Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Supreme Court of the United States Commons™
Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Constitutional Law (3216)
- Courts (2053)
- Judges (1459)
- State and Local Government Law (1296)
- Jurisprudence (1131)
-
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (1046)
- Legal History (972)
- First Amendment (955)
- Criminal Procedure (948)
- Legislation (880)
- Law and Politics (865)
- Criminal Law (853)
- Fourteenth Amendment (697)
- Administrative Law (669)
- Law and Society (629)
- Law and Race (627)
- Civil Procedure (616)
- Health Law and Policy (503)
- Jurisdiction (498)
- Labor and Employment Law (491)
- Civil Law (479)
- Litigation (477)
- Human Rights Law (473)
- Fourth Amendment (472)
- Religion Law (471)
- International Law (456)
- Public Law and Legal Theory (452)
- Law and Gender (448)
- Institution
-
- University of Michigan Law School (1618)
- William & Mary Law School (663)
- University of Richmond (460)
- Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center (307)
- University of Colorado Law School (287)
-
- Seattle University School of Law (238)
- Notre Dame Law School (201)
- St. John's University School of Law (172)
- Vanderbilt University Law School (157)
- Cleveland State University (133)
- University of Georgia School of Law (132)
- Texas A&M University School of Law (124)
- Universitas Indonesia (121)
- Roger Williams University (112)
- Brooklyn Law School (111)
- Yeshiva University, Cardozo School of Law (111)
- Emory University School of Law (110)
- Washington and Lee University School of Law (109)
- Fordham Law School (108)
- New York Law School (104)
- Columbia Law School (98)
- UIC School of Law (96)
- Boston University School of Law (95)
- American University Washington College of Law (91)
- The University of Akron (88)
- Duke Law (86)
- Maurer School of Law: Indiana University (80)
- Georgetown University Law Center (70)
- Northwestern Pritzker School of Law (69)
- The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law (69)
- Keyword
-
- United States Supreme Court (1565)
- Supreme Court (1046)
- Constitution (408)
- Constitutional law (271)
- First Amendment (241)
-
- Supreme Court of the United States (203)
- Congress (199)
- Discrimination (186)
- Federalism (182)
- Judicial review (164)
- Due process (154)
- SCOTUS (148)
- Federal (138)
- Police (130)
- Abortion (129)
- Fifth Amendment (126)
- History (121)
- Jurisprudence (117)
- State (116)
- Constitutional Law (113)
- Equal Protection Clause (113)
- Supreme court (113)
- Sixth Amendment (112)
- Race and law (109)
- Statutory interpretation (109)
- Equal protection (106)
- Courts (96)
- Constitutional interpretation (95)
- Fourteenth Amendment (95)
- Federal courts (94)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- Michigan Law Review (837)
- Articles (487)
- Faculty Scholarship (393)
- University of Richmond Law Review (390)
- Supreme Court Preview (284)
-
- Touro Law Review (279)
- Faculty Publications (258)
- Publications (258)
- Seattle University Law Review (227)
- Faculty Articles (125)
- "Dharmasisya” Jurnal Program Magister Hukum FHUI (121)
- Vanderbilt Law Review (114)
- University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform (96)
- William & Mary Law Review (89)
- Scholarly Articles (88)
- Akron Law Review (81)
- All Faculty Scholarship (81)
- Journal Articles (78)
- Law Faculty Scholarship (75)
- Cleveland State Law Review (66)
- Georgia Law Review (66)
- UIC Law Review (65)
- Court Briefs (63)
- Scholarly Works (63)
- Law Faculty Publications (60)
- Michigan Law Review First Impressions (60)
- Northwestern University Law Review (59)
- St. John's Law Review (58)
- Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works (56)
- Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar (54)
- Publication Type
- File Type
Articles 1831 - 1860 of 7879
Full-Text Articles in Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court’S Hands-Off Approach To Religious Questions In The Era Of Covid-19 And Beyond, Samuel J. Levine
The Supreme Court’S Hands-Off Approach To Religious Questions In The Era Of Covid-19 And Beyond, Samuel J. Levine
Scholarly Works
No abstract provided.
