Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

Sausage-Making, Pigs' Ears, And Congressional Expansions Of Federal Jurisdiction: Exxon Mobil V. Allapattah And Its Lessons For The Class Action Fairness Act, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

The year 2005 witnessed two watershed developments in federal jurisdiction: the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc. and the enactment of the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Allapattah and CAFA raise the same fundamental question: how should courts interpret a statute whose text would expand federal jurisdiction far beyond what Congress apparently intended? In Allapattah, the Court confronted this question in resolving an aspect of the supplemental jurisdiction statute that had deeply divided both the judiciary and academia. CAFA's expansion of federal jurisdiction over class actions will require courts to struggle with this question …

"There Is Only One Equal Protection Clause": An Appreciation Of Justice Stevens's Equal Protection Jurisprudence, James E. Fleming

Faculty Scholarship

"There is only one Equal Protection Clause. It requires every State to govern impartially. It does not direct the courts to apply one standard of review in some cases and a different standard in other cases."1 These words open Justice John Paul Stevens's famous concurring opinion in Craig v. Boren.2 That was the first case in which the U.S. Supreme Court applied "intermediate" scrutiny to gender-based classifications and thus carved out a third tier of equal protection analysis between strict scrutiny and deferential rational basis scrutiny. Craig was decided in 1976, at the beginning of Justice Stevens's long and distinguished …

Leading A Constitutional Court: Perspectives From The Federal Republic Of Germany, Peter E. Quint

Faculty Scholarship

This article, which was a contribution to a Symposium on the office of the Chief Justice of the United States, compares that office with the office of President of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany. The article concludes that, while the American Chief Justice possesses more authority in most formal respects, the President of the German Court has on occasion exercised an informal public or private influence that goes well beyond anything of the sort that has been attempted (recently at least) by the American Chief Justice.

Does It Really Matter? Conservative Courts In A Conservative Era, Mark A. Graber

Faculty Scholarship

This essay explores the likelihood that conservative federal courts in the near future will be agents of conservative social change. In particular, the paper assesses whether conservative justices on some issues will support more conservative policies than conservative elected officials are presently willing to enact and whether such judicial decisions will influence public policy. My primary conclusion is that, as long as conservatives remain politically ascendant in the elected branches of government, the Roberts Court is likely to influence American politics at the margins. The new conservative judicial majority is likely to be more libertarian than conservative majorities in the …

Against Idols: The Court As A Symbol-Making Or Rhetorical Institution, Marie Failinger

Faculty Scholarship

Symbolic politics can be quite powerful. This article pursues the question of how the Supreme Court signifies itself, how it discovers and enacts the metaphors from which it will play its part in the American political drama aimed at containing some of the nightmares of human existence, while affirming and encouraging the possibilities for human flourishing. Embedded in this inquiry is the question of how the Court can signify itself while still preserving the truth-telling and humility necessary to legitimize Court decisions.

Aggravating Youth: Roper V Simmons And Age Discrimination, Elizabeth F. Emens

Faculty Scholarship

In Roper v. Simmons, the Supreme Court confronted a difficult question: Given that being younger than eighteen is merely a proxy for diminished culpability, why not let jurors decide whether youth mitigates the culpability of an individual sixteen- or seventeen-year-old offender? The Court's subtle answer draws on psychological literature about the differences between juveniles and adults, but ultimately depends as much on concerns about the mind of the adult juror as on the distinctive traits of juveniles. Read in its best light, Kennedy's opinion seems to turn on the insight that while age-based classifications are rational – they are a …

Less Is Better: Justice Stevens And The Narrowed Death Penalty, James S. Liebman, Lawrence C. Marshall

Faculty Scholarship

In a recent speech to the American Bar Association, Justice John Paul Stevens "issued an unusually stinging criticism of capital punishment." Although he "stopped short of calling for an end to the death penalty," Justice Stevens catalogued a number of its "'serious flaws,'" including several procedures that the full Court has reviewed and upheld over his dissent – selecting capital jurors in a manner that excludes those with qualms about the death penalty, permitting elected state judges to second-guess jurors when they decline to impose the death penalty, permitting states to premise death verdicts on "victim impact statements," tolerating sub-par …

Circling Around The Confrontation Clause: Redefined Reach But Not A Robust Right, Lisa Kern Griffin

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court’s consolidated ruling in United States v. Davis and United States v. Hammon is a classic of the genre of consensus opinions to which the Roberts Court aspired in its first, transitional term. The opinion, authored by Justice Scalia, contains practical accommodations unusual in a decision by the Court’s fiercest proponent of first principles. The restraint that characterized the term is, of course, more about considerations of logistics (including the desire to avoid re-arguments after the mid-term replacement of Justice O’Connor) than about the alignment of logic. Because it reflects temporary institutional constraints rather than intellectual agreement, the …

