Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

The Most Scholarly Justices, Brian L. Frye

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Supreme Court justices both use and produce legal scholarship. This article identifies the ten most scholarly justices, based on both productivity and impact.

Keeping Up With New Legal Titles, Tina M. Brooks

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

In this book review, Tina M. Brooks discusses The Puzzle of Unanimity: Consensus on the United States Supreme Court by Pamela C. Corley, Amy Steigerwalt, and Artemus Ward.

At What Is The Supreme Court Comparatively Advantaged?, R. George Wright

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Supreme Court And Celebrity Culture, Richard A. Posner

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

40th Anniversary Of Roe V. Wade: Reflections Past, Present And Future, Linda L. Schlueter

Faculty Articles

This Article addresses the historical developments leading to the Roe decision, reviews the cases that continue to challenge the Court's holding in Roe, and makes recommendations to protect women and minors as long as Roe remains in effect. Part II reflects the historical legal foundations that protected life and the shift in emphasis to a liberty interest that led to the Roe decision. Part III analyzes the factual and legal background of Roe v. Wade, and its companion case of Doe v. Bolton, reveals their basis in lies and deception, and exposes that the Supreme Court's underlying assumptions that are …

Supreme Court Review: Legalistic Argle-Bargle, Molly Mcburney, Kristen Barnes, Bernadette Genetin, Wilson Huhn, William Jordan, Marge Koosed, Rich Lavoie, Brant Lee, Elizabeth Reilly, Bill Rich, Kalyani Robbins, Jeff Samuels, Tracy Thomas, Katharine Van Tassel

Akron Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Short-Sighted Attack On Patent Eligibility Of Healthcare Related Patents, Gregory Dolin

All Faculty Scholarship

On March 20, 2012, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously decided the case of Mayo Collaborative Svc. v. Prometheus Labs. At issue was a patent, held by Prometheus that taught doctors how to adjust the amount of thiopurine (a drug used for treatment of a variety of autoimmune diseases) administered to a patient. In an opinion by Justice Breyer, the Court held Prometheus’s invention to not be patent eligible and invalidated the patent. Though I believe that the reasoning the Court employed was erroneous and highly problematic (of which more later), the decision could have been viewed as …

The United States Supreme Court: An Introduction, Bert I. Huang

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court of the United States has always occupied a center place in the comparative study of judicial institutional design and the role of courts. In this roundtable discussion, National Taiwan University College of Law is honored to have Professor Bert I. Huang from Columbia Law School, United States, who had served as the law clerk of Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter, to unveil the ways that the U.S. Supreme Court functions by introducing the certiorari process and the system of law clerks. Based on his own experience, Professor Huang provides his insight on the institution of law …

Rational Coercion: Citizens United And A Modern Day Prisoner's Dilemma, Anne M. Tucker

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Limits On Punitive Damages Awards: An Analysis Of Supreme Court Precedent, Dorothy S. Lund

Faculty Scholarship

Over the last fifteen years, the Supreme Court has formulated new constitutional principles to constrain punitive damages awards imposed by state courts, invoking its authority under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This intervention has been controversial from the start, generating dissents from several Justices asserting that the actions of the Court are unwarranted and amount to unjustified judicial activism. Over the ensuing years lower courts and commentators have criticized the Court’s prescription of procedural and substantive limitations, finding them to be vague and unnecessarily restrictive of state common law prerogatives. Some observers with an economic orientation have …

The Supreme Common Law Court Of The United States, Jack M. Beermann

Faculty Scholarship

The U.S. Supreme Court's primary role in the history of the United States, especially in constitutional cases (and cases hovering in the universe of the Constitution), has been to limit Congress's ability to redefine and redistribute rights in a direction most people would characterize as liberal. In other words, the Supreme Court, for most of the history of the United States since the adoption of the Constitution, has been a conservative force against change and redistribution. The Court has used five distinct devices to advance its control over the law. First, it has construed rights-creating constitutional provisions narrowly when those …

Brennan V. Scalia, Justice Or Jurisprudence? A Moderate Proposal, Travis A. Knobbe