Requiring What’S Not Required: Circuit Courts Are Disregarding Supreme Court Precedent And Revisiting Officer Inadvertence In Cyberlaw Cases, Michelle Zakarin
Requiring What’S Not Required: Circuit Courts Are Disregarding Supreme Court Precedent And Revisiting Officer Inadvertence In Cyberlaw Cases, Michelle Zakarin
Scholarly Works
As the age of technology has taken this country by surprise and left us with an inability to formally prepare our legal system to incorporate these advances, many courts are forced to adapt by applying pre-technology rules to new technological scenarios. One illustration is the plain view exception to the Fourth Amendment. Recently, the issue of officer inadvertence at the time of the search, a rule that the United States Supreme Court has specifically stated is not required in plain view inquiries, has been revisited in cyber law cases. It could be said that the courts interested in the existence …
Does U.S. Federal Employment Law Now Cover Caste Discrimination Based On Untouchability?: If All Else Fails There Is The Possible Application Of Bostock V. Clayton County, Kevin D. Brown, Lalit Khandare, Annapurna Waughray, Kenneth G. Dau-Schmidt, Theodore M. Shaw
Does U.S. Federal Employment Law Now Cover Caste Discrimination Based On Untouchability?: If All Else Fails There Is The Possible Application Of Bostock V. Clayton County, Kevin D. Brown, Lalit Khandare, Annapurna Waughray, Kenneth G. Dau-Schmidt, Theodore M. Shaw
Articles by Maurer Faculty
This article discusses the issue of whether a victim of caste discrimination based on untouchability can assert a claim of intentional employment discrimination under Title VII or Section 1981. This article contends that there are legitimate arguments that this form of discrimination is a form of religious discrimination under Title VII. The question of whether caste discrimination is a form of race or national origin discrimination under Title VII or Section 1981 depends upon how the courts apply these definitions to caste discrimination based on untouchability. There are legitimate arguments that this form of discrimination is recognized within the concept …
Uzuegbunam V. Preczewski, Nominal Damages, And The Roberts Stratagem, Michael Wells
Uzuegbunam V. Preczewski, Nominal Damages, And The Roberts Stratagem, Michael Wells
Georgia Law Review
In Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski the Supreme Court held for the first time that federal-court jurisdiction exists over a § 1983 case that presents only a claim for nominal damages. As a result, such claims remain subject to adjudication even when the plaintiff’s request for prospective relief, targeting an allegedly unlawful practice, has been mooted by the government’s discontinuance of the thus-challenged behavior. In dissent, Chief Justice Roberts maintained that the majority’s ruling clashed with Article III’s “personal stake” requirement and also unwisely permitted plaintiffs to sidestep controlling jurisdictional rules by adding a meaningless claim for nominal damages to a complaint …
To Trust Or Not To Trust: Native American Healthcare Improvement In The Supreme Court’S Hands, Katherine Graham
To Trust Or Not To Trust: Native American Healthcare Improvement In The Supreme Court’S Hands, Katherine Graham
Georgia Law Review
The United States federal government’s relationship with Native American tribes has long been tenuous. Despite years of unjust and inhumane treatment of Native Americans by the government, Congress has attempted to rectify or limit the government’s harm to Native American people but has fallen short of upholding all agreements intended to improve United States-tribal relations. In particular, the government has not always followed treaties between the government and tribes, and the United States Supreme Court has failed to protect Native American rights in many cases. Central to this issue is the 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie, in which the United …
Executive Discretion And First Amendment Constraints On The Deportation State, Jennifer Lee Koh
Executive Discretion And First Amendment Constraints On The Deportation State, Jennifer Lee Koh
Georgia Law Review
Given the federal courts’ reluctance to provide clarity on the degree to which the First Amendment safeguards the free speech and association rights of immigrants, the immigration policy agenda of the President now appears to determine whether noncitizens engaging in speech, activism, and advocacy are protected from retaliation by federal immigration authorities. This Essay examines two themes: first, the discretion exercised by the Executive Branch in the immigration context; and second, the courts’ ambivalence when it comes to enforcing immigrants’ rights to be free from retaliation. To do so, this Essay explores the Supreme Court’s influential 1999 decision in Reno …
Democracy And Disenchantment, Ashraf Ahmed
Democracy And Disenchantment, Ashraf Ahmed
Faculty Scholarship
During the latter half of the Trump presidency, as it became increasingly clear that the Supreme Court would remain solidly conservative for the foreseeable future, Samuel Moyn and Ryan Doerfler declared war. In popular and scholarly venues, they have steadily built a case for curtailing the power of the nation’s highest court. Their arguments have been both pragmatic and principled. They have underlined, for instance, the risks the Roberts Court poses to progressive goals such as addressing climate change1 and granting student debt relief. More broadly, they object to a “supra-democratic court exercising its current, expansive legislative veto.” For Doerfler …
A Court Of Two Minds, Bert I. Huang
A Court Of Two Minds, Bert I. Huang
Faculty Scholarship
What do the Justices think they’re doing? They seem to act like appeals judges, who address questions of law as needed to reach a decision — and yet also like curators, who single out only certain questions as worthy of the Supreme Court’s attention. Most of the time, the Court’s “appellate mind” and its “curator mind” are aligned because the Justices choose to hear cases where a curated question of interest is also central to the outcome. But not always. In some cases, the Court discovers that it cannot reach — or no longer wishes to reach — the originally …
The Right To Counsel In A Neoliberal Age, Zohra Ahmed
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 …
Uzuegbunam V. Preczewski, Nominal Damages, And The Roberts Stratagem, Michael Wells
Uzuegbunam V. Preczewski, Nominal Damages, And The Roberts Stratagem, Michael Wells
Scholarly Works
In Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski the Supreme Court held for the first time that federal-court jurisdiction exists over a § 1983 case that presents only a claim for nominal damages. As a result, such claims remain subject to adjudication even when the plaintiff’s request for prospective relief, targeting an allegedly unlawful practice, has been mooted by the government’s discontinuance of the thus-challenged behavior. In dissent, Chief Justice Roberts maintained that the majority’s ruling clashed with Article III’s “personal stake” requirement and also unwisely permitted plaintiffs to sidestep controlling jurisdictional rules by adding a meaningless claim for nominal damages to a complaint …
Fixing America's Broken Democracy, Erwin Chemerinsky
Fixing America's Broken Democracy, Erwin Chemerinsky
Lewis & Clark Law Review
No abstract provided.
