Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

Revisiting “Of Arms And The Militia: Gun Regulation By Legislatively Defining ‘Ordinary Military Equipment’”, Edward J. Curtis ,Jr.

Touro Law Review

In 2021, I published an article arguing that semi-automatic rifles and semi-automatic handguns, among other weapons, could be most effectively regulated by defining the “ordinary military equipment” that the states’ militia members were expected to produce in the event they were called to service. I based my argument on the rationale employed by the United States Supreme Court in its 1939 decision in United States v. Miller, which upheld the National Firearms Act of 1934.

Excavating Miranda, Samuel J. Levine

Scholarly Works

Sixty years after it was decided, Miranda v. Arizona remains one of the most significant and renowned cases—as well as, arguably, one of the most controversial cases—in the history of the United States. Chief Justice Earl Warren’s majority opinion, establishing the eponymous Miranda warnings for custodial interrogation of criminal suspects, has prompted voluminous and continuing commentary, among both critics and supporters. This Article is part of an ongoing project exploring a particular aspect of Chief Justice Warren’s majority opinion: a footnote referencing Jewish legal sources, documenting an important passage at the start of a pivotal section of the opinion.

Building …

On Guido Calabresi, Roger K. Newman

Touro Law Review

Few individuals have had as long and as influential a career in law as Guido Calabresi. Cofounder of the field of law and economics, teacher, dean, and judge, he has inspired (and infuriated) multitudes. On the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, where he has served for thirty years (while continuing to teach until recently), his creativity and doctrinal innovations continue apace. He has urged the academy, legislature, and bench alike to engage in continuing conversation to improve the law and its effect upon those to whom it acts. One of these areas is certification—the practice of …

On Becoming And Being A Criminal Defense Attorney, Steven B. Duke

Touro Law Review

Steven B. Duke grew up in a tiny farming community in Arizona. In college, he experienced injustice during an encounter with the police and decided to attend law school. As a result of his success at the University of Arizona Law School, Duke was offered a clerkship with Justice William O. Douglas for the 1959-60 Supreme Court term. As Duke describes in this article, working for Justice Douglas was a rewarding and demanding experience. Douglas, probably the most liberal Justice ever to serve on the Supreme Court, had a dazzling intellect and wrote many books on all manner of subjects. …

Unboxing The Box: A Deep Dive Into Solitary Confinement And When It May Violate The First And Eighth Amendments, Madison Scarfaro

Touro Law Review

Solitary confinement has been a practice used for those who are incarcerated in our criminal justice system for hundreds of years. Our nation, as well as our society have evolved and continue to evolve over the course of hundreds of years. However, the use of solitary confinement has not. Even with all of the research and literature surrounding the monstrosities that come about from solitary confinement, it is still used in most of our jails and prisons to this day. The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel …

Second Amendment: Incompatible Methodologies And The Bruen And Heller Opinions' Underlying Misalignment, Henry H. Robinson

Touro Law Review

In its 2022 Bruen opinion, the Supreme Court characterized the Heller opinion as having applied a “methodological approach” for interpretation of the Second Amendment. However, Bruen’s description and summary partially omitted, and was materially misaligned with, Heller’s actual reasoning. In Heller’s first step of constitutional interpretation, which addressed the first clause of the sentence comprising the Second Amendment, the opinion had selectively not applied the methodological approach described in Bruen; Heller’s first step had applied a different, incompatible methodological approach. Bruen’s description was aligned only with the second step of Heller’s constitutional reasoning, which had addressed the sentence’s second clause. …

School Choice & Religious Discrimination: A Story Of The Illusory "Wall Of Separation," Sour "Lemon Tests," And Overgrown "Baby Blaines", Keren Kendil

Touro Law Review

The significance of elementary school education in shaping a child's future, and the success of society, is immeasurable. The free public school system is built on the premise that every child deserves to have the equal opportunity to learn and succeed. However, this system overlooks the millions of children attending private schools due to their religious and moral convictions. This note delves into the imperative of ensuring universal access to quality elementary education for every child, irrespective of their family's religious affiliations or preferences for private schooling, highlighting the constitutional imperatives of ensuring that every child has the opportunity to …

Livin' On A Legislative Prayer: How Prayer At A School Board Meeting Survives Under An Exception To The Establishment Clause, Brian Muff

