Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

Other People's Poverty, Emmanuel Hiram Arnaud, Shaun Ossei-Owusu

Faculty Scholarship

Puerto Ricans have a relationship with the United States that is historically unparalleled. They have been citizens of the United States since 1917, served in every major conflict since World War I, and have been influential members of American culture, politics, and society. Yet, Puerto Rico is not fully part of the United States. The island of 3.2 million people— more than the population of eighteen states—is a U.S. territory. This means the federal government wields its complete and largely unrestrained plenary power over the Island, often treating Puerto Ricans differently than the rest of the United States. This differential …

Aggregation And The “Universal” Injunction, Portia Pedro, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

In this Essay, we begin with a brief summary of the CASA decision’s holding regarding the availability of “universal” injunctions. Part II discusses the relationship between remedies and judicial review and the important role that such injunctions play in that regard. Part III explores how class actions could serve as an alternative path for federal courts, after engaging in judicial review, to make their decisions meaningful by requiring officials to comply with the law and to cease illegal actions or policies. We also respond to several objections to the use of class actions in this context. The final Part addresses …

The Supreme Court Under Threat: Early Lessons In Judicial Self-Protection, Curtis A. Bradley, Neil S. Siegel

Faculty Scholarship

This Essay explores how the U.S. Supreme Court, despite being vulnerable to defiance of its decisions and political retaliation, has developed tools of judicial self-protection to preserve its institutional authority and thus its capacity to sustain the Constitution and the rule of law. Arguing that the Court performs not only a legal role that requires interpretation of the law but also a political one that demands institutional preservation, the Essay examines how the Court has historically navigated political threats by using a range of tools—including avoidance, delay, narrow rulings, strategic dicta, and rhetorical appeals. The Essay focuses on three nineteenth-century …

Making The Party Presentation Principle Safe For Originalism, Randy E. Barnett, Lawrence B. Solum

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court sometimes adheres to what it calls the “party presentation principle”—terminology that dates back to 2008. Although judicial articulations of the principle have been inconsistent and imprecise, the gist is the familiar notion that courts should resolve cases on the basis of the issues and reasons presented by the parties to the dispute. Conversely, questions not properly raised by the parties should be avoided by the Court. Thus, the Court has on several occasions declined to address arguments outside the scope of the questions raised by the parties in their petition for certiorari.

For originalists, the importance of …

Communicative Administration: The Administrative State Beyond Legal Administration, Daniel E. Walters

Faculty Scholarship

On many dimensions, the administrative state is at the nadir of its power. The Supreme Court has tightened administrative law controls on agency power, and the Trump Administration has stormed the bureaucracy in an unprecedented blitz designed to kneecap agency capacity and independence. For better or worse, many agencies and their civil servants are being sidelined as meaningful actors in the administration of government. Yet this familiar account doesn’t tell the entire story. At the same time that agencies are being stripped of the power to implement law—what this Article calls “legal administration”— they are steadily accumulating extensive and largely …

Fifty Ways To Leave Your Lover: Using State Constitutions To Escape The Dead Hand Of Article V, Meg Penrose

Faculty Scholarship

Thomas Jefferson believed that “the earth always belongs to the living generation.” His constitutional approach would empower twenty-first century Americans to decide twenty-first century problems regularly determined by the United States Supreme Court. Article V, the formal method for constitutional change, seemingly relegates these decisions to the Supreme Court because amending the federal Constitution is nearly impossible.

Unfortunately, our fixation on federal constitutional law often eclipses the power of state constitutional law. State constitutions balance our relatively static federal Constitution with responsive state governments. There is no need to debate what the Framers thought about modern issues when Americans can …

Court-Stripping, Court-Packing, And Court Defying: Revisiting The Supreme Court’S Essential Functions, Curtis A. Bradley, Neil S. Siegel

Faculty Scholarship

The "essential functions thesis" is one of the most famous structural arguments in the field of federal courts. The thesis, which has been endorsed by a number of prominent scholars and the executive branch, posits that there are implicit, structural limits on Congress's authority to "strip" the Supreme Court of its appellate jurisdiction. Court-stripping, the thesis contends, is not allowed if it would undermine the essential functions of the Court-in particular, maintaining the supremacy and uniformity of federal law. In this Article, we revisit that thesis with three goals in mind. First, we aim to show that the structural arguments …

