Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

"Appropriate" Appropriations Challenges After Community Financial, Chad Squitieri

Scholarly Articles

The standard federal agency must come to Congress each year, hat in hand, and request another round of congressional funding. This annual appropriations process ensures that Congress maintains at least some influence over the vast array of rules and regulations that govern Americans' daily lives. Sure, Congress might have delegated broad authority to administrative agencies to develop national policy on Congress's behalf. But an agency reliant on annual appropriations is an agency with the financial incentive to exercise its delegated authority with an eye toward pleasing congressional appropriators. The annual appropriations process is therefore a sensible (even if insufficient) step …

Judges And The Regulatory State: Trends Of Resistance And Restraint, Luke Norris

Law Faculty Publications

The last great confrontation between courts and the regulatory state occurred at the turn of the previous century. As courts in the first decades of the twentieth century resisted regulatory laws designed to protect workers and curb market excesses, they sustained broad legal and public critique, including claims that they were guardians of corporate power and monied and propertied interests. The showdown, as is familiar fare, was seemingly resolved in the New Deal, with the Supreme Court and judiciary largely accepting the constitutionality of federal and state regulatory laws. The compromise that emerged, dubbed the “New Deal settlement,” ostensibly called …

Popular Constitutionalism Inside The Courts: The Search For Popular Meaning, Thomas G. Donnelly

Law Faculty Publications

While commentators celebrate (or lament) the rise of originalism on the Roberts Court, another theory may prove as important to the future of constitutional law: popular constitutionalism. In a range of recent cases, Justices from across the ideological spectrum have proven themselves open to using sources of popular authority to address important constitutional issues. This is especially true of the two Justices at the Roberts Court’s ideological center: John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh. Even so, the question remains how best to make popular constitutionalism work inside the courts. This question has vexed popular constitutionalists since the theory’s inception. In my …

Second-Tier Marriages, Jeremiah A. Ho

All Faculty Scholarship

This Essay interrogates the reasoning behind the retrenchment toward LGBTQ rights progress that has taken place since marriage equality. With marriage rights for same-sex couples now "on the books," the Supreme Court's treatment of same-sex couples in both Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm'n and 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis reveals the status quo's hesitancy to recognize same-sex relationships on equal footing. Retrenchment, however, only describes the moment itself; it alludes to but offers no comprehensive or satisfying theory that identifies the motives behind the moves. This Essay theorizes from within the context of the Supreme Court's LGBTQ …

Loper Bright And The Future Of Chevron Deference, Jack M. Beermann

Faculty Scholarship

The question presented in Loper Bright Industries v. Raimondo¹ is “[w]hether the Court should overrule Chevron or at least clarify that statutory silence concerning controversial powers expressly but narrowly granted elsewhere in the statute does not constitute an ambiguity requiring deference to the agency.” The Court denied certiorari on another question focused on the merits of the case,² indicating that at least four of the Justices are anxious to revisit or at least clarify Chevron. It’s about time, although it’s far from certain that the Court will actually follow through with the promise the certiorari grant indicates.^{3 …}

Roads Not Taken On Affirmative Action, Robert L. Tsai

Faculty Scholarship

The law of affirmative action is a mess. In the short term, legal doctrine is constrained by path dependence, but its long-term future is murkier due to the many unforeseen contingencies. To regain a sense of the possible, this Article looks forward to the future of equality jurisprudence by looking backward. It recovers three roads not taken. First, the Supreme Court could have kept expectations minimal by hewing closely to the methods and rhetoric of fairness rather than ratifying a consumerist model of entitlement by deploying an individualistic vision of equality. Second, the justices might have endorsed a robust right …

The Harlan Court: A Constitutional Alternate History, H. Jefferson Powell

Faculty Scholarship

Walter Dellinger shared the widespread perception that the Burger Court was characterized by “rootless activism” rather than principled constitutional adjudication, and for him this put in question the legitimacy even of decisions that reached outcomes he thought politically or morally desirable. To explain what was wrong with such decisions, he often imagined the Court as it might have been if Justice John Marshall Harlan, who died in 1971, had lived another decade, and inspired an era of constitutional decisions deeply rooted in constitutional tradition and characterized by careful adherence to legal method. This Essay seeks to explain Dellinger’s idea and …

Originalism’S Age Of Ironies, Sherif Girgis

Journal Articles

From the Article

Guns, abortion, religious establishments, Presidential power: While today’s Supreme Court identifies as originalist, it has settled constitutional questions on these and many other issues using history and tradition, not just original meaning. Scholars debate whether this trend can be squared with originalism. Last Term, the originalist Justices joined the fray. A close look at their dueling opinions reveals the divergent paths that originalists take when the method is pressed to its limits. It turns out that the purer one’s originalism at the level of theory, the less it constrains judges in practice. That is especially true for …

Ideological Leanings In Likely Pro Bono Biglaw Amicus Briefs In The United States Supreme Court, Derek T. Muller

Journal Articles

Each term, the United States Supreme Court receives hundreds of amicus briefs filed in merits docket cases. Many of the largest law firms file amicus briefs before the United States Supreme Court. These amicus briefs are often pro bono, which means the clients do not pay for the firm to file the brief. That pro bono work can quickly total millions of dollars of legal briefing subsidized by the law firm. And pro bono work often reflects the law firm’s desire to work for its prior commitments to what it identifies as the "public good."

