Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

Is Originalism Orthodoxy?, Neel Sukhatme

Articles

What theory of constitutional interpretation has the Supreme Court followed? We search Supreme Court opinions for a wide range of sources that originalists identify as central to their methodology, over the entire universe of cases beginning in 1791. We find that for much of Supreme Court history, conventional indicators of originalist practice--citations to Founding-era sources--are largely absent, raising questions about originalism's past orthodoxy. Originalist citation practices are absent for much of the 19th century and grow sharply in the late 20th century. The Article elaborates the implications of these findings for debates in constitutional law.

The Supreme Court Under Threat: Early Lessons In Judicial Self-Protection, Curtis A. Bradley, Neil S. Siegel

Faculty Scholarship

This Essay explores how the U.S. Supreme Court, despite being vulnerable to defiance of its decisions and political retaliation, has developed tools of judicial self-protection to preserve its institutional authority and thus its capacity to sustain the Constitution and the rule of law. Arguing that the Court performs not only a legal role that requires interpretation of the law but also a political one that demands institutional preservation, the Essay examines how the Court has historically navigated political threats by using a range of tools—including avoidance, delay, narrow rulings, strategic dicta, and rhetorical appeals. The Essay focuses on three nineteenth-century …

The Jurisprudence Of Humanity, Tyler Rose Clemons

Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development

(Excerpt)

It has become common for Supreme Court Justices—the most powerful legal actors in our society—to explain why “the law” requires them to facilitate, or at least tolerate, terrible human suffering. Such claims are wrong, not just morally but legally. More specifically, they expose the decisions of the Roberts Court as a based on a jurisprudence of nihilism, one that justifies human suffering through vague appeals to the rule of law. These appeals, in turn, thinly conceal a substantive political and moral project.

To support this claim, I proceed in five parts. Part I introduces Albert Camus’s account of nihilism …

Words Matter: The Rhetoric Of National Security And The Reality Of Individual Rights, Christopher J. Borgen

Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development

(Excerpt)

While the meanings of words can be flexible or contested, they are not infinitely pliable. These limits on words and their uses help define the outer bounds of legitimate state action. However, even the written law is only as stable as our interpretation of what those words mean. There is the risk that a deliberate and persistent misuse of words by states and other actors can eventually change our understanding of the law it.

Some of my work has analyzed the use of words and phrases such as “self-determination,” “sovereignty,” and “secession.” But, in this Essay, I focus on …

The Influence Of The Federalist Society On Originalism In Supreme Court Opinions, Edoardo Santopuoli

Honors Theses

This thesis will investigate the influence of the Federalist Society on the use of originalism in Supreme Court opinions. To investigate this influence, justices that served on the Supreme Court from 1994 to 2022 are categorized based on whether or not they are affiliated with the Federalist Society. Then using artificial intelligence (ChatGPT version 5.3), ten Supreme Court opinions known to be originalist are used as a baseline for artificial intelligence to know what an originalist opinion looks like. Then, all majority opinions of the Supreme Court from that timeframe are scored from 1-10, with 10 meaning an opinion is …

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 …

The Evolution Of The Supreme Court's Second Amendment Jurisprudence, Kermit V. Lipez

Maine Law Review

We live in the shadow of an epidemic of gun violence. We dread the next report of an inevitable mass shooting. We no longer feel secure in public places. We fear for the safety of our children and our grandchildren at their schools. We shake our heads in disbelief at the empty ritual of "thoughts and prayers" for victims and their families. As one commentator put it, we suffer from the "[u]nbearable [m]onotony of [g]rief." Why must we live like this? Why are there no solutions? In conversations posing these questions, there are often references to the Supreme Court's Second …

The Paradox Of Intellectual Property At The U.S. Supreme Court, Tonja Jacobi, Matthew Sag

Faculty Articles

The Supreme Court is dramatically more politically polarized in the Roberts Court era, and the justices have been criticized for highly ideological and partisan decision-making. Yet, we show that there is one area of law that is becoming less ideologically divided and predictable: intellectual property (IP). In an earlier study, we showed that, prior to the Roberts Court, IP case outcomes were predictable based on judicial ideology, with more conservative justices embracing IP rights, as they do for real property. In the last two decades, IP has become more influential on the economy and society, through the increasing dominance of …