Agenda Control And Precedent, Thomas P. Schmidt

Faculty Scholarship

The U.S. Supreme Court now has vast control over its agenda: It has the power to pick and choose not only what cases it will hear through writs of certiorari, but also what specific legal questions within those cases it will consider. As a result, the Court never revisits a precedent unless it has made a prior, discretionary choice to put the viability of a precedent on its agenda. For that reason, the Court’s powers of agenda control play a significant and underappreciated role in maintaining the continuity of the legal order. Indeed, it is no surprise that the formal …

Access To Justice After Medina V Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, Daniel G. Aaron, Nicole Huberfeld

Faculty Scholarship

Access to justice is “the ability of all people to seek and obtain effective remedies through accessible, affordable, … and culturally competent institutions of justice.”¹ Historically, patients and physicians have worked together to protect the integrity of medical care as well as patients’ rights by challenging unlawful government actions in court. Yet the US Supreme Court recently issued decisions that may impede access to justice, potentially empowering federal, state, and local governments to interfere with evidence-based care. We explore constraints on access to justice that may arise after Medina v Planned Parenthood South Atlantic (PPSA) (606 US 357, 2025), …

The Exactions Illusion: Sheetz’S Missing Dissent, Lee Anne Fennell, Timothy M. Mulvaney

Faculty Scholarship

In April 2024, the Supreme Court unanimously handed down Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, a land use exactions case billed as narrow, inevitable, constitutionally compelled, and obviously correct.  It was none of those things. Sheetz instead ushered in an open-ended shift of policy control over the built environment from state and local legislatures to courts. By its terms, the holding extended the Court’s stringent “exactions” test—which requires the government to prove nexus and proportionality between development conditions and development impacts—beyond its original context of parcel-specific administrative bargains to reach an unspecified set of legislated property conditions. Yet the decision’s …

The Eighth Amendment And Prison Staff-To-Sentenced Prisoner Sexual Violence, Matthew Lyskawa

Faculty Scholarship

In this Article, I provide the first comprehensive account of lower federal courts’ Eighth Amendment prison conditions jurisprudence regarding prison staff-to-sentenced prisoner sexual violence. I show that lower federal courts are systematically misunderstanding and misapplying Supreme Court case law in this context. The result is that sexually victimized prisoners must meet extremely burdensome doctrinal standards unique to sexual violence claims. Lower federal courts would faithfully follow Supreme Court precedent if they applied the excessive force standard to sexual assault claims and the conditions of confinement standard to sexual harassment claims. However, a faithful application of Supreme Court case law does …

Llm-Assisted Legal Propositions Identification From Party Arguments In The U.S. Supreme Court Briefs, Heng Zheng, Alex Zhang

Faculty Scholarship

Merits briefs are central to U.S. litigation, serving as the primary means for parties to present arguments and persuade judges. Legal propositions in these merits briefs are the atomic units of arguments, whose relationships evolve throughout litigation and inform court decisions and precedent. Large language models (LLMs) have been applied to legal document review, but there is limited evidence on their ability to identify legal propositions in merits briefs. Given the labor-intensive nature of the task, we evaluate a human-AI collaborative approach to identifying legal propositions in the U.S. Supreme Court merits briefs, in which legal annotators review and revise …

The Ambitions Of History And Tradition In And Beyond The Second Amendment, Joseph Blocher, Reva B. Siegel

Faculty Scholarship

This Article examines the ambitions of history-and-tradition review in and beyond the Second Amendment. In Bruen and Rahimi, the Roberts Court rejected means-end review in favor of a historical-analogical approach, claiming to constrain the exercise of judicial discretion and thus to promote the democratic decisions of the founders. But our examination of these cases shows that the Court has created new opportunities for judges to advance their values in considerably less transparent ways. We identify contexts in which Second Amendment doctrine enables judicial discretion, key among them that it allows judges to reason about gun rights and regulation at disparate …

Does Textualism Constrain Supreme Court Justices?, James J. Brudney, Lawrence Baum

Faculty Scholarship

A principal justification for textualism is the constraint hypothesis. Conservative Justices and leading textualist scholars contend that—in stark contrast to reliance on legislative history—focus on the ordinary meaning of enacted text leaves little room for the Justices to be policy-oriented or ideological in their interpretations. This Article represents the first systematic study probing the validity of the constraint hypothesis, one that employs both quantitative and qualitative analysis.

