Under Statutory Violations, Priya Khangura

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Standing is a precondition for any suit brought in federal court. This Commentary analyzes a Supreme Court case, Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, which will address whether a violation of a federal statute grants a plaintiff standing to sue. The Author argues that such a violation is sufficient for establishing standing because the plaintiff suffered an injury-in-fact which the legisture intended to prevent. That harm is both traceable to the violation and redressible by statute. Thus, the requisite elements of constitutional standing exist in this case. Such a holding follows from existing standing jurisprudence and ensures that plaintiffs can have …

Arbitration Revisited: Preemption Of California’S Unconscionability Doctrine After Concepcion, David Friedman

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

This commentary looks at a Supreme Court case, Imburgia v. DIRECTV, in which the Court faces the question of whether an arbitration agreement, made pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, preempts state unconscionability doctrine which would render that agreement unenforceable. The Author argues that holding that federal law implementing a policy favoring arbitration fully preempts state law doctrines from preventing the enforcement of arbitration agreements.

Luis V. United States: Asset Forfeiture Butts Heads With The Sixth Amendment, Jordan Glassberg

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

In recent years, the federal government has vastly increased its use of asset forfeiture, the seizure of property connected to illegal activities. As authorized under federal law, the government is also able to restrain assets prior to trial when the government belives those assets will ultimately be found to be forfeitable. This pretrial restraint potentially implicates the constitutionally guaranteed right to counsel for criminal defendants. In the upcoming Supreme Court case of Luis v. United States, the Court will address the question of whether a pretrial restraint of assets which are not traceable to any illegal activity is permissible …

The Supreme Court As A Filter Between International Law And American Constitutionalism, Curtis A. Bradley

Faculty Scholarship

As part of a symposium on Justice Stephen Breyer’s book, “The Court and the World,” this essay describes and defends the Supreme Court’s role as a filter between international law and the American constitutional system. In this role, the Court ensures that when international law passes into the U.S. legal system, it does so in a manner consistent with domestic constitutional values. This filtering role is appropriate, the Essay explains, in light of the different processes used to generate international law and domestic law and the different functions served by these bodies of law. The Essay provides examples of this …

Judicial Retirements And The Staying Power Of U.S. Supreme Court Decisions, Stuart M. Benjamin, Georg Vanberg

Faculty Scholarship

The influence of U.S. Supreme Court majority opinions depends critically on how these opinions are received and treated by lower courts, which decide the vast majority of legal disputes. We argue that the retirement of Justices on the Supreme Court serves as a simple heuristic device for lower court judges in deciding how much deference to show to Supreme Court precedent. Using a unique dataset of the treatment of all Supreme Court majority opinions in the courts of appeals from 1953 to 2012, we find that negative treatments of Supreme Court opinions increase, and positive treatments decrease, as the Justices …

Federalism And Accountability: State Attorneys General, Regulatory Litigation, And The New Federalism, Timothy Meyer

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Circling Around The Confrontation Clause: Redefined Reach But Not A Robust Right, Lisa Kern Griffin

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court’s consolidated ruling in United States v. Davis and United States v. Hammon is a classic of the genre of consensus opinions to which the Roberts Court aspired in its first, transitional term. The opinion, authored by Justice Scalia, contains practical accommodations unusual in a decision by the Court’s fiercest proponent of first principles. The restraint that characterized the term is, of course, more about considerations of logistics (including the desire to avoid re-arguments after the mid-term replacement of Justice O’Connor) than about the alignment of logic. Because it reflects temporary institutional constraints rather than intellectual agreement, the …

Just Blowing Smoke? Politics, Doctrine, And The Federalist Revival After Gonzales V. Raich, Ernest A. Young

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Enslaved To Judicial Supremacy?, H. Jefferson Powell

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Reimagining The Marshall Court, H. Jefferson Powell

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Book Review, Thomas D. Rowe Jr.

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Behind Closed Doors, Peter G. Fish

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Justice Douglas And His Brethren: A Personal Recollection, William A. Reppy Jr.

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.