Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

Blunt Speech Rights, Nicholas Almendares

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

There is a lot to be said about the Supreme Court’s decision in 303 Creative LLC. In the wake of the decision there will be a range of commentaries like those presented in this Issue. I want to draw attention to a particular aspect of the opinion, part of a broader trend in the Court’s First Amendment jurisprudence, towards blunt, sweeping rules. By a blunt rule, I mean a simple, coarse one that lacks nuance or distinctions. Blunt rules, by their nature, tend to be sweeping: nuance, that is, distinguishing cases based on various factors, limits the scope of …

First Amendment Defenses To Alien Transportation Crimes, Charquia Wright

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Florida law now prohibits the transportation of undocumented aliens into the state. Briefings characterize these laws as unconstitutionally preempting federal immigration law and federal due process rights. Despite this emphasis on due process, field, and conflict preemption unconstitutionality, few have addressed the First Amendment implications of human smuggling prosecutions of natural and some corporate persons. The Supreme Court’s Free Exercise precedent protects the religious freedoms of natural persons and some corporations. Under state alien transportation laws, these freedoms cease to exist. Because the Supreme Court has extended these religious protections to some corporations, they too are entitled to First Amendment …

Immoderate Moderation: Chief Justice Roberts's Concurrence In Dobbs, Thomas J. Molony

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Chief Justice John Roberts attempted to chart a middle way in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. But there are times when you must choose a side. This was one of them.

The Chief Justice has been a consistent proponent of judicial restraint since he joined the United States Supreme Court in 2005. For him, one of the key characteristics of restraint is deciding no more than necessary to resolve a case. In Dobbs, he insisted that the Court did not need to overrule Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey in full to uphold Mississippi’s fifteen-week …

The Anti-Innovation Supreme Court: Major Questions, Delegation, Chevron, And More, Jack M. Beermann

William & Mary Law Review

The Supreme Court of the United States has generally been a very aggressive enforcer of legal limitations on governmental power. In various periods in its history, the Court has gone far beyond enforcing clearly expressed and easily ascertainable constitutional and statutory provisions and has suppressed innovation by the other branches that do not necessarily transgress widely held social norms. Novel assertions of legislative power, novel interpretations of federal statutes, statutes that are in tension with well-established common law rules, and state laws adopted by only a few states are suspect simply because they are novel or rub up against tradition. …

Cherry-Picking History: Witchcraft, The Common Law, And The Weaponization Of Substantive Due Process, Sarah E. Bradley

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

In 2021, the Supreme Court sharply altered its substantive due process analysis in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, reversing the 49-year-old decision in Roe v. Wade to establish abortion access as a constitutional right. The Court reframed its substantive due process analysis as a two-step test, requiring a right to be narrowly framed and “deeply rooted in history and tradition” before it could be analyzed as “implicit in the concept of liberty,” instead of its previous balancing test that involved a broad description of the right. In the Dobbs majority opinion, the Court cherry-picked elements of common law …

Fights Over Continuity - In Life And Law, Jamison E. Colburn

William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review

What is the whole: a river or that river and its tributaries? There is no “natural” answer to the question, only so many answers as there are reasons for asking. Lately, the Clean Water Act has been the captive of such diversions in our Supreme Court’s agenda. Changing it will not free it from that captivity. For whatever reforms we choose could still provide boundless opportunities for frustration in questions like the above. If the Court is as eager to cause that frustration as it has appeared lately, maybe we should help the Court to its fight with this iconic …

The Judicial Grassroots Of The "Arbitration Revolution", Tamar Meshel

William & Mary Business Law Review

The “arbitration revolution”—the meteoric rise in the use of arbitration in the United States—is commonly imputed to the Supreme Court’s unilateral and ideologically driven expansion of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The portrayal of the FAA’s evolution as a campaign launched by a Supreme Court that is out of touch with society and with the judicial system over which it presides usefully serves to delegitimize both this one-hundred year-old statute and arbitration more generally. This Article argues that the popular description of the Supreme Court as the sole instigator of the “arbitration revolution” is misleading because it conveniently ignores a …

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

William & Mary Law Review

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 …

Loper Bright And The Future Of Chevron Deference, Jack M. Beermann

William & Mary Law Review Online

This essay proposes that the Court overrule the Chevron two-step standard of review of agency statutory construction and replace it by reviving deference under the factors announced in the Skidmore case with a twist that preserves Chevron’s greatest virtue: agency freedom to alter its statutory interpretations so long as the agency remains within the zone of reasonable construction. This essay also proposes that the Court clarify the boundary between cases involving statutory construction and cases involving agency policy decisions that are reviewed under the arbitrary and capricious standard articulated in cases such as Motor Vehicles and Overton Park. …

Supreme Court Litigators In The Age Of Textualism, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Faculty Publications

The Supreme Court’s approach to statutory interpretation has moved in a textualist direction over the last several decades, but there is little systematic information on how litigators’ briefing practices have changed during this era of textualist ascendancy. This Article examines thirty-five years’ worth of party briefs (over 8,000 briefs total), explores the briefs’ use of interpretive tools (including differences across categories of attorneys), and compares the briefs to the Court’s opinions.

