Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

Above Politics: Congress And The Supreme Court In 2017, Jason Mazzone

Chicago-Kent Law Review

The Supreme Court figured prominently in the November 2016 elections because of the vacancy on the Court that resulted from the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. This Essay picks up the story by examining the place of the Supreme Court in national politics during 2017. It traces congressional efforts to respond to statutory and constitutional rulings by the Court as well as steps to regulate the operations of the Court and the work of the Justices. Although in 2017 Republicans and Democrats introduced numerous bills directed at the Court, these bills were generally modest in scope and, even so, did …

What Members Of Congress Say About The Supreme Court And Why It Matters, Carolyn Shapiro

Chicago-Kent Law Review

Republican and Democratic senators took strikingly different approaches to Justice Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation hearing. Republicans focused on judicial process—what judges are supposed to do, how they are constrained, and the significance of the constitutional separation of powers—evoking rhetoric long used by the political right. Democrats, by contrast, focused primarily on case outcomes, complaining, for example, that Gorsuch favored “the big guy” over “the little guy” in cases he decided as a judge on the Tenth Circuit. This Article critiques the Democrats’ failure to discuss judicial process and to promote their own affirmative vision of the judiciary and the Constitution. A …

Will The Supreme Court Still “Seldom Stray Very Far”?: Regime Politics In A Polarized America, Kevin J. Mcmahon

Chicago-Kent Law Review

This Article examines the concept of a “minority Justice,” meaning a Supreme Court Justice appointed by a President who had failed to win the popular vote and confirmed with the support of a majority of senators who had garnered fewer votes in their most recent elections than their colleagues in opposition. Specifically, Neil Gorsuch was the first “minority Justice,” receiving the support of senators who had collected nearly 20 million fewer votes than those in opposition (54,098,387 to 73,425,062). From there, the Article considers the significance this development, first by examining some of the foundational work of the regime politics …

The Forgotten Issue? The Supreme Court And The 2016 Presidential Campaign, Christopher W. Schmidt

Chicago-Kent Law Review

This Article considers how presidential candidates use the Supreme Court as an issue in their election campaigns. I focus in particular on 2016, but I try to make sense of this extraordinary election by placing it in the context of presidential elections over the past century.

In the presidential election of 2016, circumstances seemed perfectly aligned to force the Supreme Court to the front of public debate, but neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton treated the Court as a central issue of their campaigns. Trump rarely went beyond a brief mention of the Court in his campaign speeches; Clinton basically …

Keynote Address: Judging The Political And Political Judging: Justice Scalia As Case Study, Richard L. Hasen

Chicago-Kent Law Review

This is a revised version of a Keynote Address delivered at “The Supreme Court and American Politics,” a symposium held October 17, 2017 at the Chicago-Kent College of Law. In this Address, Professor Hasen considers through the lens of Justice Scalia’s opinions the role that views of the political process play, at least rhetorically, in how Supreme Court Justices decide cases. It focuses on Justice Scalia’s contradictory views on self-dealing and incumbency protection across a range of cases, comparing campaign finance on the one hand to partisan gerrymandering, voter identification laws, political patronage, and ballot access rules on the other. …

Neil Gorsuch And The Ginsburg Rules, Lori A. Ringhand, Paul M. Collins Jr.

Chicago-Kent Law Review

Supreme Court nominees testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee frequently invoke the so-called “Ginsburg Rule” to justify not answering questions posed to them. According to this “rule,” nominees during their testimony must avoid signaling their preferences about previously decided Supreme Court cases or constitutional issues. Using empirical data on every question asked and answered at every hearing from 1939–2017, we explore this “rule,” and its attribution to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. We demonstrate three things. First, the Ginsburg Rule is poorly named, given that the practice of claiming a privilege to not respond to certain types of questions predates the …

