Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

The Paradox Of Intellectual Property At The U.S. Supreme Court, Tonja Jacobi, Matthew Sag

Faculty Articles

The Supreme Court is dramatically more politically polarized in the Roberts Court era, and the justices have been criticized for highly ideological and partisan decision-making. Yet, we show that there is one area of law that is becoming less ideologically divided and predictable: intellectual property (IP). In an earlier study, we showed that, prior to the Roberts Court, IP case outcomes were predictable based on judicial ideology, with more conservative justices embracing IP rights, as they do for real property. In the last two decades, IP has become more influential on the economy and society, through the increasing dominance of …

The Forgotten Income-Attribution Power, Alex Zhang

Faculty Articles

Economic inequality stands at record levels, and constitutional law haunts egalitarian reform. In 2024, the Supreme Court decided the latest contest. Moore v. United States rebuffed an attempt to sharply limit the federal taxing power, as a razor-thin majority upheld Congress’s attribution of foreign corporations’ income to domestic shareholders. But four Justices criticized the reasoning of the majority, faulting its use of a fabricated doctrine.

This Feature provides a systematic account of Congress’s income-attribution power. It excavates overlooked litigation materials and case law from the infancy of the current federal income tax. In the 1920s and 1930s, litigants attacked, on …

Do We Really Want Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justices Practicing Law? A Public Policy Critique To U.S. Supreme Court Term Limits, Michael J. Broyde, Hayden H. Hall

Faculty Articles

In its 2021 final report, the Presidential Commission on Judicial Reform discussed the merits of implementing term limits for Supreme Court justices. The Commission began by acknowledging that eighteen-year, non-renewable terms have considerable bipartisan support, including the support of both Conservative and Progressive scholars at the National Constitution Center, whose proposals for improving the Constitution included term limits for justices. They continued by weighing the pros and cons of implementing term limits via constitutional amendment or statute, addressing, in turn, the specifics of what these limits might look like—whether a twelve or eighteen-year term is preferable, how a transition from …

The Enduring Crisis In Teaching Constitutional Law, Patrick J. Sobkowski

Emory Law Journal Online

Constitutional law is in crisis. The 6-3 conservative majority of the Supreme Court has generally produced the desired results of the current Republican Party. This has led to calls of illegitimacy, activism, and partisanship from left-liberal and progressive scholars and politicians. In 2024, Jesse Wegman published an opinion essay in the New York Times documenting these criticisms from progressive law professors. In this essay, I argue that there is nothing unique about the current crisis. Rather, the political nature of cases is a result of “juristocracy,” which knows no party. In light of this, I provide important context and argue …

Recusal Reform: Treating A Justice's Disqualification As A Legal Issue, Michael J. Broyde, Hayden H. Hall

Faculty Articles

This article addresses the pressing issue of recusal in the U.S. Supreme Court. It critiques the current practice of Supreme Court Justices deciding individually whether to recuse themselves from cases, highlighting the flaws and potential biases inherent in this practice. The authors advocate for a reform where initial recusal decisions are made by individual Justices but then are subject to review by the Supreme Court as a whole.

The article offers several arguments to support this proposal. First, the authors explore the evolution of recusal laws, focusing on the significant amendments to 28 U.S.C. § 455 in 1948 and 1974. …

Chevron Stare Decisis In A Post-Loper Bright World, Jonathan R. Nash

Faculty Articles

In its June 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Supreme Court jettisoned the longstanding Chevron doctrine, which had directed courts to defer to agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes. The Loper Bright Court attempted to minimize the substantial effect this change would have on administrative law and governance by declaring that “[t]he holdings” of cases that relied on the Chevron test to conclude “that specific agency actions are lawful...are still subject to statutory stare decisis despite our change in interpretive methodology.” But there are two problems with Chevron stare decisis. First, Chevron stare decisis is …

Anti-Liberal Rights Retrenchment As A Threat To The Rule Of Law, Paul Gowder

Emory Law Journal

The Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, overturning the half-century old constitutional right to reproductive choice, is only the most prominent example of a global series of attacks on rights of personal, sexual, and family autonomy. The attacks on LGBTQ+ rights by the Christian nationalist governments of Hungary and Poland are another important example. A cadre of anti-liberal scholars and public intellectuals such as Patrick Deneen, Sohrab Ahmari, and Adrian Vermeule serve as the intelligentsia within this global reactionary movement, advocating for the direct importation of far-right values into the law of western states …

Non-Uniformity Is The New Uniformity: Inconsistent Quarterly Fees And Why The Bankruptcy Administrator System Must Go, Cody Turner

