Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

Cross-Talk, The Honorable Raymond J. Lohier, John Q. Barrett, Noa Ben-Asher, Margaret E. Mcguinness, Mark L. Movsesian, Michael A. Perino

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

You know what is interesting? This has been on my mind for a long time as my law clerk, Colin, knows. What you have all described in different ways, maybe with the exception of the religious rights case, but I will get to that, is a Supreme Court that either is, or perceives itself to be, unchecked by Congress and at times unchecked by the President, largely for reasons that we can discuss.

Making The Party Presentation Principle Safe For Originalism, Randy E. Barnett, Lawrence B. Solum

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court sometimes adheres to what it calls the “party presentation principle”—terminology that dates back to 2008. Although judicial articulations of the principle have been inconsistent and imprecise, the gist is the familiar notion that courts should resolve cases on the basis of the issues and reasons presented by the parties to the dispute. Conversely, questions not properly raised by the parties should be avoided by the Court. Thus, the Court has on several occasions declined to address arguments outside the scope of the questions raised by the parties in their petition for certiorari.

For originalists, the importance of …

American Public Law Revolution, Victoria Frances Nourse

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Supreme Court has birthed a public law revolution. This revolution should not be known as a constitutional revolution because it is bigger than constitutional law—it covers statutory and administrative law as well. This revolution has been powered not by social movements, but by an interpretive philosophy known as originalism. Originalism has been deeply misunderstood by its critics. This Article examines three myths about originalism—that it is primarily about history, that it is a traditional theory of adjudication, and that it is democratic. Originalism is a semantic theory, not a theory of history, and it is a theory that privileges …

Does Textualism Constrain Supreme Court Justices?, James J. Brudney, Lawrence Baum

Faculty Scholarship

A principal justification for textualism is the constraint hypothesis. Conservative Justices and leading textualist scholars contend that—in stark contrast to reliance on legislative history—focus on the ordinary meaning of enacted text leaves little room for the Justices to be policy-oriented or ideological in their interpretations. This Article represents the first systematic study probing the validity of the constraint hypothesis, one that employs both quantitative and qualitative analysis.

The Article examines the Justices’ reliance on interpretive resources in over 660 statutory decisions in the field of labor and employment, decided by the Burger Court, the Rehnquist Court, and the Roberts Court—during …

Judicial Ethics, The Supreme Court, And The Rule Of Law, Charles G. Geyh

Articles by Maurer Faculty

This Essay begins with a short history of judicial ethics regulation in the United States, ending with the adoption of codes of conduct by every state and federal judicial system except the Supreme Court of the United States. It then turns to a series of ethics controversies encircling the Supreme Court and its justices, which culminated in the Supreme Court adopting a Code of Conduct in 2023. Tapping into the social science literature, it argues that for codes to improve the ethical climate of an institution they must encourage psychological ownership of and “buy-in” to a code by those subject …

Living Property, Joseph William Singer

Seattle University Law Review

The Supreme Court has increasingly defined property rights that are per se exempt from regulation in the absence of compensation, most recently in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid (2021) and Tyler v. Hennepin County (2023). The Court claims that it can identify property rights that are categorically protected from regulation by reference to history, tradition, and precedent. Yet this approach is oddly ahistorical; it is inconsistent with the fact that property law changed dramatically over U.S. history, as well as varying tremendously among the states. It is also inconsistent with the historical context of the Founding era. At that time, …

What On Earth Is A Burden On Interstate Commerce?, Andrew Jordan

Northwestern University Law Review

What is a burden on interstate commerce? That’s an important question under the Dormant Commerce Clause’s Pike balancing test. But it’s a question whose answer has proven elusive. This shouldn’t be a surprise. After all, states disagree about what counts as a burden or a benefit, and how much weight each has. And there aren’t any obvious constitutional principles we can point to for resolving those disagreements. Recently, some scholars have tried to ground dormant commerce doctrine in economic cost–benefit analysis. The supposed virtue of that approach is that it is neutral as to competing preferences. Thus, for the Court …

