Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

Foreseeably Uncertain: The (In)Ability Of School Officials To Reasonably Foresee Substantial Disruption To The School Environment, Maggie Geren

Arkansas Law Review

“Ms. Sarah Phelps is the worst teacher I’ve ever met.” While the name of this Facebook page is perhaps a bit harsh, most would hardly view it as grounds for school suspension. The very heart of the First Amendment, and indeed the notion for which our Framers drafted it, is the right of citizens to “think, speak, write and worship as they wish, not as the Government commands.” Without this fundamental freedom—one that has persevered despite countless efforts to narrow its reach—the American people would live in constant fear of backlash and suppression for merely voicing their opinions.

Burying Mcculloch?, David S. Schwartz

Arkansas Law Review

Kurt Lash is a superb constitutional historian trapped inside the body of an originalist. He is one of the few originalists bold enough to acknowledge that McCulloch v. Maryland needs to be ejected from the (conservative) originalist canon of great constitutional cases. While he attributes to me an intention “not to praise the mythological McCulloch, but to bury it,” it is Lash who seeks to bury McCulloch, which he views as a fraudulent “story of our constitutional origins.”

Mcculloch V. Madison: John Marshall's Effort To Bury Madisonian Federalism, Kurt Lash

Arkansas Law Review

In his engaging and provocative new book, The Spirit of the Constitution: John Marshall and the 200-Year Odyssey of McCulloch v. Maryland, David S. Schwartz challenges McCulloch’s canonical status as a foundation stone in the building of American constitutional law. According to Schwartz, the fortunes of McCulloch ebbed and flowed depending on the politics of the day and the ideological commitments of Supreme Court justices. Judicial reliance on the case might disappear for a generation only to suddenly reappear in the next. If McCulloch v. Maryland enjoys pride of place in contemporary courses on constitutional law, Schwartz argues, then this …

What Is "Appropriate" Legislation?: Mcculloch V. Maryland And The Redundancy Of The Reconstruction Amendments, Franita Tolson

Arkansas Law Review

I am thankful for the opportunity to review Professor David Schwartz’s really thoughtful and incisive critique of McCulloch v. Maryland. The book is a creative and masterful reinterpretation of a decision that I thought I knew well, but I learned a lot of new and interesting facts about McCulloch and the (sometimes frosty) reception that the decision has received over the course of the last two centuries. Professor Schwartz persuasively argues that modern views of McCulloch as a straightforward nationalist decision that has always had a storied place in the American constitutional tradition are flat-out wrong. The Spirit of the …

Mcculloch And The American Regime, Mark A. Graber

Arkansas Law Review

Professor David S. Schwartz’s magnificent The Spirit of the Constitution: John Marshall and the 200-Year Odyssey of McCulloch v. Maryland explicitly challenges how we teach government powers in first weeks or semester of constitutional law and implicitly challenges how we teach civil rights and liberties in later weeks or second semester of constitutional law. Contrary to the impression given in many classes on the constitutional law of national powers, no straight line exists from the Marshall opinion in McCulloch v. Maryland to the New Deal and beyond. Schwartz meticulously details how, for two-hundred years, different aspects of McCulloch have been …

Marshalling Mcculloch, Richard Primus

Arkansas Law Review

David Schwartz’s terrific new book is subtitled John Marshall and the 200-Year Odyssey of McCulloch v. Maryland. But the book is about much more than Marshall and McCulloch. It’s about the long struggle over the scope of national power. Marshall and McCulloch are characters in the story, but the story isn’t centrally about them. Indeed, an important part of Schwartz’s narrative is that McCulloch has mattered relatively little in that struggle, except as a protean symbol.

Does Importance Equal Greatness? Reflections On John Marshall And Mcculloch V. Maryland, Sanford Levinson

Arkansas Law Review

David S. Schwartz’s The Spirit of the Constitution: John Marshall and the 200-Year Odyssey of McCulloch v. Maryland, is a truly excellent book, for which I was happy to contribute the following blurb appearing on the back jacket: "David Schwartz has written an indispensable study of the single most important Supreme Court case in the canon. As such, he delineates not only the meaning and importance of the case in 1819, but also the use made of it over the next two centuries as it became a central myth and symbol of the very meaning of American constitutionalism.”

