Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

Exploring The Limits Of Qualified Immunity Under Harlow’S Discretionary Function Test, James E. Pfander, Alexander A. Reinert

Articles

No abstract provided.

Vaccines, Religious Liberty, And The Gvr As Doctrinal Signal, Zalman Rothschild

Articles

This Essay proceeds in four Parts. Part I traces the doctrinal baseline, showing that vaccines have long functioned as the limit case for religious liberty. Part II briefly describes the doctrinal changes of the COVID-19 era — the Supreme Court’s expansion of religious equality doctrine, and its emergency-docket denials that left vaccine mandates formally unresolved — before explaining why the GVR in Miller signals a different move: the extension of the religious liberty framework to vaccine mandates, bypassing the comparability analysis that had allowed most courts to sustain them under the equality model. Part III turns to Miller itself and …

A Conversation On Ethics & The Law With The Honorable Ruth Pickholz, Benjamin N. Cardozo School Of Law, Cardozo Criminal Law Society, Ruth Pickholz

2025–2026 Flyers

Retired Justice of the Supreme Court, New York City County.

Zivotofsky V. Kerry Commentary From The Counsel Behind The Case, Jewish Law Student Association (Jlsa), Jewish Graduate Student Initiative, Alyza Lewin, Akiva Shapiro

2025–2026 Flyers

Join Alyza Lewin, President of Us Affairs for Combat Antisemitism Movement, and Akiva Shapiro, partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, as they share their experience litigating the landmark Supreme Court case Zivotofsky v. Kerry before the Supreme Court. In Zivotofsky, the court ruled that only thе president has the exclusive power to formally recognize a foreign sovereign and its territorial boundaries. This case paved the way for president Donald J. Trump to declare Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

Complicit Nullification: The Illegitimate (Abrogation) Of School Religious Liberty Precedent, Amanda Harmon Cooley

Cardozo Law Review

Louisiana has enacted legislation that mandates the display of the Ten Commandments in every public school classroom. This statutory mandate directly contradicts the Supreme Court’s extant precedent in Stone v. Graham. Legislators in Texas, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Kentucky have also indicated plans to introduce similar unconstitutional legislation, defying the Supreme Court’s interpretations of the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses. Similarly, Texas and Florida now permit public school chaplains or Bible-based public school curricula, which violates the Court’s longstanding prohibitions on such actions, as established in its 1948 ruling in Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education …

How The Supreme Court’S Inconsistent Approach To Granting Emergency Relief Will Exacerbate, Rather Than Mitigate The Disruption Its Emergency Stay Policy Is Supposed To Address, Harvey L. Reiter

Cardozo Law Review de•novo

The federal government has used the Supreme Court’s emergency or “shadow” docket to great effect this past year, securing stay after stay of lower court rulings that had blocked many of the President’s executive orders. But the Court’s rulings have come, almost invariably, without any explanation of its reasoning. And its opaque and uneven rulings have also come at a potential cost to the Court’s credibility. This Article illustrates the uneven nature of the Court’s rulings by contrasting two lines of cases: (1) the Court’s stays of lower court rulings restoring to their positions FTC, NLRB, EEOC, and MSPB members …

Property Rights V. Taxpayer Rights: The Battle Over Tax Foreclosures, Stewart E. Sterk

Articles

No abstract provided.

A Theory Of Major Questions, Nicholas Almendares

Cardozo Law Review

The major questions doctrine has been fiercely criticized as an example of the Supreme Court’s “imperial” turn where it concentrates ever more power in its own hands. The doctrine is sweeping, vague, and lacks a clear justification. Not only does the Court get to decide when the doctrine applies and when the heightened standard is satisfied, but it has also not offered good reasons behind this rule. A well-defined theory would give the doctrine structure, clarity, and consistency. While majority opinions have been conspicuously quiet on the theory behind the major questions doctrine, concurrences, namely by Justice Gorsuch, have argued …

Standard Textualism, James A. Macleod

Articles

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 …

The Containment, Floersheimer Center For Constitutional Democracy, Black Law Students Association (Blsa), Alexander Reinert, Michellle Adams, James Forman Jr.

2025–2026 Flyers

Join us for a special evening with Michelle Adams, the Henry M. Butzel Professor of Law at the University of Michigan, and former Cardozo Professor, as she discusses her acclaimed new book The Containment: Detroit, the Supreme Court, and the Battle for School Desegregation.

Michelle Adams On Detroit, The Supreme Court, And School Segregation, Floersheimer Center For Constitutional Democracy, Black Law Students Association (Blsa), Alexander A. Reinert, Michelle Adams, James Foreman Jr.

2025 Event Invitations

Join us for a special evening with Michelle Adams, the Henry M. Butzel Professor of Law at the University of Michigan, and former Cardozo Professor, as she discusses her acclaimed new book The Containment: Detroit, the Supreme Court, and the Battle for School Desegregation.