Touro Law Review

This Note discusses the circuit split between the Ninth Circuit and the Fifth Circuit on whether prayer should be permitted to open up a school board meeting. First introducing the topic and explaining the history of legislative prayer in America, the Note then discusses governing Supreme Court precedent concerning school prayer and legislative prayer. After analyzing the cases that are the subject of the circuit split, the Note concludes with a recommendation that the Supreme Court permit the recitation of prayer to begin a school board meeting, citing the commonalities between a school board and a legislature and making three …

The Punishment Of Cruel And Unusual Conditions: Extending The Purely Objective Standard Adopted In Kingsley V. Hendrickson To Claims Of Deliberate Indifference, Samantha M. Davis

Touro Law Review

In 2015, the Supreme Court in Kingsley v. Hendrickson held that a pretrial detainee claiming excessive force on the part of the state must only show that the force used was objectively unreasonable. Prior to the adoption of the purely objective standard, many courts around the country were analyzing such cases through a subjective standard to determine whether the officers subjectively knew that the force used against a pretrial detainee was unreasonable. The absence of this objective standard essentially allowed state officials to use excessive force against pretrial detainees without violating an individual’s Constitutional rights. The Supreme Court reasoned that …

Takings, Original Meaning, And Applying Property Law Principles To Fix Penn Central, John M. Groen

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Breaching The Walls Of The Inviolable Citadel: The Supreme Court's Treatment Of The Lemon Test And Its Progeny, Christopher C. Spinosa Jr.

Touro Law Review

The Supreme Court in Kennedy v. Bremerton finally laid the three-pronged Lemon test to rest. Instead of Lemon and its progeny, Establishment Clause cases are now to be decided based upon the historical practices and understandings of our Founding Fathers. Subsequently, the Eleventh Circuit instructed the Middle District of Florida to its analysis in Rojas v. City of Ocala. In Rojas, a prayer vigil occurred in the City's public square and featured uniformed police chaplains singing and engaging in Christian prayers. After this Note was written and submitted for publication, the district court issued its decision in Rojas …

The Danger Of Silence: The Negative Effect Of Supreme Court Hesitance To Establish A Bright-Line Rule For Determining Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Amber N. Roibu

Touro Law Review

Ambiguity surrounding the interpretation of 35 U.S.C. § 101 and the ultimate application of the Alice/Mayo standard for determining patent subject matter eligibility has long plagued the courts, practitioners, and USPTO examiners alike. Maintaining a standard that leads to sheer confusion and, as a result, inconsistent rulings severely muddles the ultimate goal of patent law, to promote innovation. The Supreme Court has been presented with ample opportunities to address these issues, with the Solicitor General consistently recommending that it hear cases that deal with patent-eligibility debates. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court's continued hesitancy to grant certiorari on these cases only further …

Lost In The Thicket, Brad Snyder

Touro Law Review

As part of a symposium on his biography of Felix Frankfurter, Democratic Justice, Brad Snyder revisits Baker v. Carr and explores the contrasts between Justice William Brennan’s judicially supremacist majority opinion and Frankfurter’s departmentalist dissent and unheeded warnings about empowering the judiciary. As Frankfurter wrote in his Baker dissent, he placed more faith in the U.S. Congress, as opposed to the judiciary, to protect democracy.

Foreword: The Life, Work & Legacy Of Felix Frankfurter, The Justice Known As “Ff”, Rodger D. Citron

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

John Marshall And Felix Frankfurter: An Icon And A Disappointment?, William E. Nelson

Touro Law Review

This article shows how Chief Justice John Marshall first developed the doctrine of judicial restraint in Marbury v. Madison to assure the public that the Supreme Court would not engage in politically oriented judicial review as colonial courts had in holding Parliament’s 1765 Stamp Act unconstitutional. Justice Felix Frankfurter, in contrast, adopted judicial restraint differently—by reading the scholarship of James Bradley Thayer. This article also shows that Frankfurter did not abandon his commitment to judicial restraint when during his years on the bench it began to serve conservative purposes rather than the progressive purposes it had once served.