Emory Bankruptcy Developments Journal

The Bankruptcy Clause’s call for uniformity is one of the more mysterious and unstudied constitutional constraints on bankruptcy, yet it is an ever-present policy consideration. It is a flexible guidepost that functions as a minor constraint on bankruptcy law. However, courts have recently allowed this guidepost to bend too much. When the courts upheld a split bankruptcy administration system as constitutionally uniform, it set the stage for needless, avoidable litigation. The most recent examples of such needless litigation are the Supreme Court cases of Siegel v. Fitzgerald and Office of the United States Trustee v. John Q. Hammons Fall …

Third-Party Bankruptcy Releases And The Separation Of Powers: A Stern Look, Henry Reynolds

Emory Bankruptcy Developments Journal

In the last few years, bankruptcy scholars and professionals have criticized mass tort debtors’ use of chapter 11 bankruptcy as a litigation forum. One such criticism concerns mass tort debtors’ use of third-party releases: provisions in chapter 11 reorganization plans that enjoin creditors’ claims against non-debtor third parties. If a bankruptcy court approves such releases, creditors lose claims against the released third parties, which often include the debtor’s directors, insurers, or employees.

Third-party releases have troubled many. Critics and courts have said that third-party releases violate (1) the Bankruptcy Code, (2) bankruptcy policy, (3) the constitutional right to due process, …

The Unconstitutional Conditions Vacuum In Criminal Procedure, Kay L. Levine, Jonathan R. Nash, Robert A. Schapiro

Faculty Articles

For more than a century, the Supreme Court has applied the unconstitutional conditions doctrine in many contexts, scrutinizing government efforts to condition the tradeoff of rights for benefits with regard to speech, funding, and takings, among others. The Court has declined, however, to invoke the doctrine in the area of criminal procedure, where people accused of crime are often asked to—and often do—surrender their constitutional rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments in return for some benefit. Despite its insistence that the unconstitutional conditions doctrine applies broadly across the Bill of Rights, the Court’s jurisprudence demonstrates that the doctrine …

Second-Class Administrative Law: Lincoln V. Vigil'S Puzzling Presumption Of Unreviewability, Matthew B. Lawrence

Faculty Articles

Administrative law ordinarily presumes that someone hurt by “arbitrary and capricious” agency action may seek relief in federal court unless Congress says otherwise. Administrative law does the opposite, however, when the harmful agency action happens to be one “allocating a lump-sum appropriation” (whatever that means). When it comes to spending programs that courts deem to fit in this ill-defined category, agency actions are presumptively immune from judicial review, insulated from the safeguards of administrative law no matter how arbitrary.

This Article looks behind the superficial, technocratic simplicity of the presumption of unreviewability through a novel, person-sensitive study of its origins …

When Is Legal Methodology Binding?, Jonathan R. Nash

Faculty Articles

Common-law interpretive methodologies are mostly nonbinding, but some interpretive methodologies are seen as binding precedent. This Article offers an explanation for this state of affairs. Whereas the extant scholarship on common-law interpretive methodologies offers descriptive accounts (often assuming that common-law methodologies are per se nonbinding) and normative analysis, this Article fills a gap in the literature by providing a realist explanation for the legal landscape of binding interpretive methodologies. It identifies whether a methodology is rule-like, and whether it increases judicial legitimacy and/or court power as “pull factors”—that is, incentives that might attract judges to recognize interpretive methodologies as binding. …

Pyrrhic Victories: The Mirage Of Winning At The Supreme Court, Tonja Jacobi, Clare G. Willis

Faculty Articles

We conduct in-depth archival research of landmark constitutional criminal procedure cases and find two ways in which the declarations of the vindication of rights they contain are misleading. First, most defendants who successfully establish police violations of their constitutional rights before the highest court in the land nonetheless remain in prison for years or decades subsequently. The multitude of ways in which the state can convict the individual defendant even in the face of one or more constitutional violations means that the Supreme Court precedents that bear their names seldom translate to genuine wins for the defendants. Second, there are …

A New Great Awakening Of Religious Freedom In America, John Witte Jr.

Faculty Articles

While loud criticisms of religion continue to clatter in the media and the law reviews, the U.S. Supreme Court has led a great awakening of American religious freedom. In more than two dozen cases since 2011, the Court has used both the First Amendment and federal statutes to strengthen the rights of religious organizations to make their own internal decisions about employment and employee benefits. The Court has held that some forms of government aid to religion and religious education are not only permissible under the Establishment Clause, but also required under the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses. The …

Anna Nicole's Constitutional Estates Law Legacy, David Fagundes

Faculty Articles

This Essay examines Anna Nicole's surprising constitutional estates legacy in three parts. First, it overviews the bitter litigation between Anna Nicole and the estate of J. Howard Marshall II. It then turns to the pair of Supreme Court cases spawned by that litigation. Part II discusses the holding and significance of Marshall v. Marshall, a successful challenge to the scope of the wills exception to federal jurisdiction. Part III dis­cusses the holding and significance of Stern v. Marshall, which held that Article I bankruptcy judges cannot enter final judgments on state law counterclaims. In its Conclusion, the Essay …