Jackson V. Birmingham Board Of Education: Title Ix's Implied Private Right Of Action For Retaliation, Elizabeth Mccuskey

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court has penned countless words about the sound of statutory silence.' On March 29, 2005, the Court once again grappled with the meaning of silence in a statute, splitting along familiar 5-4 lines in Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education.² When the dust cleared, a male coach of a high school girls' basketball team, who was fired in retaliation for protecting his players' Title IX³ rights, possessed a private right of action arising from the statute itself.⁴ Although the Court has retreated from its high-water mark of implying private rights of action,⁵ in …

The Irrepressible Myth Of Celotex: Reconsidering Summary Judgment Burdens Twenty Years After The Trilogy, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

Twenty years ago, the Supreme Court decided a trilogy of cases on summary judgment. These cases have had a profound impact on federal litigation. Empirical data presented in this article demonstrate that federal courts have cited these three cases more than any Supreme Court decisions in history. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett is widely recognized as the most significant decision of the trilogy, both because it expanded the availability of summary judgment and because it remains the Court's most current instructions on how burdens are allocated between the party seeking and the party opposing summary judgment. However, Celotex failed to clarify …

Environmental Law In The Supreme Court: Highlights From The Blackmun Papers, Robert V. Percival

Faculty Scholarship

The papers of the late Justice Harry A. Blackmun provide a remarkably rich archive that documents how the Court, for nearly a quarter century, handled environmental cases during a period crucial to the development of environmental law. This Article reviews highlights of what the Blackmun papers reveal about the U.S. Supreme Court’s handling of environmental cases during Justice Blackmun’s service on the Court from 1970 to 1994. The Article first examines what new light the Blackmun papers shed on some of the principal findings of the author’s October 1993 article Environmental Law in the Supreme Court: Highlights from the Marshall …

A Theory In Search Of A Court, And Itself: Judicial Minimalism At The Supreme Court Bar, Neil S. Siegel

Faculty Scholarship

Cass Sunstein has prominently and provocatively advocated a theory of judicial minimalism. He has claimed that minimalism provides both an accurate descriptive account of how the Supreme Court decides constitutional cases and a persuasive normative theory of how the Justices should exercise their power of judicial review. In fact, he has written that the October 2003 Term demonstrates the Court's commitment to judicial minimalism.

In this Article, I demonstrate a deep tension between Professor Sunstein's aspiration that minimalism serve as an empirically testable (and thus descriptively accurate) account of the Supreme Court's work, and his ambition that minimalism provide a …

Lochner: Another Time, Another Place, Larry Yackle

Faculty Scholarship

Professor Lynn Baker's contribution to this symposium extends her long term project both to defend and to critique the Supreme Court's decisions on the scope of congressional power. I find this work valuable and not a little provocative. If Baker's account of the decisions thus far is even partly right, the Court is poised to assume decision-making responsibility that has long been ceded to Congress. If her proposals for the future are adopted, we are in for a cataclysmic constitutional event that rivals the convulsive period when the nation confronted the judicial arrogation of authority associated (rightly or wrongly) with …

Just Blowing Smoke? Politics, Doctrine, And The Federalist Revival After Gonzales V. Raich, Ernest A. Young

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Judging Partisan Gerrymanders Under The Elections Clause, Jamal Greene

Faculty Scholarship

Twice in the last two decades, the Supreme Court has come within two votes of declaring partisan gerrymandering – the manipulation of district lines for partisan ends – a nonjusticiable political question. Last Term, in Vieth v. Jubelirer, Pennsylvania Democrats challenged an alleged Republican gerrymander of the state's congressional districts. Four members of the Court thought the question nonjusticiable, and one, Justice Kennedy, thought it justiciable under the Equal Protection Clause but nonetheless rejected the plaintiffs claims. Eighteen years earlier, in Davis v. Bandemer, a three-Justice plurality had held that a political group complaining of partisan gerrymandering – the Democratic …

The Decline Of The Juvenile Death Penalty: Scientific Evidence Of Evolving Norms, Jeffery Fagan

Faculty Scholarship

Shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Atkins v. Virginia holding that the execution of mentally retarded persons violated the Eighth Amendment, legal scholars, advocates, and journalists began to speculate that the Court would next turn its attention to the question of the execution of persons who were juveniles – below eighteen years of age – at the time they committed homicide. Following the Atkins decision, four Justices expressed the view that the rationale of Atkins also supported the conclusion that execution of juvenile offenders was unconstitutional. A constitutional test of capital punishment for juveniles was inevitable. …