Recognizing A Fundamental Right To A Clean Environment: Why The Juliana Court Got It Wrong And How To Address The Issue Moving Forward, Robert Kemper
Recognizing A Fundamental Right To A Clean Environment: Why The Juliana Court Got It Wrong And How To Address The Issue Moving Forward, Robert Kemper
FIU Law Review
As the existential threat of climate change becomes increasingly prevalent, U.S. plaintiffs, lawyers, and activists have begun seeking redress in federal courts arguing for recognition of a constitutional right to a clean environment. Recently, in Juliana v. United States, the Ninth Circuit explicitly recognized the grave threat of climate change for the health, well-being, and security of the American people and the nation as a whole. Additionally, the court found that the U.S. government has contributed to climate change through both inaction and policy decisions that promote the use of fossil fuels. The plaintiffs claimed that they had a constitutional …
In The Name Of Diversity: Why Mandatory Diversity Statements Violate The First Amendment And Reduce Intellectual Diversity In Academia, Daniel M. Ortner
In The Name Of Diversity: Why Mandatory Diversity Statements Violate The First Amendment And Reduce Intellectual Diversity In Academia, Daniel M. Ortner
Catholic University Law Review
In the 1950s and 1960s in many parts of the country, a professor could be fired or never hired if he refused to denounce communism or declare loyalty to the United States Constitution. The University of California system took the lead in enforcing these loyalty oaths. These loyalty oaths were challenged all the way up to the United States Supreme Court and were soundly rejected, establishing the centrality of academic freedom and open inquiry on the university campus. So why are loyalty oaths making their resurgence in the form of mandatory diversity statements? Universities have begun requiring faculty members to …
How To Conclude A Brief, Brian Wolfman
How To Conclude A Brief, Brian Wolfman
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
This essay discusses the "conclusion" section of an appellate brief and its relationship to problems of argument ordering in multi-issue appeals. The essay first reviews the relevant federal appellate rules--Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(9) and Supreme Court Rule 24.1(j)--and explains the author's preference for short, precise, remedy-oriented conclusions, shorn of repetitive argument. It illustrates these points with examples from recently filed appellate briefs. The essay then turns to problems of argument ordering in multi-issue appellate briefs, with an emphasis on ending with a bang not a whimper, while sticking with the short, non-argumentative conclusion. The argument-ordering discussion is also …
Admitting A Wrong: Apology For The Historical Injustice Of The Dred Scott Case, Laura Kyte
Admitting A Wrong: Apology For The Historical Injustice Of The Dred Scott Case, Laura Kyte
BYU Law Review
No abstract provided.
Foreword: The Free Speech Record Of The Roberts Court, William D. Araiza
Foreword: The Free Speech Record Of The Roberts Court, William D. Araiza
Brooklyn Law Review
On April 9, 2021, scholars gathered at Brooklyn Law School to consider the free speech themes highlighted by a catalogue of the Roberts Court’s free speech jurisprudence. The speakers provided incisive and timely insight on these themes—insight that is reflected in the catalogue and accompanying papers published in this symposium issue of the Brooklyn Law Review. This introduction provides an overview of this symposium issue and the questions presented by each article and essay.
The Roberts Court—Its First Amendment Free Expression Jurisprudence: 2005–2021, Ronald K.L. Collins, David L. Hudson Jr.
