Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

Baby, We Were Born This Way: The Case For Making Sexual Orientation A Suspect Classification Under The Equal Protection Clause Of The Fourteenth Amendment, Jennifer R. Covais

Touro Law Review

Currently, the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides minimal constitutional safeguards against discrimination based on sexual orientation. Laws that treat queer Americans differently than their straight counterparts are presumptively constitutional if those laws bear a rational relationship to any legitimate government interest. Consequently, states may limit same-goods and services of certain businesses, and qualify for government programs. The Supreme Court established enhanced equal protection guarantees for classifications based on race, ethnicity, and national origin which are deemed suspect classifications. These classifications will only survive judicial review if the government proves the law is necessary …

How Covid-19 Put The Spotlight On The Emtala, Ikra Kafayat

Touro Law Review

There was a time when those that were unable to afford medical care risked being denied treatment in emergency situations. Before Congress passed Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA), patients were being transferred to different hospitals, without being screened, because they did not have insurance and could not afford the treatment. Hospitals are no longer allowed to transport patients without properly screening and stabilizing them. Patients can bring a suit against a hospital if they believe the hospital violated EMTALA, however, in certain circuits the patient will need to prove that hospital had an “improper motive” for failing to …

Once Mentally Ill, Always A Danger? Lifetime Bans On Gun Ownership Under Fire Following Involuntary Commitment, Amanda Pendel

Touro Law Review

18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4) imposes a lifetime ban on those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution from purchasing, or possessing a firearm, regardless of an extended passage of time, or a finding that the individual is unlikely to pose a danger to themselves or the public. Three circuits have created a split concerning the constitutionality of this statute. The Third Circuit held in Beers v. Attorney General United States that those involuntarily committed were outside of the scope of the Second Amendment; therefore, the § 922(g)(4)’s categorical ban is constitutional. Next, the Ninth Circuit in Mai v. …

This Is Your Captain Speaking, Please Remain Physically Restrained While The Robbery Is In Progress, Conner J. Purcell

Touro Law Review

This note analyzes the current circuit split over the application of the “Physical Restraint” sentence enhancement as applied to the crime of robbery. In the first camp, the circuit courts apply a broad or constructive meaning of physical restraint: allowing words or demands with the use of a firearm to trigger the enhancement. In many cases, the courts focus on the victim’s reaction to the perpetrator rather than the perpetrator’s actual conduct, suggesting psychological restraint rather than physical restraint. In the second camp, the circuit courts apply a plain meaning interpretation of physical restraint. These cases routinely find that the …

Banning Abortions Based On A Prenatal Diagnosis Of Down Syndrome: The Future Of Abortion Regulation, Alexandra Russo

Touro Law Review

Since the infamous Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade, the United States has remained divided, each side unyielding to the other regarding the legal and moral issues surrounding abortion. The issues surrounding abortion have become progressively more politicized, thus threatening a woman’s right to a safe and healthy termination of her pregnancy. Restrictions on a woman’s ability to terminate a child with a genetic disorder, such as Down syndrome, highlight this concern. State restrictions on abortion that prohibit abortions based on a diagnosis of Down syndrome seek to prevent the stigmatization of the Down syndrome community. Regulations, such as …

Monasky’S Totality Of Circumstances Is Vague – The Child’S Perspective Should Be The Main Test, Sabrina Salvi

Touro Law Review

After decades of confusion, the Supreme Court ruled on child custody in an international setting in Monasky v. Taglieri, by attempting to establish the definition of a child’s “habitual residence.” The Court held that a child’s “residence in a particular country can be deemed ‘habitual, however, only when her residence there is more than transitory.’” Further, the Court stated that, ‘“[h]abitual’ implies customary, usual, of the nature of a habit.”’ However, the Supreme Court’s ruling remains unclear. The 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“HCCAICA” or “The Hague Convention”), which is adopted in ninety-eight …

Multiple Choice: How Instant Runoff Voting Improves Redistricting Under The Voting Rights Act, Aviel Menter, C.D. Alexander Evans

Touro Law Review

As currently interpreted, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (“VRA”) can be a double-edged sword for minority representation. Although it gives protected minority groups their own majority/minority districts, this can dilute minority influence in other districts. Recently, however, many jurisdictions have begun to adopt Instant Runoff Voting (“IRV”), a ranked-choice voting system where voters rank multiple candidates in order of preference. By letting voters express support for multiple candidates, IRV provides useful information about the behavior of minority groups that courts can use when enforcing the VRA. Specifically, ranked-choice voting systems can better show when a winning candidate supported …