The Article examines the Justices’ reliance on interpretive resources in over 660 statutory decisions in the field of labor and employment, decided by the Burger Court, the Rehnquist Court, and the Roberts Court—during …

Spending Programs And The New Roberts Court, Nicole Huberfeld

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court is poised to place new limits on Congress’s spending power at the urging of states vying for regulatory dominance, particularly in health care and public health. This article is the first to highlight and catalog the throughlines of argumentation, which sparked after states successfully challenged the ACA but have grown into opposing more than Medicaid’s cooperative federalism. This means federal and state programs that heavily rely on federal spending power are at risk, so studying this pattern is imperative. The article begins with a descriptive account of increasing spending power challenges, which make use of converging factors …

United States V. Skrmetti: L’Identité De Genre Dans Le Droit Et La Politique De L’Égale Protection, Olatunde C.A. Johnson

Faculty Scholarship

French Abstract: L’article analyse l’arrêt United States v. Skrmetti, dans lequel la Cour suprême américaine juge que l’interdiction, par le Tennessee, des bloqueurs de puberté pour les mineurs trans ne viole pas la clause constitutionnelle d’égalité, dite clause « d’égale protection ». Refusant de considérer qu’il s’agit d’une discrimination fondée sur le sexe, la Cour applique le contrôle le plus déférent (base rationnelle) et accepte l’argument de l’État selon lequel il protège les mineur·es de risques médicaux incertains. L’auteure montre ici que cette approche s’inscrit dans un contexte plus large de lois et de décrets fédéraux visant les personnes …

Local Government Standing As State Standing, Katharine Cooney, Katherine Mims Crocker

Faculty Scholarship

It is increasingly common, and controversial, for local governments to bring lawsuits as plaintiffs in federal court. Many questions about this practice raise matters that sound in policy. But some, including the issue of standing to sue, also raise issues of constitutional law. How local governments fit into standing rules should reflect how they fit into the U.S. constitutional system more broadly. As the Supreme Court put it in the famous (and infamous) 1907 case Hunter v. City of Pittsburgh, "[m]unicipal corporations are political subdivisions of the State, created as convenient agencies for exercising such of the governmental powers of …

Chimeric Contacts And Consent: The Ill-Reasoned Expansion Of Corporate Jurisdictional Exposure, James Paul George

Faculty Scholarship

Two recent Supreme Court decisions have imposed aspects of general jurisdiction in a way that exposes corporations and possibly other legal actors to litigation in spuriously connected forums. One case-Ford Motor Company v. Montana-reached a fair result but with strained reasoning that will support unfair results. The second case-Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railroad Company-was wrong on the facts and the law, imposing general jurisdiction based on a vaguely worded corporate registration statute validated by a more than century-old precedent based on Pennoyer v. Neff's limited territorial model. Both decisions were the result of conceptual corners the Supreme Court has created …

Joinder, Not Jurisdiction: Toward A New Theory Of Standing, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

This Article builds on an important development in the Supreme Court’s standing jurisprudence to propose a novel theory that would allow more meaningful access to federal courts while vindicating legitimate separation-of-powers concerns. In its recent decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, the Supreme Court endorsed a theory of standing based on Article II, writing that litigation between private parties—even when explicitly authorized by Congress—can run afoul of the executive branch’s interest in “how to prioritize and how aggressively to pursue legal actions against defendants who violate the law.” This Article II move has been justifiably criticized. But it is …

A Conversation About Stare Decisis, Debra A. Livingston, John Q. Barrett

Faculty Scholarship

John Q. Barrett (“JQB”)

Chief Judge Debra Ann Livingston, welcome back to St. John’s.

The Chief Judge has been a friend to us for many years. It is an honor to host someone of her talent and someone in her position: the Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

We’re going to have a conversation for the first part of the program, about judging, her work, and stare decisis. But first, we need to meet you and hear a little bit about your background — where you are from — and the path that took …

Do Bans On Conversion Therapy Impose A Governmental "Orthodoxy" About Sex And Gender?, Linda C. Mcclain

Faculty Scholarship

In Part I, this Essay evaluates how orthodoxy arguments featured in Mr. Tingley’s challenge to Washington’s ban on conversion therapy. Part II offers a preliminary analysis of Chiles v. Salazar, ⁴² which the Court will hear during its 2025-2026 Term. I illustrate how the arguments made against Washington’s law by Chiles and her amici draw from the anti-orthodoxy and marketplace of ideas rhetoric found not only in Justice Thomas’s Tingley dissent and his NIFLA opinion but also in Justice Gorsuch’s majority opinion in the 303 Creative decision.⁴³ Woven together with these speech arguments are appeals to the Court’s …

