Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

Brief Of First Amendment Scholars As Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioner, Joseph M. Terry, Stephen J. Fuzesi, James N. Sasso, Langston E. Ward, Richard W. Garnett

Court Briefs

No. 25-927
Richard Lowery v. Lillian Mills

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

From the Summary of Argument

The suppression of constitutionally protected speech violates the First Amendment. A speaker need not be punished to be able to state a cause of action if the government has suppressed or threatens to suppress his or her speech through other means. This Court, across decades, and in a range of contexts, repeatedly has reaffirmed that principle. It has done so in cases affirming that a party may challenge a criminal statute …

Brief Of Notre Dame Education Law Project, Notre Dame Program On Church, State & Society, And Lindsay And Matt Moroun Religious Liberty Clinic Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioners, Richard W. Garnett, Nicole Stelle Garnett, John A. Meiser

Court Briefs

No. 25-802
Foothills Christian Ministries v. Kim Johnson

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

From the Summary of Argument

The First Amendment guarantees religious institutions the power to conduct their internal affairs. Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey- Berru, 591 U.S. 732, 746 (2020). See also Cath. Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Lab. & Indus. Review Comm'n, 605 U.S. 238, 249 (2025); id. at 255 (Thomas, J., concurring). This principle of self-governance, known as the church autonomy doctrine, is an essential feature of the Constitution’s …

Two Questions For School-Choice Funding After Carson, Nicole Stelle Garnett, John A. Meiser

Journal Articles

In a series of recent cases, the Supreme Court of the United States has made clear that the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause prohibits religious discrimination in public benefit programs. That is, when the government creates a public benefit program, the Free Exercise Clause prohibits it from excluding private entities from participating because of their religious character or status or because they engage in religious conduct. This essay addresses two questions raised left unresolved by these cases and flags a third. The first question is, what is private? The religious nondiscrimination principle applies only when the government aids private conduct. …

Brief Of The Notre Dame Education Law Project, Islam And Religious Freedom Action Team, Jewish Coalition For Religious Liberty, And Manhattan Institute As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioners, John A. Meiser, Meredith Holland Kessler, Domenic Canonico

Court Briefs

No. 25-581
St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Lisa Roy

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

From the Summary of Argument

Three times in the last eight years, this Court has struck down efforts to exclude religious institutions from otherwise available funding programs. Each time, opponents of the Court’s decisions have sought to riddle them with holes, requiring the Court to intervene to prevent its rulings—and the First Amendment’s command against religious discrimination—from being so easily evaded. Regrettably, this Court must step in again, as some states, like Colorado, still …

A Crisis Of Consensus: The Supreme Court’S Legitimacy And Recent Challenges Thereto, Abby Ulman

Notre Dame Law Review

Part I retells the history of Supreme Court decisions—from the time when Justices followed the British practice of issuing seriatim opinions to the time of Chief Justice John Marshall who instituted a policy of a single opinion for the Court. This norm of consensus lasted 140 years, during which the Court decided more than ninety percent of its cases unanimously. However, modern practice has been marked by division and dissensus, which have incited rhetoric of delegitimization. Part II examines two types of consensuses. Section A discusses internal consensus, or the extent to which the Justices agree with each other. Yet …

Habeas Corpus And Void Judgments, David Kinnaird

Notre Dame Law Review

In a string of recent opinions, Justice Gorsuch and Justice Thomas have posited that postconviction relief upon a writ of habeas corpus was historically unavailable except where the judgment of conviction was issued by a court lacking jurisdiction. In light of this history, Justices Gorsuch and Thomas have argued for a reconsideration of the modern scope of the writ, which generally allows for relitigation of alleged constitutional error in the course of criminal trial.

This Article argues that Justices Gorsuch and Thomas have the history half right. They are correct to assert that a valid judgment of conviction was a …

Uniformity, Loper Bright, And The National Labor Relations Board: Can The Board’S Nonacquiescence Policy Survive In A Post-Chevron World?, Alexander Macdonald

Notre Dame Law Review Reflection

As chairman of the National Labor Relations Board, Donald Dotson was nothing if not controversial. Though he headed the Board for five years, he was never shy about criticizing the Board’s practices. He often argued that the Board had skewed its policies toward organized labor and inserted itself in disputes best left to private negotiation. That criticism put him at odds with his fellow Board members and frequently landed him on the wrong side of divided opinions. Even members who shared his core philosophy sometimes shied away from joining his assaults on the Board itself.

