Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

The Right To Occupy—Occupy Wall Street And The First Amendment, Sarah Kunstler

Fordham Urban Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Skilling Reconsidered: The Legislative-Judicial Dynamic, Honest Services, Fraud, And The Ill-Conceived "Clean Up Government Act", J. Kelly Strader

Fordham Urban Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Skilling: More Blind Monks Examining The Elephant, Julie Rose O'Sullivan

Fordham Urban Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Rebutting The Fraud On The Market Presumption In Securities Fraud Class Actions: Halliburton Ii Opens The Door, Victor E. Schwartz, Christopher E. Appel

Michigan Business & Entrepreneurial Law Review

In Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc. (Halliburton II), the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed the validity of the “fraud on the market” presumption underlying securities fraud class action litigation. This presumption is vital to bringing suits as class actions because it excuses plaintiffs from proving individual reliance on an alleged corporate misstatement on the theory that any public statements made by the company are incorporated into its stock price and consequently relied upon by all investors. Thus, the Court’s decision to uphold the validity of the presumption has been hailed as a significant victory for those …

The Hidden Under Caste Of America: An Examination Of The Effects Of Terry V. Ohio, Florida V. Bostick, & Whren V. United States And Colorblindness On African Americans, Austin Schoeck

Political Science: Student Scholarship & Creative Works

No abstract provided.

Hurdles To The Court: The Doctrine Of Standing Under Statutory Violations, Priya Khangura

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Standing is a precondition for any suit brought in federal court. This Commentary analyzes a Supreme Court case, Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, which will address whether a violation of a federal statute grants a plaintiff standing to sue. The Author argues that such a violation is sufficient for establishing standing because the plaintiff suffered an injury-in-fact which the legisture intended to prevent. That harm is both traceable to the violation and redressible by statute. Thus, the requisite elements of constitutional standing exist in this case. Such a holding follows from existing standing jurisprudence and ensures that plaintiffs can have …

Arbitration Revisited: Preemption Of California’S Unconscionability Doctrine After Concepcion, David Friedman

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

This commentary looks at a Supreme Court case, Imburgia v. DIRECTV, in which the Court faces the question of whether an arbitration agreement, made pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, preempts state unconscionability doctrine which would render that agreement unenforceable. The Author argues that holding that federal law implementing a policy favoring arbitration fully preempts state law doctrines from preventing the enforcement of arbitration agreements.

Luis V. United States: Asset Forfeiture Butts Heads With The Sixth Amendment, Jordan Glassberg

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

In recent years, the federal government has vastly increased its use of asset forfeiture, the seizure of property connected to illegal activities. As authorized under federal law, the government is also able to restrain assets prior to trial when the government belives those assets will ultimately be found to be forfeitable. This pretrial restraint potentially implicates the constitutionally guaranteed right to counsel for criminal defendants. In the upcoming Supreme Court case of Luis v. United States, the Court will address the question of whether a pretrial restraint of assets which are not traceable to any illegal activity is permissible …

The Indefinite Deflection Of Congressional Standing, Nat Stern

Pepperdine Law Review

Recent litigation brought or threatened against the administration of President Obama has brought to prominence the question of standing by Congress or its members to sue the President for nondefense or non-enforcement of federal law. While scholars divide over the normative propriety of such suits, the Court has never issued a definitive pronouncement on their viability. Nevertheless, the Court’s rulings when the issue has arisen have displayed a distinct pattern. While the Court has not formally repudiated suits of this nature, neither has it issued a decision that hinges on the presence of congressional standing. On the contrary, the Court …

Brief Of Religious Liberty Scholars As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioners, Steven T. Collis, Michael Robertson, Adam A. Hubbard, Douglas Laycock, Gerard V. Bradley, Richard W. Garnett, Kristine J. Kalanges

Court Briefs

No. 15-862
Stormans, Inc. v. John Wiesman

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

From the Summary of Argument

This Court’s free-exercise jurisprudence is defined by two cases with facts at opposite ends of a continuum. The Court decided them a quarter century ago, and it has provided no further guidance despite a growing circuit split. Lower courts that carefully examined this Court’s opinions found a clear rule that governments must treat religious conduct as well as they treat analogous secular conduct—or face strict scrutiny. But that rule has …

The (Perhaps) Unintended Consequences Of King V. Burwell, Kristin E. Hickman

Pepperdine Law Review

The Supreme Court’s decision in King v. Burwell surprised many people, not because of its outcome but because, even as the Court ultimately agreed with the IRS’s interpretation of the statute, the Court expressly denied the IRS Chevron deference. As regards that result, this Essay makes three points. First, the Chevron discussion in King was not incidental, but the IRS and taxes were not foremost on the Court’s mind. Rather, King reflects a careful effort by Chief Justice Roberts to accomplish, through alternative framing, a broader curtailment of Chevron’s scope that he advocated unsuccessfully two terms earlier in City of …

