Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

Three Decades Of Supreme Court Copyright Decisions: A Peek Behind The Scenes, Jonathan Band

Joint PIJIP/TLS Research Paper Series

This article discusses the revelations in the case files of eight Supreme Court Justices concerning eighteen copyright-related decisions issued by the Court between 1973 and 2005. The papers show the Court as a profoundly human institution, with the Justices often struggling to craft opinions that could gain the support of a majority. The Justices clearly cared about the copyright merits, but they were also willing to compromise to achieve a certain result. In several cases, the final opinion was anything but inevitable. This was particularly so with Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984), …

Injury-In-Fact Of Nothing: Why Federal Courts Cannot Certify Classes With Uninjured Members After Labcorp, Jacob Davenport

University of Cincinnati Law Review

No abstract provided.

Agenda Control And Precedent, Thomas P. Schmidt

Faculty Scholarship

The U.S. Supreme Court now has vast control over its agenda: It has the power to pick and choose not only what cases it will hear through writs of certiorari, but also what specific legal questions within those cases it will consider. As a result, the Court never revisits a precedent unless it has made a prior, discretionary choice to put the viability of a precedent on its agenda. For that reason, the Court’s powers of agenda control play a significant and underappreciated role in maintaining the continuity of the legal order. Indeed, it is no surprise that the formal …

Spending Programs And The New Roberts Court, Nicole Huberfeld

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court is poised to place new limits on Congress’s spending power at the urging of states vying for regulatory dominance, particularly in health care and public health. This article is the first to highlight and catalog the throughlines of argumentation, which sparked after states successfully challenged the ACA but have grown into opposing more than Medicaid’s cooperative federalism. This means federal and state programs that heavily rely on federal spending power are at risk, so studying this pattern is imperative. The article begins with a descriptive account of increasing spending power challenges, which make use of converging factors …

The Supreme Court’S Old Habits In A New Era? Native Nations, Statehood, And An Indigenous-Led Future For Natural Resources, Monte Mills

Articles

art I of this essay looks back and, relying on Winans and Winters, illustrates the Court’s longstanding commitment to a recognition of tribally reserved rights while requiring a collaborative approach that acknowledges some state interest and authority. Part II then briefly assesses the modern era of Indigenous leadership in natural resources, reviewing the ways in which Native Nations are implementing a new framework of collaborative stewardship for lands, waters, wildlife, and other ecological systems. Finally, Part III considers how the lessons or impacts of this broader movement might be relevant in future conflicts raising questions of statehood and tribal …

Do Bans On Conversion Therapy Impose A Governmental "Orthodoxy" About Sex And Gender?, Linda C. Mcclain

Faculty Scholarship

In Part I, this Essay evaluates how orthodoxy arguments featured in Mr. Tingley’s challenge to Washington’s ban on conversion therapy. Part II offers a preliminary analysis of Chiles v. Salazar, ⁴² which the Court will hear during its 2025-2026 Term. I illustrate how the arguments made against Washington’s law by Chiles and her amici draw from the anti-orthodoxy and marketplace of ideas rhetoric found not only in Justice Thomas’s Tingley dissent and his NIFLA opinion but also in Justice Gorsuch’s majority opinion in the 303 Creative decision.⁴³ Woven together with these speech arguments are appeals to the Court’s …

Brennan And State Constitutions, Stephen Wermiel

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

The former Great Gorge Playboy Resort in New Jersey seems an unlikely place to help form a jurisprudential movement toward reliance on state constitutions to protect civil rights and liberties.

One need only turn back the clock to 1976 to find the story of one of the most significant moments in the rise of state constitutions. Anyone who is steeped in this movement is likely familiar with the lead article in the January 1977 issue of the Harvard Law Review, “State Constitutions and the Protection of Individual Rights.” The author was U.S. Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan Jr.

