Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

Health Policy In The Supreme Court And A New Conservative Majority, Lawrence O. Gostin, Wendy E. Parmet, Sara Rosenbaum

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

This Viewpoint looks at the range of medical and public health issues that could be adversely affected by appointment of Justice Amy Coney Barrett to the US Supreme Court, including weakening or elimination of the Affordable Care Act, Medicaid work requirements that could reduce eligibility, and reduced reproductive rights and governmental public health emergency powers.

Gerrymandering Justiciability, Girardeau A. Spann

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

As illustrated by its 2019 decision in Rucho v. Common Cause, the Supreme Court has gerrymandered its justiciability doctrines in a way that protects the political power of white voters. Comparing the Court’s willingness to find racial gerrymanders justiciable with its refusal to find partisan gerrymanders justiciable reveals a lack of doctrinal constraint. That gives the Court the discretionary power to uphold or strike down particular gerrymanders by deeming them racial or partisan in nature. Such discretion is problematic because, when the Supreme Court has exercised discretion in a racial context, it has historically done so to protect the …

Rucho Is Right – But For The Wrong Reasons, Louis Michael Seidman

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In Rucho v. Common Cause, the Supreme Court ended its long struggle to formulate constitutional standards to regulate political gerrymandering by declaring that it was not up to the job. The Court held that it could come up with no manageable standards governing the controversy and that it therefore posed a nonjusticiable political question.

In this brief comment, I attempt defend this outcome. The task is not easy, and I hope that the reader will at least give me some points for degree of difficulty. There is no denying that partisan gerrymandering is a very serious evil and there …

The Genius Of Hamilton And The Birth Of The Modern Theory Of The Judiciary, William M. Treanor

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In late May 1788, with the essays of the Federalist on the Congress (Article I) and the Executive (Article II) completed, Alexander Hamilton turned, finally, to Article III and the judiciary. The Federalist’s essays 78 to 83 – the essays on the judiciary - had limited effect on ratification. No newspaper outside New York reprinted them, and they appeared very late in the ratification process – after eight states had ratified. But, if these essays had little immediate impact – essentially limited to the ratification debates in New York and, perhaps, Virginia – they were a stunning intellectual achievement. Modern …

Supreme Silence And Precedential Pragmatism: King V. Burwell And Statutory Interpretation In The Federal Courts Of Appeals, Michael J. Cedrone

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

This Article studies statutory interpretation as it is practiced in the federal courts of appeal. Much of the academic commentary in this field focuses on the Supreme Court, which skews the debate and unduly polarizes the field. This Article investigates more broadly by looking at the seventy-two federal appellate cases that cite King v. Burwell in the two years after the Court issued its decision. In deciding that the words “established by the State” encompass a federal program, the Court in King reached a pragmatic and practical result based on statutory scheme and purpose at a fairly high level of …

State Abortion Restrictions And The New Supreme Court: Women’S Access To Reproductive Health Services, Rebecca Reingold, Lawrence O. Gostin

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The US Supreme Court’s landmark 1973 ruling in Roe v Wade established a privacy right to choose abortion. In 1992, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey reaffirmed Roe with the Supreme Court calling reproductive decisions “the most intimate and personal choices a person may make…central to personal dignity.” Casey allows abortion regulations, but states cannot impose an “undue burden,” where the law’s “purpose or effect” places a substantial obstacle in a woman’s path in accessing an abortion previability.

State abortion restrictions—meaning laws that restrict whether, when, and under what circumstances a woman may obtain an abortion—increased in the aftermath …

Functional Equivalence And Residual Rights Post-Carpenter: Framing A Test Consistent With Precedent And Original Meaning, Laura K. Donohue

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Carpenter Court held that warrantless access to seven or more days of cell site location information (CSLI) constitutes a violation of the reasonable expectation of privacy that individuals have in the whole of their physical movements. But the grounds on which the Court drew a line characterize all sorts of digital records—including those at issue in Miller and Smith, belying the majority’s claim that the decision leaves third-party doctrine intact. Instead of avoiding Katz’s pitfalls, moreover, the Court emphasized voluntary assumption of risk, doubling down on the subjective nature of judicial determination. The decision will likely lead to …

Aedpa As Forum Allocation: The Textual And Structural Case For Overruling Williams V. Taylor, Carlos Manuel Vázquez

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In Williams v. Taylor, the Supreme Court read a section of the Anti- Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) to change the long-prevailing de novo standard of review of federal habeas petitions by state prisoners. In holding that Congress had denied the lower federal courts the power to grant habeas relief to prisoners in custody pursuant to wrong but reasonable state court decisions, the Court departed from the provision’s text and relied instead on its perception of a generalized congressional purpose to cut back on habeas relief and on the non-redundancy canon of statutory construction. On both scores, …

All Balls And No Strikes: The Roberts Court’S Anti-Worker Activism, J. Maria Glover

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

For decades, legislatures and courts have created and preserved rights and remedies for vulnerable groups—consumers, employees, victims of mass torts, investors, and the like. Both branches have extolled the virtues of these substantive rights and the private enforcement mechanisms required to effectuate them. However, despite statements like that of Justice Roberts and others that the judiciary is not a lawmaking body—indeed, that the judicial institution should take care to exercise restraint—the Roberts Court has engaged in sweeping reform that tends to extinguish these substantive rights.

