Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

Legal Scholarship Highlight: The Amicus Machine, Allison Orr Larsen, Neal Devins

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Brief Of The National Association For Public Defense As Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioner, Christensen V. United States Of America (U.S. November 7, 2016) (No. 16-461)., Janet Moore

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

The jury is essential to our structure of government, available to criminal defendants as the final arbiter of guilt. As this Court has recognized time and again, the jury serves an important role both structurally within the balance of powers and as a check on governmental power, adding a layer of protection for individual defendants.

The rule applied by the Ninth Circuit and some other courts, allowing dismissal of a holdout juror if a judge sees no reasonable possibility that his view is connected to the merits of the case, threatens the fundamental role of the jury. In contrast to …

What Lurks Below Beckles, Leah Litman, Shakeer Rahman

Articles

This Essay argues that if the Supreme Court grants habeas relief in Beckles v. United States, then it should spell out certain details about where a Beckles claim comes from and who such a claim benefits. Those details are not essential to the main question raised in the case, but the federal habeas statute takes away the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to hear just about any case that would raise those questions. For that reason, this Essay concludes that failing to address those questions now could arbitrarily condemn hundreds of prisoners to illegal sentences and lead to a situation where the …

Grow Up Virginia: Time To Change Our Filial Responsibility Law, Sylvia Macon

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

It Is Time For Washington State To Take A Stand Against Holmes's Bad Man: The Value Of Punitive Damages In Deterring Big Business And International Tortfeasors, Jackson Pahlke

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

In Washington State, tortfeasors get a break when they commit intentional torts. Instead of receiving more punishment for their planned bad act, intentional tortfeasors are punished as if they committed a mere accident. The trend does not stop in Washington State—nationwide, punitive damage legislation inadequately deters intentional wrongdoers through caps and outright bans on punitive damages. Despite Washington State’s one hundred and twenty-five year ban on punitive damages, it is in a unique and powerful position to change the way courts across the country deal with intentional tortfeasors. Since Washington has never had a comprehensive punitive damages framework, and has …

Issue 1: Table Of Contents

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

In Memoriam: Justice Antonin Scalia And The Constitution's Golden Thread, L. Margaret Harker

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Mississippi V. Tennessee: Resolving An Interstate Groundwater Dispute, Peter G. Berris

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

This commentary explores the legal background and potential ramifications of Mississippi v. Tennessee: an original jurisdiction case involving a dispute over aquifer groundwater. Although the Supreme Court has addressed water disputes between states in the past, Mississippi v. Tennessee is the first such case to center exclusively on groundwater. As a result the Court has the opportunity to resolve a question of great relevance in an era where access to water is a recurring news story; is aquifer groundwater an interstate resource subject to equitable apportionment, or an intrastate resource subject to state sovereign ownership.

A Brave New Borderless World: Standardization Would End Decades Of Inconsistency In Determining Proper Personal Jurisdiction In Cyberspace Cases, Jonathan Spencer Barnard

Seattle University Law Review

While various courts and numerous legal professionals have addressed the issue of inconsistent application of personal jurisdiction in cyberspace cases, the Supreme Court has yet to discuss the impact that technology might have on the analysis of personal jurisdiction; thus, many details remain unresolved. This Note examines the varying jurisdictional splits between the lower district courts, the courts of appeals, and the federal circuit court of appeals in determining the proper approach to take when dealing with Internet jurisdiction. After an examination of several key cases, this Note will explain why the Supreme Court, or the Legislature, should adopt an …

How The Sentencing Commission Does And Does Not Matter In Beckles V. United States, Leah Litman, Luke C. Beasley

Articles

Two years ago, in Johnson v. United States, the Supreme Court held that the so-called “residual clause” of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) is unconstitutionally vague. Last spring, the Court made this rule retroactive in Welch v. United States. Then in June, the Court granted certiorari in Beckles v. United States to resolve two questions that have split lower courts in the wake of Johnson and Welch: (1) whether an identically worded “residual clause” in a U.S. Sentencing Guideline—known as the career offender Guideline—is unconstitutionally void for vagueness; and (2) if so, whether the rule invalidating the Guideline’s residual …

Incomplete Sentences: Hobby Lobby’S Corporate Religious Rights, The Criminally Culpable Corporate Soul, And The Case For Greater Alignment Of Organizational And Individual Sentencing, Kenya J.H. Smith

Louisiana Law Review

The article explores the history and policies that explain the disparate sentencing treatment of organizations and individuals under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 and attendant sentencing guidelines. It reports the Supreme Court's recognition of a business corporation's religious rights in the case "Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc."

The Road To Understanding The Confrontation Clause: Ohio V. Clark Makes A U-Turn, Julien Petit

Louisiana Law Review

The article discusses the Confrontation Clause and summarizes the state of the law before the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the case "Ohio v. Clark." Topics discussed include problems that the decision caused and how these problems affect the admissibility of statements into evidence; and ways in which use of Confrontation Clause teat can eliminate confusion related to issue.

State Not Required To Provide Counsel On Appeal To Supreme Court

The Catholic Lawyer

No abstract provided.

"Allen Charge" Used In Absence Of Deadlocked Jury

The Catholic Lawyer

No abstract provided.

Ordinance Allowing Search Without A Warrant Held Invalid

The Catholic Lawyer

No abstract provided.

The First Amendment And Canon Law, Brendan F. Brown

The Catholic Lawyer

No abstract provided.

The Legality Of De Facto Segregation, Charles E. Rice

The Catholic Lawyer

No abstract provided.

