Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

Using The Supreme Court's Enigmatic Commerce Clause Holding In Sebelius To Challenge Congress's Broken Renewable Fuel Standard, Corey J. Walker

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Artis V. District Of Columbia—What Did The Court Actually Say?, Doron M. Kalir

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

On January 22, 2018, the Supreme Court issued Artis v. District of Columbia. A true "clash of the titans," this 5-4 decision featured colorful comments on both sides, claims of "absurdities," uncited use of Alice in Wonderland vocabulary ("curiouser," anyone?), and an especially harsh accusation by the dissent that "we’ve wandered so far from the idea of a federal government of limited and enumerated powers that we’ve begun to lose sight of what it looked like in the first place."

One might assume that the issue in question was a complex constitutional provision, or a dense, technical federal code …

Jesner V. Arab Bank, Rebecca Hamilton

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

The exclusion of transnational human rights litigation from U.S. federal courts is, for most practical purposes, now complete. On April 24, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a 5–4 ruling in Jesner v. Arab Bank, deciding that foreign corporations cannot be sued under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS).

The Next Reapportionment Revolution, Ashira Ostrow

Indiana Law Journal

In the 1960s, the Supreme Court famously imposed the one-person, one-vote requirement on federal, state, and local legislatures. The doctrine rapidly resolved the problem of malapportioned districts. Within just a few years, legislatures across the nation were reapportioned to equalize the population between districts. Sadly, however, the national commitment to equal-population districts has led directly to the current crisis of political gerrymandering. The boundaries of equal-population districts must be redrawn every ten years to maintain population equality. Even with rigid adherence to population requirements, district boundaries are easily manipulated to secure incumbent seats and advance partisan interests. Redistricting is rightly …

Reciprocal Immunity, Colin Miller

Indiana Law Journal

This essay advances a reciprocal rights theory. It argues that the Constitution precludes statutes and rules from providing nonreciprocal benefits to the State when the lack of reciprocity interferes with the defendant’s ability to secure a fair trial, unless reciprocity would implicate a significant state interest. Therefore, unless a significant State interest is involved, a grant of immunity to a prosecution witness should trigger reciprocal immunity to a directly contradictory defense witness.

Talking Foreign Policy: Jesner V. Arab Bank, Milena Sterio, Thomas Buergenthal, Carsten Stahn, Avidan Cover, Timothy Webster, Michael P. Scharf

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

Talking Foreign Policy is a one-hour radio program, hosted by Case Western Reserve University School of Law Co-Dean Michael Scharf, in which experts discuss the salient foreign policy issues of the day. Dean Scharf created Talking Foreign Policy to break down complex foreign policy topics that are prominent in the day-to-day news cycles yet difficult to understand.

This broadcast featured:

• Judge Thomas Buergenthal, the youngest survivor of the Auschwitz death camp, who went on to become the Dean of American University Law School, to serve for twelve years as a judge on the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and then …

Supreme Court Review (1960-2009): A Bibliometrical Study, Joel Fishman

Law Faculty Publications

Supreme Court Review is a faculty-edited legal periodical published by the University of Chicago Law School. This periodical is a highly read and cited law review in law, history and political science. This article applies bibliometrics to a study of the 438 articles that are published in the periodical over a 50-year period. It is analysis of the number of articles by volume, pages, footnotes, authorship by sex, by individual, by institution, and most-cited articles.

Equal Protection Under The Carceral State, Aya Gruber

Publications

McCleskey v. Kemp, the case that upheld the death penalty despite undeniable evidence of its racially disparate impact, is indelibly marked by Justice William Brennan’s phrase, “a fear of too much justice.” The popular interpretation of this phrase is that the Supreme Court harbored what I call a “disparity-claim fear,” dreading a future docket of racial discrimination claims and erecting an impossibly high bar for proving an equal protection violation. A related interpretation is that the majority had a “color-consciousness fear” of remedying discrimination through race-remedial policies. In contrast to these conventional views, I argue that the primary anxiety …

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 …

Is There Any Silver Lining To Trinity Lutheran Church, Inc. V. Comer?, Caroline Mala Corbin

Articles

No abstract provided.

Whether Or Not Special Expertise Is Needed: Anti-Intellectualism, The Supreme Court, And The Legitimacy Of Law, Sean Kammer

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

U.S. Supreme Court Surveys: 2016 Term. Murr. V. Wisconsin: Identifying The Proper "Parcel As A Whole" In Regulatory Takings Cases, Bruce I. Kogan

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

United States Supreme Court Surveys: 2016 Term. Still Standing After All These Years: Five Decades Of Litigation Under The Fair Housing Act And The Supreme Court Still Can't Say For Sure Who Is Protected, David A. Logan

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Domestic Establishment Clause, Josh Blackman

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Perpetual "Invasion": Past As Prologue In Constitutional Immigration Law, Matthew J. Lindsay

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Origins (And Fragility) Of Judicial Independence, Tara L. Grove

Vanderbilt Law Review

We hold certain truths of the federal judiciary to be self-evident. Article III judges are entitled to life tenure and salary protections, and cannot be removed outside the impeachment process.' Political actors must comply with federal court orders. And "packing" the Supreme Court is wrong. These assumptions are so deeply ingrained in our public consciousness that it rarely occurs to anyone to question them. But a closer look reveals that these "truths" are neither self- evident nor necessary implications of our constitutional text, structure, and history. Instead, these rules of our federal judiciary have emerged over time through the rough …

Reining In A 'Renegade' Court: Tc Heartland And The Eastern District Of Texas, Jonas Anderson

