Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

Disinformation And The Defamation Renaissance: A Misleading Promise Of “Truth”, Lili Levi

University of Richmond Law Review

Today, defamation litigation is experiencing a renaissance, with progressives and conservatives, public officials and celebrities, corporations and high school students all heading to the courthouse to use libel lawsuits as a social and political fix. Many of these suits reflect a powerful new rhetoric—reframing the goal of defamation law as fighting disinformation. Appeals to the need to combat falsity in public discourse have fueled efforts to reverse the Supreme Court’s press–protective constitutional limits on defamation law under the New York Times v. Sullivan framework. The anti–disinformation frame could tip the scales and generate a majority on the Court to dismantle …

Executive Order 14036: Promoting Competition?, Holly E. Fredericksen

University of Richmond Law Review

Four million Americans left their jobs in July 2021. By the end of that month, the number of open jobs reached an all-time high: 10.9 million. Employees are walking out the door in record numbers as part of a trend so remarkable, we even gave it a name: the Great Resignation. With 4.3 million Americans quitting their jobs in January 2022 and 11.3 million job openings, the Great Resignation is only gaining momentum and showing no signs of slowing down.

And as a consequence of employees exiting in droves, employers are hurting. According to The Work Institute, turnover costs employers …

The Nagging In Our Ears And Original Public Meaning, Perry Dane

Marquette Law Review

The debate over how to understand the meaning of legal texts once pitted intentionalism against a variety of other views united by the conviction that a legal enactment takes on a meaning not reducible to anybody’s mental state. Both these approaches are supported by powerful intuitions. This Article does not try to referee between them. Instead, it takes aim at a third set of views— theories of “original public meaning”—that in recent decades has upended the traditional debate and has now become gospel for the new majority on the United States Supreme Court.

Oklahoma V. Castro-Huerta, Jurisdictional Overlap, Competitive Sovereign Erosion, And The Fundamental Freedom Of Sovereign Nations, Michael D.O. Rusco

Marquette Law Review

In addition to its stunning internal flaws, the United States Supreme Court’s opinion in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta exemplifies Indian law’s broader flaws as a jurisprudence. Castro-Huerta holds that states have concurrent criminal jurisdiction with federal and tribal governments over crimes by non-Indians against Indians on reservation lands. Justice Gorsuch deftly addresses many of the glaring internal flaws in Kavanaugh’s majority opinion, but not all. He does not dissect the hollow assertion that reservations are part of the surrounding state both geographically and politically. This cannot go unaddressed, particularly given its weak analysis, misguided use of precedent, and broader consequences.

Acting Cabinet Secretaries And The Twenty-Fifth Amendment, James A. Heilpern

University of Richmond Law Review

The Twenty-Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution contains a mechanism that enables the Vice President, with the support of a majority of the Cabinet, to temporarily relieve the President of the powers and duties of the Presidency. The provision has never been invoked, but was actively discussed by multiple Cabinet Secretaries in response to President Trump’s actions on January 6, 2021. News reports indicate that at least two Cabinet Secretaries—Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin—tabled these discussions in part due to uncertainties about how to operationalize the Amendment. Specifically, the Secretaries were concerned that the …

Prison Housing Policies For Transgender, Non-Binary, Gender-Non-Conforming, And Intersex People: Restorative Ways To Address The Gender Binary In The United States Prison System, John G. Sims

University of Richmond Law Review

“[I]t was the end of the last quarter of 2019 where I was able to drop the lawsuit against the correctional officer who had sexually harmed me when I knew . . . that the carceral state is not the way for me to find healing . . . . I was not going to seek my transformation and restoration through this system.”

Each year, rhetoric and legislation attacking transgender, non-binary, gender non-conforming and intersex individuals seemingly grows louder. Many political institutions in the United States perpetuate and enable the oppression of these individuals, one of which is the United …

Going The Extra Mile: Expanding The Promoting Affordable Housing Near Transit Act, Emily R. Casey

University of Richmond Law Review

The Promoting Affordable Housing Near Transit Act (“Act”), introduced in Congress in June 2021 and signed into law six months later, proposes a goal of balancing the disproportionately-high costs of housing and transportation felt by lower-income families by combining these resources in one project: transit-oriented housing developments. Middle-income and wealthy suburbanites have ready access to cities by car, but lower-income urbanites lack access to the suburbs without a private vehicle. While the goal of the Act recognizes this disparate outcome, the Act’s failure to include expansion of mass transit into the suburbs will continue to restrict low-income minorities to urban …

Erisa’S Fiduciary Fantasy And The Problem Of Mass Health Claim Denials, Katherine T. Vukadin

University of Richmond Law Review

Over 100 million Americans face healthcare debt. Most of those in debt have health insurance, with the debt often springing from services people thought were covered. Before and even after receiving care, those seeking coverage must run a gauntlet of obstacles such as excessive pre-authorization requests, burdensome concurrent review of care, and retrospective review, which claws back payment after a treatment is pre-authorized and payment made. Increasingly, this procedural tangle leaves people with unwarranted and unexpected medical bills, quickly spiraling them into debt.