Controversies have arisen in recent …

Interpreting Religious Doctrine: The Third Rail That Wags The Dog In Religion Clause Jurisprudence, Samuel J. Levine

Scholarly Works

This Article is part of a broader project exploring and assessing the United States Supreme Court’s hands-off approach to interpreting religious doctrine. The mixed metaphor that constitutes the title of this Article incorporates various aspects of the project’s interrelated themes and claims. First, as a descriptive matter, the Supreme Court has repeatedly and increasingly refused to adjudicate issues that require the interpretation, evaluation, and resolution of substantive areas of religious practice and belief. Thus, like the third rail of train tracks, interpreting religious doctrine is deemed off-limits and better left untouched. Indeed, the Court’s justifications for the hands-off approach rely …

Legitimacy And The Major Questions Doctrine, Ronald M. Levin

Scholarship@WashULaw

Questions about the legitimacy of recent Supreme Court decisions are occupying an increasingly prominent place in public law discourse. Last February, a widely discussed feature in the New York Times quoted several well-known law professors' laments that multiple decision by the newly empowered conservative majority of the Court have departed so far from accepted constitutional premises that the professor could not figure out how to teach them to their students

...

With due respect to the Chief Justice, I will explain here why the MQD is itself among the few legal developments that I would describe as giving rise to …

The Riddle Of Race-Based Redistricting, Travis Crum

Scholarship@WashULaw

The Supreme Court has adopted divergent interpretations of the Equal Protection Clause as applied to race and redistricting. Vote dilution doctrine requires mapmakers to consider race to ensure that racial minorities are not packed or cracked. Congress, moreover, has embraced vote dilution doctrine in Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. By contrast, racial gerrymandering doctrine triggers strict scrutiny if mapmakers subordinate traditional redistricting principles to race, thereby threatening Section 2’s constitutionality.

To resolve this doctrinal riddle, this Essay examines whether, as originally understood, the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendment governed the use of race during redistricting. The Equal Protection Clause …

Washu Expert: Can Trump Bypass Senate Approval Of Controversial Cabinet Nominees?, Andrea Scoseria Katz, Neil Schoenherr

Scholarship@WashULaw

Andrea Katz, an associate professor of law at Washington University in St. Louis, is an expert on constitutional law, with a focus on presidential power. Here, she discusses how Cabinet members are traditionally appointed and whether the Senate or the Supreme Court could stop Trump from doing an end-around on tradition.

The False Promise Of Jurisdiction Stripping, Daniel Epps, Alan M. Trammell

Scholarship@WashULaw

Jurisdiction stripping is seen as a nuclear option. Its logic is simple: by depriving federal courts of jurisdiction over some set of cases, Congress ensures those courts cannot render bad decisions. In theory, it frees up the political branches and the states to act without fear of judicial second-guessing. To its proponents, it offers the ultimate check on unelected and unaccountable judges. To critics, it poses a grave threat to the separation of powers. Both sides agree, though, that jurisdiction stripping is a powerful weapon. On this understanding, politicians, activists, and scholars throughout American history have proposed jurisdiction stripping measures …

A Regime Of Statutes: Building A Modern President In Gilded Age America (1873-1921), Andrea Scoseria Katz

Scholarship@WashULaw

At a time when the Supreme Court is turning its sights on the administrative state and enhancing the profile and powers of the president, it is worth recalling that behind our national complex of agencies lies a constitutional settlement that has structured government for approximately one hundred and thirty years. Its roots lie in the period from 1873-1921, and its defining values are interbranch cooperation, delegated problem-solving authority, and administrative expertise. This Article proposes to tell its story.

A century and a half ago, America was just healing from its Civil War wounds when a host of new problems descended: …

State Sovereign Immunity And The New Purposivism, Anthony J. Bellia Jr., Bradford R. Clark

Journal Articles

Since the Constitution was first proposed, courts and commentators have debated the extent to which it alienated the States’ preexisting sovereign immunity from suit by individuals. During the ratification period, these debates focused on the language of the citizen-state diversity provisions of Article III. After the Supreme Court read these provisions to abrogate state sovereign immunity in Chisholm v. Georgia, Congress and the States adopted the Eleventh Amendment to prohibit this construction. The Court subsequently ruled that States enjoy sovereign immunity independent of the Eleventh Amendment, which neither conferred nor diminished it. In the late twentieth-century, Congress began enacting statutes …

West Virginia V. Epa: Maybe A Big Deal, But Maybe Not, Michael Lewyn

Scholarly Works

In West Virginia v. EPA, the Supreme Court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lacked the statutory authority to implement the Clean Power Plan, a regulation designed to reduce coal-fired power plant emissions by encouraging the use of non-coal energy sources. The Court’s decision was primarily grounded in the "major questions doctrine," which asserts that courts may reject agency actions that involve significant and consequential powers not reasonably inferred from Congressional intent, even if a statute is unclear. This decision raised concerns among commentators that it might severely restrict environmental regulations and the broader administrative state. However, the …