Courting Citation Consistency: Justice Frankfurter And West Coast Hotel Co. V. Parrish, Helen J. Knowles-Gardner

Touro Law Review

This Article examines the three U.S. Supreme Court opinions authored by Justice Felix Frankfurter that cited the landmark decision in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937). I describe the three Parrish-citing opinions as: (1) “perfunctory”—Mayo v. Lakeland Highlands Canning Co. (1940) (Frankfurter, J., joined by Black and Douglas, JJ., dissenting); (2) “ugly”—Winters v. New York (1948) (Frankfurter, J., joined by Jackson and Burton, JJ., dissenting); and (3) “good”—American Federation of Labor v. American Sash & Door Co. (1949) (Frankfurter, J., concurring). Whatever one might think about the substance of these opinions, there is absolutely no doubt of the following. …

Felix Frankfurter: Liberal Lawyer, Conservative Justice, Jed S. Rakoff

Touro Law Review

The Hon. Jed S. Rakoff gave the first presentation at the conference, providing an introduction to Justice Felix Frankfurter by describing some of his accomplishments and situating his tenure on the Supreme Court in the context of the Court’s historically conservative orientation.

Felix Frankfurter, Collector Of People, John Q. Barrett

Touro Law Review

Felix Frankfurter engaged, intensely, with people—they were the treasures that he hunted down, evaluated, and collected. This essay, written on the great occasion of Brad Snyder’s Frankfurter biography, considers some of Frankfurter’s most treasured people. One group is people who made Frankfurter, including Frankfurter himself, Henry L. Stimson, and Franklin D. Roosevelt. Another group is Justice Frankfurter’s three great U.S. Supreme Court colleagues: Justices Hugo L. Black, Robert H. Jackson, and William O. Douglas. A third group is biographers who Frankfurter admired and pushed: Harlan Buddington Phillips, Mark DeWolfe Howe, Jr., McGeorge Bundy, Alexander Bickel, Andrew L. Kaufman, and Philip …

The Law Professor As Public Intellectual: Felix Frankfurter And The Public And Its Government, R. B. Bernstein

Touro Law Review

Professor R.B. Bernstein was a legal historian with a J.D. from Harvard Law School who taught at the Colin Powell School for Civic and Global Leadership at City College of New York and New York Law School. He presented the paper below on Professor Felix Frankfurter’s The Public and Its Government, published in 1930. A little more than two months after the conference, sadly, Professor Bernstein passed. His brother Steven Bernstein provided the Touro Law Review with the draft of the paper that Professor Bernstein was preparing to submit for publication. We have added footnotes and made only minor revisions. …

Mediating Pluralism: Felix Frankfurter’S Commitment To Majoritarian Democracy, Dalia Tsuk

Touro Law Review

This Article explores parallels between Frankfurter’s faith in democracy, that is, his trust in the legislative and executive branches as reflected in his jurisprudence of judicial restraint, and Frankfurter’s vision for Jewish (and other) immigrants’ integration into the American polity, namely his conviction that immigrants should shed vestiges of their birth cultures and assimilate into their adopted culture. The Article argues that Frankfurter’s commitment to judicial restraint was his means of mediating the pluralist dilemma, that is, the need to accommodate within the law diverse cultures and values; just as Felix Frankfurter, the first-generation Jewish American, wanted to sidestep ethnic …

The Mad Hatter’S Quip: Looking For Logic In The Independent State Legislature Theory, Nicholas Maggio, Foreword By Brendan Buschi

Touro Law Review

The Supreme Court is set to hear a case that threatens the bedrock of America’s democracy, and it is not clear how it will shake out. The cumbersomely named “Independent State Legislature Theory” is at the heart of the case Moore v. Harper, which is before the Supreme Court this term. The theory holds that state legislatures should be free from the ordinary bounds of state judicial review when engaged in matters that concern federal elections. Despite being defeated a myriad of times at the Supreme Court, the latest challenge stems from a legal battle over North Carolina’s redistricting maps. …

Interpreting Religious Doctrine: The Third Rail That Wags The Dog In Religion Clause Jurisprudence, Samuel J. Levine

Scholarly Works

This Article is part of a broader project exploring and assessing the United States Supreme Court’s hands-off approach to interpreting religious doctrine. The mixed metaphor that constitutes the title of this Article incorporates various aspects of the project’s interrelated themes and claims. First, as a descriptive matter, the Supreme Court has repeatedly and increasingly refused to adjudicate issues that require the interpretation, evaluation, and resolution of substantive areas of religious practice and belief. Thus, like the third rail of train tracks, interpreting religious doctrine is deemed off-limits and better left untouched. Indeed, the Court’s justifications for the hands-off approach rely …