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Courtiers Of The Marble Palace: The Rise And Influence Of The Supreme Court Law Clerk, Harvey Gee

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Moral Philosophy, Information Technology, And Copyright, Wendy J. Gordon

Faculty Scholarship

A plethora of philosophical issues arise where copyright and patent laws intersect with information technology. Given the necessary brevity of the chapter, my strategy will be to make general observations that can be applied to illuminate one particular issue. I have chosen the issue considered in MGM v. Grokster,² a recent copyright case from the U.S. Supreme Court Grokster, Ltd., provided a decentralized peer-to-peer technology that many people, typically students, used to copy and distribute music in ways that violated copyright law. The Supreme Court addressed the extent to which Grokster and other technology providers should be held …

The Supreme Court Giveth And The Supreme Court Taketh Away: An Assessment Of Corporate Liability Under § 1350, Saad Gul

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Jackson V. Birmingham Board Of Education: Title Ix's Implied Private Right Of Action For Retaliation, Elizabeth Mccuskey

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court has penned countless words about the sound of statutory silence.' On March 29, 2005, the Court once again grappled with the meaning of silence in a statute, splitting along familiar 5-4 lines in Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education.² When the dust cleared, a male coach of a high school girls' basketball team, who was fired in retaliation for protecting his players' Title IX³ rights, possessed a private right of action arising from the statute itself.⁴ Although the Court has retreated from its high-water mark of implying private rights of action,⁵ in …

A Six-Three Rule: Reviving Consensus And Deference On The Supreme Court, Jed Handelsman Shugerman

Faculty Scholarship

Over the past three decades, the Supreme Court has struck down federal statutes by a bare majority with unprecedented frequency. This Article shows that five-four decisions regularly overturning acts of Congress are a relatively recent phenomenon, whereas earlier Courts generally exercised judicial review by supermajority voting.

One option is to establish the following rule: The Supreme Court may not declare an act of Congress unconstitutional without a two-thirds majority. The Supreme Court itself could establish this rule internally, just as it has created its nonmajority rules for granting certiorari and holds, or one Justice who would otherwise be the fifth …

Supreme Court's 2002 Term Employment Law Cases: Is This Justice Scalia's Court?, Rafael Gely

Faculty Publications

In a recent article,' Erwin Chemerinsky argues that the Supreme Court's constitutional law decisions of the 2002 Term "cannot be explained by any overarching theory or underlying set of interpretative principles." Instead, he argues, "constitutional law is all about value choices made by the Justices." Professor Chemerinsky also argues that given the current composition of the Court, "it is the value choices of the middle" - Justice O'Connor and Justice Kennedy - that matter the most. Professor Chemerinsky ends his article with the assertion that "[f]or better or worse, this really is the O'Connor Court." In reviewing the cases decided …

Unpatriotic Acts: An Introduction, Sadiq Reza

Faculty Scholarship

John Walker Lindh. Zacarias Moussaoui. Jose Padilla. Richard Reid. Who reading these lines does not instantly recognize the names of these men? Or at least their assigned noms de guerre: American Taliban, 20th hijacker, dirty bomber, shoe bomber. For two and a half years these names and others have flitted through our daily copies of The New York Times like shadow characters in a play, along with black-and-white photographs underneath which black-and-white text tells us of their alleged (and sometimes proven) wrongdoing and the latest developments in their tribulations (and sometimes trials) with our government. But the men themselves are …

The Unhappy History Of Civil Rights Legislation, Fifty Years Later, Jack M. Beermann

Faculty Scholarship

Seldom, if ever, have the power and the purposes of legislation been rendered so impotent.... All that is left today are afew scattered remnants of a once grandiose scheme to nationalize the fundamental rights of the individual.