Legislative Reforms To End Lawfare By State And Local Prosecutors, Elizabeth Beske

Legislative Testimony & Comments

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government will hold a hearing on Tuesday, March 4, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. ET. The hearing, "Legislative Reforms to End Lawfare by State and Local Prosecutors," will examine the use of lawfare tactics by the Biden-Harris Administration to weaponize the rule of law against political opponents. It will further highlight legislative reforms to end politically motivated state and local prosecutions.

Lost Fatherhood: Including Fathers In The Post-Dobbs Abortion Debate, Linda L. Schlueter

Faculty Articles

Scientific studies over the last five decades show the negative impact an abortion can have on the men who fathered the aborted children. These studies demonstrate that those men-even if they supported the woman's decision to have an abortion-can experience a variety of psychological problems including depression, anger, hopelessness, helplessness, broken or damaged relationships, feelings of emasculation, and loneliness. Despite these compelling studies, little or no real attention is given to involving men in the legal debate regarding abortion. The abortion debate presents a legal Rubik's Cube of thorny issues that can affect the mother, the father, and the unborn …

Chevron Deference Is Dead, Long Live Deference, Jack M. Beermann

Faculty Scholarship

The demise of Chevron deference standing alone may turn out to be much less important for the future of administrative law and agency regulation than many believe. The Court explicitly approved of deference under the Skidmore factors, which instruct reviewing courts to “resort for guidance, even on legal questions” to “the interpretations and opinions of the relevant agency, made in pursuance of official duty and based upon specialized experience.”8 Further, the Court had already created numerous limitations to the reach of Chevron deference and, as the Court noted, it had not deferred under Chevron in nearly a decade. Chevron deference …

What Standard Of Proof Must Employers Satisfy To Demonstrate The Applicability Of A Fair Labor Standards Act Exemption?, Anne Marie Lofaso

Law Faculty Scholarship

Case at a Glance: Employees of E.M.D. Sales, Inc., an international food distributor, sued E.M.D., alleging that it violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) when it withheld overtime wages from these employees. As an affirmative defense, E.M.D. asserted that the employees were FLSA‑exempted outside salesmen. This case asks the Court to determine whether employers must use the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard or the clear-and-convincing evidence standard to prove the applicability of an exemption under the FLSA.

The Ghost In The Machine: The Threat Screening Center And The Mootness Tool, Jeffrey Kahn

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

In FBI v. Fikre, the Supreme Court resolved a circuit split about the voluntary cessation exception to the mootness doctrine in what initially appears to be a plaintiff-friendly way. The Court unanimously held that the government’s “sparse declaration” was insufficient to moot lawsuits challenging the No Fly List (a list of people banned from aircraft). The declaration failed to show that the government “cannot reasonably be expected to do again in the future what it is alleged to have done in the past.” It stated only that Fikre “will not be placed on the No Fly List in the …

Book Review: John Paul Stevens, The Making Of A Justice: Reflections On My First 94 Years, New York, Little, Brown And Co., 2019, Pp. 549, $35.00 (Hardback), Stephen Wermiel

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

The autobiography of Justice John Paul Stevens, published just a few months before he died, is an enticing travelogue for Supreme Court nerds. Other travelers may want to pick a different landscape.

The Anti-Innovation Supreme Court: Major Questions, Delegation, Chevron And More, Jack M. Beermann

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court of the United States has generally been a very aggressive enforcer of legal limitations on governmental power. In various periods in its history, the Court has gone far beyond enforcing clearly expressed and easily ascertainable constitutional and statutory provisions and has suppressed innovation by the other branches that do not necessarily transgress widely held social norms. Novel assertions of legislative power, novel interpretations of federal statutes, statutes that are in tension with well-established common law rules and state laws adopted by only a few states are suspect simply because they are novel or rub up against tradition. …

The Misguided Use Of The Harvard/Unc Ruling To Thwart Law Firm And Other Private Employer Dei Efforts, Ronald A. Norwood

