Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

Did The Court In Sffa Overrule Grutter?, Bill Watson

Notre Dame Law Review Reflection

In Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (SFFA), the Supreme Court held that affirmative action programs designed to comply with the precedent set in Grutter v. Bollinger were unlawful. Yet the Court nowhere said that it was overruling Grutter and, in fact, relied on Grutter as authority. Neither the Justices themselves nor subsequent commentators have been able to agree on what, if anything, remains of Grutter today. Did SFFA overrule Grutter or not? This Essay analyzes that question and its normative fallout. The Essay concludes that SFFA at least partially overruled Grutter and that …

Brief Of Amici Curiae Eugene Volokh, Richard W. Garnett, & Michael Stokes Paulsen In Support Of Petitioner, Brian D. Schmalzbach, Richard W. Garnett

Court Briefs

No. 23-74
Debra A. Vitagliano v. County of Westchester, New York

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

From the Summary of Argument

Even many steadfast supporters of abortion rights believed that the Court erroneously applied the First Amendment in Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 (2000). As put bluntly by leading liberal scholar Professor Laurence Tribe, Hill was among the candidates for “most blatantly erroneous” decisions of the 1999 Term. Tribe added that the case was “slam- dunk simple” yet the Court got it “slam-dunk wrong.”

Pro-choice …

Brief Of Professor Derek T. Muller As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Petition For Certiorari, Michael Francisco, Michael Brody, Derek T. Muller

Court Briefs

No. 22-1033
Eugene Mazo v. New Jersey Secretary of State

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

From the Summary of Argument

This Court has expressly held that the Anderson-Burdick balancing test for evaluating certain kinds of election laws does not extend to cases of pure political speech. McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334, 344 (1995). Laws restricting political speech are subject to strict scrutiny. Nevertheless, lower courts—including the Third Circuit in this case— continue to defy this Court’s guidance.

This case presents an important opportunity to …

Brief Of Federal Courts Professor Derek T. Muller As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Petitioners, Christopher G. Michel, Rachel G. Frank, Isabel R. Peraza, Katherine Schroeder, Derek T. Muller

Court Briefs

No. 22-824
The Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia v. Alexander Belya

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

From the Introduction and Summary of Argument

This case presents an exceptionally important question at the intersection of civil procedure and constitutional law. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, federal courts of appeals have jurisdiction over appeals from “final decisions of the district courts.” That provision, which “descends from the Judiciary Act of 1789,” has long been understood to confer appellate jurisdiction over more than just …

Brief Of Notre Dame Law School Religious Liberty Clinic As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Petitioner, John A. Meiser, Meredith Holland Kessler

Court Briefs

No. 22-741
Faith Bible Chapel International v. Gregory Tucker

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

From the Summary of Argument

The First Amendment demands that courts refrain from intruding into disputes over a religious organization’s selection of important leaders. The ministerial exception enforces that demand. And thus, nearly every court to consider the issue has agreed: the ministerial exception promises something akin to an immunity from suit, which must be resolved early in litigation to be effective.

Brief Of Religious Liberty Scholars And Employment Law Scholars As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioner, Douglas Laycock, John A. Meiser, Richard W. Garnett

Court Briefs

No. 22-174
Gerald E. Groff v. Louis DeJoy

On Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

From the Summary of Argument

This case demonstrates an error that has undermined protection for religious workers across the country, in defiance of clear statutory text and underlying principles of religious liberty.

Court-Packing In Context, Barry Cushman

Journal Articles

From the Introduction

There is a curious lacuna in the literature on the Court-packing crisis of 1937. The proposal for reform of the federal judiciary that received the most attention and consideration in that year was, of course, president Franklin D. Roosevelt’s proposal to enlarge the membership of the Supreme Court from nine to fifteen justices.1 Yet, both before and throughout the battle over the president’s “Court-packing plan,” members of Congress introduced a wide variety of alternative measures for addressing their dissatisfaction with recent Supreme Court decisions invalidating various state and federal laws designed to relieve economic distress and stimulate …

Living Traditionalism, Sherif Girgis

Journal Articles

From the Article

This Article offers the first comprehensive analysis of the Court’s living traditionalism, which turns out to include scores of cases spanning every subject and Justices of every stripe. Next, the Article identifies a fundamental but previously unrecognized tension in the method itself: If the Court gives living-traditionalist cases full weight as precedent, it defeats the reasons for using the method at all. Put another way, it is incoherent to treat political practices as a ratchet: capable of moving law in one direction (e.g., against a right in 2022) but not the other (in favor of the right …

Justice Breyer And The Establishment Clause: Notes On "Appeasement," "Legal Judgment," And "Divisiveness", Richard W. Garnett

Journal Articles

Stephen G. Breyer served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States for nearly three decades. And yet, during his long career and notwithstanding his wide-ranging interests, he never authored a majority opinion resolving a dispute about the meaning of that Amendment’s Establishment Clause. Nevertheless, Justice Breyer’s writings and record regarding the no-establishment rule are distinctive in at least three ways.