Who polices health insurers’ claims practices? What keeps insurance companies from designing overly burdensome pre-authorization requirements or …

Title Vii’S Failures: A History Of Overlooked Indifference, Elena S. Meth

Michigan Law Review

Nearly sixty years after the adoption of Title VII and over thirty since intersectionality theory was brought into legal discourse by Professor Kimberlé Crenshaw, the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently failed to meaningfully implement intersectionality into its decisionmaking. While there is certainly no shortage of scholarship on intersectionality and the Court’s failure to recognize it, this remains an overlooked failure by the Supreme Court. This Note proceeds in three parts. Part I provides an overview of Title VII and intersectional discrimination theory. I then explain how the EEOC and the Supreme Court have historically handled intersectional discrimination cases. Part II …

Proportionality V. Categorization: The Issue Of Judicial Balancing Of Rights, Akram Mohamed

Theses and Dissertations

The fact that there is a constant conflict between individual rights and state or social interests has historically provoked the question of how to balance or harmonize such conflicting interests? On what basis shall the legislator or the judge decide in favor of this or that right in his legislation or judgement? Where shall we, for example, draw the line between the right to freedom of expression and the right to protect one’s honor and reputation? How could the legislator find the compromise between the state duty to protect fetus life and its obligation not to interfere with woman’s right …

#Nofilter: How Discovery Filter Teams Breach Privilege Rights And Why They Require Stricter Regulation, Kelly Murray

Global Business Law Review

This note examines the Supreme Court’s substantial need to weigh in on how filter teams should be used given current circuit splits and identifies several best practices to remedy the issues they currently present. Part I discusses the principal issues for which filter teams are scrutinized. Namely, numerous district courts hold that filter teams provide the government with the unfair advantage of determining which materials from their opposing counsel are privileged. This often leads to an overly broad inclusion of privileged documents, which can violate defendants’ Sixth Amendment rights to a fair and complete trial. Some courts even go so …

Reimagining Financial Whistleblower Protection: A Proposal For Stronger Protection Under The Sarbanes-Oxley Act, Matthew J. Gilligan

Brooklyn Law Review

Whistleblowers occupy a unique place in American society. They operate in nearly every sphere of modern life, exposing unlawful conduct by financial institutions, technology companies, and government entities, just to name a few. When whistleblowers encounter retaliatory behavior, they are faced with an uphill battle to hold their employer accountable. This note discusses the circuit split regarding whistleblower protections under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which was recently granted cert by the US Supreme Court. Until recently, no circuit required whistleblowers suing their employers for engaging in retaliatory behavior to show that the employer acted with retaliatory intent. The Second Circuit broke …

There Is No Bruen Step Zero: The Law-Abiding Citizen And The Second Amendment, Jeff Campbell

University of the District of Columbia Law Review

In District of Columbia v. Heller, 1 the Supreme Court transformed Second Amendment law by adopting an originalist approach in gun-rights cases. Breaking from its previous cases, the Court recognized an individual right to bear arms, at least within the home.2 The Court’s method, while not fully specified, focused on history to determine the meaning of the Second Amendment. 3 But despite the abrupt change in the law, the anticipated revolution never really came. Lower courts turned away nearly every challenge to existing gun laws, sometimes by declining to extend Heller outside the home,4 sometimes by finding that the laws …

Justice Ginsburg's Journey To Dissents And Influence On Reproductive Rights, Songo Wawa

University of the District of Columbia Law Review

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s advocacy for gender equity, evidenced by her nationally famous dissents, began long before her 27 years on the Supreme Court. Prior to becoming a Supreme Court Justice, Attorney Ginsburg’s early experiences of gender inequity led to her advocacy for women’s rights as a law professor and as co-founder of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Women’s Rights Project. 1 Attorney Ginsburg’s legal strategy encompassed her pragmatic approach to voicing her opinions about gender equality. 2 In Gonzales v. Carhart, both her dissent announcement and written dissent demonstrated Justice Ginsburg’s commitment to women’s reproductive autonomy.3 Without Justice Ginsburg’s …