SLU Law Journal Online

This article explores the Harvard/UNC ruling and what, in the author’s view, is the misguided efforts by certain political and well-financed private actors to use that ruling to justify the eradication of private employers and law firm DEI efforts. It is the author’s firm belief that because the Supreme Court’s holding is limited to an analysis of the Constitution’s Equal Protection clause (limited to state actors) and Title VI (covering private actions receiving federal funding), that ruling should not be used by courts to quash DEI programs designed to level the employment playing field for minorities, women and other protected …

Colorblind And Color Mute: Words Unspoken In U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments, Chris Chambers Goodman

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

The U.S. Supreme Court holds oral arguments on 70 to 80 cases each year, with fewer than a dozen most years involving issues around race or ethnicity. When the salience of race is clear, Supreme Court observers would expect to hear racial terms used in the arguments by counsel, as well as in the Justice’s questions.

Surprisingly, this research study demonstrates that is not the case. These racial terms - such as color, discriminate, minority, race, and its various related terms like racial, racially, racist, as well as combinations like race-neutral, and race-blind - only sparsely appear in oral argument …

Orders Without Law, Thomas P. Schmidt

Faculty Scholarship

This Review has two goals. The book, by design, largely steers clear of concrete reform proposals; its object is to trace the ways that the Court’s practices around emergency applications shifted over the Trump years and to urge that these developments warrant critical attention (pp. 24–25). My first goal, then, is to propose some reforms. These proposals orbit around a central contention: Any critique of the shadow docket and any proposed solution must depend, explicitly or implicitly, on a theory of the Court — its role in the constitutional order and how it can best serve that role. As a …

Abortion Politics And The Rise Of Movement Jurists, Robert L. Tsai, Mary Ziegler

Faculty Scholarship

This Article employs the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization and litigation in its wake as the jumping off point to reconsider the connections between judges, the Constitution, and social movements. That movements influence constitutional law, and that judicial pronouncements in turn are reshaped by politics, is well-established. But, while these accounts of legal change depend upon judges to embrace movement ideas, less has been written about the conditions under which judicial entrenchment can be expected to take place. There may, in fact, be different types of judicial dispositions towards external political phenomena.

In this Article, …

The Downstream Consequences Of Transunion Llc V. Ramirez: Why 5 U.S.C. § 2954 Plaintiffs Have Article Iii Standing Consistent With Lower Courts’ Interpretation Of Transunion, Erin Mccoy

American University Law Review

The Supreme Court, in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, created additional standing hurdles by requiring plaintiffs to identify a common law historic-analogue when alleging a statutory harm. In doing so, the Court arguably limited informational standing—a unique Article III standing theory whereby plaintiffs may establish an injury for failure to receive information—because informational injuries did not exist at common law.

This Comment asks whether informational standing survives in a post-TransUnion universe, using 5 U.S.C. § 2954 and lower courts’ interpretation of TransUnion for guidance. The statute, § 2954, comes to light in a string of litigation involving the potential illegality …

Litigating Original Meaning From Heller To Rahimi: The Role Of Lawyering In The Confused Path Of Second Amendment Jurisprudence, Lawrence Rosenthal

American University Law Review

The Second Amendment is on a jurisprudential march. An individual right to “keep and bear arms” for purposes unrelated to militia or military service was not recognized until the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision, applying what it took to be the original meaning of the “right to keep and bear arms” found in the Second Amendment, in District of Columbia v. Heller. Subsequently, the Court, in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, invalidated a statute requiring a permit to carry concealable firearms on a showing of particularized need. Most recently, in United States v. Rahimi, …

Review Of Veterans Law Decisions Of The Federal Circuit 2022-2023 Edition, Yelena Duterte, Hugh Mcclean, Stacey-Rae Simcox