The Roberts Court And Class Litigation: Revolution, Evolution, And Work To Be Done, Richard D. Freer

Faculty Articles

Since 2005, when John Roberts was appointed Chief Justice, there have been startling changes to the world of class actions. Jurisdictionally, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 fundamentally reconfigured the allocation of class litigation between federal and state courts. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the federal class action provision, has been amended three times in the Roberts years, once in a meaningful way. Our focus, however, is on what the Roberts Court has done in the class action world through its caselaw. On that score, we have a remarkable corpus. From Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P.A. v. …

From Contacts To Relatedness: Invigorating The Promise Of "Fair Play And Substantial Justice" In Personal Jurisdiction Doctrine, Richard D. Freer

Faculty Articles

Personal jurisdiction is integral to access to justice. Without a convenient court, plaintiffs’ efforts to vindicate claims (and society’s interest in private enforcement of law) may be thwarted. After considerable engagement in between 1977 and 1990, the Supreme Court did not decide a personal jurisdiction case between 1990 and 2011. This Symposium addresses what the Court has done regarding personal jurisdiction in the “new era” that started in 2011. That year brought a specific jurisdiction decision, J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, and a general jurisdiction decision, Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown. The former broke no …

Rational Actors, Class Action Waivers, And The Emergence Of Mass Individual Arbitration Demands, Richard D. Freer

Faculty Articles

Part I of this Article gives a brief overview of the FAA, including the four understandings that underlay the Court’s jurisprudence for six decades, and the radical transformation wrought by the Court’s rejection of those understandings in the past four decades. Part II discusses how the transformation of the FAA led plaintiff and defense counsel, as rational actors, to adopt positions that ultimately led to the focus on class action waivers. Part III analyzes the Court’s decisions from 2013 to the present and draws at least some tentative conclusions about where things stand a decade after Professor Wasserman raised these …

A Solution For The Third-Party Doctrine In A Time Of Data Sharing, Contact Tracing, And Mass Surveillance, Tonja Jacobi, Dustin Stonecipher

Faculty Articles

Today, information is shared almost constantly. People share their DNA to track their ancestry or for individualized health information; they instruct Alexa to purchase products or provide directions; and, now more than ever, they use videoconferencing technology in their homes. According to the third-party doctrine, the government can access all such information without a warrant or without infringing on Fourth Amendment privacy protections. This exposure of vast amounts of highly personal data to government intrusion is permissible because the Supreme Court has interpreted the third-party doctrine as a per se rule. However, that interpretation rests on an improper understanding of …

Delegating Climate Authorities, Mark P. Nevitt

Faculty Articles

The science is clear: the United States and the world must take dramatic action to address climate change or face irreversible, catastrophic planetary harm. Within the U.S.—the world’s largest historic emitter of greenhouse gas emissions—this will require passing new legislation or turning to existing statutes and authorities to address the climate crisis. Doing so implicates existing and prospective delegations of legislative authority to a large swath of administrative agencies. Yet congressional climate decision-making delegations to any executive branch agency must not dismiss the newly resurgent nondelegation doctrine. Described by some scholars as the “most dangerous idea in American law,” the …

Antidiscrimination And Tax Exemption, Alex Zhang

Faculty Articles

The Supreme Court held, in Bob Jones University v. United States, that violations of fundamental public policy— including race discrimination in education—disqualify an entity for tax exemption. The holding of the case was broad, and its results cohered with the ideals of progressive society: the government ought not to subsidize discrimination, particularly of marginalized groups. But almost four decades later, the decision has never realized its antidiscriminatory potential. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has limited implementation to the narrowest facts of the case. The scholarly literature has not formulated a systematic account of how to enforce the Bob Jones …

The Corrosive Effect Of Inevitable Discovery On The Fourth Amendment, Tonja Jacobi, Elliot Louthen