A History Of Vacatur, Benjamin B. Johnson

UF Law Faculty Publications

Vacatur, a seemingly routine appellate tool, has evolved into one of the Supreme Court’s most potent instruments for declaring law. This Article offers the first comprehensive historical account of vacatur, tracing its roots from English and early American practice through its twentieth-century transformations to its contemporary uses. Historically, courts used vacatur to manage dockets, correct procedural irregularities, or enforce reversals on the merits. Modern usage has departed markedly from these roots. The Court now frequently employs vacatur to declare binding legal rules without issuing judgments, effectively circumventing traditional limits on judicial power. Taking seriously the Court’s own insistence on history …

The Forgotten Income-Attribution Power, Alex Zhang

Faculty Articles

Economic inequality stands at record levels, and constitutional law haunts egalitarian reform. In 2024, the Supreme Court decided the latest contest. Moore v. United States rebuffed an attempt to sharply limit the federal taxing power, as a razor-thin majority upheld Congress’s attribution of foreign corporations’ income to domestic shareholders. But four Justices criticized the reasoning of the majority, faulting its use of a fabricated doctrine.

This Feature provides a systematic account of Congress’s income-attribution power. It excavates overlooked litigation materials and case law from the infancy of the current federal income tax. In the 1920s and 1930s, litigants attacked, on …

Popular Constitutionalism In A Populist Age, Thomas G. Donnelly

Law Faculty Publications

Popular constitutionalism burst onto the scene as a challenge to the constitutional authority of the Supreme Court. Decades later, popular constitutionalists remain susceptible to one of the earliest (and most potent) critiques of their project—the charge that they have done far too little to explain how their theory might work in practice. With the rise of modern populism, it’s also fair to ask whether popular constitutionalism is an approach that’s capable of meeting the challenges of the current constitutional moment. In this Article, I offer a new vision for popular constitutionalism—one that shows how the theory might work in practice, …

Amicus Incorporated, Adam N. Eckart

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

Attorneys have long advanced change through the court system—including through high-stakes, high-profile litigation in front of the Supreme Court of the United States. Attorneys appearing before the Court often represent individuals, nonprofit organizations, or the gov-ernment, and often seek to drive social reform through the platforms of their organizations. But attorneys representing big businesses also advo-cate for change through action at the Supreme Court. While businesses are not new to speaking out in front of the Court, they have become in-creasingly active in cases focused on social issues, including by submit-ting amicus briefs to the Court in support of a …

Reconstituting A Constitution, And A Republic: The Architecture Of Authoritarian Rule, J. Maria Glover

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

A constitution can be remade without tearing it down, or even changing a single word. It is done by law.

“The judicial power is vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as Congress may establish,” whose “province and duty” it is to “say what the law is.” U.S. Const. Art. III §1; Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 1 (Cranch) 137 (1803). It is not the power to remake the Constitution that grants it.

The Supreme Court is turning the inherited powers that hold power to law into instruments of its own aggrandizement. It is taking authority from …

Beyond Judicial Intent: The Agency Of The Defense Counsel In Ozawa’S And Thind’S Supreme Court Cases, Bret K. Luchs

Master's Theses or Doctor of Nursing Practice

This thesis seeks to examine how specific legal strategies by the defense counsel in Ozawa v. United States, 260 U.S. 178 (1922), and United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind, 261 U.S. 204 (1923), compelled the Supreme Court of the United States into a reactive and contradictory position. A re-examination of Ozawa and Thind delves deeper into the legal briefs and arguments made by Takao Ozawa and Bhagat Singh Thind, alongside their legal teams. These briefs, opinions of the court, past lower court cases, and personal statements by Ozawa and Thind demonstrate how they did not surrender to the confines of …

From Myers To Slaughter: A Brief Theory Of The Constitutionalization Of Secondary Sources, Dana Neacsu, Paul D. Callister

Faculty Works

For more than two centuries, American constitutional adjudication has relied upon secondary sources. Yet constitutional theory has almost entirely ignored them. Originalism debates constitutional text. Living constitutionalism debates constitutional evolution. Theories of precedent debate judicial authority. None asks a more fundamental question: What role do secondary sources play in constitutional adjudication? This Article argues that the answer has fundamentally changed in the last 100 of years. Chief Justice William Howard Taft's opinion in Myers v. United States (1926) marked a constitutional revolution by transforming secondary authorities from explanatory materials into evidence of constitutional continuity. Exactly one century later, Chief Justice …