Original Discontent, William Magnuson

Faculty Scholarship

There are many theories of constitutional interpretation. Most, but not all, of them assert that, in interpreting the Constitution’s provisions, we should start by taking seriously the intentions of the enactors, meaning, roughly speaking, its drafters, defenders and ratifiers. This Article argues that, in doing so, judges, scholars and policymakers have underestimated an important feature of the process of constitution-making: the discontent of the enactors themselves with the Constitution they were enacting. Time and again, during the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, during the penning of the Federalist Papers, and during the state ratifying conventions, the enactors expressed deep reservations about …

Rulemaking Petitions In A World Without Deference To Agencies: A New Lease On Life?, Daniel E. Walters

Faculty Scholarship

Often overlooked in the study and practice of administrative law, rulemaking petitions are means by which interested persons can prompt federal agencies to implement the statutes they administer in particular ways. After the Supreme Court’s 2024 decisions in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 144 S. Ct. 2244 (2024), and Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency, 144 S. Ct. 2040 (2024), rulemaking petitions are about to experience a renaissance—one that could reshape environmental law, should environmental advocates choose to leverage the procedure.

The Great Unsettling: Administrative Governance After Loper Bright, Cary Coglianese, Daniel E. Walters

Faculty Scholarship

“Chevron is overruled.” These three words surely captured more attention than any others in the U.S. Supreme Court’s thirty-five-page opinion in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. For forty years, the Chevron doctrine had been virtually synonymous with administrative law. Now that the Court has taken a step that many scholars thought unfathomable even just a few years ago, speculation abounds about the possible downstream impacts of Loper Bright on both what agencies will be able to do in the future and how lower courts will respond when reviewing agency action. The vast majority of early expert commentaries suggest …

Moral Politics Theory Applied To Abortion: Utopias, Dystopias, And Dobbs, Susan Ayres

Faculty Scholarship

This article examines Moral Politics Theory (MPT) as a way to understand current tensions in the US concerning reproductive justice. MPT, as developed and researched for over thirty years by cognitive scientist, George Lakoff, provides a way to explain differences in political worldviews. According to Lakoff’s research in Moral Politics and Don’t Think of an Elephant!, conservatives tend to hold a strict-father model, and progressives hold a nurturant-parent model. People in the political middle tend to endorse both models; Lakoff labels those in the middle as “biconceptuals,” and discusses how this group is most susceptible to persuasion because metaphors frame …

The Solicitor General, Consistency, And Credibility, Margaret H. Lemos, Deborah A. Widiss

Faculty Scholarship

This Article offers the first comprehensive look at cases in which the Solicitor General (SG) rejects a legal argument offered on behalf of the United States in prior litigation. Such reversals have received considerable attention in recent years, as shifts in presidential administrations have produced multiple high-profile “flip-flops”—as the Justices sometimes call them—by the SG. Even those observers who defend the SG, including veterans of the office, caution that inconsistency in legal argument poses a threat to the SG’s credibility with the Court. Our goal is to better understand the circumstances that lead the SG to change its position on …

Judicial Reform From The Inside Out, Daniel Epps, Marin K. Levy

Faculty Scholarship

The Judiciary Act of 1925, the subject of this Symposium, is known as “the Judges Bill” for a reason. The Justices of the Supreme Court, and Chief Justice Taft in particular, produced the Act and persuaded Congress to enact it. To modern eyes, such efforts seem indecorous, perhaps even scandalous. But in fact, Supreme Court Justices and other federal judges have been extensively involved in judicial reform throughout American history. This Essay examines participation by federal judges in judicial reform efforts—what we call judicial reform from the inside out.

We survey examples of judges participating in reform debates from across …

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

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

From Race-Conscious To Race-Neutral: The Next Generation Of Litigation Over Selective Admissions, Rachel F. Moran

Faculty Scholarship

In the wake of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, there have been fierce debates over the meaning of colorblindness in the higher education admissions process. Setting the stage for these controversies are recent lawsuits challenging changes to admissions policies at selective public high schools. In these cases, the plaintiffs allege that although school officials relied on facially race-neutral criteria, their actions were motivated by a desire to improve the representation of Black and Latino students. According to the complaints, these revised policies are an impermissible form …

When Is Free Speech “Beyond” The Constitution?, Abner S. Greene

Faculty Scholarship

The constitution of a nation without a state action doctrine might limit private restriction or compulsion of speech just as it limits the state. In such a nation, “free speech beyond the constitution” might not be a particularly meaningful concept. In the United States, however, the First Amendment’s free speech clause limits only what the federal, state, and local governments may do. As a nonconstitutional policy matter, it might or might not be a good idea for the government to impose First Amendment- like restrictions on private actors or for private actors to voluntarily impose First Amendment-like restrictions on themselves. …