Mcculloch's "Perpetually Arising" Questions, David S. Schwartz

Arkansas Law Review

I’m truly honored to have my book be the subject of a symposium on Balkinization, and I’m deeply grateful to Jack Balkin and John Mikhail for organizing and hosting it. Among its many gratifications for me personally, the symposium guaranteed that at least eight people would read the book. That these readers have engaged with it so closely and insightfully is icing on the cake. My first article on McCulloch four years ago, which became the basis for a couple of the early chapters in the book, insisted that McCulloch was properly interpreted as far less nationalistic than we were …

Scholarship In Review: A Response To David S. Schwartz's The Spirit Of The Constitution: John Marshall And The 200-Year Odyssey Of Mcculloch V. Maryland, Law Review Editors

Arkansas Law Review

We are elated to introduce, and the Arkansas Law Review is honored to publish, this series discussing and applauding David S. Schwartz’s new book: The Spirit of the Constitution: John Marshall and the 200-Year Odyssey of McCulloch v. Maryland. Schwartz sets forth meticulous research, coupled with unparalleled insight, into the opinion penned by Chief Justice John Marshall and details the winding path Marshall’s words have traveled over the past 200 years. Schwartz argues that the shifting interpretations of McCulloch, often shaped to satisfy the needs of the time, echoes the true spirit of the Constitution.

Freedom Of Expression Within The Schoolhouse Gate, Justin Driver

Arkansas Law Review

In the late 1960s, the Supreme Court began contemplating how the First Amendment’s commitment to “the freedom of speech” should protect the right of students to introduce their own ideas into the schoolhouse. This constitutional question extended well beyond the matter addressed in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, because that opinion—momentous though it was—held simply that students could refuse to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. But Barnette did not establish that students possessed an affirmative right to advance their own opinions, on topics of their own selection, much less in the face of school officials’ objections. The …

As She Lies In State, A Tribute To Justice Ginsburg, Katherine Mims Crocker

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Law School News: Ruth Bader Ginsburg And Rwu Law 09/23/2020, Michael M. Bowden

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

U.S. Forest Service V. Cowpasture River Preservation Ass'n., Taylor A. Simpson

Public Land & Resources Law Review

The United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the United States Forest Service and Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC, a company who planned to construct a natural gas pipeline under a section of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail within the George Washington National Forest. The legal battle sought to clarify whether the United States Forest Service had the authority to grant the pipeline builder a right-of-way across the Appalachian Trail. The Court ruled that the National Park Service holds an easement for administering the Appalachian Trail, but the land over which the trail crosses remains under the jurisdiction of the …

2020-2021 Supreme Court Preview: Schedule Of Events, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Transparency And The Shadow Docket, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

On Saturday, September 12 at 2:00pm, the Supreme Court Preview will feature a panel on "Transparency and the Shadow Docket." “The shadow docket” is a phrase used to describe the significant volume of orders and summary decisions that the Supreme Court issues without full briefing and oral argument. This panel will discuss what is new and what is not about the shadow docket. The panelists will speculate on the ways in which the Court will use these orders going forward, and will discuss the upsides and downsides of doing so.

The Supreme Court And The 2020 Election: What Challenges Are Likely And What Will Be The Supreme Court's Role In Deciding Them?, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

On Friday, September 11 at 5:30pm, the Supreme Court Preview will feature a panel on "The Supreme Court and the 2020 Election What Challenges are likely and what will be the Supreme Court's Role in Deciding them?" As we approach a historic election in November 2020, many anticipate that election challenges will wind up in federal court. This panel will discuss trends in COVID-related election cases at the Court so far, anticipate which challenges are likely going forward, and will speculate what the Supreme Court’s role will be in deciding them. What has changed at the Court (and otherwise) since …

2020-2021 Supreme Court Preview: Notebook Cover Page, Allison Orr Larsen, Neal Devins, Rebecca Green, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

Our traditional notebook will not be available this year due to the virtual setting. However, we have compiled this virtual notebook to provide all participating in the Supreme Court Preview an opportunity to learn more about the upcoming docket and the issues facing the Court. We hope you enjoy the wealth of information available throughout this virtual notebook.