First, there is the fact that he did not vote uniformly with his more secularist colleagues in divided Establishment Clause cases. That is, he often resisted the stricter applications of the no-establishment rule endorsed by …

Speaking Of The Speech Or Debate Clause: Revising State Legislative Immunity, Shane Coughlin

Notre Dame Law Review Reflection

An increasing number of America’s most contentious issues will be resolved in state legislatures. Consequently, the ability of litigants to seek judicial review of a legislature’s actions is becoming more important. The scope of state legislative immunity, a federal common-law defense that provides state legislators with absolute immunity against certain lawsuits, will also increase in importance. A recent case involving New Hampshire’s legislature raises two significant questions about the scope of state legislative immunity. The first question entails how the United States Congress can abrogate the immunity, and the second question is whether legislators may claim the immunity when a …

Emergency-Docket Experiments, Edward L. Pickup, Hannah L. Templin

Notre Dame Law Review Reflection

This short Essay is the first to analyze the Court’s recent emer-gency-docket experiments and discuss their effectiveness. We conclude that the Court’s interventions have real benefits: giving emergency cases greater procedure improves transparency, boosts public confidence in the Court, and gives guidance to litigants and lower courts.

But experiments are often iterative—it is unusual to hit the right result the first time. So too with the Court’s emergency-docket tinkering. In tweaking its stay factors, the Justices have failed to give suffi-cient guidance to litigants about how those factors will apply in the future. Plus, in transferring Ramirez from the emergency …

Brief Of Professor Derek T. Muller In Support Of Applicant, Thomas R. Lee, John J. Nielsen, Tyler B. Lindley, Derek T. Muller

Court Briefs

No. 22A337
Senator Lindsey Graham v. Fulton County Special Purpose Grand Jury

On emergency application for a stay and injunction pending appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

From the Introduction and Summary of Argument

The merits of this case are colored by partisan overtones. But the overarching legal questions implicate nonpartisan, institutional concerns. The Speech or Debate Clause has deep historical roots that protect important interests in legislative independence. That independence requires strong protection for legislative inquiry under an objective standard rooted in the facial basis for a particular investigation. If courts intrude on …

Brief For Amicus Curiae Professor Derek T. Muller In Support Of Respondents, Daniel M. Sullivan, Daniel M. Horowitz, Derek T. Muller

Court Briefs

No. 21-1271
Timothy K. Moore v. Rebecca Harper

On Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of North Carolina

From the Summary of Argument

The petition for certiorari in this case presents the question whether the phrase “Legislature thereof” in the Elections Clause of the Constitution bars state courts from regulating the contours of Congressional redistricting pursuant to state constitutions. But Congress has spoken, too. It has regulated the manner of drawing congressional districts by federal statute. See 2 U.S.C. § 2c. Congressional redistricting in a State now takes place pursuant to this federal statutory directive, which contemplates a role …

Brief Of Amici Curiae Jewish Coalition For Religious Liberty, Islam & Religious Freedom Action Team Of The Religious Freedom Institute, And Notre Dame Law School Religious Liberty Clinic In Support Of Petitioners, John A. Meiser, Nicole Stelle Garnett

Court Briefs

No. 22-238
Charter Day School, Inc. v. Bonnie Peltier

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

From the Summary of Argument

The Fourth Circuit’s gross misapplication of state-action doctrine contradicts decades of precedent and expands the doctrine beyond its breaking point. If not corrected, that analysis would also endanger many vital public services provided by religious charitable groups and undermine this Court’s recent free-exercise cases in the process.

Brief Of Religious Liberty Scholars And Employment Law Scholars As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioner, Douglas Laycock, John A. Meiser, Richard W. Garnett

Court Briefs

No. 22-174
Gerald E. Groff v. Louis DeJoy

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

From the Summary of Argument

This case is an ideal vehicle for correcting an error that has undermined protection for religious workers across the country, in defiance of clear statutory text and underlying principles of religious liberty.