In 2012, I traced how the Roberts Court paid scant attention to the integral role …

Substantial Shifts In Supreme Court Health Law Jurisprudence, Lawrence O. Gostin, James G. Hodge

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

President Trump’s nomination of jurist Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court presents significant, potential changes on health law and policy issues. If confirmed by the U.S. Senate, Kavanaugh’s approaches as a federal appellate court judge and scholar could literally shift the Court’s balance on consequential health policies. Judge Kavanaugh has disavowed broad discretion for federal agency authorities, cast significant doubts on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, and narrowly interpreted reproductive rights (most notably abortion services). He has supported gun rights pursuant to the Second Amendment beyond U.S. Supreme Court recent interpretations. His varying positions related to consumer …

A Hobbesian Bundle Of Lockean Sticks: The Property Rights Legacy Of Justice Scalia, J. Peter Byrne

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

No modern United States Supreme Court Justice has stimulated more thought and debate about the constitutional meaning of property than Antonin Scalia. This essay evaluates his efforts to change the prevailing interpretation of the Takings Clause. Scalia sought to ground it in clear rules embodying a reactionary defense of private owners’ prerogatives against environmental and land use regulation. Ultimately, Scalia aimed to authorize federal judicial oversight of state property law developments, whether through legislative or judicial innovation. In hindsight, he stands in a long tradition of conservative judges using property law as a constitutional baseline by which to restrain regulation.

Habeas As Forum Allocation: A New Synthesis, Carlos Manuel Vázquez

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The scope of habeas relief for state prisoners, especially during the decades before the Supreme Court’s 1953 decision in Brown v. Allen, is a famously disputed question – one of recognized significance for contemporary debates about the proper scope of habeas review. This Essay provides a new answer. It argues that, until the enactment of AEDPA in 1996, state prisoners were always entitled to de novo review of the legal and mixed law/fact questions decided against them by the state courts. Until 1916, such review was provided by the Supreme Court; after 1953, such review was provided by the lower …

Good Faith Discrimination, Girardeau A. Spann

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Supreme Court's current doctrinal rules governing racial discrimination and affirmative action are unsatisfying. They often seem artificial, internally inconsistent, and even conceptually incoherent. Despite a long and continuing history of racial discrimination in the United States, many of the problems with the Supreme Court's racial jurisprudence stem from the Court's willingness to view the current distribution of societal resources as establishing a colorblind, race-neutral baseline that can be used to make equality determinations. As a result, the current rules are as likely to facilitate racial discrimination as to prevent it, or to remedy the lingering effects of past discrimination.

How The Supreme Court Uses The Certiorari Process In The Ninth Circuit To Further Its Pro-Business Agenda: A Strange Pas De Deux With An Unfortunate Coda, Hope M. Babcock

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

This Article examines the proposition that the Roberts Court has an unusually strong pro-business slant through the lens of the Court's certiorari process. The Article uses data from the grant or denial of certiorari petitions filed in environmental cases over a sixteen-year period in both the Ninth and District of Columbia Circuits, selected because each court hears a large number of environmental cases. The recent record in the Ninth Circuit, where environmentalists win below only to lose in the high court, or lose below and subsequently have their petitions denied, is quite different from that in the D.C. Circuit. In …

Rethinking Legal Conservatism, Neal K. Katyal

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

This is the time for us to think through whether an entity as august as the Federalist Society should embrace a move toward a constitutional conservatism. It strikes me as dangerous in terms of the underlying issues, but more importantly, as a step away from the fundamental insight that the Federalist Society had, which was that judges should be restrained because they lack the democratic pedigree of the political branches. There should be an impulse of judicial restraint, and, unless something is clearly unconstitutional, courts should not be mucking around with legislation and declaring it unconstitutional, no matter how novel …

The Solicitor General And Confession Of Error, Neal K. Katyal

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Confessions of error have a long history. From the very beginning of the Solicitor General's position, we have had confessions of error.

All Solicitors General-it doesn't matter whether they are appointed by a Republican or a Democrat-have confessed error, roughly at the pace of two to three times per Supreme Court term.

Remarks By Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal, Neal K. Katyal

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Few have served the public with greater distinction than Justice John Paul Stevens. That service began with Justice Stevens's work as a naval intelligence officer during World War II, continued through his five years of service as a judge on the Seventh Circuit, and culminated with thirty-four and a half years on the United States Supreme Court. It also included a twenty-six-day stint in September 2005, during which Justice Stevens served as the Acting Chief Justice of the United States.