The Consequences Of Citizens United: What Do The Lawyers Say?, Ann Southworth

Chicago-Kent Law Review

This Essay examines a polarized world of advocacy over campaign finance regulation in the Roberts Court. It considers what lawyers who filed party and amicus briefs in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission have to say about the consequences of the decision. It shows that the lawyers generally agree about the ruling’s direct consequences but strongly disagree about whether those consequences are good or bad for the country and what lessons the public should draw. This Essay also explores the competing frames that these lawyers bring to questions about money in politics and their competing perspectives about government and where …

Beyond Headlines & Holdings: Exploring Some Less Obvious Ramifications Of The Supreme Court's 2017 Free-Speech Rulings, Clay Calvert

UF Law Faculty Publications

Digging behind the holdings, this Article analyzes less conspicuous, yet highly consequential aspects of the United States Supreme Court’s First Amendment rulings during the opening half of 2017. The four facets of the opinions addressed here— items both within individual cases and cutting across them—hold vast significance for future free-speech battles. Nuances of the justices’ splintering in Matal v. Tam, Packingham v. North Carolina, and Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman are examined, as is the immediate impact of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s Packingham dicta regarding online social networks. Furthermore, Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s solo concurrence in the threats case of …

The Language Of Neutrality In Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings, Carolyn Shapiro

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

At Justice Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation hearing, then-Judge Gorsuch repeatedly insisted that judging involves no more than examining the legal materials—like statutes and precedents— and applying them to the facts of the case. There is, he emphasized, no room for a Justice’s “personal views,” and he refused even to state his agreement (or disagreement) with such iconic cases as Loving v. Virginia and Griswold v. Connecticut. Instead, then Judge Gorsuch reiterated only that they were precedents of the Court and thus entitled to respect. Frustrating as his answers may have been to some senators, however, they differed from answers given …

What Kind Of Judge Is Brett Kavanaugh?, Elliott Ash, Daniel L. Chen

Cardozo Law Review de•novo

This article reports the results of a series of data analyses of how recent Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh compares to other potential Supreme Court nominees and current Supreme Court Justices in his judging style. The analyses reveal a number of ways in which Judge Kavanaugh differs systematically from his colleagues. First, Kavanaugh dissents and is dissented against along partisan lines. More than other Judges and Justices, Kavanaugh dissents at a higher rate during the lead-up to elections, suggesting that he feels personally invested in national politics. Far more often than his colleagues, he justifies his decisions with conservative doctrines, …

Travel Ban Update: Ninth Circuit Holds Eo-3 Exceeds President’S Power, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Travel Ban Update: Without Addressing The Merits, The Supreme Court Stays Injunction Pending Further Proceedings, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Institutional Case For Partisan Gerrymandering Claims, G. Michael Parsons

Cardozo Law Review de•novo

For voters hoping the Supreme Court’s 2017 Term brings relief from partisan gerrymandering, the end of the 2016 Term was inauspicious. In Cooper v. Harris, the majority assumed the legitimacy of “partisan advantage” arguments while the dissent—including Justice Kennedy—warned about the “serious institutional and federalism implications” of judicial intervention in the redistricting process. If past is prologue, this concern for institutional and structural interests does not bode well.

The Missing Justice In Coleman V. Miller, Barry Cushman

Journal Articles

All nine of the sitting justices took part in the 1939 case of Coleman v. Miller, which concerned whether the Kansas legislature had ratified the pending Child Labor Amendment. One of the issues in the case was decided by a vote of 5-4, while another was resolved by a vote of 7-2. With respect to a third issue, however, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes reported that it presented “a question upon which the Court is equally divided and therefore the Court expresses no opinion upon that point.”

Scholars understandably have been puzzled by how a decision in which a full …

Brief Amicus Curiae On Behalf Of Intellectual Property Professors In Support Of Petitioner, Mark Mckenna, Mark A. Lemley, Christopher Jon Sprigman, Rebecca Tushnett

Court Briefs

No. 15-866
Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc.

