Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

Old Rulings, New Reasons, Jack Boeglin

Michigan Law Review

When the Supreme Court does away with a longstanding legal principle, what should become of the hundreds, if not thousands, of precedents across the judicial system that rely upon it? Does some residual precedential value continue to attach to a decision even after its reasoning has been rejected? Or should it be overturned unless it can be upheld on a new, independently persuasive legal basis?

These are the questions courts must ask when deciding whether to “reharmonize” precedent. A court reharmonizes a past decision by supporting it on alternative grounds that better fit with changing legal or factual understandings.

The …

Is Originalism Orthodoxy?, Neel Sukhatme

Articles

What theory of constitutional interpretation has the Supreme Court followed? We search Supreme Court opinions for a wide range of sources that originalists identify as central to their methodology, over the entire universe of cases beginning in 1791. We find that for much of Supreme Court history, conventional indicators of originalist practice--citations to Founding-era sources--are largely absent, raising questions about originalism's past orthodoxy. Originalist citation practices are absent for much of the 19th century and grow sharply in the late 20th century. The Article elaborates the implications of these findings for debates in constitutional law.

Abundance And The Supreme Court, Nicholas Bagley

Articles

Scarcity mars much of American life. Housing prices in our most productive cities are out of control. The nation’s transportation infrastructure is aging and obsolete because it costs so much more to build here than in other developed countries. Meanwhile, China generates nearly three times as much solar energy as the United States, with the gap growing every year.

Why does the richest nation in the history of the world struggle so mightily to get stuff done? That’s the question that propels Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson’s 2025 bestseller Abundance, which galvanized what may be the hottest and most controversial …

Schools Without Borders: Ending The Containment, Jade A. Craig

Michigan Law Review

A review of The Containment: Detroit, the Supreme Court, and the Battle for Racial Justice in the North. By Michelle Adams.

Jurisdictional Waters, Jamison E. Colburn

Michigan Law Review

A review of Waters of the United States: POTUS, SCOTUS, WOTUS, and the Politics of a National Resource. By Royal C. Gardner.

The Court And The Killing State, Eric Berger

Michigan Law Review

A review of Secrets of the Killing State: The Untold Story of Lethal Injection. By Corinna Barrett Lain.

The Young And The Lawless, Sarah Medina Camiscoli

Michigan Law Review

A review of Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes. By Leah Litman.

Ten Commandments Cases: Learning From Reformation Coercion, Paul E. Mcgreal

Michigan Law Review Online

The Supreme Court’s recent embrace of “historical practices and understandings” in interpreting the Establishment Clause has emboldened states to challenge forty-five years of precedent prohibiting Ten Commandments displays in public schools. Yet, these states advance a version of history that mistakenly ignores European religious persecution that shaped how the Founders understood the establishment of religion. This Essay remedies that error through a novel historical analogy: sixteenth-century Catholic processions that forced Protestants to choose between betraying their conscience or marking themselves for persecution. Like modern students confronting state-mandated religious texts, Reformation-era dissenters faced orchestrated tests of faith designed to identify and …

Standard Textualism, James A. Macleod

Michigan Law Review

For as long as legal scholars have been writing about the rules-versus-standards distinction, textualism has been understood to produce characteristically rule-like law. This Article argues for the opposite view. Far from generating the “law of rules” that Scalia famously envisioned, the rule of modern textualism produces a law of standards—much more so than anybody, proponent of textualism or critic, appears to have recognized.

Two aspects of today’s textualism produce this result. The first is its emphasis on ordinary language and communication. Modern textualism typically produces standards because ordinary language and communication are typically standard-like. The second is modern textualism’s drive …

Burdens Of Proof In Criminal Procedure, Eve Brensike Primus

Articles

The Supreme Court’s haphazard approach to allocating burdens of proof in criminal procedure has created a system in which constitutional rights can be rendered meaningless simply because defendants are required to prove things they cannot possibly know. Even though allocations of the burden of proof often drive litigation outcomes, the Court has failed to establish clear burden allocation structures for cases arising under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments, leaving lower courts split about how to allocate the burdens. When the Supreme Court does allocate burdens, it often does so without explanation or consideration of key factors. Recent Supreme …

An In-Depth Criticism Of Shaw V. Reno, Katherine M. Perez-Oviedo

Michigan Journal of Race and Law

If I have learned one thing from my semester taking Critical Race Theory, it is that the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly issued decisions that directly impede on remedial efforts to address past racial discrimination. When the question of “how can we use the law to instill social change?” is proposed in class discussion, it is difficult to imagine a world in which the Court would support the progressive measures suggested.