American University Law Review

In 2022 to 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) continued its conversation with the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”), Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”), and veterans to help sculpt the jurisprudence coming from the youngest of the federal courts, the Veterans Court. The Federal Circuit’s jurisprudence addressed ten main legal issues: class actions, petitions for writ of mandamus under the All Writs Act, defining standards of proof with the term “results from,” the benefit of the doubt doctrine post-Lynch, education benefits, less than honorable discharges, the rating schedule, implicit denials, equitable …

"Background Principles" In The Law Of Takings, David A. Dana

American University Law Review

The Supreme Court appears to be on a mission to enhance the scope of liability under the Takings Clause, the result of which could be the chilling of federal, state, and local regulation. However, the Court has acknowledged that there is no takings liability when, under “background principles,” the property owner lacked the very right she is claiming the government has taken via regulation. The rationale for, and hence proper scope of, the background principles exception to takings liability is opaque in the case law. This Article offers three possible rationales for the background principles exception that could guide courts …

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 …

Roberts's Revisions: A Narratological Reading Of The Affirmative Action Cases, Angela Onwuachi-Willig

Faculty Scholarship

In a seminal article published nearly twenty years ago in the Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities, Professor Peter Brooks posed a critical yet underexplored question: "Does the [flaw [n]eed a [n]arratology?"⁵ In essence, he asked whether law as a field should have a framework for deconstructing and understanding how and why a legal opinion, including the events that the opinion is centered on, has been crafted and presented in a particular way.⁶ After highlighting that "how a story is told can make a difference in legal outcomes," Brooks encouraged legal actors to "talk narrative talk" …

Against The Chenery Ii "Doctrine", Gary S. Lawson, Joseph Postell

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court’s 1947 decision in SEC v. Chenery Corp. (“Chenery II”) is generally taken as blanket authorization for agencies to make law through either adjudication or rulemaking if their organic statutes permit both modes. We think this is an overreading of the doctrine. The decision in Chenery II need not be read so broadly, and there are good reasons to read it more narrowly. The most important reason is that agency lawmaking through adjudication presents serious constitutional concerns involving due process of law and subdelegation of legislative power, at least if the agency action deprives people of life, liberty, …

No Sense Of Decency, Kathryn E. Miller

Washington Law Review

For nearly seventy years, the Court has assessed Eighth Amendment claims by evaluating “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” In this Article, I examine the evolving standards of decency test, which has long been a punching bag for critics on both the right and the left. Criticism of the doctrine has been fierce but largely academic until recent years. Some fault the test for being too majoritarian, while others argue that it provides few constraints on the Justices’ discretion, permitting their personal predilections to rule the day. For many, the test is seen …

American University Law Review Keynote Address, Erwin Chemerinsky

American University Law Review

My talk this morning focuses on the agenda of the current Roberts Court. I think that every Supreme Court can be said to have an agenda. Sometimes it seems conscious and deliberate, apparent from the outset. Sometimes it seems to evolve and only becomes obvious later.

Dobbs, Right-Wing Revisionism, And Public Outrage: Rodrigo's Late-Night Chronicle, Richard Delgado, Jean Stefancic

American University Law Review

When we next see Rodrigo, he has been brought into town by Giannina’s women’s rights group. The Supreme Court had just decided Dobbs and revoked a constitutional right that had existed for fifty years prior. Giannina’s organization is meeting to discuss possible responses to the Dobbs decision. While he is in town, Rodrigo decides to seek out the professor, hoping to reconnect and pick his brain on this seismic shift in the legal landscape.

Examining Patent Eligibility, Charles Duan

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

A firestorm of debate has surrounded the Supreme Court of the United States’s 2014 decision Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International on the doctrine of patentable subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. As the Court’s leading articulation of doctrine, which generally excludes from patenting abstract ideas, laws of nature, and natural phenomena, Alice has been criticized as unpredictably vague and overly constrictive of patentability, with the effect of “decimating” patents, innovation, technological investment, and even the United States’ competitiveness against other nations. To support these criticisms and calls for reform, scholars and practitioners have frequently turned …