Us Supreme Court Reopens Door For Restitution Of Nazi Stolen Painting, David Seen

Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal (AELJ) Blog

The looting of works of art during World War II represents one of the most significant cultural thefts in history, with the Nazi state seeking to enrich itself by seizing property of the people it persecuted. The Nazis systematically seized thousands of invaluable works of art and cultural assets from museums, galleries, and private collections across Europe. The methods of seizure ranged from barefaced theft to indirect means such as forcing individuals to sell their property to finance their flights into exile. Due to the fact that many works of art were not looted directly but seized through indirect means, …

Conservative Caution V. Progressive Originalism: How Justices Barrett And Jackson Are Paving Their Own Paths On The Court, David Rudenstine, Michael Waldman, Eric Freedman, Haiyun Damon-Feng, William D. Araiza, Mark Anthony Frassetto, Jake Meiseles, Michael Pollack, Linda Greenhouse, Earl M. Maltz

Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights & Social Justice

The Conservative Caution v. Progressive Originalism symposium, hosted by the Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights and Social Justice on March 7, 2025, brings together leading constitutional scholars to examine the emerging judicial philosophies of Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Through three expert panels—presidential immunity, gun rights, and judicial ideology—the symposium analyzes how both Justices are shaping contemporary originalist discourse from opposing ends of the ideological spectrum. Panelists explore the Supreme Court’s watershed decision in Trump v. United States (2024), emphasizing its unprecedented expansion of presidential immunity and its implications for separation of powers and democratic accountability. Discussions …

The Court We Need: Why The Supreme Court Is Worth Saving—Especially From Itself With Professor Steven I. Vladeck, Stephen I. Vladeck

2025 Event Invitations

For all of the ink that has been spilled over the Supreme Court in recent years, no one has been able to bridge the growing divide between those who think we should bury the Court and those who think we should praise it. Meanwhile, public faith in the Court continues to decline. The result has been an erosion of the Court’s moral authority and an impasse about how to restore it at the exact moment when we most need it—with the other institutions of government increasingly unable or unwilling to check each other. Now, more than ever, we need a …

Shoot The Messenger: Why Section 230 Does Not Shield Suggestive Content Delivery, Alexander Heinkele

Cardozo Law Review de•novo

Internet companies have frequently relied on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 to avoid liability for third-party content hosted on their platforms. However, over time, companies began to take advantage of the broad cover of Section 230 in circumstances outside the statute’s original scope. This Note advocates for a more nuanced interpretation of the statute as it applies to suggestive algorithms and offers a proposal for amending Section 230 to better reflect the modern digital landscape.

The Score Act Is Unconstitutional: Private Nondelegation Problems With Congress’S Latest Attempt To Regulate College Sports, Sam C. Ehrlich, Ryan M. Rodenberg

Cardozo Law Review de•novo

The Student Compensation and Opportunity through Rights and Endorsements Act (“SCORE Act”) is Congress’s most ambitious effort yet to bring stability to college sports, codifying the recent House settlement while granting sweeping regulatory power to private athletic associations such as the National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”) and the College Sports Commission (“CSC”). However, by delegating policymaking authority to these private, self-interested entities without any sort of public oversight, the bill raises serious constitutional concerns under the private nondelegation doctrine. Drawing on parallels to a string of litigation involving the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (“HISA”) and recent Supreme Court signals, …

Cross-Talk, Alicia Bannon, John Q. Barrett, Tyler Rose Clemons, Wilfred U. Codrington Iii, Mark C. Niles

Articles

The symposium examines the Supreme Court's recent trend of overturning precedent, arguing that this practice undermines the principle of *stare decisis* and the Court's legitimacy. Historically, the Court has used precedent to protect marginalized groups, but recent decisions suggest a shift toward benefiting non-marginalized interests, such as big businesses and conservative groups. This change is seen as a departure from the Court's traditional role and raises concerns about judicial humility and the politicization of the judiciary.

Doubting Thomas And Questioning Stare Decisis Under The Roberts Court, Wilfred U. Codrington Iii

Articles

The article critically examines the erosion of stare decisis under the Roberts Court, highlighting concerns about the Supreme Court's increasing willingness to overturn established precedents. While acknowledging the importance of stare decisis in maintaining stability and equality, the author argues that its practical value is being undermined by ideological polarization and a departure from traditional legal reasoning. The article questions the Court's recent approach to precedent, particularly in cases like Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization and Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, and critiques the conservative majority's aggressive use of judicial power.