This examination yields several valuable findings. Although the briefs show a textualist shift, they differ from the Court’s opinions in a few ways. The magnitude of the textualist shift …

The Illusion Of Due Process In School Discipline, Diana Newmark

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Long-term suspensions and expulsions can be enormously consequential for students and their families. Not only do exclusionary disciplinary measures directly result in lost learning opportunities for children, but school discipline decisions can also result in significant collateral consequences. These consequences range from lower rates of graduation and higher rates of contact with the criminal justice system to disruptions in foster care placements, violations of juvenile probation, and even possible immigration consequences for undocumented students.

The Supreme Court has recognized the significance of suspensions and expulsions, requiring due process for such exclusionary discipline measures. But the Supreme Court has never explained …

Historians Wear Robes Now? Applying The History And Tradition Standard: A Practical Guide For Lower Courts, Alexandra Michalak

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Never before has the Supreme Court relied on the history and tradition standard to such a magnitude as in the 2021 term to determine the scope of a range of constitutional rights. [...] In reaffirming this standard, the Supreme Court provided no guidance to lower courts on how to apply and analyze the history and tradition standard. Along with balancing the lack of resources in deciding cases with the history and tradition framework, lower courts must face the reality that this standard presents ample opportunity for one-sided historical analysis. To combat the temptation of conducting unbalanced and cursory reviews of …

Laundering Police Lies, Adam Gershowitz, Caroline E. Lewis

Faculty Publications

Police officers—like ordinary people—are regularly dishonest. Officers lie under oath (testilying), on police reports (reportilying), and in a myriad of other situations. Despite decades of evidence about police lies, the U.S. Supreme Court regularly believes police stories that are utterly implausible. Either because the Court is gullible, willfully blind, or complicit, the justices have simply rubber-stamped police lies in numerous high-profile cases. For instance, the Court has accepted police claims that a suspect had bags of cocaine displayed in his lap at the end of a police chase (Whren v. United States), that officers saw marijuana through a …

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

William & Mary Law Review

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 …

Second Amendment Exceptionalism: Public Expression And Public Carry, Timothy Zick

Faculty Publications

In New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, the Supreme Court recognized a right to carry firearms in public places. The scope of that right will depend on where, why, and how governments regulated public carry during the eighteenth and perhaps nineteenth centuries. The Court claimed that its turn to history for determining the scope of Second Amendment rights “accords with” and “comports with” how the Court has interpreted First Amendment rights. This Article examines and rejects that claim, both in general and specifically as it applies to the public exercise of Second Amendment rights. Although Bruen …

What Would Happen To All Of The Prior Chevron Cases In A Non-Chevron World?, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

2023 Supreme Court Preview Digital Notebook, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Twilight-Zone Originalism: The Peculiar Reasoning And Unfortunate Consequences Of New York State Pistol & Rifle Association V. Bruen, Albert W. Alschuler

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article consists of two Parts and a conclusion. Part I focuses on the Bruen opinion and considers its contradictions, flaws, fallacies, and implications. Part II examines lower-court decisions applying Bruen during the first year after that decision. These decisions make Bruen’s flaws vivid.

This abstract has been taken from the author's introduction.

Retconning Heller: Five Takes On New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. V. Bruen, Brannon P. Denning, Glenn H. Reynolds

William & Mary Law Review

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen was the first significant Second Amendment case that the Supreme Court had heard in nearly fifteen years since its decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. This Article offers some preliminary observations about the opinion itself, as well as its likely effects, some of which are starting to manifest.

Our first take concerns the question of opinion assignment. Why did Chief Justice Roberts—whose support for the Second Amendment has been suspect—assign the opinion to Justice Thomas?

Takes Two and Three concern Justice Thomas’s substitution of text, history, and tradition …

Divided Court Finds Generic Redactions Sufficient To Admit Confessions Of Non-Testifying Codefendants, Jeffrey Bellin

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Securities And Exchange Commission Vs. Kim Kardashian, Cryptocurrencies And The "Major Questions Doctrine", Jerry W. Markham

William & Mary Business Law Review

The SEC has brought some highly publicized enforcement actions against Kim Kardashian and other celebrity social media influencers who received undisclosed payments for their endorsement of cryptocurrencies. This Article describes those cases and analyzes whether the SEC exceeds its authority under the Constitutional “major questions doctrine” recently applied by the Supreme Court in West Virginia v. EPA. That doctrine prohibits a federal agency from regulating activities that raise a major question that Congress, rather than the agency, must resolve. Such a question is one in which there is major political and economic interest and over which the agency has …