Faculty Articles

The Supreme Court has only once, almost four decades ago, addressed the doctrine of inevitable discovery, when it established the exception in Nix v. Williams. Inevitable discovery encapsulates the notion of no harm, no foul—if law enforcement would have discovered unlawfully obtained evidence regardless of a constitutional violation, then the resulting evidence need not be excluded. Nix laid out two simple dictates: the eponymous requirement of inevitability and a corresponding evidentiary burden requiring the prosecution to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that law enforcement inevitably would have discovered the evidence without the violation. Such analysis requires counterfactual …

"With All The Majesty Of The Law": Systemic Racism, Punitive Sentiment, And Equal Protection, Darren L. Hutchinson

Faculty Articles

United States criminal justice policies have played a central role in the subjugation of persons of color. Under slavery, criminal law explicitly provided a means to ensure White dominion over Blacks and require Black submission to White authority. During Reconstruction, anticrime policies served to maintain White supremacy and re-enslave Blacks, both through explicit discrimination and facially neutral policies. Similar practices maintained racial hierarchy with respect to White, Latinx, and Asian-American populations in the western United States. While most state action no longer explicitly discriminates on the basis of race, anticrime policy remains a powerful instrument of racial subordination. Indeed, social …

Reflections On Nomos: Paideic Communities And Same Sex Weddings, Marie A. Failinger

Touro Law Review

Robert Cover’s Nomos and Narrative is an instructive tale for the constitutional battle over whether religious wedding vendors must be required to serve same-sex couples. He helps us see how contending communities’ deep narratives of martyrdom and obedience to the values of their paideic communities can be silenced by the imperial community’s insistence on choosing one community’s story over another community’s in adjudication. The wedding vendor cases call for an alternative to jurispathic violence, for a constitutionally redemptive response that prizes a nomos of inclusion and respect for difference.

Did Anyone Ask The Child?: Recognizing Foster Children’S Rights To Make Mature Decisions Through Child-Centered Representation, Katie Chilton

Emory Law Journal

A child placed in foster care finds themselves in an especially vulnerable position. Removed from their homes, apart from family, and living with strangers, a foster child’s voice often gets lost in the shuffle. While the Supreme Court has recognized some constitutional rights for children, legislators and judges tread lightly when expanding children’s rights for fear of infringing upon parents’ fundamental rights to determine the care and upbringing of their children. This situation creates a unique disadvantage for a child in foster care who is subject to the trauma of removal, placement in a temporary home of strangers, outside the …

The Immigrant Struggle For Effective Counsel: An Empirical Assessment, Jayanth K. Krishnan

Articles by Maurer Faculty

Recently, in Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, the Supreme Court upheld 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(2), a statutory provision placing restrictions on certain noncitizens from seeking habeas review in the federal judiciary. The Court focused on the Constitution’s Suspension Clause, but it also discussed the Due Process Clause, declaring that there was no violation there either.

One question which flows from this decision is whether the federal courts will soon be precluded from hearing other types of claims brought by noncitizens. Consider ineffective assistance of counsel petitions, which in the immigration law context are rooted in the Due Process Clause. …

Facts Versus Discretion: The Debate Over Immigration Adjudication, Jayanth K. Krishnan

Articles by Maurer Faculty

Justice Amy Coney Barrett recently issued her first majority-led immigration opinion in Patel v. Garland (2022). As background, some immigrants looking to avoid deportation may apply for what is called “discretionary relief’ (e.g., asylum or adjustment of status) initially in an immigration court and then, if they lose, at the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). These immigration forums fall under the Department of Justice. Prior to Patel, immigrants who lost at the BIA could then ask a federal circuit court to review the factual findings of their case. Now, after Justice Barrett’s decision, Article III review is no longer available …

Removal Of Context: Blackstone, Limited Monarchy, And The Limits Of Unitary Originalism, Jed H. Shugerman

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court's recent decisions that the President has an unconditional or indefeasible removal power rely on textual and historical assumptions and a “removal of context.” This article focuses on the “executive power” part of the Vesting Clause and particularly the unitary theorists' misuse of Blackstone. Unitary executive theorists overlook the problems of relying on England’s limited monarchy: the era’s rise of Parliamentary supremacy over the Crown and its power to eliminate or regulate (i.e., make defeasible) royal prerogatives. Unitary theorists provide no evidence that executive removal was ever identified as a “royal prerogative" or a default royal power. The …

A Flawed Case Against Black Self-Defense, Nicholas J. Johnson

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Requiring The Executive To Turn Square Corners: The Supreme Court Increases Agency Accountability In Department Of Homeland Security V. Regents Of The University Of California, Claudia J. Bernstein

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

Administrative agencies frequently promulgate rules that have dramatic effects on peoples’ lives. Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”) is one such example. DACA grants certain unlawful immigrants a temporary reprieve from deportation, as well as ancillary benefits such as work permits. In 2017, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) sought to rescind DACA on the basis that the program violates the Immigration and Nationality Act.