On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

From the Summary of Argument:

In its 1976 revision of the Copyright Act, Congress decided to separate applied art from industrial design, admitting the former to copyright and excluding the latter. It drew this distinction precisely because it intended to differentiate copyright from design and utility patent. Congress recognized as applied art only those aesthetic features of a useful article that could be “separated” from that useful article rather than being integrated into the article.

The …

The Place Of Policy In International Law, Oscar Schachter

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Executive Power And The Scotus Argument On President Obama’S Immigration Plan, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Second Amendment Standards Of Review In A Heller World, Nelson Lund

Fordham Urban Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Brief Of The Catholic University Of America School Of Canon Law, The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, The Queens Federation Of Churches, And The Serbian Orthodox Church In North And South America, As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioners, Richard W. Garnett, David H. Hyams

Court Briefs

No. 15.1005
Chabad-Lubavitch of Michigan v. Dr. Dov Schuchman

On Petition for a Writ of Ceriorari to the Supreme Court of Michigan

This brief addresses the importance of the principle of church autonomy and the protections provided by the First and Fourteenth Amendments and this Court's precedents regarding religious denominations' internal mandatory dispute-resolution procedures.

Brief Of Religious Liberty Scholars As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioners, Steven T. Collis, Michael Robertson, Adam A. Hubbard, Douglas Laycock, Gerard V. Bradley, Richard W. Garnett, Kristine J. Kalanges

Court Briefs

No. 15-862
Stormans, Inc. v. John Wiesman

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

From the Summary of Argument

This Court’s free-exercise jurisprudence is defined by two cases with facts at opposite ends of a continuum. The Court decided them a quarter century ago, and it has provided no further guidance despite a growing circuit split. Lower courts that carefully examined this Court’s opinions found a clear rule that governments must treat religious conduct as well as they treat analogous secular conduct—or face strict scrutiny. But that rule has …

Brief Amici Curiae Of 37 Intellectual Property Professors In Support Of Petition For Certiorari, Mark A. Lemley, Mark Mckenna

Court Briefs

No. 15-777
Samsung Electonics Co., Ltd. v. Apple Inc.

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

From the Summary of Argument:

This case presents two issues that justify this Court’s review.
First, the Federal Circuit upheld a finding of design patent infringement based on the very same Apple designs that it found functional under trade dress law. Such a counterintuitive outcome is possible because the Federal Circuit has constructed a highly constrained definition of functionality in design patent law, which is at odds with this Court’s precedent in both utility …

Brief Of Amici Curiae Constitutional Law Scholars In Support Of Petitioners, Ryan A. Shores, William J. Haun, Richard W. Garnett

Court Briefs

Nos. 14-1418, 14-1453, 14-1505, 15-35, 15-105, 15-119, & 15-191
Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged v. Sylvia Matthews Burwell

On Writs of Ceriorari to the United States Courts of Appeals for the Third, Fifth, Tenth, and District of Columbia Circuits

From the Summary of Argument

“[I]n a complex society and an era of pervasive governmental regulation, defining the proper realm for free exercise can be difficult.” Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751, 2781, 2785 (2014) (Kennedy, J., concurring). The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”)2 addresses that difficulty by harmonizing religious freedom and …

Justice Scalia's Bottom-Up Approach To Shaping The Law, Meghan J. Ryan

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

Justice Antonin Scalia is among the most famous Supreme Court Justices in history. He is known for his originalism and conservative positions, as well as his witty and acerbic legal opinions. One of the reasons Justice Scalia's opinions are so memorable is his effective use of rhetorical devices, which convey colorful images and understandable ideas. One might expect that such powerful opinions would be effective in shaping the law, but Justice Scalia's judicial philosophy was often too conservative to persuade a majority of his fellow Justices on the Supreme Court. Further, his regular criticisms of his Supreme Court colleagues were …