Millennials, Equity, And The Rule Of Law: 2014 National Lawyers Convention, How First Amendment Procedures Protect First Amendment Substance, Erik S. Jaffe, Aaron H. Caplan, Robert A. Destro, Todd P. Graves, Alan B. Morrison, Eugene Volokh, David R. Stras

Catholic University Law Review

A panel, at the National Lawyers Convention, discussed procedure as it relates to First Amendment rights. The panel set forth how First Amendment procedures have historically protected First Amendment substance and discussed modern applications of the issue. For example, the prior restraint doctrine, overbreadth doctrine, the allocation of the burden of proof and relaxation of ripeness rules have important implications for challenging restrictions on speech and defending against libel and defamation.

The interaction of free speech and due process is often seen in litigation involving civil harassment orders, or civil protection orders. In many jurisidictions the definition of harassment permits …

Keynote Address, Justice John Paul Stevens (Ret.)

University of Miami Law Review

No abstract provided.

The War Against Ourselves: Heien V. North Carolina, The War On Drugs, And Police Militarization, Mallory Meads

University of Miami Law Review

Approximately fifty years ago, America declared a war against itself—the “War on Drugs.” Since then, our local and state police, armed with military weapons and federal funding, have fought tirelessly against “public enemy number one”—drugs. Not surprisingly, this war has created an atmosphere where it is now common to see police officers equipped with a mentality and armor that had previously only been seen in the dark-trenches of an international war zone. Worse yet, this battlefield mentality has leaked into almost every area of police-civilian encounters.

As a “loyal foot solider” in the Executive’s War on Drugs, however, the Supreme …

Teacher Blogging Redux: Post With Caution, Charles J. Russo, Marcus Heath

Educational Leadership Faculty Publications

In the December 2014 issue of School Business Affairs, this column (Russo 2014) addressed a case from Pennsylvania, Munroe v. Central Bucks School District (2014), that explored the free speech rights of public school teachers who blog on the Internet.

In Munroe, a school board in Pennsylvania dismissed a tenured high school teacher who posted controversial, derogatory remarks about her students and others on her personal blog. The Third Circuit subsequently affirmed that insofar as the blog entries were disruptive to school operations, the teacher’s dismissal did not violate the First Amendment (Munroe 2015).

Munroe highlights the need for school …

How The Tenth Amendment Saved The Constitution, Contradicts The Modern View Of Broad Federal Power, And Imposes Strict Limitations, Steven T. Voigt

Et Cetera

This paper challenges the position that the Tenth Amendment merely states an abstract concept and has no place in constitutional interpretation. The history of the Tenth Amendment portrays a much greater significance for this amendment. Not only did the Tenth Amendment likely save the Constitution and preserve the union, but it imposed very real restraints on federal power. The implication for modern courts is that the Tenth Amendment cannot be ignored. Far from just stating a truism, it sets forth a constitutional rule of interpretation that must be applied whenever the scope of any federal power is examined.

King V. Burwell: The Supreme Court's Missed Opportunity To Cure What Ails Chevron, Vanessa L. Johnson, Marisa Finley, J. James Rohack

Journal of Legislation

The article outlines the construct of the ACA’s premium assistance tax credits, explores the legal controversies surrounding these subsidies, uses the tax subsidies cases to demonstrate the flaws in the Chevron framework, and argues that the Supreme Court should have framed its King v. Burwell analysis in a way that would have cured, rather than ignored, the ails of Chevron.

Brief Amici Curiae Of 37 Intellectual Property Professors In Support Of Petition For Certiorari, Mark A. Lemley, Mark Mckenna

Court Briefs

No. 15-777
Samsung Electonics Co., Ltd. v. Apple Inc.

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

From the Summary of Argument:

This case presents two issues that justify this Court’s review.
First, the Federal Circuit upheld a finding of design patent infringement based on the very same Apple designs that it found functional under trade dress law. Such a counterintuitive outcome is possible because the Federal Circuit has constructed a highly constrained definition of functionality in design patent law, which is at odds with this Court’s precedent in both utility …

Spencer: Chief Justice John Roberts And The Loss Of Access To Justice, A. Benjamin Spencer

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Amici Curiae Constitutional Law Scholars In Support Of Petitioners, Ryan A. Shores, William J. Haun, Richard W. Garnett

Court Briefs

Nos. 14-1418, 14-1453, 14-1505, 15-35, 15-105, 15-119, & 15-191
Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged v. Sylvia Matthews Burwell

On Writs of Ceriorari to the United States Courts of Appeals for the Third, Fifth, Tenth, and District of Columbia Circuits

From the Summary of Argument

“[I]n a complex society and an era of pervasive governmental regulation, defining the proper realm for free exercise can be difficult.” Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751, 2781, 2785 (2014) (Kennedy, J., concurring). The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”)2 addresses that difficulty by harmonizing religious freedom and …

Discrimination Law: The New Franken-Tort, Sandra F. Sperino

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

This article was part of the Clifford Symposium in Tort Law. The article discusses how the Supreme Court has used tort law to define certain elements of discrimination law, but has not described all of the elements of this new tort. The article is the first one to try to piece together the new "tort" created by the Supreme Court.