Brief Of Amicus Curiae Religious Freedom Institute In Support Of Petitioner, John A. Meiser, Nicole Stelle Garnett, Richard W. Garnett Iv, Francesca Genova Matozzo

Court Briefs

No. 21-1405
Lester J. Smith v. Timothy Ward

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

From the Summary of Argument

Lester Smith comes to this Court in unusual circumstances: the district court found that the Georgia Department of Corrections offered no rationale that could justify its prohibition on beards longer than half an inch under RLUIPA, and yet— without disputing that finding—the Eleventh Circuit ruled that the State may still enforce the half-inch limitation against Smith. The Eleventh Circuit’s denial of any relief from what has been shown to be …

Calling Balls And Strikes? Chief Justice Roberts In October Term 2019, Meghan Dalton

Notre Dame Law Review

Part I of this Note will outline the scope of the assignment power, focusing on the strategic considerations a Chief Justice can make in assigning opinions. Part II will analyze Roberts’s voting and assignment patterns in October Term 2019, specifically applying the earlier discussions to his assignment choices in three key cases decided this term. Part III will focus on Chief Justice Roberts’s jurisprudential values and explore how these concerns might have informed his decision making in October Term 2019. Finally, this Note concludes by asking to what extent Roberts’s recent assignment choices are consistent with his signature promise to …

Brief Of Amici Curiae Arbitration Scholars And Practitioners In Support Of Petitioners, Sarah A. Dowd, Eric B. Fisher, Travis A. Gonyou, Diane Desierto

Court Briefs

No. 21-1244
Beijing Shougang Mining Investment Company, Ltd. v. Mongolia

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

From the Summary of Argument

Parties to international arbitration and arbitral tribunals themselves value predictability and dependability. This is especially so for threshold questions concerning the authority of an arbitral tribunal to decide disputes over its own jurisdiction. Among international arbitration scholars and practitioners this threshold question is often known by the German term kompetenz-kompetenz, referring to the issue of competence to determine the competence of an arbitral panel to decide a dispute. …

State Rejection Of Federal Law, Thomas B. Bennett

Notre Dame Law Review

Sometimes the United States Supreme Court speaks, and states do not follow. For example, in 2003, the Arizona Supreme Court agreed to “reject” a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, because no “sound reasons justif[ied] following” it. Similarly, in 2006, Michigan voters approved a ballot initiative that, according to the legislature that drafted it, sought “at the very least[] to ‘freeze’ the state’s . . . law to prevent” state courts from following a ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court. Surprising though this language may be, there is nothing nefarious about these cases. Cooper v. Aaron this is not. Unlike …

Brief Of Amicus Curiae Notre Dame Law School Religious Liberty Initiative In Support Of Petitioner, Nicole Stelle Garnett, Richard W. Garnett Iv, Francesca Genova Matozzo, Steven A. Engel, Michael H. Mcginley

Court Briefs

No. 21-418
Joseph A. Kennedy v. Bremerton School District

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

From the Summary of Argument

This case offers the Court a much-needed opportunity to resolve the longstanding confusion caused by its conflicting and erroneous interpretations of the Establishment Clause. Although recent decisions clarify that the government may not suppress private religious expression, the Court has yet to clear away an undergrowth of older precedents that are often read to suggest the opposite. Rather than permit those outdated decisions to persist and perpetuate confusion, the Court should …

Brief Of Amici Curiae International Law Scholars In Support Of Petitioners, Beatrice Lindstrom, Tyler R. Giannini, Diane A. Desierto

Court Briefs

No. 21-995
Budha Jam v. International Finance Corporation

On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The District Of Columbia Circuit

From the Summary of Argument

The animating purpose of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1602-1611 (1976), is to remove immunity and preferential treatment for sovereign entities when they engage in private conduct such as commercial activity. In other words, sovereigns acting as private actors should be treated as private actors. The decision below undermines this raison d’être of the FSIA while raising an important and unsettled question: whether a …

"Grievously And Egregiously Wrong": American Abortion Jurisprudence, Alyson M. Cox, O. Carter Snead

Journal Articles

This paper considers American abortion jurisprudence in the light of the Supreme Court's grant of certiorari in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. We conclude that Casey and its precedent case of Roe are egregiously wrong, have no grounding in the Constitution, and are unjustifiable on stare decisis grounds. This article argues that the Court should take this opportunity to overturn Roe and Casey once and for all, and restore to the political branches of government the authority to enact laws and policies that offer comprehensive protections to mothers, children (born and unborn), and families. Just as both parties made …

Why The Equal-Protection Case For Abortion Rights Rises Or Falls With Roe's Rationale, Sherif Girgis

Journal Articles

From the Post

For nearly 50 years, legal scholars who favor Roe v. Wade’s outcome but scorn its rationale have tried to find firmer footing for a constitutional abortion right. Roe and its follow-on case, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, claimed to derive such a right from the Due Process Clause. That proved deeply controversial, for reasons laid out in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Most prochoice critics of Roe would have relied instead on the Equal Protection Clause. Scores of essays on abortion rights have endorsed, developed, and refined the equality arguments over decades. A book of proposals about …