The Roberts Court—Its First Amendment Free Expression Jurisprudence: 2005–2021, Ronald K.L. Collins, David L. Hudson Jr.
Brooklyn Law Review
The decisional law of the First Amendment is an area of law formulated, for the most part, by the high court of the land. At the same time, the study of free speech is equally a study in political philosophy and law. Supreme Court justices have left their mark on the First Amendment free speech doctrine and have made names for themselves in the process. This study explores the impact of Chief Justice John Roberts and the Roberts Court on the free speech doctrine. By examining the case law in this area and the justices and lawyers who craft it, …
The Law Of License Plates And Other Inevitabilities Of Free Speech Context Sensitivity, William D. Araiza
The Law Of License Plates And Other Inevitabilities Of Free Speech Context Sensitivity, William D. Araiza
Brooklyn Law Review
This article, written for a symposium on Ronald Collins’s and Professor David Hudson’s catalogue of the Roberts Court’s First Amendment free speech jurisprudence, reconsiders the longstanding tension between rigid free speech rules and more contextual standards. It examines that debate by considering a set of relatively recent free speech cases in which the Court ostensibly adopted rigid rules, but in doing so arguably cloaked its reliance on more contextual factors by manipulating those rules. In cases dealing with national security and judicial electoral speech, the Court manipulated the strict scrutiny the Court insists applies to nearly every content-based speech restriction …
Introductory Remarks: The Roberts Court And The First Amendment: An Introduction, Geoffrey R. Stone
Introductory Remarks: The Roberts Court And The First Amendment: An Introduction, Geoffrey R. Stone
Brooklyn Law Review
On April 9, 2021, Geoffrey R. Stone delivered the following introductory remarks at The Roberts Court and Free Speech Symposium at Brooklyn Law School. An adaptation of Geoffrey R. Stone, Free Speech in the Twenty-First Century: Ten Lessons from the Twentieth Century Lead Article (2008), Dean Stone detailed the history of the pre-Roberts Court First Amendment jurisprudence and laid the foundation for the symposium’s scholarly discourse.
Free Speech Still Matters, Joel M. Gora
Free Speech Still Matters, Joel M. Gora
Brooklyn Law Review
In its first ten years, the Roberts Court proved to be the most speech protective Court in a generation, if not in our history; however, in the intervening five years, the Court has faced intense pressures, ranging from heightened criticism of its First Amendment jurisprudence to seismic changes in the makeup of the Court to very real proposals for court “packing.” Despite these powerful forces, the Roberts Court has surprisingly stayed true to its commitment to—and guardianship of—the First Amendment. Nevertheless, in the face of modern political correctness and cancel culture, free speech has rarely been in a more precarious …
The Anti-Free Speech Movement, Robert Corn-Revere
The Anti-Free Speech Movement, Robert Corn-Revere
Brooklyn Law Review
What does it mean for the Supreme Court, under Chief Justice John Roberts, to be “good” when it comes to the First Amendment? First Amendment lawyer Robert Corn-Revere tackles this question, by looking at the history of censorship in the United States. Through a historical lens, Mr. Corn-Revere examines the arguments for regulating “bad” speech in order to promote “good” speech, and analogizes this approach to the work of early American censors like Anthony Comstock. This article examines how the history of censorship has shaped First Amendment law, and ultimately through his analysis, Mr. Corn-Revere identifies several examples of what …
Law School News: Rwu Law Remembers Sarah Weddington 12/30/2021, Michael M. Bowden
Law School News: Rwu Law Remembers Sarah Weddington 12/30/2021, Michael M. Bowden
Life of the Law School (1993- )
No abstract provided.
Transcript: The Roberts Court And Free Speech Symposium, Michael T. Cahill, Joel M. Gora, Geoffrey R. Stone, Ronald K.L. Collins, David L. Hudson Jr., Floyd Abrams, Ellis Cose, Robert Corn-Revere, Genevieve Lakier, William D. Araiza, Helen Norton, Nadine Strossen, Erwin Chemerinsky
Transcript: The Roberts Court And Free Speech Symposium, Michael T. Cahill, Joel M. Gora, Geoffrey R. Stone, Ronald K.L. Collins, David L. Hudson Jr., Floyd Abrams, Ellis Cose, Robert Corn-Revere, Genevieve Lakier, William D. Araiza, Helen Norton, Nadine Strossen, Erwin Chemerinsky
Brooklyn Law Review
On April 9, 2021, the Brooklyn Law Review gathered a panel of First Amendment scholars for a symposium on the Roberts Court's free speech jurisprudence. This transcript captures the panelists' diverse perspectives on the free speech themes highlighted by the Roberts Court's free speech jurisprudence.