So it was on September …

What Is Trump Immunity?, Carlos M. Vázquez

Notre Dame Law Review Reflection

By definition, the immunity of a former President is not an immunity ratione personae, as this sort of immunity applies only to current officeholders. It is an immunity ratione materiae extending only to certain types of acts. The Court in Trump made clear that the immunity a former President enjoys is at least an immunity from judicial proceedings. It is for this reason that she is entitled to an immediate appeal from the denial of a motion to dismiss the claim against her. The Court left unclear whether the President’s immunity is also an immunity from primary obligations or an …

Brief For Petitioner St. Isidore Of Seville Catholic Virtual School, John A. Meiser, Meredith H. Kessler, Michael R. Perri, Socorro A. Dooley, Michael H. Mcginley, Steven A. Engel, Brian A. Kulp, Anthony R. Jadick, Julia M. Fitzgerald, Cory J. Kopicki

Court Briefs

Nos. 24-396, 24-394
St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v. Gentner Drummond, Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Gentner Drummond

On Writ of Certiorari to the Oklahoma Supreme Court

From the Summary of Argument

The decision below contravenes the Constitution and this Court’s precedents several times over. It spurned the free exercise guarantees this Court has repeatedly upheld. It violated the state-action doctrine by treating a privately run religious school as an arm of the government. And it distorted the Establishment Clause beyond recognition.

Brief For Religious Liberty Scholars In Support Of Petitioners, Mark S. Storslee, Kevin T. Baine, Richard S. Cleary Jr., Ian M. Swenson, Joshua A. Hanley, Richard W. Garnett

Court Briefs

No. 24-154
Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. State of Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Wisconsin

From the Summary of Argument

The First Amendment’s Religion Clauses prohibit the government from answering religious questions or discriminating among religions. At a minimum, that means courts may not dole out protection to some religious groups but not others based on favored or supposedly ‘typical’ religious activities. When administering statutory exemptions whose beneficiaries are religious organizations, courts may not gainsay organizations’ sincere religious beliefs to impose their own view …

The Erie Scoop, Barry Cushman

Journal Articles

APRIL 25, 1938 WAS A BUSY DAY at the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court decided twelve cases by full opinion and six cases per curiam, granted certiorari in two cases and denied it in twenty-eight others, and denied two petitions for rehearing. The decision that received the most attention sustained a challenge to a directive of Secretary of Agriculture Henry A. Wallace setting maximum rates to be charged by commission men working at the Kansas City Stockyards. The Court found that the regulated parties had not been afforded a “full,” “fair and open hearing” before the rate …

Going En Banc, Randy J. Kozel

Journal Articles

This Article examines the law of en banc review in the federal courts of appeals. It explores key doctrinal questions and advances a theory that maintains the primacy of three judge panels by focusing the en banc process on a specialized set of institutional tasks.

Originalism's Difference?, Sherif Girgis

Journal Articles

From the Aritcle

My topic is whether originalism makes any practical difference to constitutional reasoning and outcomes, relative to other methods of interpretation.

INTRODUCTION ............................................. 1945

I. JUSTICE SCALIA'S VISION OF CONTRASTS .................. 1949

II. THE BREAKDOWN OF CONTRASTS ........................... 1952

III. REMAINING CONTRASTS: REAL BUT ELUSIVE TO THEORY....................................................... 1961

IV. THE CHAMBERS ORIGINALISM DIFFERENCE .................. 1966

CONCLUSION: LOOKING AHEAD ................................ 1973

Brief Of Lindsay And Matt Moroun Religious Liberty Clinic As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Petitioners, John A. Meiser, Domenic Canonico

Court Briefs

No. 24-319
Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany v. Adrienne A. Harris

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the New York State Court of Appeals

From the Summary of Argument

New York’s abortion-coverage mandate requires many faith-based organizations to violate their deeply held religious beliefs about the sanctity of life. The exemption New York offers to only a narrowly drawn, ill-defined subset of preferred religious groups does not remedy that dramatic intrusion into free exercise rights. Indeed, it only compounds the problem.