Retroactivity Rethought: The Hidden Costs, Pierce B. Hasler

Maine Law Review

The validity of Justice Harlan's contention that retroactivity must be rethought is becoming increasingly evident, and it seems likely that extensive reevaluation of the doctrine will soon be necessary. The past six years have been marked by well over a dozen Supreme Court decisions addressed to the question of the retroactive or prospective effect to be given prior constitutional rulings in the area of criminal procedure. Rarely has an important constitutional doctrine achieved such full-blown proportions so quickly, yet several members of the Court would now vote to reject it and start anew. Linkletter v. Walkers was the landmark decision …

The Law Of Disqualification And Problems With The Supreme Court Code Of Conduct, Donald K. Sherman, Marco A. White, Virginia Canter

Fordham Law Voting Rights and Democracy Forum

In this Article, we analyze the federal disqualification statute applicable to federal judges, magistrates, and Justices of the Supreme Court as compared to the disqualification provisions of the United States Supreme Court Code of Conduct and detail the ways in which the standards contained within the Code are contrary to law and history. To provide proper context, we examine the history, case law, and statutory framework that have created the current standards of judicial disqualification for all Article III judges and Justices. We demonstrate that the Court is bound to apply disqualification procedures in accordance with the United States Constitution, …

Put Me In, Coach: Constitutional Concerns Of Judicial Activism And Legislating From The Bench, Jacob M. Elliott

Senior Honors Theses

Unrestrained judicial activism and legislating from the bench at the Supreme Court level place federalism and freedom in jeopardy. By ignoring crucial doctrines like jurisdiction, deference, and independence, the Supreme Court has demonstrated a tendency toward reinterpreting existing Constitutional precedent as they see fit, basing judgments on extra-legal influences, and supplanting Constitutional principles with their own personal policy preferences.

Numerous cases demonstrate the looming threat of judicial overreach; these cases are often considered some of the most damaging and injurious decisions in the history of the American federal judiciary. One potential solution is to appoint justices who will operate …

You Had One Job: The Supreme Court's New Chance To Fix The Constitutional Law Of Sentencing Factfinding, Benjamin J. Priester

Faculty Articles

Four decades after the enactment of the federal Sentencing Reform Act, one might expect a settled consensus to have emerged addressing the constitutional constraints on implementing norms such as predictability, consistency, and uniformity in the imposition of criminal punishment in the United States. In reality, the United States Supreme Court has failed to provide stability or clarity in the doctrinal principles implicated in millions of criminal cases nationwide. Spanning a quarter century, the Apprendi v. New Jersey line of cases has featured narrow or fragmented majorities, significant concurring opinions, and multiple instances of individual justices either overtly admitting to changing …

Per Se Non-Takings, Nestor M. Davidson, Timothy M. Mulvaney

Faculty Scholarship

In the discourse on the Takings Clause, disputes over methodology have long formed a kind of proxy war, with per se rules ordinarily underwriting strong constitutional protection for property rights and ad hoc standards more often vindicating public interests. At a moment when the Supreme Court is increasingly embracing the rules end of this rules–standards spectrum, this Article offers a novel perspective to challenge the conventional link between categorical reasoning and classical liberal conceptions of constitutional property.

To do so, the Article excavates a vast body of law denying takings liability through rule-like reasoning, an approach the Article calls per …

Admiralty, Abstention, And The Allure Of Old Cases, Maggie Gardner

Notre Dame Law Review

The current Supreme Court has made clear that history matters. But doing history well is hard. There is thus an allure to old cases because they provide a link to the past that is more accessible for nonhistorian lawyers. This Article warns against that allure by showing how the use of old cases also poses methodological challenges. The Article uses as a case study the emerging doctrine of foreign relations abstention. Before the Supreme Court, advocates argued that this new doctrine is in fact rooted in early admiralty cases. Those advocates did not, however, canvass the early admiralty practice, relying …

Democratic Erosion And The United States Supreme Court, Jenny Breen

Utah Law Review

For many decades, confidence in American institutions and political culture consistently led scholars to sideline questions about “regime change” in the United States. And for many years, that approach seemed justified. Democratic institutions were firmly rooted and stable, and American voters participated in free and fair elections that resulted in the peaceful transfer of power between parties and candidates. Then came the campaign of Donald Trump and all that has followed since, including open challenges to the most basic and fundamental democratic norms. These changes have led many voters, commentators, and scholars to ask: Is democracy eroding in the United …

“We Do No Such Thing”: 303 Creative V. Elenis And The Future Of First Amendment Challenges To Public Accommodations Laws, David Cole

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In 303 Creative v. Elenis, the Supreme Court ruled that a business had a right to refuse to design a wedding website for a same-sex couple. But properly understood, the decision’s parameters are narrow, and the decision should have minimal effect on public accommodations laws.