Derailing Democracy, Shrinking Responsibility: The New Election Law Landscape, Cory Conley, Tonja Jacobi

Faculty Articles

In democracy jurisprudence, the Roberts Court wears two faces. Its most recent duo of cases illustrates the inconsistency. In Rucho v. Common Cause, the Court ruled that even grossly partisan gerrymanders are nonjusticiable in federal courts. Yet, in Moore v. Harper, the Court rejected granting unreviewable authority to state lawmakers to regulate federal elections—for now. This combination of rulings is not ideological moderation or judicial restraint, as the Court claims. These recent cases are emblematic of broader unpredictability and selectivity in election law. The assertions of judicial humility in Rucho stand in stark contrast to the bald activism …

The Worst Choice For School Choice: Tuition Tax Credits Are A Bad Idea And Direct Funding Is Wiser, Michael J. Broyde, Anna G. Gabianelli

Faculty Articles

School choice is on the rise, and states use various mechanisms to implement it. One prevalent mechanism is also a uniquely problematic one: the tax credit. Tax credits are deficient at equitably distributing a benefit like school choice; they are costly, and they invite fraud. Instead of using tax credits, states opting for school choice programs should use direct funding. Direct funding will more efficiently achieve the goals of school choice because it can be regulated like any other government benefit, even if it ends up subsidizing religious private schools.

Tax credits’ prevalence is not inexplicable, of course. It is …

Institutional Design And The Predictability Of Judicial Interruptions At Oral Argument, Tonja Jacobi, Patrick Leslie, Zoë Robinson

Faculty Articles

Examining oral argument in the Australian High Court and comparing to the U.S. Supreme Court, this article shows that institutional design drives judicial interruptive behavior. Many of the same individual- and case-level factors predict oral argument behavior. Notably, despite orthodoxy of the High Court as “apolitical,” ideology strongly predicts interruptions, just as in the United States. Yet, important divergent institutional design features between the two apex courts translate into meaningful behavioral differences, with the greater power of the Chief Justice resulting in differences in interruptions. Finally, gender effects are lower and only identifiable with new methodological techniques we develop and …

The Past As A Colonialist Resource, Deepa Das Acevedo

Faculty Articles

Originalism’s critics have failed to block its rise. For many jurists and legal scholars, the question is no longer whether to espouse originalism but how to espouse it. This Article argues that critics have ceded too much ground by focusing on discrediting originalism as either bad history or shoddy linguistics. To disrupt the cycle of endless “methodological” refinements and effectively address originalism’s continued popularity, critics must do two things: identify a better disciplinary analogue for originalist interpretation and advance an argument that moves beyond methods.

Anthropology can assist with both tasks. Both anthropological analysis and originalist interpretation are premised on …

Rethinking Eisner V. Macomber, And The Future Of Structural Tax Reform, Alex Zhang

Faculty Articles

In June 2023, the Supreme Court granted the petition for a writ of certiorari in Moore v. United States, ostensibly a challenge to an obscure provision of the 2017 tax legislation. Moore’s real target is the constitutionality of federal wealth and accrual taxation, which policymakers have proposed to combat record inequality and raise revenue for social-welfare reform. At the center of the doctrinal dispute in Moore is a century-old case, Eisner v. Macomber, on which the Moore petitioners and other commentators have relied to argue that Congress has no power to tax wealth or unrealized gains—e.g., appreciation …

Chapter 13: Let’S Call The Whole Thing Off, Lawrence Ponoroff

Emory Bankruptcy Developments Journal

Courts cannot agree on much of anything about chapter 13, and legislators cannot agree and are confused over what to do about it. This state of affairs benefits no one and shows no signs of abating. So, in this Article, I propose to throw in the towel by imagining a world without chapter 13. Spoiler alert: although I am not superstitious, with just a few tweaks and tucks to chapter 7, I think the Bankruptcy Code might just be better off operating like a high-rise elevator that goes directly from floor twelve to floor fourteen. I will lay it out …

The Rise Of General Jurisdiction Over Out-Of-State Enterprises In The United States, Peter Hay

Emory International Law Review

In June 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court continued its revision of personal jurisdiction law, in this case by refining, thereby perhaps expanding, the law of when a court may exercise general personal jurisdiction – that is, jurisdiction over all claims – over a non-resident person or an out-of-state enterprise. In Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., it held in a 4+1:4 decision that, when a state requires a non-resident company to register to do business in the state and such registration constitutes consent to jurisdiction over all claims against it, such exercise is permitted. In reaching its conclusion, the Court …

