Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

Interruptions At Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings Have Been Rising Since The 1980s, Paul M. Collins Jr., Lori A. Ringhand

Popular Media

As scholars of the confirmation process, we aim to measure what is measurable, in the hope that data can inform our more subjective perceptions of politics. And one measurable feature of Kavanaugh’s testimony is the striking number of times he interrupted the senators to challenge their comments or force his own point. Here, the historical record can shed some light. This article reviews the history of interruptions during Supreme Court confirmation hearings from 1939 to 2010.

Revisiting Roe To Advance Reproductive Justice For Childbearing Women, Elizabeth Kukura

Notre Dame Law Review Reflection

The rewritten opinions that comprise Feminist Judgments together provide a powerful critique of judicial decisionmaking that renders certain women’s experiences invisible. By reimagining key Supreme Court decisions, the opinion writers unmask various ways that gendered conceptions of social roles are deeply entrenched in the rulings and reasoning of the highest court of the United States. The authors also show, through their alternative texts, that opinions which are celebrated as women’s rights victories can nevertheless impede progress toward equality and liberty.

Kimberly Mutcherson’s rewritten concurrence in Roe v. Wade illustrates the missed opportunities and unintended consequences that have made the landmark …

The Love In Loving: Overcoming Artificial Racial Barriers, Justice Leah Ward Sears (Ret.), Sasha N. Greenberg

Notre Dame Law Review Reflection

The rewritten opinion of Loving v. Virginia in Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Opinions of the United States Supreme Court is in stark contrast to the original. Professor Teri McMurtry-Chubb’s judgment for the court “unmasks—and renders unavoidable— the link between America’s history of White supremacy and patriarchy and America’s legal structures for regulating marriage and families.” The feminist opinion relies almost entirely on legal, social, and cultural history, in particular the history of marriage and family relationships among and between Blacks and Whites during the colonial, antebellum, and postbellum eras in the American South.

For the authors of this response Essay, both …

Looking To The Litigant: Reaction Essay To Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Opinions Of The United States Supreme Court, Claire B. Wofford

Notre Dame Law Review Reflection

Feminist Judgments’s focus on jurists alone is not unusual. My own discipline has devoted a great deal of study to understanding why and how the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court make the decisions they do. Some of the scholarship has even examined whether women judges might operate differently than their male counterparts, though the findings have been mixed at best. The emphasis, moreover, is understandable and laudable, as it is jurists who have the final say on the content of law.

Emphasizing judicial behavior, however, unfortunately overlooks the fundamental passivity of the courts. As much as they might …

Feminist Judgments And The Future Of Reproductive Justice, Sarah Weddington

Notre Dame Law Review Reflection

Roe v. Wade is one of the twenty-five Supreme Court cases that has been rewritten from a feminist perspective by an imaginative group of law professors and lawyers. This Essay is based on remarks made by Ms. Weddington at a panel discussion held at Temple University Beasley School of Law on November 13, 2017.

Extending The Critical Rereading Project, Gabrielle Appleby, Rosalind Dixon

Notre Dame Law Review Reflection

In this reflection, we want to explain a project in Australia that extends the feminist judgments project and adapts it specifically for the purpose of teaching critical theory, critical legal thinking, and the assumptions inherent in the legal method.

Rewriting Judicial Opinions And The Feminist Scholarly Project, Linda L. Berger, Kathryn M. Stanchi, Bridget J. Crawford

Notre Dame Law Review Reflection

In 1995, the authors of a law review article examining “feminist judging” focused on the existing social science data concerning women judges and compared the voting records and opinions of the only female Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court: Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sandra Day O’Connor. Based on this review, the authors concluded that appointing more women as judges would make little difference to judicial outcomes or processes. The authors accused those who advocated for more women on the bench of having a hidden feminist agenda and bluntly concluded that “[b]y any measure, feminist judges fit very uneasily in most …

Feminist Judgments And Women's Rights At Work, Gillian Thomas

Notre Dame Law Review Reflection

The history of the law’s treatment of working women is largely a history of the law’s treatment of women’s bodies. Overwhelmingly created by male judges, that jurisprudence considers women from a remove—their physicality, their reproductive capacity, their stature, their sexuality—eclipsing meaningful consideration of their lived experience, on or off the job. As vividly illustrated by so many of the alternative rulings contained in Feminist Judgments, that erasure resulted in Supreme Court decisions that—even when they came out the “right” way, that is, in favor of the female litigant—squandered opportunities for advancing sex equality.