These words were written fifty years ago by Eugene Gressman, now William Rand Kenan, Jr. Professor Emeritus, University of North Carolina School of Law, as a description of what the courts, primarily the Supreme Court of the United States, had done with the civil rights legislation passed by Congress in the wake of the Civil War. Professor Gressman's article, The Unhappy History of …

Supreme Court Employment Law Cases 2001-02 Term, Rafael Gely

Faculty Publications

I set two simple objectives for the article. First, the article will summarize each of the cases. My intent is to provide those unfamiliar with the cases a brief review of the facts and a summary of the Court's reasoning. Parts II through VI provide this discussion, grouping the cases by subject area. Second, in Part VII, the article provides a "big picture" analysis of the various cases. My intent is to identify trends, issues, interesting aspects and features of the Court's term. My objective is to aid in our understanding of the patterns that might affect the Court's treatment …

Justice Scalia's Rhetoric Of Dissent: A Greco-Roman Analysis Of Scalia's Advocacy In The Vmi Case, Michael Frost

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Municipal Responsibility For Constitutional Torts, Jack M. Beermann

Faculty Scholarship

The fundamental principle in the law of municipal liability under § 1983 is that municipalities may be held liable only for their own conduct, not for the conduct of municipal employees. Stated somewhat differently, municipalities may not be held vicariously liable for the conduct of municipal employees but rather can be held liable only when municipal policy is the moving force behind the violation. While this principle is simple to state, it has proven difficult to apply.

The Dangers Of "General Observations" On Expert Scientific Testimony: A Comment On Daubert V. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Robert F. Blomquist

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Of Laws And Men: An Essay On Justice Marshall's View Of Criminal Procedure, Daniel C. Richman, Bruce A. Green

Faculty Scholarship

As a general rule, criminal defendants whose cases made it to the Supreme Court between 1967 and 1991 must have thought that, as long as Justice Thurgood Marshall occupied one of the nine seats, they had one vote for sure. And Justice Marshall rarely disappointed them – certainly not in cases of any broad constitutional significance. From his votes and opinions, particularly his dissents, many were quick to conclude that the Justice was another of those "bleeding heart liberals," hostile to the mission of law enforcement officers and ready to overlook the gravity of the crimes of which the defendants …

Supreme Court's Tilt To The Property Right: Procedural Due Process Protections Of Liberty And Property Interests, Jack M. Beermann, Barbara A. Melamed, Hugh F. Hall

Faculty Scholarship

The Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution provide important protections against government oppression. They provide that government may not deprive any person of "life, liberty or property" without due process of law. In recent decisions, the Supreme Court has appeared willing to strengthen its protection of traditional property interests yet weaken its protection of liberty interests.

It has long been accepted, albeit with controversy, that due process has both procedural and substantive elements. This essay concerns the procedural elements. Procedural due process analysis asks two questions: first, whether there exists a liberty …

Mr. Justice Frankfurter's Iconography Of Judging, Alfred S. Neely

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Supreme Court's Narrow View On Civil Rights, Jack M. Beermann

Faculty Scholarship

The right to choose abortion, although recently significantly curtailed from its original scope,' is a federally protected liberty interest of women, and is at least protected against the imposition of "undue burdens" by state and local government.² Some of the most serious threats to women's ability to choose abortion have come not from government regulation, but from private, national, organized efforts to prevent abortions. In addition to seeking change through the political system, some of these organizations, most notably Operation Rescue, have focused on the providers of abortion, and have attempted to prevent abortions by forcibly closing abortion clinics …

Reality As Artifact: From Feist To Fair Use, Wendy J. Gordon

Faculty Scholarship

Lawyers more than most people should be aware that what language calls "facts" are not necessarily equivalent to things that exist in the world. After all, when in ordinary conversation someone says "it's a fact that X happened," the speaker usually means, "I believe the thing I describe has happened in the world." But when a litigator presents something as a "fact," she often means only that a good faith argument can be made on behalf of its existence. Two sets of factfinders can look at the same event and come to diametrically opposed conclusions-each of which is binding, but …

The Supreme Court As A Political Institution, Benjamin L. Hooks

University of Richmond Law Review

The august Supreme Court of the United States is a political institution and has been virtually from the beginning. That today's Court finds itself at the center of intense ideological and political debate should surprise few serious students of American political and constitutional history.