The Rise Of General Jurisdiction Over Out-Of-State Enterprises In The United States, Peter Hay

Emory International Law Review

In June 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court continued its revision of personal jurisdiction law, in this case by refining, thereby perhaps expanding, the law of when a court may exercise general personal jurisdiction – that is, jurisdiction over all claims – over a non-resident person or an out-of-state enterprise. In Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., it held in a 4+1:4 decision that, when a state requires a non-resident company to register to do business in the state and such registration constitutes consent to jurisdiction over all claims against it, such exercise is permitted. In reaching its conclusion, the Court …

Above Reproach? The U.S. Supreme Court's Ethical Issues, Christopher J. Przemieniecki, Jana Nestlerode, Carli Younce

Criminal Justice Faculty Publications

With society scrutinizing the American criminal justice system, a standard of ethics becomes ever so important for law enforcement officials, members of the bench, and correctional personnel. Creating a code of conduct not only benefits the individual players in the criminal justice system but it also protects the integrity of each institution. Unfortunately, one of the most important judicial branches in the criminal justice system, the United States Supreme Court, does not have, nor follow an ethical code of conduct. This creates a problem for criminal justice practitioners, the media, and society. This article examines the current requirements for a …

Abort The Court? How Abortion Jurisprudence Has Highlighted Questions Surrounding The Legitimacy Of The Supreme Court, Junia E. Paulus

Honors Projects

The Supreme Court is often viewed with awe and the justices treated with reverence. It is the highest court in the United States, tasked with interpreting the law. But is the Supreme Court the neutral arbiter of justice it purports to be? Most recently, the 2022 ruling on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturned the fifty-year precedent of Roe v. Wade, causing the Court to face increasing scrutiny and questions of its legitimacy. I conduct a philosophical analysis of the arguments made by the justices in the opinions on Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and …

The Causation Canon, Sandra F. Sperino

Faculty Publications

It is rare to witness the birth of a canon of statutory interpretation. In the past decade, the Supreme Court created a new canon-the causation canon. When a statute uses any causal language, the Court will assume that Congress meant to require the plaintiff to establish "but-for" cause.

This Article is the first to name, recognize and discuss this new canon. The Article traces the birth of the canon, showing that the canon did not exist until 2013 and was not certain until 2020. Demonstrating how the Court constructed this new canon yields several new insights about statutory interpretation.

The …

Kahler V. Kansas: How The Current Insanity Defense Regime Underserves Postpartum Psychosis Defendants, How The Supreme Court Failed To Act, And How Now Is The Perfect Time To Implement A Gender-Specific Postpartum Defense, Victoria Frazier

St. Mary's Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Procedural Justice And The Shadow Docket, Taraleigh Davis, Sara C. Benesh

Emory Law Journal

This Article critically examines the role of procedural justice in shaping public perceptions of the U.S. Supreme Court’s legitimacy, particularly in light of recent Court actions, including the leak of a major opinion and the increasing, potentially politicized, use of its shadow docket. Drawing from the procedural justice model—which posits that legitimacy is primarily founded on the decision-making processes and principled judgments of the Court—this Article investigates whether the decline in confidence experienced by the Court can be attributed, at least in part, to its shadow docket.