The Doors Of Janus: A Critical Analysis Of The Socio-Technical Forces Eroding Trust In The Rule Of Law, Anuj Puri, Esther Keymolen

Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal

The Rule of Law is neither just a principle nor solely the institutions that embody that principle, a critical aspect of the Rule of Law is its grounding in trust which often gets neglected in the surrounding discourse. When the citizens' trust in the Rule of Law weakens, the Rule of Law becomes fragile. In this article we examine the impact of emerging technologies on the citizens' trust in the Rule of Law. Our analysis is specifcally focused on the effect of systemic disinformation which is likely to worsen with the advent of Generative AI, algorithmic misgovernance, and the digitalization …

Notice Pleading’S Quiet Return, Alexander A. Reinert

Articles

Fifteen years ago, the Supreme Court announced two significant civil procedure decisions – Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). Together, Iqbal and Twombly marked a new approach to pleading in federal courts. No longer would courts apply the forgiving notice pleading standard, in force since the 1938 adoption of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In its place, the Court introduced plausibility pleading, inviting district courts to apply their “judicial experience and common sense” to decide whether a claim was “plausible.” Commentators expressed alarm, predicting that the new standard …

Dignifying Queerness, Ryan Thoreson

Cardozo Law Review

In recent years, courts that have affirmed the right of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people to engage in same-sex activity have often invoked the value of dignity. They have done so in spite of the fact that same-sex activity, and many other kinds of sex, have historically been deemed undignified and subject to criminal prohibition. This Article examines a rapidly growing body of comparative jurisprudence to examine how dignity has become an unlikely cornerstone of efforts to decriminalize same-sex conduct. By invoking dignity, courts have persuasively struck down some of the most immediate and egregious restrictions on sexual …

Unprincipled All The Way Down, Wilfred U. Codrington Iii

Articles

In 2006, the Supreme Court issued an emergency stay order in Purcell v. Gonzalez. Sparing in words and inattentive to the realities on the ground, the opinion nevertheless made a reasonable and understandable assertion: prior to issuing relief, courts presiding over elections should take into account any harms that judicial orders might cause, particularly in the lead-up to voting, alongside other considerations unique to elections. The statement was general enough to mollify the masses in the short-term. But over the long haul, it has proven to be a vehicle through which important election decisions might be made in less than …

The Future Of “History And Tradition”: The First Amendment Implication Of Bruen, The Floersheimer Center For Constitutional Democracy

2023–2024 Flyers

No abstract provided.

The Future Of “History And Tradition”: The First Amendment Implications Of Bruen, Floersheimer Center For Constitutional Democracy

2024 Event Invitations

Did SCOTUS turn all lower court judges into armchair historians? Could landmark free speech precedents like New York Times Co. v. Sullivan be at risk? How will the Court address modern questions like social media content moderation?

Ethics In The Judiciary And The Legal Profession: Are We In Crisis?, Cardozo Law Review, Floersheimer Center For Constitutional Democracy, Jacob Burns Center For Ethics In The Practice Of Law

2024 Event Invitations

The recent conduct of Supreme Court justices and lawyers acting on behalf of former president Trump has led many to think that something has gone profoundly wrong at the most elite levels of the American legal profession.

Ethics In The Judiciary And The Legal Profession: Are We In Crisis?, Cardozo Law Review, Floersheimer Center For Constitutional Democracy, Jacob Burns Center For Ethics In The Practice Of Law

2023–2024 Flyers

No abstract provided.

The 2024 Cardozo Colloquium On Global And Constitutional Theory, Benjamin N. Cardozo School Of Law

2024 Event Invitations

The US Supreme Court is currently experiencing a significant decrease in public approval, as are several courts in many other parts of the world, such as the Israel Supreme Court and top courts in various Eastern European countries. At the same time, in certain other parts of the world, such as Western Europe, constitutional courts persist as well integrated and are widely perceived as trustworthy guarantors of workable checks and balances. The Colloquium will explore what accounts for these differences and whether the various crises concerning judicial review arise from similar or different types of circumstances. To what extent are …

Livestream Of Supreme Court Oral Argument: Trump V. Anderson, Floersheimer Center For Constitutional Democracy

2023–2024 Flyers

No abstract provided.

The 2024 Cardozo Colloquium On Global And Constitutional Theory Presents: Linda Greenhouse On The Roberts Court, Benjamin N. Cardozo School Of Law

2024 Event Invitations

Join Linda Greenhouse, Senior Research Scholar in Law at Yale Law School, to discuss the exceptional trajectory of the Roberts Court. Greenhouse is also a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter who has covered the United States Supreme Court for nearly three decades for The New York Times.

A Conversation On The Supreme Court With Adam Liptak, Jacob Burns Center For Ethics In The Practice Of Law

2023 Event Invitations

Join the Burns Center for a conversation on the Supreme Court with Adam Liptak, who is considered one of the most highly regarded legal affairs journalists in the country. He will be joined by two distinguished Cardozo law professors, Jessica Roth and Alexander Reinert. They will discuss current ethical issues surrounding the court, challenges to the court's legitimacy and upcoming and recently decided cases on issues such as abortion rights, gun regulations, same sex marriage and more.