Certiorari Transparency, Alexandra L. Klein, Michael L. Smith

Faculty Articles

Amid increasing controversy over the Supreme Court’s amassing of power, rejection of precedent, reliance on the shadow docket, and Justices’ undisclosed acceptance of lavish gifts, legal scholars, commentators, and politicians have called for bold and far-reaching reforms to the Court, including term limits for Justices, stripping the Court of jurisdiction in certain cases, and adding Justices to the Court. This Article proposes a more subtle reform to the Court’s proceedings: the Court should make its certiorari de-terminations, in which it decides which cases to take up and review, public. Currently, the Court exercises near-complete discretion over the cases it decides …

Challenging Agency Deregulation, Todd S. Aagaard

Faculty Publications

The administrative state is experiencing two seismic shifts. First, in recent years, the Supreme Court has issued a series of decisions that significantly curtailed the powers of administrative agencies. Second, President Donald Trump is using administrative agencies to aggressively deregulate in his second term. The conventional wisdom is that the Supreme Court’s recent precedent will facilitate the Trump Administration’s deregulatory agenda.

This Article argues the opposite. Instead of promoting agency deregulation, recent Supreme Court precedent restraining agency authority provides a potentially powerful basis for challenging agency deregulation as administrative overreach. Time and time again, the Court has taken agencies to …

Why Dobbs Is No Roadmap For Deciding State Constitutional Abortion Issues, Daniel A. Small

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

In deciding that Fourteenth Amendment “liberty” does not protect a woman’s decision to end her pregnancy, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization sought to distinguish the precedent that Roe and Casey relied on to recognize an abortion right. The Dobbs majority claimed that this precedent did not support a right to abortion because, in its view, destroying a fetus is more immoral than the conduct at issue in those earlier cases. However, moral concerns about fetal destruction shed no light on the nature or characteristics of a woman’s liberty interest in an abortion decision. These concerns, therefore, cannot show whether …

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 …

Foreword: The Constitution And Public Finance—Why Now And Why Ever?, Conor Clarke, Eric Kubo

Scholarship@WashULaw

This paper introduces the Washington University Law Review’s 2026 symposium issue on “Taxing, Spending, and the Constitution.” We situate the symposium’s ten papers within three interconnected developments in public finance law: the Supreme Court’s recent decision on the Sixteenth Amendment in Moore v. United States; the Trump Administration’s assertions of executive control over appropriated funds; and the use of emergency and trade statutes to justify sweeping tariff authority.

We also step back to ask why constitutional issues in public finance—long treated as a technical backwater—have become such a central site of doctrinal and political conflict. We offer several explanations beyond …

Excavating Miranda, Samuel J. Levine

Scholarly Works

Sixty years after it was decided, Miranda v. Arizona remains one of the most significant and renowned cases—as well as, arguably, one of the most controversial cases—in the history of the United States. Chief Justice Earl Warren’s majority opinion, establishing the eponymous Miranda warnings for custodial interrogation of criminal suspects, has prompted voluminous and continuing commentary, among both critics and supporters. This Article is part of an ongoing project exploring a particular aspect of Chief Justice Warren’s majority opinion: a footnote referencing Jewish legal sources, documenting an important passage at the start of a pivotal section of the opinion.

Building …

Rethinking Judicial Power & Remedial Restraint, Caprice L. Roberts

Catholic University Law Review

This Article maintains that groundbreaking Supreme Court cases reshaping judicial power and restraint are frequently remedies centric. The much- anticipated ruling in Trump v. CASA illustrates this correlation. Interpreting traditional equity, the Supreme Court circumscribed federal judicial power to issue universal relief. The Court relied on Marbury v. Madison to bolster its reasoning on the limits of judicial power. Ironically, both cases denied any remedy while enhancing the potential for future judicial power. Whether via judicial review and supremacy power or the Court’s future ability to now be the only federal court able to issue universal remedies—the Court’s role in …

Packing Our Way To Balance: A Necessary Correction For The Supreme Court, Robert E. Wagner

St. John's Law Review

The Supreme Court is in turmoil. It has the lowest recorded approval rating in its history. Multiple decisions over the past decade made by Justices nominated by a single political party, that the majority of the country viewed as political in nature, have tarnished the reputation of what was once a beacon of justice and impartiality. The Court is increasingly seen as a partisan institution with political actors rather than the fair and honest arbiter America needs it to be. In addition to dramatically unpopular decisions, the Court has suffered increasingly hostile and political machinations in its nominating process. This …

Rethinking The Key Role Of Private Antitrust Enforcement, Filippo Lancieri

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

This Article focuses on the institutional design of American competition policy. It argues that any long-term effective revival of U.S. antitrust policy requires a better acknowledgement of the key and irreplaceable role played by private litigation and proposes a rethink of private anti-trust enforcement policy.