Government Employee Speech And Forum Analysis, Randy J. Kozel

Journal Articles

This Article analyzes the institution of government employment as a nonpublic forum. Forum analysis offers a framework for bringing the doctrine of government employee speech into alignment with broader First Amendment principles. It also sharpens the theoretical contours of employee speech law by underscoring the need for vigilance against ordained orthodoxy while acknowledging the necessity of managerial discretion over institutional operations. Characterizing government employment as a nonpublic forum circumvents problematic questions like whether employee speech has provoked an adverse reaction. The proper inquiry, in the employment context as in other nonpublic forums, is whether a speech restriction is reasonable and …

Brief Of Amicus Curiae Notre Dame Law School Religious Liberty Initiative In Support Of Petitioners, Nicole Stelle Garnett, Richard W. Garnett Iv, John A. Meiser, Steven A. Engel, Michael H. Mcginley, Eric D. Hageman, Justin M. Romeo, Lincoln Davis Wilson

Court Briefs

No. 20-1800
Harold Shurtleff v. City of Boston

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

From the Summary of Argument

Invoking the specious rationale of “government speech,” the City of Boston unconstitutionally singled out religious expression for hostile treatment. By lumping speech based on “religion” together with speech deemed “inappropriate,” “offensive,” “discrimin[atory],” or “prejudice[d],” Pet.App.20, the City adopted the increasingly common view that promoting our Nation’s vibrant pluralism requires the exclusion of religious perspectives from the public square. But that view is antithetical to the Founders’ conception of religion as central—not peripheral—to …

Brief Of Religious-Liberty Scholars Douglas Laycock, Steven T. Collis, Helen M. Alvare, Nathan S. Chapman, Elizabeth A. Clark, Robert F. Cochran, Teresa S. Collett, W. Cole Durham, Jr., Carl H. Esbeck, Richard W. Garnett, Christopher C. Lund, Michael P. Moreland, And Michael Stokes Paulsen As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioner, Steven T. Collis, Douglas Laycock, Richard W. Garnett

Court Briefs

No. 21-5592
John H. Ramirez v. Bryan Collier

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

From the Summary of Argument

The state substantially burdens the exercise of religion if it coerces people to change their religious behavior or if it physically prevents religious behavior from occurring.

Brief For The Partnership For Inner-City Education, Council Of Islamic Schools In North America, And National Council Of Young Israel As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioners, Nicole Stelle Garnett, Richard W. Garnett Iv, John A. Meiser, Michael H. Mcginley

Court Briefs

No. 20-1088
David and Amy Carson v. A. Pender Makin

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

From the Summary of Argument

This Court should reverse the decision below and hold that the First Amendment permits no distinction between discrimination against religious groups based on their religious status and discrimination based on their religious use of generally available state benefits.

Brief Of Amici Curiae Benedictine College And Franciscan University Of Steubenville In Support Of Petitioners, Richard W. Garnett Iv, Nicole Stelle Garnett, John A. Meiser

Court Briefs

No. 21-145
Gordon College v. Margaret DeWeese-Boyd

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

From the Summary of Argument

This Court should grant certiorari to make clear that the First Amendment guarantees religious colleges and universities the same vital protections that safeguard a religious grade school’s freedom to select the teachers who personify and teach its faith. Despite this Court’s recent admonition that such protections apply to a religious school’s selection of “any ‘employee’ . . . who serves as a messenger or teacher of its faith,” Our Lady of Guadalupe Sch. v. …

Brief Of Amicus Curiae Ethics And Public Policy Center In Support Of Petitioners And Reversal, Richard W. Garnett, Charles J. Cooper, Peter A. Patterson, Brian W. Barnes, John D. Ohlendorf

Court Briefs

No. 19-1392
Thomas E. Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization

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

From the Introduction and Summary of the Argument

By the narrowest of margins, this Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), refused to overrule Roe—not because it thought Roe was correct, but because it thought Roe must endure as a matter of stare decisis. But 30 years later it has become clear that Casey, too, was egregiously wrong, for each one of the stare decisis factors cited by …

Brief For Professors Mary Ann Glendon And O. Carter Snead As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioners, Heather Gebelin Hacker, O. Carter Snead

Court Briefs

No. 19-1392
Thomas E. Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization

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

From the Summary of Argument

Mississippi’s 2018 Gestational Age Act, which prohibits abortions after 15 weeks gestational development (with exceptions for medical emergency or fetal abnormality) is quite modest in impact, more permissive than the vast majority of the laws on abortion around the world (including in all but three European nations), and appears to be broadly popular. But it seems to clearly violate the Supreme Court-made law of abortion, which forbids the State from …