The tantalizing notion of “what might …

Feminist Judgments And The Rewritten Price Waterhouse, Sandra Sperino

Notre Dame Law Review Reflection

In Feminist Judgments, Professor Martha Chamallas reimagines the canonical case of Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins. In that case, the Supreme Court recognized that a plaintiff can prevail on a Title VII claim by showing that a protected trait was a motivating factor in a negative employment outcome. In that case, the Court noted that plaintiffs in discrimination cases should not be required to prove but-for cause to prevail.

The introduction to the Professor Chamallas concurrence correctly notes many of the rewritten opinion’s strengths. Professor Chamallas provides richer detail about the facts underlying the case and the context in …

Feminist Judgments & #Metoo, Margaret E. Johnson

Notre Dame Law Review Reflection

The Feminist Judgments book series and the #MeToo movement share the feminist method of narrative. Feminist Judgments is a scholarly project of rewriting judicial opinions using feminist legal theory. #MeToo is a narrative movement by people, primarily women, telling their stories of sexual harassment or assault. Both Feminist Judgments and #MeToo bring to the surface stories that have been silenced, untold, or overlooked. These narrative collections can and do effectuate genderjustice change by empowering people, changing perspectives, opening up new learning, and affecting future legal and nonlegal outcomes.

How Is Sex Harassment Discriminatory?, Noa Ben-Asher

Notre Dame Law Review Reflection

Feminist Judgments takes us to a key moment in the history of sexual harassment law. In Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, the Supreme Court recognized for the first time that both quid pro quo and hostile environment sexual harassment violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It also held that to be actionable under Title VII, sexual advances must be (1) “unwelcome” and (2) “sufficiently severe or pervasive ‘to alter the conditions of [the victim’s] employment and create an abusive working environment.’” The latter part of the test (“sufficiently severe or pervasive”) fits well into the …

A New Voting Rights Act For A New Century: How Liberalizing The Voting Rights Act’S Bailout Provisions Can Help Pass The Voting Rights Advancement Act Of 2017, Mario Q. Fitzgerald

Brooklyn Law Review

The U.S. Supreme Court struck down the coverage formula of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) in Shelby County. v. Holder in 2013. Members of Congress have attempted to renew the VRA with an updated coverage formula through the Voting Rights Advancement Acts of 2015 and of 2017. Unfortunately, Congressional Republicans have not supported either bill. Even if passed in its current form, the Supreme Court is likely to strike down the Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2017 (VRAA) for violating the principle of “equal sovereignty between the States” as set forth by the Court in Shelby County. Therefore, this note …

Accusers As Adjudicators In Agency Enforcement Proceedings, Andrew N. Vollmer

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Largely because of the Supreme Court’s 1975 decision in Withrow v. Larkin, the accepted view for decades has been that a federal administrative agency does not violate the Due Process Clause by combining the functions of investigating, charging, and then resolving allegations that a person violated the law. Many federal agencies have this structure, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Federal Trade Commission.

In 2016, the Supreme Court decided Williams v. Pennsylvania, a judicial disqualification case that, without addressing administrative agencies, nonetheless raises a substantial question about one aspect of the combination of functions at agencies. …

Behind The Velvet Curtain: Understanding Supreme Court Conference Discussions Through Justices' Personal Conference Notes, Ryan C. Black, Timothy R. Johnson

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

No abstract provided.