Inside The Taft Court: Lessons From The Docket Books, Barry Cushman

Journal Articles

For many years, the docket books kept by certain of the Taft Court Justices have been held by the Office of the Curator of the Supreme Court. Though the existence of these docket books had been brought to the attention of the scholarly community, access to them was highly restricted. In April of 2014, however, the Court adopted new guidelines designed to increase access to the docket books for researchers. This article offers a report and analysis based on a review of all of the Taft Court docket books held by the Office of the Curator, which are the only …

The Court And The Cannonball: An Inside Look, Stephen Wermiel, Lee Levine

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

As lawsuits over the right of publicity proliferate among athletes and other celebrities, there is renewed interest, by litigants and judges alike, in the one decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that addresses a tort action arising from a "publicity" related claim, Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co. Although the 1977 ruling is often cited as holding that the right of publicity tort survives constitutional scrutiny under the First Amendment, an examination of the case and of the Supreme Court justices' available papers shows that the Court did not view the case as presenting the type of claim that has become …

Ilya Somin's The Grasping Hand: Kelo V. City Of New London & The Limits Of Eminent Domain (Book Review), James J. Kelly Jr.

Journal Articles

Ultimately, Somin’s single-minded dedication to a federal constitutional ban on economic development taking prevents the book from offering a full and fair consideration of alternative responses to eminent domain abuse. His survey of the various state legislative reforms enacted as a result of homeowner backlash to Kelo quite rightly points out the shortcomings of populist challenges to sophisticated vested interests. But his blatant aversion to engage with the substantial problems that public purpose land assembly faces without resort to eminent domain closes off any fair comparison of proposals that rival his own, particularly the position of fellow libertarian and ardent …

Brief Of Law Professors Bruce P. Frohnen, Robert P. George, Alan J. Meese, Michael P. Moreland, Nathan B. Oman, Michael Stokes Paulsen, Rodney K. Smith, Steven D. Smith, And O. Carter Snead As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioners, John D. Adams, Matthew A. Fitzgerald, O. Carter Snead

Court Briefs

No. 15-105
Little Sister of the Poor Home for the Aged v. Sylvia Mathews Burwell

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

From the Summary of Argument

Suppose a federal law required government officials to enter a Catholic church and use church property to distribute contraceptives and abortifacients over church’s objection. Such a law would surely burden the church’s religion, even if the government paid for the objectionable medications and compensated the church for the use of its resources. By commandeering church property, such a law would force the …

Chevron For Juries, William Ortman

Law Faculty Research Publications

No abstract provided.

Brief For Eighteen Criminal Law Professors As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioner, Steffen N. Johnson, Andrew C. Nichols, Eric M. Goldstein, Eric T. Werlinger, Richard W. Garnett, Stephen F. Smith

Court Briefs

No. 13-7451
John L. Yates v. United States of America

On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

From the Summary of Argument

The modern federal criminal code is vast and unwieldy: some 4,500 laws criminalize conduct ranging from stockpiling biological weapons (18 U.S.C. § 175) to falsely representing oneself as a 4-H Club representative (id. § 916). Moreover, a host of these laws are redundant. Indeed, some federal crimes—notably fraud and false statements—are independently prohibited by over two hundred different statutes. Combined with over 300,000 federal criminal regulations, the canon …

Brief Of Eugene Volokh, Richard W. Garnett, Michael Stokes Paulsen, Timothy Zick, William E. Lee, Alan K. Chen, & Ronald J. Krotoszynski, Jr. As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioners, Kevin C. Walsh, Matthew A. Fitzgerald, Andriana S. Daly, Richard W. Garnett

Court Briefs

No. 12-1168
Eleanor McCullen v. Martha Coakley

On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

From the Summary of Argument

Even many steadfast supporters of abortion rights believed that the Court erroneously applied the First Amendment in Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 (2000). As put bluntly by leading liberal scholar Professor Laurence Tribe, Hill was among the candidates for “most blatantly erroneous” decisions of the 1999 Term. Tribe added that the case was “slam-dunk simple” yet the Court got it “slam-dunk wrong.”

Specifically, pro-choice and pro-life scholars alike agreed that the …