Brief Amici Curiae Of Religious Liberty Law Scholars In Support Of Petitioner, W. Thomas Wheeler, Thomas C. Berg, Richard W. Garnett

Court Briefs

No. 24-291
Apache Stronghold v. United States

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

From the Introduction and Summary of Argument

The federal government owns the land at Oak Flat, where Apache people have worshiped and conducted ceremonies for centuries. As the district court’s findings show, “Apaches view Oak Flat as a ‘direct corridor’ to their Creator’s spirit”—a place “‘uniquely endowed with holiness and medicine’”—“and neither ‘the powers resident there, nor [the Apaches’] religious activities . . . can be relocated.’” App. 201a (opinion of Murguia, C.J.) (quoting Apache Stronghold …

Brief Of Apache Elder Ramon Riley, Professor Michalyn Steele, And Six Native American Rights And Cultural Heritage Organizations As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioner, John A. Meiser, Meredith H. Kessler

Court Briefs

No. 24-291
Apache Stronghold v. United States of America

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

From the Summary of Argument

Meaningful access to sacred sites such as Oak Flat is an indispensable part of many Indigenous tribes’ religious exercise. Nonetheless, the government has repeatedly denied necessary access to these sites, and even destroyed them, thwarting the ability of tribal members to exercise core aspects of their spiritual practices. Regrettably, the Ninth Circuit’s errant decision denies the Apache people critical legal protections against such destruction—and thus only invites the …

Brief Of Amici Curiae Federal Courts Scholars In Support Of Movants, Ryan J. Walsh, Derek T. Muller

Court Briefs

No. 158, Original
Alabama v. California

On Motion for Leave to File Bill of Complaint

From the Introduction and Summary of Argument

The resolution of state-against-state actions is a core function of this Court under our constitutional structure’s original design, which depends upon the peaceful resolution of interstate conflicts. The Framers assigned these suits to this Court precisely because they cannot be heard by state courts and because they raise serious matters of federal harmony.

This Court should grant the motion for leave to file a bill of complaint. Amici express no view on any other procedural or merits issues …

Brief Of The Manhattan Institute And Notre Dame Education Law Project As Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioners, Nicole Stelle Garnett, Ilya Shapiro, Tim Rosenberger

Court Briefs

No. 23-1084
Jill Hile v. Michigan

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

From the Background and Summary of Argument

Petitioners are members of Parent Advocates for Choice in Education Foundation (PACE), which seeks to protect and further educational rights. They contend that Art. VIII, § 2 of the Michigan constitution discriminates against religion. Accordingly, its enforcement would violate the Free Exercise Clause.

Tying Law For The Digital Age, Daniel A. Crane

Notre Dame Law Review

Tying arrangements, a central concern of antitrust policy since the early days of the Sherman and Clayton Acts, have come into renewed focus with respect to the practices of dominant technology companies. Unfortunately, tying law’s doctrinal structure is a self-contradictory and incoherent wreck. A conventional view holds that this mess is due to errant Supreme Court precedents, never fully corrected, that expressed hostility to tying based on faulty economic understanding. That is only part of the story. Examination of tying law’s origins and development shows that tying doctrine was built on a now-dated paradigm of what constitutes a tying arrangement. …

Admiralty, Abstention, And The Allure Of Old Cases, Maggie Gardner

Notre Dame Law Review

The current Supreme Court has made clear that history matters. But doing history well is hard. There is thus an allure to old cases because they provide a link to the past that is more accessible for nonhistorian lawyers. This Article warns against that allure by showing how the use of old cases also poses methodological challenges. The Article uses as a case study the emerging doctrine of foreign relations abstention. Before the Supreme Court, advocates argued that this new doctrine is in fact rooted in early admiralty cases. Those advocates did not, however, canvass the early admiralty practice, relying …

Pretrial Commitment And The Fourth Amendment, Laurent Sacharoff

Notre Dame Law Review

Today, the Fourth Amendment Warrant Clause governs arrest warrants and search warrants only. But in the founding era, the Warrant Clause governed a third type of warrant: the “warrant of commitment.” Judges issued these warrants to jail defendants pending trial. This Article argues that the Fourth Amendment Warrant Clause, with its oath and probable cause standard, should be understood today to apply to this third type of warrant. That means the Warrant Clause would govern any initial appearance where a judge first commits a defendant—a process that currently falls far short of fulfilling its constitutional and historical function. History supports …

Who Is A Minister? Originalist Deference Expands The Ministerial Exception, Jared C. Huber

Notre Dame Law Review

The ministerial exception is a doctrine born out of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment that shields many religious institutions’ employment decisions from review. While the ministerial exception does not extend to all employment decisions by, or employees of, religious institutions, it does confer broad—and absolute—protection. While less controversy surrounds whether the Constitution shields religious institutions’ employment decisions to at least some extent, much more debate surrounds the exception’s scope, and perhaps most critically, which employees fall under it. In other words, who is a "minister" for purposes of the ministerial exception?