Originalist Theory And Precedent: A Public Meaning Approach, Lawrence B. Solum

Faculty Scholarship

This Article provides some introductory thoughts about the relationship between originalist constitutional theory and the proper role of precedent in the American judicial system. The development of these thoughts begins in Part I, which provides a brief introduction to originalism and its principle rival, which is sometimes called “living constitutionalism.” Part II describes the problem of precedent for originalism, emphasizing that the nature of the problem depends in part on our understanding of precedent. Part III offers some reflections on the question as to the constitutional status of the doctrine of horizontal stare decisis in the United States Supreme Court. …

Enough Said: A Proposal For Shortening Supreme Court Opinions, Meg Penrose

Faculty Scholarship

The role of the judiciary, Chief Justice Marshall famously advised, is “to say what the law is.” Yet, how often do the justices issue a written opinion that ordinary Americans can understand? The Supreme Court increasingly issues lengthy and complex opinions, often containing multiple concurring and dissenting opinions. These opinions can be as confusing as they are verbose.

“To Say What the Law Is Succinctly: A Brief Proposal,” analyzes the justices’ legal writing. Are the justices effective in saying what the law is? Insufficient attention has been devoted to evaluating the justices’ writing and their efficacy at communicating the law. …

Supreme Verbosity: The Roberts Court's Expanding Legacy, Mary Margaret Penrose

Faculty Scholarship

The link between courts and the public is the written word. With rare exceptions, it is through judicial opinions that courts communicate with litigants, lawyers, other courts, and the community. Whatever the court’s statutory and constitutional status, the written word, in the end, is the source and the measure of the court’s authority.

It is therefore not enough that a decision be correct—it must also be fair and reasonable and readily understood. The burden of the judicial opinion is to explain and to persuade and to satisfy the world that the decision is principled and sound. What the court says, …

Cardozo On The Supreme Court: Meeting High Expectations, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

President Trump announced his nomination of Neil Gorsuch — the sixth most senior judge on a federal appellate court in the hinterland—for a seat on the Supreme Court in a formal, nationally televised ceremony. Judge Gorsuch squeezed the shoulder of his wife, a gesture that signaled not only his thrill at the nomination but his joy at being able to share it with her. There followed a bitterly partisan process, featuring hearings at which the nominee testified and deflected questions about his substantive views. A change in the Senate rules, ending the possibility of a filibuster, was necessary to bring …

Fire, Aim, Ready! Militarizing Animus: “Unit Cohesion” And The Transgender Ban, Eric Merriam

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

President Trump’s currently litigated “transgender ban,” which excludes transgender persons from military service, is premised in part upon a claim that transgender persons’ presence in the military adversely affects “unit cohesion.” This use of identity- based “unit cohesion” as a justification for excluding a group from military service is the latest episode in a long history of the government asserting “unit cohesion” to justify excluding people from military service based on their identities. This Article contends that unit cohesion, when premised on identity, is always an impermissible justification for exclusion from military service because it is unconstitutional animus. Though …

The Uncertain Status Of The Manifest Disregard Standard One Decade After Hall Street, Stuart M. Boyarsky

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) enables parties to obtain quick and final resolution to disputes without incurring the costs, delays, and occasional publicity of litigation. Indeed, section 10 of the FAA enumerates four specific grounds on which courts may vacate arbitral awards: corruption, fraud, impartiality, and misconduct or incompetence. Yet over the past 60 years, a debate has raged over the existence of an additional ground: the arbitrator’s manifest disregard of the law.

The Supreme Court first enounced this standard in dicta in its 1953 decision in Wilko v. Swan. Over next four decades, every federal circuit court slowly …

Kennedy's Last Term: A Report On The 2017-2018 Supreme Court, Marc O. Degirolami, Kevin C. Walsh

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

Twenty-eighteen brought the end of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s tenure on the Supreme Court. We are now entering a period of uncertainty about American constitutional law. Will we remain on the trajectory of the last half-century? Or will the Court move in a different direction?

The character of the Supreme Court in closely divided cases is often a function of the median justice. The new median justice will be Chief Justice John Roberts if Kennedy’s replacement is a conservative likely to vote most often with Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Samuel Alito. This will mark a new phase of …

Is Groton The Next Evenwel?, Paul H. Edelman

Michigan Law Review Online

In Evenwel v. Abbott the Supreme Court left open the question of whether states could employ population measures other than total population as a basis for drawing representative districts so as to meet the requirement of "one person, one vote" (OPOV). It was thought that there was little prospect of resolving this question soon as no appropriate instances of such behavior were known. That belief was mistaken. In this Essay I report on the Town of Groton, Connecticut, which uses registered voter data to apportion seats in its Representative Town Meeting and has done so since its incorporation in 1957. …