Justice Kennedy's Big New Idea, Sandra F. Sperino

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

In a 2015 case, the Supreme Court held that plaintiffs could bring disparate impact claims under the Fair Housing Act (the "FHA"). In the majority opinion, Justice Kennedy relied heavily on the text and supporting case law interpreting Title VII of the Civil Rights Act ("Title VII") and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (the "ADEA '). Without explicitly recognizing the powerful new idea he was advocating, Justice Kennedy's majority opinion radically reconceptualized federal employment discrimination jurisprudence. This new reading of Title VII and the ADEA changes both the theoretical framing of the discrimination statutes and greatly expands their scope. …

Religious Discrimination Based On Employer Misperception, Dallan F. Flake

Law Faculty Scholarship

This Article addresses the circuit split over whether Title VII prohibits discrimination based on an employer's misperception of an employee's religion. This is an especially critical issue because misperception-based religious discrimination is likely to increase as the United States continues to experience unprecedented religious diversification. Some courts read Title VII narrowly to preclude such claims, reasoning that the statutory text only prohibits discrimination based on an individual's actual religion. Other courts interpret the statute more expansively in concluding such claims are cognizable because the employer's intent is equally malicious in misperception and conventional discrimination cases. I argue that the statutory …

Justice Scalia And The Rule Of Law: Originalism Vs. The Living Constitution, Richard F. Duncan

Nebraska College of Law: Faculty Publications

Justice Antonin Scalia's sudden death in February, 2016, was a great loss for his family, a great loss for his friends, and a great loss for the "Written Constitution" of the United States of America. We will have no more of his brilliant, witty, and pugnacious judicial opinions. Instead, we will have to settle for the body of work he left behind as his legacy. But, as one commentator has said, his opinions are "so consistent, so powerful, and so penetrating in their devotion to the rule of law"—the real rule of law, not the political decrees of judges creating …

Gross Error, Eric Berger

Nebraska College of Law: Faculty Publications

Glossip v. Gross epitomizes judicial deference gone berserk. In rejecting an Eighth Amendment challenge to Oklahoma’s lethal injection protocol, the United States Supreme Court rested its holding on several forms of deference. Closer examination demonstrates that each of these unsupported deference determinations was, at best, contestable and, at worst, simply wrong. Far from being anomalous, such under-theorized deference reflects more generally the Court’s willingness to utilize various stealth determinations to manipulate outcomes in constitutional cases. The understandable concern that frivolous lethal injection challenges will clog courts and delay executions likely motivated the Court’s approach. Remarkably, though, the Court did not …

To Compare Or Not To Compare? Reading Justice Breyer, Russell A. Miller

Scholarly Articles

Justice Breyer's new book The Court and the World presents a number of productive challenges. First, it provides an opportunity to reflect generally on extra-judicial scholarly activities. Second, it is a major and important - but also troubling - contribution to debates about comparative law broadly, and the opening of domestic constitutional regimes to external law and legal phenomena more specifically. I begin by suggesting a critique of the first of these points. These are merely some thoughts on the implications of extra-judicial scholarship. The greater portion of this essay, however, is devoted to a reading of Justice Breyer's book, …

Truthiness And The Marble Palace, Chad M. Oldfather, Todd C. Peppers

Scholarly Articles

Tucked inside the title page of David Lat’s Supreme Ambitions, just after a note giving credit for the cover design and before the copyright notice, sits a standard disclaimer of the sort that appears in all novels: “This is a work of fiction. Names, characters, places, and events either are the products of the author’s imagination or are used fictitiously. Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, events or locales is entirely coincidental.” These may be the most truly fictional words in the entire book. Its judicial characters are recognizable as versions of real judges, including, among others, …

Linking Law And Life: Justice Sotomayor’S Judicial Voice, Laura Krugman Ray

The Docket

No abstract provided.

The New Elections Clause, Michael T. Morley

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Exceptional Circumstances Of Johnson V. United States, Leah M. Litman

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

Johnson v. United States held that the “residual clause” of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) is unconstitutionally vague. Since Johnson was decided six months ago, courts have been sorting out which of the currently incarcerated defendants who were sentenced under ACCA’s residual clause may be resentenced. Determining who can be resentenced in light of Johnson requires courts to answer several questions. For example, does the rule in Johnson apply retroactively to convictions that have already become final? And can prisoners who have already filed one petition for postconviction review—review that occurs after a defendant’s conviction has become final— file …