Laugh Track, Jay D. Wexler

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court may have its own police force, its own museum curator, and even its own basketball court, but unlike the courts of yore it has no Jester. As a result, the responsibility of delivering humor within the hallowed halls of One First Street falls squarely on the backs of the nine Justices themselves. But which Justice provides the best comic entertainment for the court watchers, lawyers, and staff that make up the Court’s audience on any given argument day? Surely many believe that Justice Scalia, with his acerbic wit and quick tongue, has provided the most laughs from …

A Criminal Procedure Regime Based On Instrumental Values: A Review Of 'About Guilt And Innocence: The Origins, Development, And Future Of Constitutional Criminal Procedure,' By Donald A. Dripps (Prager Publishers, 2003), Tracey Maclin

Faculty Scholarship

Like many legal academics, Professor Donald Dripps believes that the Supreme Court's criminal procedure doctrine is a mess. Dripps believes that the Court's doctrine "is in large measure responsible for the failure of the criminal-procedure revolution" and contends that "current doctrine does not reflect prevailing (and justified) values about criminal process." To prove his claim, Dripps has written a book that expertly identifies the flaws, inconsistencies and missteps of the Court's constitutional criminal procedure cases dating back to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. "About Guilt and Innocence: The Origins, Development, and Future of Constitutional Criminal Procedure" is a comprehensive …

Untied States: American Expansion And Territorial Deannexation, Christina Duffy Ponsa-Kraus

Faculty Scholarship

At the beginning of the twentieth century the United States laid claim to an overseas empire, consolidating its victory in the Spanish-American War by adopting novel structures of colonial rule over a brace of newly acquired island territories. A set of Supreme Court decisions known collectively as the Insular Cases established the legal authorization for this undertaking. As the traditional story goes, they did so by holding that the U.S. Constitution did not "follow the flag" to the recently annexed possessions in the Pacific Ocean and the Caribbean Sea: thus unfettered, an ambitiously imperial nation could attend to the business …

Brief Of Keith N. Hylton As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Petitioners In Greg Johnson, Et Al. V. Ford Motor Company, Keith N. Hylton

Faculty Scholarship

This Court last addressed the legal framework for setting the amount of punitive damages in Adams v. Murakami (1991) 54 Cal.3d 105. In Adams, this Court declined to reach the argument advanced by the Association for California Tort Reform advocating “the profitability of the defendant’s misconduct” as the appropriate financial measure in fixing punitive damages. Id. at 116 n.7. For this argument to be advanced by such a pro-defendant trade association is hardly an anomaly. It appears typical, evidently based on the sensible assumption that in the setting of punitive damages, a focus on a defendant’s illicit profits will frequently …

Religion And The Rehnquist Court, Kent Greenawalt

Faculty Scholarship

This summary Article pays predominant attention to what the Rehnquist Court has altered. It slights a significant range of continuity. That includes the Court's strong rejection of laws that discriminate among religions or that target religious practices and the Court's inhospitable response to religious exercises that are sponsored by public schools. Although "continuity" may be a misleading term for subjects a court has not addressed, the Supreme Court has not touched the law regarding judicial involvement in church property disputes since Rehnquist became Chief Justice, and nothing it has decided presages an obvious shift in that jurisprudence.

More Is Less, Philip A. Hamburger

Faculty Scholarship

Is the First Amendment's right of free exercise of religion conditional upon government interests? Many eighteenth-century Americans said it was utterly unconditional. For example, James Madison and numerous contemporaries declared in 1785 that "the right of every man to exercise ['Religion'] ... is in its nature an unalienable right" and "therefore that in matters of Religion, no mans right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society." In contrast, during the past forty years, the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly conditioned the right of free exercise on compelling government interests. The Court not merely qualifies the practice of the …

The Domesticated Liberty Of Lawrence V. Texas, Katherine M. Franke

Faculty Scholarship

In this Commentary, Professor Franke offers an account of the Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas. She concludes that in overruling the earlier Bowers v. Hardwick decision, Justice Kennedy does not rely upon a robust form of freedom made available by the Court's earlier reproductive rights cases, but instead announces a kind of privatized liberty right that affords gay and lesbian couples the right to intimacy in the bedroom. In this sense, the rights-holders in Lawrence are people in relationships and the liberty right those couples enjoy does not extend beyond the domain of the private. Franke expresses …

Nine Justices, Ten Years: A Statistical Retrospective, Robert J. Jackson Jr., Thiruvendran Vignarajah

Faculty Scholarship

The 2003 Term marked an unprecedented milestone for the Supreme Court: for the first time in history, nine Justices celebrated a full decade presiding together over the nation's highest court.' The continuity of the current Court is especially striking given that, on average, one new Justice has been appointed approximately every two years since the Court's expansion to nine members in 1837.2 Although the Harvard Law Review has prepared statistical retrospectives in the past,3 the last decade presents a rare opportunity to study the Court free from the disruptions of intervening appointments.