West Virginia V. Epa: Maybe A Big Deal, But Maybe Not, Michael Lewyn

Scholarly Works

In West Virginia v. EPA, the Supreme Court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lacked the statutory authority to implement the Clean Power Plan, a regulation designed to reduce coal-fired power plant emissions by encouraging the use of non-coal energy sources. The Court’s decision was primarily grounded in the "major questions doctrine," which asserts that courts may reject agency actions that involve significant and consequential powers not reasonably inferred from Congressional intent, even if a statute is unclear. This decision raised concerns among commentators that it might severely restrict environmental regulations and the broader administrative state. However, the …

The Apparition Amendment: The Potential Effects Of The Addition Of A Federal Equal Rights Amendment To The United States Constitution In A Post-Dobbs United States, Alexa Liverano

Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity

This Note will explore the feasibility of amending the federal Constitution to add an Equal Rights Amendment, and will outline previous attempts to pass such an amendment. It will also explore the potential ramifications of the additions of such an amendment. This Note will also inspect the language of Equal Rights Amendments within State constitutions and discuss what language ought to be included should a federal amendment be published in light of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs. Part one will consider the legal viability of the Equal Rights Amendment of 1972 today. Part two will explore the …

Foreword, Alexa Liverano

Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity

No abstract provided.

Sounding The Legitimacy Alarm Bell: When Does The Media Discuss The U.S. Supreme Court’S Legitimacy?, Rachael Houston

Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity

These media outlets cover the Court in such ways because they openly promote a particular political ideology through endorsements, donations, ownership, or slant in coverage. They cater to audiences with similar political beliefs and tailor their coverage accordingly. For example, Fox News was created by Rupert Murdoch to appeal to a conservative audience. So, its content is purposefully conservative and assessed as right-leaning by media bias charts. As a result, polling data reveals that Republicans trust Fox News more than any other outlet. At the same time, Robert “Ted” Turner, the founder of CNN, is a donor to left-progressive causes …

Supreme Court Legitimacy Under Threat? The Role Of Cues In How The Public Responds To Supreme Court Decisions, Laura Moyer, Scott Boddery, Jeffrey Yates, Lindsay Caudill

Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity

Understanding how the public views the Court and its rulings is crucial to assessing its institutional stability. However, as scholars note, “People are broadly supportive of the court and believe in its ‘legitimacy’—that is, that Supreme Court rulings should be respected and followed. But we don’t know that much about whether people actually agree with the case outcomes themselves.” In this article, we highlight empirical research investigating the factors that affect public agreement with Court decisions, highlighting recent developments from our work. At the onset, it is to note that the public generally hears about the Court’s decisions from media …

The Roberts Court’S Anti-Democracy Jurisprudence And The Reemergence Of State Authoritarian Enclaves, Reginald Oh

Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity

This Essay argues that the Roberts Court has been a pivotal institutional player in destabilizing constitutional democracy. It has enabled states to freely pursue agendas that are authoritarian in nature. And because authoritarianism is contrary to core principles of the Constitution, the Roberts Court’s constitutional jurisprudence has no basis in the Constitution and must ultimately be rejected.

Instead of taking steps to block authoritarian legislation and promote a fair and open political process, the Court has issued rulings catalyzing and reinforcing the authoritarian impulses of the former Jim Crow states. The Roberts Court has engaged in judicial review reinforcing authoritarianism, …

A Country In Crisis: A Review Of How The Illegitimate Supreme Court Is Rendering Illegitimate Decisions And Doing Damage That Will Not Soon Be Undone., Regina L. Ramsey ,Esq

Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity

This article will discuss in detail exactly how the court is illegitimate and makes decisions that are illegitimate, using examples from the October 2021 term. It will also explain why action needs to be taken immediately to reign in this run-away Court to restore public trust. As discussed herein, we cannot sit by and patiently wait for the Court to right itself over time because there are important issues on the current docket, such as race-conscious admissions policies of colleges and universities to ensure student bodies are diverse as future leaders are prepared to live and work in a diverse …

Depoliticizing The Supreme Court: How To Rein In Those Answerable To No One?, Dana Ortiz-Tulla ,Esq

Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity

This Note will discuss some of the Commission’s findings and other interesting suggestions to determine whether it is possible to rein in the modern-day Court. Part I will explain the inherently political nature of the Supreme Court. Part II will briefly present how the Supreme Court acquired its power. Part III will discuss several prominent proposals for Supreme Court reform. Finally, Part IV will examine whether any recommendations may depoliticize the Court.