The Supreme Court Review Act: Fast-Tracking The Interbranch Dialogue And Destabilizing The Filibuster, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Faculty Publications

This Essay presents an analysis of the Supreme Court Review Act, a bill that was recently introduced in Congress. The Act would create a streamlined legislative process for bills responding to new Supreme Court decisions that interpret federal statutes or restrict constitutional rights. By facilitating legislative responses to controversial cases, the Act would promote the “dialogue” that commentators and the courts themselves have used as a model for interbranch relations. The Essay describes how the proposed Supreme Court Review Act would work, discusses some of its benefits, addresses its constitutionality, and raises some questions about its implementation and effects.

Justices Search For A Clear Rule For Confessions In Joint Trials, Jeffrey Bellin

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

The Evidentiary Challenges Of Confessions In Co-Defendant Trials, Jeffrey Bellin

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

The False Promise Of Expanded Religious Liberty Rights After The Covid-19 Cases And Fulton V. City Of Philadelphia, Shlomo C. Pill

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article explains and critiques the Supreme Court’s recent reframing of religious free exercise rights. This change was initiated by a series of “shadow docket” rulings issued in late 2020 and early 2021 in which the Court sustained religious challenges to COVID-19 capacity restrictions and mask mandates. That doctrinal shift was confirmed and reinforced by the Court’s subsequence decision in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. In these cases, the Court significantly narrowed the Smith test, which, since 1990, had subjected neutral and generally applicable laws that burden religious practice to only rational basis review. Under the Court’s new free …

Justice Alito's Laundry List: Highlights From Appendix C Of Bostock And A Roadmap For Lgbtq+ Legal Advocates, Peter Quinn

William & Mary Law Review

After a brief background on Bostock [v. Clayton County] in Part I, the bulk of this Note seeks to examine Justice Alito’s Bostock dissent and its potential future usefulness for LGBTQ+ advocates. Part II will analyze Justice Alito’s dissent and Appendix C, arguing that his concerns about Bostock’s consequences across other federal statutes fall into three primary categories of usefulness. The remaining Parts will survey these categories, including the “small potatoes” in Part III, the “blockbusters” in Part IV, and the “under-the-radar” areas in Part V. Part V takes particular notice of potential applications of Bostock’s …

Supreme Court Cases That Persist: The Japanese American Cases, Louis Fisher

William & Mary Law Review Online

As with any human institution, the United States Supreme Court makes errors that, over a period of time, need correction. By focusing on the Japanese American cases, Hirabayashi (1943) and Korematsu (1944), the record is particularly remarkable. Over many decades the Supreme Court had abundant evidence that the two decisions were defective. It was not until June 26, 2018, in Trump v. Hawaii, that the Supreme Court announced that “Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided.” If Korematsu was that deficient, why did it take the Court seventy-four years to admit it? Moreover, what about Hirabayashi? The decision …

The New Insular Cases, Willie Santana

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

The Insular Cases is a name given to a series of cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court dealing with the status of the territories the United States acquired at the turn of the twentieth century. The Insular Cases rely on outmoded assumptions about the peoples who live in those islands, ninety-eight percent of whom belong to racial and ethnic minorities, and extend the extraconstitutional doctrine of territorial incorporation, a Plessy-style doctrine of separate governance for these territories that is different than the territories that preceded them. These cases, and the doctrine they announced, have been universally decried as …

A Prophylactic Approach To Compact Constitutionality, Katherine Mims Crocker

Faculty Publications

From COVID-19 to climate change, immigration to health insurance, firearms control to electoral reform: state politicians have sought to address all these hot-button issues by joining forces with other states. The U.S. Constitution, however, forbids states to “enter into any Agreement or Compact” with each other “without the Consent of Congress,” a requirement that proponents of much interstate action, especially around controversial topics, would hope to circumvent.

The Supreme Court lets them do just that. By interpreting “any Agreement or Compact” so narrowly that it is difficult to see what besides otherwise unlawful coordination qualifies, the Court has essentially read …

Working Through The Supreme Court's 2021 Term, Nicole Buonocore Porter

Faculty Publications

Despite the controversy surrounding the Supreme Court's 2021 term, the labor and employment cases, in comparison, might seem relatively uneventful. Although there are several cases summarized below, most of them deal with relatively minor issues surrounding arbitration, or with lesser litigated statutes, such as USERRA and ERISA. This review also includes a summary of the administrative law case regarding the Environmental Protection Act because it could (and perhaps likely will) have ramifications for labor and employment law.

[...]

This review proceeds in two additional parts. Part II of this review summarizes the opinions from the 2021 term. At the end …