Presented here is a review of the 823 …

A Six-Three Rule: Reviving Consensus And Deference On The Supreme Court, Jed Handelsman Shugerman

Faculty Scholarship

Over the past three decades, the Supreme Court has struck down federal statutes by a bare majority with unprecedented frequency. This Article shows that five-four decisions regularly overturning acts of Congress are a relatively recent phenomenon, whereas earlier Courts generally exercised judicial review by supermajority voting.

One option is to establish the following rule: The Supreme Court may not declare an act of Congress unconstitutional without a two-thirds majority. The Supreme Court itself could establish this rule internally, just as it has created its nonmajority rules for granting certiorari and holds, or one Justice who would otherwise be the fifth …

Unpatriotic Acts: An Introduction, Sadiq Reza

Faculty Scholarship

John Walker Lindh. Zacarias Moussaoui. Jose Padilla. Richard Reid. Who reading these lines does not instantly recognize the names of these men? Or at least their assigned noms de guerre: American Taliban, 20th hijacker, dirty bomber, shoe bomber. For two and a half years these names and others have flitted through our daily copies of The New York Times like shadow characters in a play, along with black-and-white photographs underneath which black-and-white text tells us of their alleged (and sometimes proven) wrongdoing and the latest developments in their tribulations (and sometimes trials) with our government. But the men themselves are …

Recent Cases: Appellate Procedure - Force Of Circuit Precedent - Ninth Circuit Holds That Three-Judge Panels May Declare Prior Cases Overruled When Intervening Supreme Court Precedent Undercuts The Theory Of Earlier Decisions, Robert J. Jackson Jr.

Faculty Scholarship

The nation's courts of appeals have struggled to devise a coherent approach to harmonizing existing circuit case law with intervening decisions of the Supreme Court.' When the Court directly overrules a decision of a court of appeals, it is agreed that the overruled decision loses the force of law. But when a Supreme Court opinion disfavors a circuit's jurisprudential theory, the courts of appeals must determine to what extent cases relying on the rejected theory remain good law. Recently, in Miller v. Gammie (Gammie II),2 the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, adopted an …

Supreme Court Review Of State-Court Determinations Of State Law In Constitutional Cases, Henry Paul Monaghan

Faculty Scholarship

The decision in Bush v. Gore and particularly Chief Justice Rehnquist's concurring opinion were widely criticized for their unwarranted intrusion upon the "authoritative" status of the Florida Supreme Court in determining the meaning of Florida election law. This Article rejects the merits of that criticism. It proposes the thesis that the Supreme Court has ancillary jurisdiction to review state-court determinations of state law in cases where the Constitution or ftderal law imposes a duty of fidelity to prior state law (t₁) and the claim is that the state court materially and impermissibly departed from that law at a …

The Making Of The Second Rehnquist Court: A Preliminary Analysis, Thomas W. Merrill

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court is implicitly assumed to have a certain unity of character under each Chief Justice. Hence, we refer to the "Marshall Court," the "Warren Court," and the "Rehnquist Court." A closer look at history reveals that this assumption of a natural Court defined by the tenure of each Chief Justice is often misleading. The Marshall Court had a different character late in its life than it did in its early years. Similarly, the Warren Court became distinctively more liberal and activist after 1962 when Felix Frankfurter retired and was replaced by Arthur Goldberg.

Although the Rehnquist Court is …

Brief Of Keith N. Hylton As Amicus Curiae In Support Of The Respondents In State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Petitioner V. Curtis B. Campbell And Inez Preece Campbell, Respondents, Keith N. Hylton

Faculty Scholarship

Virtually all courts accept the view that high punitive damage awards are appropriate in instances where the defendant's harmful conduct is unlikely to lead to liability. See, e.g., BMW of N. Am. Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 582 (1996). The Utah Supreme Court reinstated the $145 million punitive damage award in this case in part on the ground that "State Farm's actions, because of their clandestine nature, will be punished at most in one out of every 50,000 cases as a matter of statistical probability." Pet App. 30a. A central issue of this case is whether the Utah Supreme …