On The Constitutionality Of Hard State Border Closures In Response To The Covid-19 Pandemic, Benjamen Franklen Gussen
On The Constitutionality Of Hard State Border Closures In Response To The Covid-19 Pandemic, Benjamen Franklen Gussen
Journal of Law and Health
I investigate the constitutionality of hard state border closures in the United States as a prophylactic response to a pandemic. This type of border closure prevents people from entering a State, except for exempt travelers, a category that includes, for example, military, judicial and government officers, and people granted entry on compassionate grounds. Those allowed to enter usually have to then go through a quarantine regime before being released into the community. During the COVID-19 pandemic, no State has attempted such closures. However, epidemiological experts suggest that, in comparison to other border and non-border measures, such closures are more effective. …
Dead Men Tell No Tales: Arkansas’S Grave Failure To Honor Its Constituents’ Postmortem Quasi-Property Right, Mckenna Moore
Dead Men Tell No Tales: Arkansas’S Grave Failure To Honor Its Constituents’ Postmortem Quasi-Property Right, Mckenna Moore
Arkansas Law Review
It is doubtful that Hulon Rupert Austin woke up on the day of March 7, 1986 and expected it to be his last. March 7 was a typical day—a workday—that started with a simple drive to a job site with his co-worker. A day that began so unremarkably ended with his co-worker looking up from where he was working to see “Austin lying on the ground.”
The High Price Of Poverty In Arkansas’S Courts: Rethinking The Utility Of Municipal Fines And Fees, Madison Miller
The High Price Of Poverty In Arkansas’S Courts: Rethinking The Utility Of Municipal Fines And Fees, Madison Miller
Arkansas Law Review
The opposite of poverty is not wealth. It is justice. Beginning in the 1980s, a "trail of tax cuts" led to budget shortfalls and revenue gaps throughout the United States. These budgetary problems resulted in many cities and towns shifting their burden of funding courts and the justice system at large "to the 'users' of the courts, including those least equipped to pay." Although "jailing an indigent person for a fine-only, low-level offense is unconstitutional," it is still an ongoing practice in many states, including Arkansas. In 1995, Arkansas passed new legislation to govern its circuit courts' collection and enforcement …
The National Popular Vote On Trial, Keaton Barnes
The National Popular Vote On Trial, Keaton Barnes
Arkansas Law Review
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them …
Korematsu’S Ancestors, Mark A. Graber
Korematsu’S Ancestors, Mark A. Graber
Arkansas Law Review
Mark Killenbeck’s Korematsu v. United States has important affinities with Dred Scott v. Sandford. Both decisions by promoting and justifying white supremacy far beyond what was absolutely mandated by the constitutional text merit their uncontroversial inclusion in the anticanon of American constitutional law.3 Dred Scott held that former slaves and their descendants could not be citizens of the United States and that Congress could not ban slavery in American territories acquired after the Constitution was ratified.5 Korematsu held that the military could exclude all Japanese Americans from portions of the West Coast during World War II.6 Both decisions nevertheless provided …
The Flag Can Travel But The Constitution Must Ask Permission: How The First Circuit And The District For Puerto Rico Commit To Equal Protection Without Abandoning The Insular Cases Doctrine, Alejandro J. Anselmi González
The Flag Can Travel But The Constitution Must Ask Permission: How The First Circuit And The District For Puerto Rico Commit To Equal Protection Without Abandoning The Insular Cases Doctrine, Alejandro J. Anselmi González
University of Miami Inter-American Law Review
For American citizens, one of the most important safeguards guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States is the equal protection of the law. The United States prides itself on the doctrine and jurisprudence of equal protection because of the social progression achieved since the end of the Civil War. The Reconstruction Amendments to the Constitution eliminated the institution of slavery and were supposed to guarantee equal civil and legal status to all citizens. The Constitution, however, has not been consistently interpreted in this way since the end of the Spanish-American War in 1898. The nation emerged from this conflict …
The Arkansas Code And Georgia V. Public.Resource.Org, Daniel Bell
The Arkansas Code And Georgia V. Public.Resource.Org, Daniel Bell
Arkansas Law Notes
The United States Supreme Court decided Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc. (“PRO”) in late April, 2020, a case with major implications for those who rely on the Arkansas statutes. The case addressed whether extra materials Georgia includes in its official statutes, the annotations, can be copyrighted, or if they are in the public domain and can be freely distributed without permission. The case pitted two important competing interests against each other: the ability of citizens to freely access the official versions of laws of their state, versus the interests of a third-party publisher in being compensated for its work. Arkansas produces …