Utah Law Faculty Scholarship

In TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands, the Supreme Court tightened the venue requirement for patent cases, making it more difficult for a plaintiff to demonstrate that a district court has venue over a defendant. Many commentators, however, view TC Heartland as merely a “reshuffling” of the district courts that receive patent cases. Whereas before the case, a large percentage of patent cases were filed in the Eastern District of Texas, now, after TC Heartland, various other U.S. district courts (principally, the District of Delaware) have experienced an increase in patent infringement filings. Some commentators are unconvinced that this …

Intergovernmental Federalism Disputes, Lochlan F. Shelfer

Georgia Law Review

Constitutional litigation is increasingly being waged
between governments, in both suits between a state and
the United States, and suits between two or more states.
The jurisdictionof the Federalcourts to hear such suits,
however, is disputed. The Supreme Court's cases are
famously difficult to reconcile, with some denying
jurisdiction and other seemingly identical cases
addressing the merits without discussing jurisdiction.
Some scholars have argued that intergovernmental
disputes over political jurisdiction historically are not
justiciableand that it is constitutionally illegitimate for
the Court to hear them. Recently, some scholars have
argued that the Court should hear such cases, but have
assumed …

The Lottery Docket, William Ortman, Daniel Epps

Law Faculty Research Publications

No abstract provided.

Judicial Conflicts And Voting Agreement: Evidence From Interruptions At Oral Argument, Tonja Jacobi, Kyle Rozema

Faculty Articles

This Article asks whether observable conflicts between Supreme Court justices—interruptions between the justices during oral arguments—can predict breakdowns in voting outcomes that occur months later. To answer this question, we built a unique dataset based on the transcripts of Supreme Court oral arguments and justice votes in cases from 1960 to 2015. We find that on average a judicial pair is seven percent less likely to vote together in a case for each interruption that occurs between them in the oral argument for that case. While a conflict between the justices that leads to both interruptions and a breakdown in …

Could Official Climate Denial Revive The Common Law As A Regulatory Backstop?, Mark P. Nevitt, Robert V. Percival

Faculty Articles

This Article makes two core arguments. First, it maintains that the common law of nuisance remains an essential backstop when existing regulatory authorities fail to address significant environmental problems. Second, reconnecting nuisance law to its historical roots, the Article maintains that common law litigation has served as an effective prod to help spur the development and implementation of new pollution control technology and to stimulate regulatory action to require its use, rather than serving as a vehicle for the judiciary to impose its own solutions for environmental problems.

This Article proceeds in four parts. Part I reviews the history of …

Supreme Irrelevance: The Court’S Abdication In Criminal Procedure Jurisprudence, Tonja Jacobi, Ross Berlin

Faculty Articles

Criminal procedure is one of the Supreme Court’s most active areas of jurisprudence, but the Court’s rulings are largely irrelevant to the actual workings of the criminal justice system. The Court’s irrelevance takes two forms: objectively, on the numbers, its jurisprudence fails to protect the vast majority of people affected by the criminal justice system; and in terms of salience, the Court has sidestepped the major challenges in the United States today relating to the criminal justice system. These challenges include discrimination in stops and frisks, fatal police shootings, unconscionable plea deals, mass incarceration, and disproportionate execution of racial minorities. …

A "Chinese Wall" At The Nation's Borders: Justice Stephen Field And The Chinese Exclusion Case, Polly J. Price

Faculty Articles

First, the sweeping implications of The Chinese Exclusion Case had as much to do with the Supreme Court's concerns about its relationship with both Congress and the President as it did with the Chinese as a disparaged racial group. There are other dimensions beyond race, and one of these was the Supreme Court's view of its role with respect to the other branches of government. Importantly, the Court did not decide the balance of authority between the President and Congress on matters of immigration, an omission that surely lessens its precedential value today.

Second, the Court's pronouncement in the Chinese …

Senators Can't Be Choosers: Moratoriums On Supreme Court Nominations And The Separation Of Powers, J. Stephen Clark

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Think Of An Elephant? Tweeting As "Framing" Executive Power, Fernando R. Laguarda

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

No abstract provided.

Deterrence, David Crump

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract forthcoming

Judicial Intervention As Judicial Restraint, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer, Guy-Uriel E. Charles

Articles by Maurer Faculty

This paper examines the Court's decision in Gill v. Whitford. It advances two claims. First, it provides a comprehensive account of the Court's skepticism of judicial supervision of democratic politics, an account that we call the narrative of nonintervention. It situates Gill within that account and argues that the Court's reluctance to intervene is a function of the Court's institutional calculus that it ought to protect its legitimacy and institutional capital when it engages in what look like political fights. Second, the paper provides an instrumentalist account for judicial intervention. It argues that the Court should intervene to prevent partisan …

Hearing The States, Anthony Johnstone

Faculty Law Review Articles

The 2016 Presidential and Senate elections raise the possibility that a conservative, life-tenured Supreme Court will preside for years over a politically dynamic majority. This threatens to weaken the public's already fragile confidence in the Court. By lowering the political stakes of both national elections and its own decisions, federalism may enable the Court to defuse some of the most explosive controversies it hears. Federalism offers a second- best solution, even if neither conservatives nor liberals can impose a national political agenda. However, principled federalism arguments are tricky. They are structural, more prudential than legal or empirical. Regardless of ideology, …

Buck V. Davis: Anti-Discriminatory Principles In Habeas Corpus Cases, Daniella Rubin

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

No abstract provided.

County Of Los Angeles V. Mendez: Defending The Constitutionality Of The "Provocation Rule", Layla Bishara

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

No abstract provided.