This Comment analyzes the recent Supreme Court decision about DACA’s recission in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of University of California. In rejecting DHS’s attempt to rescind DACA, the Court strengthened agency accountability …

Making Privacy Injuries Concrete, Peter Ormerod

Washington and Lee Law Review

In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly said that the doctrine of Article III standing deprives the federal courts of jurisdiction over some lawsuits involving intangible injuries. The lower federal courts are carrying out the Supreme Court’s instructions, and privacy injuries have borne the brunt of the Court’s directive. This Article identifies two incoherencies in the Court’s recent intangible injury decisions and builds on the work of privacy scholars to fashion a solution.

The first incoherency is a line-drawing problem: the Court has never explained why some intangible injuries create an Article III injury in fact while others …

Patent Eligibility And Cancer Therapy, Christopher B. Seaman

Washington and Lee Law Review

As an empirical legal scholar, I am pleased to report that Sasha Hoyt has done what very few law students—and even many law professors—could achieve. She successfully conducted a novel empirical study to assess the real-world impact of a U.S. Supreme Court decision, Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., on venture capital (VC) investment in startups and other companies that develop medical diagnostic technology.

As Ms. Hoyt notes, patent protection is particularly important for startup companies, as it can help protect their innovations from unauthorized use, attract funding and other investments, and foster collaboration with third parties. In …

A Court Of Two Minds, Bert I. Huang

Faculty Scholarship

What do the Justices think they’re doing? They seem to act like appeals judges, who address questions of law as needed to reach a decision — and yet also like curators, who single out only certain questions as worthy of the Supreme Court’s attention. Most of the time, the Court’s “appellate mind” and its “curator mind” are aligned because the Justices choose to hear cases where a curated question of interest is also central to the outcome. But not always. In some cases, the Court discovers that it cannot reach — or no longer wishes to reach — the originally …

“The Customer Is Always Right”: Consumer Perception For “Generic.Com” Trademarks, Sarah M. Simpson (Oliver)

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Table Of Contents

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Traumatic Justice, Teri Dobbins Baxter

University of Richmond Law Review

In the recent past, allegations of police misconduct have periodically led to widespread community protests, but usually only when the incident is sufficiently high-profile and the harm is severe, such as when a police officer beats or kills an unarmed Black person. More often the spotlight and outrage have faded quickly, as victims were discredited and no charges were brought, or no convictions obtained. But citizens have increasingly harnessed the power of cell phone videos and social media to bring attention to acts of racial violence and hold accountable those who are responsible, particularly in cases of alleged police misconduct. …

Frenemy Federalism, Scott Bloomberg

University of Richmond Law Review

Federalism scholars have long been fascinated by the unique relationship between the federal government and states that have legalized marijuana. And with good reason. For the past fifty years, Congress has classified marijuana as a Schedule I drug under the federal Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”), deeming the drug to have a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use. Congress’s aim in establishing Schedule I of the CSA was to “eliminate the market in Schedule I substances.” Thus, possessing, distributing, and manufacturing marijuana are federally illegal. Congress’s objective notwithstanding, over two-thirds of the states (and territories) have legalized marijuana …

Out Of Sight And Out Of Mind: Criminal Laws Disguised Moral Culpability Requirement, Andrew Ingram

University of Richmond Law Review

Last spring, the Supreme Court of the United States made a little-remarked constitutional ruling in Kahler v. Kansas. Upon casual inspection, Kahler looks like a doctrinal dead-end. The petitioner asked the Supreme Court to recognize a due process right for mentally ill defendants to raise the M’Naghten right-and-wrong test of insanity, and the Court said, “No.” The petitioner’s failure notwithstanding, Kahler is not a barren vine. On the contrary, it is heavy-laden with new doctrinal insights for criminal law scholars.

The case deserves a thorough look—not for what it can teach us about constitutional contentions that the Court has …