On Traditionalism In Free Speech Law, R. George Wright

Journal of Legislation

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Professor Derek T. Muller As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Neither Party, Heather Gebelin Hacker, Derek T. Muller

Court Briefs

No. 23-719
Donald J. Trump v. Norma Anderson

On Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Colorado

From the Summary of Argument

States hold the power to adjudicate the qualifications of presidential candidates. That power extends to the general election, even though the election is formally a process to appoint presidential electors. And that power extends to the primary election, even though state voters are formally selecting delegates to a party’s nominating convention. But states have no obligation to evaluate the qualifications of presidential candidates, and states may choose to permit openly unqualified presidential candidates to appear on the …

Presidential Adjudication, Emily S. Bremer

Journal Articles

Over the last several decades, administrative law has recognized an expanding role for the President in controlling agency decision making. Agency adjudication—and especially formal hearings conducted under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”)—have been viewed as properly insulated from this development. To protect due process, the APA established a regime for ensuring that competent, impartial Administrative Law Judges (“ALJs”) preside over formal hearings. The regime includes two apparent levels of for-cause removal protection for ALJs combined with robust agency head control over the policymaking aspects of formal adjudication. Today, the regime is in peril because it appears to be inconsistent with …

Originalism’S Age Of Ironies, Sherif Girgis

Journal Articles

From the Article

Guns, abortion, religious establishments, Presidential power: While today’s Supreme Court identifies as originalist, it has settled constitutional questions on these and many other issues using history and tradition, not just original meaning. Scholars debate whether this trend can be squared with originalism. Last Term, the originalist Justices joined the fray. A close look at their dueling opinions reveals the divergent paths that originalists take when the method is pressed to its limits. It turns out that the purer one’s originalism at the level of theory, the less it constrains judges in practice. That is especially true for …

Ideological Leanings In Likely Pro Bono Biglaw Amicus Briefs In The United States Supreme Court, Derek T. Muller

Journal Articles

Each term, the United States Supreme Court receives hundreds of amicus briefs filed in merits docket cases. Many of the largest law firms file amicus briefs before the United States Supreme Court. These amicus briefs are often pro bono, which means the clients do not pay for the firm to file the brief. That pro bono work can quickly total millions of dollars of legal briefing subsidized by the law firm. And pro bono work often reflects the law firm’s desire to work for its prior commitments to what it identifies as the "public good."

Controversies have arisen in recent …

State Sovereign Immunity And The New Purposivism, Anthony J. Bellia Jr., Bradford R. Clark

Journal Articles

Since the Constitution was first proposed, courts and commentators have debated the extent to which it alienated the States’ preexisting sovereign immunity from suit by individuals. During the ratification period, these debates focused on the language of the citizen-state diversity provisions of Article III. After the Supreme Court read these provisions to abrogate state sovereign immunity in Chisholm v. Georgia, Congress and the States adopted the Eleventh Amendment to prohibit this construction. The Court subsequently ruled that States enjoy sovereign immunity independent of the Eleventh Amendment, which neither conferred nor diminished it. In the late twentieth-century, Congress began enacting statutes …

Does The Discourse On 303 Creative Portend A Standing Realignment?, Richard M. Re

Notre Dame Law Review Reflection

Perhaps the most surprising feature of the last Supreme Court Term was the extraordinary public discourse on 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. According to many commentators, the Court decided what was really a “fake” or “made-up” case brought by someone who asserted standing merely because “she worries.” As a doctrinal matter, these criticisms are unfounded. But what makes this episode interesting is that the criticisms came from the legal Left, which has long been associated with expansive principles of standing. Doubts about standing in 303 Creative may therefore portend a broader standing realignment, in which liberal Justices become jurisdictionally hawkish. …

An Originalist Approach To Prospective Overruling, John O. Mcginnis, Michael Rappaport

Notre Dame Law Review

Originalism has become a dominant jurisprudential theory on the Supreme Court. But a large number of precedents are inconsistent with the Constitution’s original meaning and overturning them risks creating enormous disruption to the legal order. This article defends a prospective overruling approach that would harmonize precedent with originalism’s rise and reduce the disruption from overrulings. Under prospective overruling, the Court declares that an existing statute violates the original meaning but will continue to be enforced because declaring it unconstitutional would produce enormous costs; however, future statutes of this type will be voided as unconstitutional. Under our approach, the Court would …