To unpack the nuanced interconnection between public and private competition enforcement, the Article begins by tracing the rise and fall of private antitrust. It builds on a novel, hand-coded, and comprehensive analysis of the entire Supreme Court antitrust track record—all 474 decisions over 130 years—to outline how an ideologically …

Rico V. United States, Meagan R. Hurley

Articles

Isabel Rico was serving a term of supervised release when she absconded from federal supervision. Years later, the government sought to revoke her release, arguing that her fugitive status “tolled” her supervised-release term. The Ninth Circuit agreed. Other circuits, however, have rejected the fugitive-tolling doctrine in the supervised-release context. The Supreme Court will now decide whether federal courts may judicially adopt fugitive tolling, or whether Congress’s silence in the supervised-release statute forecloses it.

"Tik Tok" On The Clock: It's Time To Amend Section 230, Mackenzie G. Howe

West Virginia Law Review

The Communications Decency Act (“CDA”), enacted in 1996, was designed to support the rapid growth of the Internet, advancing access to political information, educational resources, culture, entertainment, and news. However, Section 230 of the CDA includes a key provision that grants nearly absolute immunity to online platforms such as Facebook, X, and TikTok. This provision states: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” Despite the Supreme Court’s apprehension to reexamine Section 230, the Third Circuit took a novel approach to potentially …

There's Not Enough Cement And Too Much Air In That Concrete: Addressing The Weakness Of The Supreme Court's Concrete Injury Analysis, Sidney Balaban

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

“Zombie” debt collectors—third-party entities who purchase from creditors and attempt to collect on debts that have passed the statute of limitations periods—have become a particular nuisance and source of distress to the unsuspecting consumer. A serious problem arises in some states, such as Illinois, which allow for the limitations period to restart if the debtor began making payments again or promised to make payments, giving nefarious debt collectors the chance to trick consumers into renewed legal liability—a true zombification. Fortunately, in 1978, Congress passed the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA” or “the Act”) to “eliminate abusive debt collection …

Modern Challenges To Mandatory Immigration Detention: Building Constitutional Walls Around Statutory Expansions, Timothy Zurcher

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

Pierre Michel arrived in the United States from Haiti at three years old as a Lawful Permanent Resident (“LPR”). After developing substance abuse issues in his adolescence, Michel received several nonviolent criminal convictions and was detained in contemplation of his deportation. Nearly two years later, Michel was finally released after successfully petitioning for Cancellation of Removal. Michel had no opportunity to obtain his freedom sooner, despite his clear eligibility for relief. Like Michel, in 2003, student Sylvester Owino pled guilty to second-degree robbery without understanding the immigration consequences of his conviction. After serving over two years in prison, Owino …

Cross-Talk, Alicia Bannon, John Q. Barrett, Tyler Rose Clemons, Wilfred U. Codrington Iii, Mark C. Niles

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

John Q. Barrett (“JQB”)

We now enter the exciting segment of the program called cross-talk.

Tyler Rose Clemons (“TRC”)

One of the things that this conversation has brought up for me is whom is the Court overturning precedent on behalf of? What interest? Whose interest is it that the Court is acting to vindicate when it says we got it wrong before, and it is so important that we get it right that we are willing to take this supposedly drastic remedy of overturning our own precedent?

What I was thinking about immediately during Judge Livingston’s remarks was West …

Stare Decisis And The 1l Classroom: Can Legal Reasoning Be Taught Without Judicial Respect For Precedent?, Mark C. Niles

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

I began my career as a law professor in 1998 and, in every year but one, since then I have taught at least one first-year required law school course. I have taught Civil Procedure each of these years and some version of a required Constitutional Law course in about half of them. I want to say just a little bit about stare decisis and its importance in our legal system from the perspective of a law professor teaching first-year students.

I have found that although teaching Civil Procedure involves a focus on a range of substantive issues including judicial …