Special Justifications, Randy J. Kozel

Journal Articles

The Supreme Court commonly asks whether there is a “special justification” for departing from precedent. In this Response, which is part of a Constitutional Commentary symposium on Settled Versus Right: A Theory of Precedent, I examine the existing law of special justifications and describe its areas of uncertainty. I also compare the Court’s current doctrine with a revised approach to special justifications designed to separate the question of overruling from deeper disagreements about legal interpretation. The aspiration is to establish precedent as a unifying force that enhances the impersonality of the Court and of the law, promoting values the Justices …

The Devious Debtor: 11 U.S.C. § 523(A)(2)(B) And The Need For A More Equitable Outcome, Torie Levine

Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial & Commercial Law

Section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code prohibits debtors from discharging debts for money, property, services, or credit obtained by false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud other than a statement respecting the debtor’s financial condition. Under § 523(a)(2)(B), if those debts are obtained by a statement respecting the debtor’s financial condition, then the statement must be in writing for the debt to be discharged. A conflict among the circuit courts arose as to whether a statement about a single asset can be a statement respecting the debtor’s financial condition. The majority of the courts applied a narrow interpretation to …

The Security Court, Matt Steilen

Maryland Law Review Online

The Supreme Court is concerned not only with the limits of our government’s power to protect us, but also with how it protects us. Government can protect us by passing laws that grant powers to its agencies or by conferring discretion on the officers in those agencies. Security by law is preferable to the extent that it promotes rule of law values—certainty, predictability, uniformity, and so on—but, security by discretion is preferable to the extent that it gives government the room it needs to meet threats in whatever form they present themselves. Drawing a line between security by law and …

The Security Court, Matthew J. Steilen

Journal Articles

The Supreme Court is concerned not only with the limits of our government’s power to protect us, but also with how it protects us. Government can protect us by passing laws that grant powers to its agencies or by conferring discretion on the officers in those agencies. Security by law is preferable to the extent that it promotes rule of law values—certainty, predictability, uniformity, and so on—but, security by discretion is preferable to the extent that it gives government the room it needs to meet threats in whatever form they present themselves. Drawing a line between security by law and …

A Rash Decision In Sunnyslope: Confusion Lingers Over Collateral Valuation, Michael D. Manzo

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

This Comment argues that the Ninth Circuit’s Sunnyslope decision misconstrued the Rash Court’s holding and is divorced from the text and structure of the Code. Rash does not provide a brightline rule that answers valuation questions in cramdowns; it offers a flexible standard that is compatible with the Code’s protections for both debtors and secured creditors. Further, this Comment also argues that Sunnyslope could have been answered not as a valuation issue, but as a lien priority issue. In any event, the Ninth Circuit completely missed the mark in interpreting the Supreme Court’s holding in Rash and in understanding …

Reasonable Action: Reproductive Rights, The Free Exercise Clause, And Religious Freedom In The United States And The Republic Of Ireland, Liam Ray

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

This Note will argue that by denying certiorari in Stormans v. Wiesman, the Supreme Court missed an important opportunity to provide guidance to the states as to how the Free Exercise Clause applies to the kind of stocking and dispensing regulations adopted by the State of Washington. This Note will further argue from a policy perspective that the approach to these kinds of regulations adopted by the Republic of Ireland (“ROI”) presents the best approach for states to adopt because it provides a balance in terms of respecting the free exercise rights of pharmacists and pharmacy owners with …

Endangered Deference: Separation Of Powers And Judicial Review Of Agency Interpretation, Kathryn M. Baldwin

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

This Note proceeds in four parts: Part I consists of a brief history of the development of agency deference doctrine. Part II examines the decline of deference from the perspective of all three branches of government: the overuse by the executive agency that catalyzed deference’s denouement, the underuse by the United States Supreme Court and renewed separation of powers challenges, and the parallel assault from Congress under the pending SOPRA. Part III addresses the proposed de novo review standard and highlights the deficiencies in that solution, emphasizing instead the tools that Congress already employs to meaningfully check agency interpretations. …

Section 2: Trump And The Court, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.