2020-2021 Supreme Court Preview: Biographies Of 2020 Supreme Court Preview Panelists, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Granted Cases, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Who Is The Real John Roberts? Predicting The Surprises Of The Fall Term, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

On Saturday, September 12 at 3:00pm, the Supreme Court Preview will feature a panel on "Who is the Real John Roberts? Predicting the Surprises of the Fall Term." Chief Justice Roberts cast several votes in high-profile cases last Term that many found to be surprising, and it led to a debate over whether the Chief Justice should be described as a moderate or not. This panel will anticipate which cases in the 2020-2021 Term will provide an opportunity for the Chief Justice to cast the deciding vote, and will address whether the Chief Justice’s voting pattern in 2020 was indicative …

What Is The Future Of The Supreme Court? Potential Reforms, Their Likelihood, And Their Implications, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

On Saturday, September 12 at 4:15pm, the Supreme Court Preview will feature a panel on "What is the Future of the Supreme Court? Potential Reforms, Their Likelihood, and Their Implications." Democrats recently unveiled “structural court reforms” as part of their platform. These potential reforms include, among others, adding seats to the Supreme Court, making changes to the confirmation process, and shortening the Justices’ terms of office. This panel will discuss which reforms seem most likely to be adopted and what concerns are motivating them. Twenty-five W&M students will also bring their questions to the panel about the future of the …

Moot Court, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Table of Contents

A Small But Mighty Docket: Select Criminal Law And Procedure Cases From The Supreme Court's 2019-20 Term, Eve Brensike Primus, Jeremy Shur

Articles

With its 2019-20 Term disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, the Supreme Court released just 53 signed decisions, the fewest decisions in a Term since the Civil War. But the Court's lighter docket still featured important criminal law and procedure cases touching on what constitutes reasonable individualized suspicion, the necessity of jury unanimity, and the proper form of the insanity defense.

Caught By The Cat’S Paw, Sandra F. Sperino

BYU Law Review

Federal employment discrimination law is enamored with court-created doctrines with catchy names. A fairly recent addition to the canon is the concept of the “cat’s paw,” formally recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in Staub v. Proctor Hospital. With its name … drawn from a fable, the concept of cat’s paw has taken ground quickly, discussed in hundreds of cases.

The Supreme Court recognized the cat’s paw theory in a case where a hospital fired a worker. The person who made the ultimate decision did not have impermissible bias. However, her decision was influenced by information from two supervisors who …

Visions Of The Republic Symposium: School Funding Under The Neutrality Principle: Notes On A Post-Espinoza Future, Aaron Saiger

Fordham Law Review Online

Based on current conditions, and for a variety of reasons, the best guess—and it is only a guess—is that common schooling might be forced to give way before a rigorously read First Amendment duty of the state to avoid preferring irreligion over religion. This need not signal the end of the Progressive educational vision, however. It will be possible for those committed to the values inherent in common schooling to regroup, reconsidering some of their positions in order to advance their core commitments.

Invasion Of The Content-Neutrality Rule, William D. Araiza

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Recent Developments, Peyton Hildebrand

Arkansas Law Review

In a 5-4 opinion, the United States Supreme Court once again denied a Bivens action. This case involved a tragic crossborder shooting by a border patrol agent standing on United States soil, who shot and killed a young boy standing on Mexican soil. Petitioners, the boy’s parents, sought relief under Biven2, arguing the agent’s action violated the Constitution. However, the Court determined the cross-border shooting was a new Bivens context, which required an analysis of whether any special factors “counseled hesitation” for the cause of action to be extended. The Court concluded Bivens was inappropriate because several factors “counseled hesitation”—namely, …

Stare Decisis And The Identity-Over-Time Problem: A Comment On The Majority's Wrongness In Kisor V. Wilkie, Christian Talley

SMU Law Review Forum

In Kisor v. Wilkie, the Supreme Court recently confronted whether to overrule the doctrine under which courts defer to agencies’ interpretations of their own ambiguous regulations—so-called Auer or Seminole Rock deference. In its prior reexaminations of Seminole Rock, the Court had progressively restricted the doctrine’s scope, leading observers to wonder whether the Justices would scrap it for good. This question of administrative law ignited a corollary debate about stare decisis. Writing for the majority, Justice Kagan argued that stare decisis mandated the preservation of Seminole Rock. Yet as she appealed to stare decisis, her opinion further restricted …

What Seila Law Says About Chief Justice Roberts' View Of The Administrative State, Lisa Bressman

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

In "Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Board", the Supreme Court invalidated a statutory provision that protected the director of the Consumer Finance Protection Board (CFPB) from removal by the president except for "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office." Writing for the Court, Chief Justice John Roberts announced a new test for evaluating the constitutionality of "for cause" restrictions on presidential removal of high-level agency officials. Under this test, the Court asks whether the removal restriction applies to an official who is the head of a "single-head agency" or to the officials who collectively lead a "multimember …