Trump V. United States And The Half-Originalist Presidency, Christine Kexel Chabot

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Trump v. United States has been criticized for its ahistorical approach to presidential immunity. This Essay offers the first account of the historical mismatch between the Trump Court’s decision to immunize presidential removal power and Founding era conceptions of the presidency. Unlike the presumptive immunity that the Court recognized for most other official presidential acts, the immunity afforded for presidential removal power is absolute. The Court ruled that the President’s “unrestricted power of removal” can never be regulated by Congress or considered as evidence of wrongdoing, even when the President threatens removal to effectuate …

Supreme Court Gives States The Green Light To Go Ham: The Dormant Commerce Clause In Renewable Energy In Light Of National Pork Producers, Ellie Carl

Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law

Two years ago, the Supreme Court slaughtered the Dormant Commerce Clause in its decision in National Pork Producers v. Ross. While the case is not explicitly about environmental law, it significantly affects environmental laws and policies, especially pertaining to state renewable portfolio standards. These state policies are especially prone to Dormant Commerce Clause litigation, given the interstate nature of electric grids. This paper argues that the scope of the Dormant Commerce Clause in light of this decision is appropriate for ensuring that states have adequate wiggle room in renewable energy regulation, but not an excessive amount of leeway so …

Democratizing Constitutional Memory, Reva B. Siegel

Michigan Law Review

The Court regularly makes claims on the past—claims that have grown in prominence since conservatives on the Roberts Court invoked “history and tradition” to overrule longstanding case law on religious free exercise, the right to bear arms, and the right to abortion in its 2021 term and to threaten other rights since. The Court claims its historically based approach constrains judges by focusing interpretation on objective and impersonal facts in the past.

The Invention Of The Judicial Administrative State, Marin K. Levy

Michigan Law Review

A review of The Taft Court: Making Law for a Divided Nation, 1921–1930. By Robert C. Post.

Taxes And Certainty: Challenges In Judicial Review Of U.S. Tax Legislation, Reuven S. Avi-Yonah, Moshe Jaffe

Law & Economics Working Papers

The application of judicial review to tax legislation presents unique challenges and inconsistencies. Unlike other forms of legislation, tax laws in the United States are seldom invalidated by the Supreme Court, and when this does occur, it is done using various and inconsistent tests, suggesting a need for a more balanced and effective approach. This paper explores the U.S. court's approach to judicial review in tax cases, empirically analyzing the methods and tests used in key decisions. The findings will reveal a complex and inconsistent picture, highlighting the need for a more coherent approach. Additionally, the research will analyze several …

Consensus And Conflict Over Context: Select Criminal Law And Procedure Cases From The Supreme Court's 2024-25 Term, Eve Brensike Primus, Elena Schultz

Articles

In its 2024-2025 Term, the Supreme Court emphasized the utility—and necessity—of context-based, fact-sensitive analyses throughout its criminal law and procedure cases. Though the Justices sparred over how to derive meaning from factual, structural, legal, and historical contexts, they tended to agree that courts should not be artificially restricted from considering the breadth of the record before them.

The New Substantive Due Process, Leah M. Litman

Articles

After the Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade, commentators made much about the possible demise of substantive due process—the idea that the Constitution safeguards certain substantive liberties that are not specifically or explicitly spelled out in the Constitution. Judges and scholars are debating which substantive due process decisions are next on the chopping block and whether the entire domain of substantive due process is in jeopardy. But a curious thing happened as the Court scaled back and openly questioned the traditional individual-rights line of substantive due process: Rather than eliminating it entirely, the Court seems to have transposed it elsewhere. …

Against Judicial Generalists, Matthew L.R. Fletcher

Other Publications

There is something irritatingly wrong with Indian law practice at the Supreme Court.

Oral argument at the Supreme Court is a bitterly unpleasant affair for Indigenous people and tribal advocates for a lengthy variety of reasons. It is canonical that tribal advocates must attempt to avoid Supreme Court review; the strategic thinking is that the Court is the last place an Indian tribe would ever want to be. No Indigenous person has argued a case before the Supreme Court since 2001, approaching a quarter century. Only a tiny handful of Indigenous people have ever clerked for a Supreme Court justice. …

Statutory Liquidation, Daniel Deacon

Articles

When might practice by the political branches settle the meaning of legal text? That question has mostly been taken up in the constitutional setting, with one strand of scholarship taking inspiration from Madison's statement in Federalist No. 37, that "{a}ll new laws ... are considered as more or less obscure and equivocal until their meaning be liquidated and ascertained by a series ef particular discussions and aqjudications." The prospect that post-enactment practice might liquidate the meaning of statutory text has been comparatively underexamined. That's not surprising. Under modern textualism, post-enactment considerations would seem to have little place. And under Chevron …

Tossing Sand In The Regulatory Gears: Hurdles To Policy Progress In The Supreme Court, Nina A. Mendelson