Brief Of Professor Derek T. Muller As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Petition For Certiorari, Michael Francisco, Michael Brody, Derek T. Muller

Court Briefs

No. 22-1033
Eugene Mazo v. New Jersey Secretary of State

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

From the Summary of Argument

This Court has expressly held that the Anderson-Burdick balancing test for evaluating certain kinds of election laws does not extend to cases of pure political speech. McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334, 344 (1995). Laws restricting political speech are subject to strict scrutiny. Nevertheless, lower courts—including the Third Circuit in this case— continue to defy this Court’s guidance.

This case presents an important opportunity to …

The Fugazi Second Amendment: Bruen's Text, History, And Tradition Problem And How To Fix It, Patrick J. Charles

Cleveland State Law Review

This Article critiques the Supreme Court’s use of text, history, and tradition in New York Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen. In doing so, not only is the Supreme Court’s approach to history-in-law in Bruen called into question, but also the Article provides the courts with an historically objective and even-keeled ‘way-ahead’ for future Second Amendment cases and controversies.

Alexander Hamilton And Administrative Law: How America's First Great Public Administrator Informs And Challenges Our Understanding Of Contemporary Administrative Law, Rodger D. Citron

Cleveland State Law Review

Alexander Hamilton’s recognition and reputation have soared since the premiere of "Hamilton," Lin-Manuel Miranda’s musical about him in 2015. For lawyers, Hamilton’s work on the Federalist Papers and service as the nation’s first Treasury Secretary likely stand out more than other aspects of his extraordinary life. Politics and economics were fundamental concerns addressed by the Framers in a number of ways, including what we now refer to as administrative law—the laws and procedures that guide government departments (or, as we say today, agencies). Indeed, "Hamilton" reminds us that questions of administration and administrative law have been with us since the …

Limiting 28 U.S.C. § 1782: A Changed Landscape For Discovery In Private Commercial Arbitration Abroad, Jazmyne R. Barto

Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial & Commercial Law

For decades 28 U.S.C. § 1782 has been used by foreign entities looking to compel discovery in the United States for use in commercial arbitration proceedings abroad. Despite the statute being in force since 1948, many federal courts were unsure of whether § 1782 could actually be used in international private commercial arbitration. The Supreme Court tried and failed to clarify the statute’s scope in 2004, leading to a circuit court split as to §1782’s applicability. Looking to end the controversy once and for all, during the Summer of 2022, the Supreme Court clearly stated that § 1782 might not …

Sacred Spheres: Religious Autonomy As An International Human Right, Diana V. Thomson, Kayla A. Toney

Catholic University Law Review

How should courts resolve thorny human rights disputes that arise within religious groups? According to an emerging international consensus, they shouldn’t. When a case involves sensitive internal decisions by a religious organization, such as choosing who is qualified to teach the faith, courts are increasingly taking a hands-off approach. This global consensus has formed across international treaties, tribunals, and domestic courts in European and American nations. Every major human rights instrument and many international and domestic courts recognize that religious freedom must extend to religious communities, especially houses of worship and schools where believers gather to practice their faith and …

Drug Ideologies Of The United States, Macy Montgomery

Helm's School of Government Conference - 2021-2024

The United States has been increasingly creating lenient drug policies. Seventeen states and Washington, the District of Columbia, legalized marijuana, and Oregon decriminalized certain drugs, including methamphetamine, heroin, and cocaine. The medical community has proven that drugs, including marijuana, have myriad adverse health side effects. This leads to two questions: Why does the United States government continue to create lenient drug policies, and what reasons do citizens give for legalizing drugs when the medical community has proven them harmful? The paper hypothesizes that the disadvantages of drug legalization outweigh its benefits because of the numerous harms it causes, such as …

“The Past Got Broken Off”: Classifying “Indian” In The Indian Child Welfare Act, Lucia Kello

Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development

(Excerpt)

In her 1993 novel, Pigs in Heaven, Barbara Kingsolver chronicles the story of an American Indian child, Turtle, and her young, white, adoptive mother, Taylor Greer. In what has been criticized as a controversial imagined fact pattern, Kingsolver writes that while stopped in a parking lot in the middle of the night, Taylor is approached by an American Indian woman holding a baby. Rather mysteriously, the woman informs Taylor that the baby’s mother died and the baby was being abused, upon which Taylor notes that “it looked like someone had been hurting [the woman] too.” After placing the …