Obscenity: Significance Of Literary Value

The Catholic Lawyer

No abstract provided.

The Lawyer And Civil Rights, Joseph T. Tinnelly, C.M.

The Catholic Lawyer

No abstract provided.

Recent Decision: Conviction Under Discriminatory City Ordinance Held "State Action"

The Catholic Lawyer

No abstract provided.

Recent Decision: State Anti-Discrimination Act Not A Burden On Interstate Commerce

The Catholic Lawyer

No abstract provided.

Recent Decision: With All Deliberate Speed - A Changing Concept In Desegregation

The Catholic Lawyer

No abstract provided.

Honoring Dan Meltzer, Bradford R. Clark

Notre Dame Law Review

Dan Meltzer was a giant in the field of Federal Courts, and it is hard to overstate his influence on its development. He taught Federal Courts at Harvard Law School and was a long-time co-author of Hart & Wechsler’s The Federal Courts and the Federal System (“Hart & Wechsler ”), the casebook that created the field and shaped how generations of judges, lawyers, and scholars think about complex questions of federal jurisdiction. In addition, Dan enriched the field immeasurably by writing seminal articles on a wide range of Federal Courts topics. His work was characterized by deep knowledge of the …

An Incomplete Discussion Of "Arising Under" Jurisdiction, David L. Shapiro

Notre Dame Law Review

My purpose in this brief Essay is to expand on this theme as it played out in Dan Meltzer’s role as collaborator, friendly critic, and keen analyst, and to do so by exploring a problem that in some ways lies at the heart of our elaborate system of judicial federalism, even though (perhaps because it does not arise that often) it has received somewhat less attention than it deserves. That problem addresses the nature of federal judicial authority—and especially the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court—when a federal issue is embedded in, or when its determination may affect the resolution …

Revising Our “Common Intellectual Heritage”: Federal And State Courts In Our Federal System, Judith Resnik

Notre Dame Law Review

This Essay pays tribute to Daniel Meltzer’s insight that, to the extent “lawyers have a common intellectual heritage, the federal courts are its primary source.” I do so by analyzing how that heritage is made and remade, as political forces press Congress to deploy federal courts to protect a wide array of interests and state courts absorb the bulk of litigation. The heritage that Meltzer celebrated and to which he contributed was the outcome of twentieth-century social movements that focused on the federal courts as hospitable venues, serving as vivid sources of rights and remedies. A competing heritage has since …

Who Speaks The Culture Of The Corporation?, Gwendolyn Gordon

Michigan Business & Entrepreneurial Law Review

Recent cases – Burwell v Hobby Lobby Stores and Citizens United chief among them – evince a new understanding of the nature of the corporation and its place in society. Whether a corporation has rights – such as those of religious exercise – is not, however, just a question of legal interpretation. To answer this question requires a theory of group or cultural identity, that is, a theory of how a group may have “culture” separate and apart from those of the individuals that comprise it. And such a theory must address how to understand the meaning of culture when …

Affirmative Action Returns To The Supreme Court, Charles J. Russo

Educational Leadership Faculty Publications

One of the most hotly contested issues in education during the past-half century is affirmative action, also known as race-based admissions policies. Supporters defend the practice as one designed to take “affirmative” steps to eliminate the present effects of past discrimination. Critics respond that these policies do not address how granting preferences today remedies past harms, especially because individuals who are passed over when affirmative action is applied played no role in creating past inequities.

Insofar as debate over affirmative action has heated up yet again, this column briefly examines the history of Fisher v. University of Texas II (2016) …

Superfund Chaos Theory: What Happens When The Lower Federal Courts Don't Follow The Supreme Court, Steven Ferrey

Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law

There is legal chaos in the national Superfund. The Supreme Court reversed decisions of eleven federal circuit courts in United States v. Atlantic Research Corp. There is no instance in modern Supreme Court history where the Court reversed every federal circuit court in the country, as it did in Atlantic Research. The Supreme Court’s reversal was through a unanimous decision. This was extraordinary: It not only reversed the entire legal interpretation of one of America’s most critical statutes, but also re-allocated billions of dollars among private parties.

The Supreme Court, when it rendered its decision, seemed to be rectifying a …

Defining Ambiguity In Broken Statutory Frameworks And Its Limits On Agency Action, Amanda Urban

Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law

“The Problem” occurs when a statute’s provisions become contradictory or unworkable in the context of new or unforeseen phenomena, yet the statute mandates agency action. The application of an unambiguous statutory provision may become problematic or unclear. Similarly, unambiguous provisions may become inconsistent given a particular application of the statute. During the same term, in Scialabba and UARG, the Supreme Court performed a Chevron review of agency interpretations of statutes facing three variations of the Problem, which this Note characterizes as direct conflict, internal inconsistency, and unworkability. In each case, the Court defined ambiguity in various, nontraditional ways and …

Justice Scalia’S Bottom-Up Approach To Shaping The Law, Meghan J. Ryan

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Justice Antonin Scalia is among the most famous Supreme Court Justices in history. He is known for his originalism and conservative positions, as well as his witty and acerbic legal opinions. One of the reasons Justice Scalia’s opinions are so memorable is his effective use of rhetorical devices, which convey colorful images and understandable ideas. One might expect that such powerful opinions would be effective in shaping the law, but Justice Scalia’s judicial philosophy was often too conservative to persuade a majority of his fellow Justices on the Supreme Court. Further, his regular criticisms of his Supreme Court colleagues were …