Executive And Judicial Overreaction In The Guantanamo Cases, Neal K. Katyal

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The U.S. Supreme Court in Rasul v. Bush and Al-Odah v. United States held that detainees at Guantanamo Bay may challenge their detentions via writs of habeas corpus. Justice Stevens' majority opinion held that "the federal courts have jurisdiction to determine the legality of the Executive's potentially indefinite detention of individuals who claim to be wholly innocent of wrongdoing." This holding is potentially unbounded, perhaps enabling someone detained at Kandahar or even Diego Garcia to challenge his detention via the great writ. It appears to be a striking break from the 1950 Johnson v. Eisentrager decision, which strongly intimated that …

Beyond The Supreme Court: A Modest Plea To Improve Our Asylum System, Andrew I. Schoenholtz

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Moderating a session at the Workshop on the Supreme Court and Immigration and Refugee Law at the Georgetown University Law Center, Peter Spiro asked just how important the Supreme Court really is to refugee and immigration law. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has actively interpreted the Refugee Convention and Protocol, and its decisions have had an adverse affect on important protection issues. James Hathaway knows this well. Yet his article focuses on the two Supreme Court decisions that most practitioners and scholars agree have not translated into serious protection problems in the United States or abroad.

The Warren Court And The Concept Of A Right, David Luban

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Warren Court is dead. None of its Justices remain on the benchindeed, only Justice White survives-and the recent history of the Supreme Court has been in large part a history of repudiating controversial Warren Court doctrines. Public opinion likewise repudiates Warren-style judicial activism, and constitutional scholarship-which as recently as the mid- 1980s consisted in considerable measure of theoretical defenses for Warren Court-inspired methods of interpreting the Bill of Rights-has grown increasingly skeptical of expansive interpretive strategies. It is quite possible that future constitutional historians will regard the Warren era as an aberration. The Warren Court, after all, was not …

Color-Coded Standing, Girardeau A. Spann

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Remarkably, the Supreme Court has held that whites who wish to challenge the constitutionality of affirmative action plans have standing to do so. In Northeastern Florida Chapter of the Associated General Contractors v. City of Jacksonville the Supreme Court upheld the standing of non-minority construction contractors to challenge a minority setaside program under the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. What is remarkable is not that the result reached in the case was wrong, but that the Court was able to reach that result given its most recent standing precedents. In previous Terms, the Supreme Court had taken …

Foreword: "Do What You Can...", Susan Low Bloch

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

"Do what you can with what you have." That's what Thurgood Marshall preached. That is how he lived. He used what he had to change the world forever.

Pure Politics, Girardeau A. Spann

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The present Supreme Court has been noticeably unreceptive to legal claims asserted by racial minorities. Although it is always possible to articulate nonracial motives for the Court's civil rights decisions, the popular perception is that a politically conservative majority wishing to cut back on the protection minority interests receive at majority expense now dominates the Supreme Court. In reviewing the work of the Court during its 1988 Term, The United States Law Week reported that "[a] series of civil rights decisions by a conservative majority of the U.S. Supreme Court making it easier to challenge affirmative action programs and more …

Spinning The Legislative Veto, Girardeau A. Spann

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

I am delighted to have been given the opportunity to comment on Judge Breyer's proposal for a fast-track substitute to the legislative veto. Although the Supreme Court invalidated the legislative veto device in INS v. Chadha, Judge Breyer's proposal demonstrates that innovative thinking may well permit those with enough determination to circumvent the apparent effect of the Court's decision. Even more important, the proposal illustrates why such circumvention is possible.

As a doctrinal matter, the legislative veto poses a real dilemma--one that is rooted in fundamental uncertainty about the proper relationship between the Supreme Court and the elected branches of …

Deconstructing The Legislative Veto, Girardeau A. Spann

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

On June 23, 1983, the Supreme Court invalidated more federal statutes in a single day than it had in all of its prior history. In so doing, the Court also dramatically altered the allocation of governmental power between Congress and the President. At least that is how the press viewed the significance of INS v. Chadha, the decision invalidating the legislative veto device on which Congress had come to rely as an expedient method of controlling the exercise of executive discretion. Whether or not the hyperbole proves to have been warranted, the decision does possess a certain intrigue-it is not …

Functional Analysis Of The Plain-Error Rule, Girardeau A. Spann

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In this article, I attempt to do two things at once. First, I attempt to analyze the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to conduct "plain-error" review of state court decisions. The plain-error issue merits consideration not only because of its intrinsic interest and arguable complexity, but also because the question whether the Supreme Court is authorized to engage in plain-error review is an open one that I would like to help resolve. My second objective, however, is the more important of the two. In the context of analyzing plain-error review, what I really want to do is analyze legal analysis itself. There …