Personal Jurisdiction And The Fairness Factor(S), Megan M. La Belle

Emory Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Coming Copyright Judge Crisis, Saurabh Vishnubhakat, David Fagundes

Faculty Articles

Commentary about the Supreme Court’s 2021 decision in United States v. Arthrex, Inc. has focused on the nexus between patent and administrative law. But this overlooks the decision’s seismic and as-yet unappreciated implication for copyright law: Arthrex renders the Copyright Royalty Board (“CRB”) unconstitutional. The CRB has suffered constitutional challenge since its 2004 inception, but these were seemingly resolved in 2011 when the D.C. Circuit held that the CRB’s composition did not offend the Appointments Clause as long as Copyright Royalty Judges (“CRJs”) were removable at-will. But when the Court invalidated the selection process for administrative patent judges …

Discovering Ebay's Impact On Copyright Injunctions Through Empirical Evidence, Matthew Sag, Pamela Samuelson

Faculty Articles

This Article reports on new empirical evidence discrediting the widely held view that judges have resisted applying the Supreme Court’s teachings in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. about injunctive relief in copyright cases. That 2006 patent law decision ruled that courts should not automatically issue injunctions upon a finding of infringement; instead, plaintiffs must prove their entitlement to injunctive relief. eBay had a seismic impact on patent litigation and greatly reduced the threat that small infringements could be leveraged into billion-dollar settlements. Yet prior empirical work, at least one major copyright law treatise, and many articles assert that eBay had …

Bad Faith Prosecution, Ann Woolhandler, Jonathan R. Nash, Michael G. Collins

Faculty Articles

There is no shortage of claims by parties that their prosecutions are politically motivated, racially motivated, or just plain arbitrary. In our increasingly polarized society, such claims are more common than ever. Donald Trump campaigned on promises to lock up Hillary Clinton for her handling of State Department-related emails, but he subsequently complained that the special counsel's investigation of his campaign's alleged contacts with Russian operatives was a politically motivated witch hunt. Kenneth Starr's pursuit of investigations of Bill Clinton evoked similar arguments of political motivation.

The advent of "progressive" prosecutors will no doubt increase claims of bad faith prosecution, …

Supreme Court Interruptions And Interventions: The Changing Role Of The Chief Justice, Tonja Jacobi, Matthew Sag

Faculty Articles

Interruptions at Supreme Court oral argument have received much attention in recent years, particularly the disproportionate number of interruptions directed at the female Justices. The Supreme Court changed the structure of oral argument to try to address this problem. This Article assesses whether the frequency and gender disparity of interruptions of Justices improved in recent years, and whether the structural change in argument helped. It shows that interruptions decreased during the pandemic but then resurged to near-record highs, as has the gender disparity in Justice-to-Justice interruptions. However, although the rate of advocate interruptions of Justices also remains historically high, for …

The New Fourth Era Of American Religious Freedom, John Witte Jr., Eric Wang

Faculty Articles

The U.S. Supreme Court has entered decisively into a new fourth era of American religious freedom. In the first era, from 1776 to 1940, the Court largely left governance of religious freedom to the individual states and did little to enforce the First Amendment Religion Clauses. In the second era, from 1940 to 1990, the Court “incorporated” the First Amendment into the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause and applied both a strong Free Exercise Clause and a strong Establishment Clause against federal, state, and local governments alike. In the third era, from the mid-1980s to 2010, the Court softened the …

The Summary Judgment Revolution That Wasn't, Jonathan R. Nash, D. Daniel Sokol

Faculty Articles

The U.S. Supreme Court decided a trilogy of cases on summary judgment in 1986. Questions remain as to how much effect these cases have had on judicial decision-making in terms of wins and losses for plaintiffs. Shifts in wins, losses, and what cases get to decisions on the merits impact access to justice. We assemble novel datasets to examine this question empirically in three areas of law that are more likely to respond to shifts in the standard for summary judgment: antitrust, securities regulation, and civil rights. We find that the Supreme Court’s decisions had a statistically significant effect in …

Response To Professor Dinner, Martha Albertson Fineman

Faculty Articles

I want to thank the Texas A&M Law Review for including my work in this special Issue and express my appreciation to Professor Dinner for her thoughtful comments concerning the evolution of my scholarship. Professor Dinner raises the question of whether that earlier work is relevant to the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization opinion, specifically, and to broader issues of reproductive justice, more generally. For me, Dobbs illustrates—once again—how our American obsession with both individual rights and Supreme Court jurisprudence can distort our sense of the possibilities for achieving social (or reproductive) justice. I see my work as an …