Utilizing an experimental survey conducted over three critical time points—coinciding with the leak …

Supreme Court Legitimacy Under Threat? The Role Of Cues In How The Public Responds To Supreme Court Decisions., Laura Moyer, Scott S. Boddery, Jeff Yates, Lindsay Caudill

Faculty and Staff Scholarship

Understanding how the public views the Court and its rulings is crucial to assessing its institutional stability. However, as scholars note, “People are broadly supportive of the court and believe in its ‘legitimacy’—that is, that Supreme Court rulings should be respected and followed. But we don’t know that much about whether people actually agree with the case outcomes themselves.” In this article, we highlight empirical research investigating the factors that affect public agreement with Court decisions, highlighting recent developments from our work. At the onset, it is to note that the public generally hears about the Court’s decisions from media …

Constructing The Supreme Court: How Race, Ethnicity, And Gender Have Affected Presidential Selection And Senate Confirmation Hearings, Christina L. Boyd, Paul M. Collins, Jr., Lori A. Ringhand, Karson A. Pennington

Scholarly Works

In February 2022, President Joseph Biden announced his nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson to serve as an associate justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. In doing so, he said this:

For too long, our government, our courts haven’t looked like America. And I believe it’s time that we have a Court that reflects the full talents and greatness of our nation with a nominee of extraordinary qualifications and that we inspire all young people to believe that they can one day serve their country at the highest level.

In the following days, Jackson’s nomination was discussed with enthusiasm, much like …

The Court And The Constitution, Lori A. Ringhand

Scholarly Works

Americans do not want the Supreme Court to be just another political institution. This is apparent in the lukewarm response to even modest proposals to change the structure of the Court, such as limiting the terms of its justices or changing its size. The partisan overlay of this reaction is obvious, but the purpose of this Essay is to highlight an additional barrier to change: the dominance of originalist rhetoric in American constitutional discourse. The rhetoric of originalism has successfully tapped into many Americans’ deeply held expectations about the role of the Court and the Constitution as a unique and …

The United States Supreme Court’S Enduring Misunderstanding Of Insanity, David Dematteo, Daniel A. Krauss, Sarah Fishel, Kellie Wiltsie

New Mexico Law Review

Within mental health law, the legal defense of insanity has received a disproportionate amount of attention. Classified as a legal excuse, the insanity defense generally negates legal blameworthiness for criminal defendants who successfully prove that at the time of the offense, they did not know right from wrong or were unable to conform their conduct to the requirements of the law, due to an underlying mental health condition. The insanity defense has a lengthy history in the United States, with several different formulations and numerous court decisions addressing various aspects of the defense. Despite its firm entrenchment in U.S. criminal …

Random Justice, Girardeau A. Spann

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

As recent Senate confirmation practices suggest, the Supreme Court is best understood as the head of a political branch of government, whose Justices are chosen in a process that makes their ideological views dispositive. Throughout the nation’s history, the Supreme Court has exercised its governing political ideology in ways that sacrifice the interests of nonwhites in order to advance the interests of Whites. In the present moment of heightened cultural sensitivity to structural discrimination and implicit bias, it would make sense to use affirmative action to help remedy the racially disparate distribution of societal resources that has been produced by …

Can The Fourth Amendment Keep People "Secure In Their Persons"?, Bruce A. Green

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

A Flawed Case Against Black Self-Defense, Nicholas J. Johnson

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Right To Counsel In A Neoliberal Age, Zohra Ahmed

Scholarly Works

Legal scholarship tends to obscure how changes in criminal process relate to broader changes in society at large. This article offers a modest corrective to this tendency. By studying the Supreme Court’s right to counsel jurisprudence, as it has developed since the mid-70s, I show the pervasive impact of the concurrent rise of neoliberalism on relationships between defendants and their attorneys. Since 1975, the Court has emphasized two concerns in its rulings regarding the right to counsel: choice and autonomy. These, of course, are nominally good things for defendants to have. But by paying close attention to how the Court …

The Meaning, History, And Importance Of The Elections Clause, Eliza Sweren-Becker, Michael Waldman

Washington Law Review

Historically, the Supreme Court has offered scant attention to or analysis of the Elections Clause, resulting in similarly limited scholarship on the Clause’s original meaning and public understanding over time. The Clause directs states to make regulations for the time, place, and manner of congressional elections, and grants Congress superseding authority to make or alter those rules.

But the 2020 elections forced the Elections Clause into the spotlight, with Republican litigants relying on the Clause to ask the Supreme Court to limit which state actors can regulate federal elections. This new focus comes on the heels of the Clause serving …