Presidential Election Disruptions: Balancing The Rule Of Law And Emergency Response, Jason D'Andrea, Sonia Montejano, Matthew Vaughan

Fordham Law Voting Rights and Democracy Forum

Unexpected disruptions, such as natural disasters and terrorist attacks, could interfere with presidential elections. In this report, the Fordham Law School Rule of Law Clinic advances recommendations for how states should implement the federal law that allows them to extend the time for voting in response to catastrophic events. States should authorize local and state-level officials to trigger extensions, while providing for expedited judicial review of those decisions, whether to grant or deny additional voting time. By dispersing decision-making authority and ensuring prompt judicial oversight, these reforms aim to protect voters’ ability to cast ballots and to guard against the …

Candidates Of Their Choice? Paradoxical Impact Of The Voting Rights Act In Virginia, Mark E. Rush

Fordham Law Voting Rights and Democracy Forum

No abstract provided.

Title I Of The Civil Rights Act In Contemporary Voting Rights Litigation, Helen L. Brewer

Fordham Law Voting Rights and Democracy Forum

No abstract provided.

The New Laboratories Of Democracy, Gerald S. Dickinson

Fordham Law Voting Rights and Democracy Forum

No abstract provided.

Advancing America’S Emblematic Right: Doctrinal Bases For The Fundamental Constitutional Right To Vote Per Se, Susan H. Bitensky

University of Miami Law Review

This Article identifies and examines the Supreme Court’s longstanding unintelligibility with respect to recognition of a fundamental right to vote per se under the Constitution. In a host of equal protection cases, the Court’s refusal to “say what the law is” in this regard has produced a chaotic jurisprudence on the status of the right. Because ours is a constitutional schema consisting of multiple types of rights to vote, the refusal manifests as judicial reliance on and acclamation of some unspecified right to vote. It is refusal by lack of clarity. The unsorted right has led some scholars to conclude …

A Muddy Mess: The Supreme Court’S Jurisprudence On Jurisdiction For Arbitration Matters, Kristen M. Blankley

University of Miami Law Review

The Supreme Court’s 2022 Badgerow v. Waters decision at- tempts to create a bright-line rule regarding access to federal courts to hear arbitration matters. On its face, the Badgerow majority opinion reads like a straightforward exercise in textualism. Badgerow interpreted the judicial test for jurisdiction under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) provision regarding vacatur differently than it interpreted the jurisdictional test for a motion to compel under a different part of the statute. However, Badgerow leaves courts, which were already struggling to decipher the Supreme Court’s 2009 decision of Vaden v. Discover Bank, with a significant number of outstanding questions. …

Death By Detox: Substance Withdrawal, A Possible Death Row For Individuals In Custody, Dorothea R. Carleton

Journal of Law and Health

Suffering through substance withdrawal is a major problem for the majority of individuals in custody, yet there are no guidelines or standards to ensure their safety. Instead, individuals in custody are having their Constitutional rights violated and many die at the hands of the justice system. When their families seek accountability for the lack of adequate care provided by correctional facilities and employees, families are faced with a lack of consistency from one circuit to the next for knowing as to the correct standard to have a successful claim. Strain v. Regalado was a chance for the Supreme Court to …

Acknowledgements, Matthew L. Brock

University of Richmond Law Review

Each year, in a tradition dating back twenty-three years to Volume 33, the Editor-in-Chief of the University of Richmond Law Review authors acknowledgements to be included in their volume’s final publication. In keeping with tradition, I offer below my gratitude to those who have contributed to this publication and to the overall success of the Law Review, and reflect upon the fifty-seventh volume of our journal.

Faux Advocacy In Amicus Practice, James G. Dwyer

Pepperdine Law Review

Amicus brief filing has reached “avalanche” volume. Supreme Court Justices and lower court judges look to these briefs particularly for non-case-specific factual information––“legislative facts”—relevant to a case. This Article calls attention to a recurrent yet unrecognized problem with amicus filings offering up legislative facts in the many cases centrally involving the most vulnerable members of society—namely, non-autonomous persons, including both adults incapacitated by mental illness, intellectual disability, or other condition, and children. Some amici present themselves as advocates for such persons but use the amicus platform to serve other constituencies and causes, making false or misleading factual presentations about the …