Articles

In the last few years, the Supreme Court has been a source of seismic change. In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Court overruled Roe v. Wade, which had protected the right to abortion for nearly fifty years. In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Court abandoned so-called Chevron deference to particular categories of administrative agency interpretations, a doctrine viewed as bedrock for over forty years. Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, the 1935 ruling validating independent multi-member commissions such as the Federal Trade Commission, Securities and Exchange Commission, and Federal Communications Commission, may soon join the others on the …

Tax Delegation Post-Loper Bright, Reuven S. Avi-Yonah

Law & Economics Working Papers

In its recent decision in Loper Bright, the Supreme Court has fundamentally shifted the contours of judicial deference to administrative interpretations by repealing the Chevron doctrine. However, while the Court has curtailed deference, it simultaneously underscored the legitimacy of statutory delegation to agencies. The Internal Revenue Code (Code) is the most intricate legislative text within the U.S. legal framework, necessitating significant technical expertise for its application. It is, therefore, unsurprising that Congress often delegates authority to the IRS for the execution of the statute. In light of the Court's decision in Loper Bright, it becomes imperative to clarify the parameters …

The Origins Of The Major Questions Doctrine, Rachel Rothschild

Articles

In a series of recent cases, the Supreme Court has invoked the newly named “major questions doctrine” to strike down agency regulations that protect public health and the environment. Several Justices have argued that while the name “major questions” may be new, these decisions are simply the latest iteration in a longstanding effort of the courts to curtail the explosive growth of the administrative state since 1970. The first paradigmatic example of this line of cases is the 1980 “Benzene” case, in which the Supreme Court set aside the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)’s new workplace standards for the …

Favoritism, Coercion, And The Establishment Clause, Christopher C. Lund

Michigan Law Review

A review of Agreeing to Disagree: How the Establishment Clause Protects Religious Diversity and Freedom of Conscience. By Nathan S. Chapman and Michael W. McConnell.

Orders Without Law, Thomas P. Schmidt

Michigan Law Review

A review of The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic. By Stephen Vladeck.

Responding To Alternatives, Daniel T. Deacon

Michigan Law Review

This Article is the first to comprehensively analyze administrative agencies’ obligation to respond to alternatives to their chosen course of action. The obligation has been around at least since the Supreme Court’s decision in Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Ass’n of the United States, Inc. v. State Farm, and it has mattered in important cases. Most recently, the Supreme Court invoked the obligation as the primary ground on which to invalidate the Trump Administration’s rescission of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. The obligation to respond to alternatives is also frequently invoked in the lower courts and in the …

A Fractured Supreme Court: Select Criminal Law And Procedure Cases From The Supreme Court’S 2023-24 Term, Eve Brensike Primus, Jordan Schuler

Articles

In its 2023-2024 Term, the Supreme Court outlined the contours of when a former President of the United States would be immune from criminal prosecution; issued important decisions interpreting the scope of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, the Double Jeopardy Clause, the Confrontation Clause, and the Second Amendment right to bear arms; decided a number of important statutory interpretation cases; and continued to avoid Fourth Amendment issues, only addressing them in the context of a malicious prosecution charge. Perhaps more striking than the Court’s decisions in these cases, though, was the Justices’ lack of consensus. Of the 16 criminal …

Tying Law For The Digital Age, Daniel A. Crane

Articles

Tying arrangements, a central concern of antitrust policy since the early days of the Sherman and Clayton Acts, have come into renewed focus with re-spect to the practices of dominant technology companies. Unfortunately, tying law’s doctrinal structure is a self-contradictory and incoherent wreck. A con-ventional 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. …

Congress And Shifting Sands In Administrative Law., Christopher J. Walker

Articles

In recent years, we have seen an anti-administrativist turn in the federal judiciary, with the Supreme Court limiting agency power in important respects. These shifting sands in administrative law seem to be motivated, at least in part, by the Court’s perception of the rise of presidential administration and decline in legislative activity. As part of the Widener Commonwealth Law Review Judging in Administrative Law Symposium, this Essay assesses how the Court has responded to concerns about over-presidentialism and then sketches out several ways Congress can respond to reassert itself in federal lawmaking.

Two Takes On Administrative Change From The Roberts Court, Daniel Deacon, Leah Litman

Articles

In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Supreme Court finally did what many long hoped (or feared) it would do: overrule Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. Chevron instructed courts to defer to an agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statutory provision, provided the interpretation was reasonable. Chevron, according to Justice Kagan, had “served as a cornerstone of administrative law” and “the warp and woof of modern government, supporting regulatory efforts of all kinds—to name a few, keeping air and water clean, food and drugs safe, and financial markets honest.” Not surprisingly, statutes governing such matters contain quite a number of …