Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

State Not Required To Provide Counsel On Appeal To Supreme Court

The Catholic Lawyer

No abstract provided.

"Allen Charge" Used In Absence Of Deadlocked Jury

The Catholic Lawyer

No abstract provided.

Ordinance Allowing Search Without A Warrant Held Invalid

The Catholic Lawyer

No abstract provided.

The First Amendment And Canon Law, Brendan F. Brown

The Catholic Lawyer

No abstract provided.

The Legality Of De Facto Segregation, Charles E. Rice

The Catholic Lawyer

No abstract provided.

Obscenity: Significance Of Literary Value

The Catholic Lawyer

No abstract provided.

The Lawyer And Civil Rights, Joseph T. Tinnelly, C.M.

The Catholic Lawyer

No abstract provided.

Recent Decision: Conviction Under Discriminatory City Ordinance Held "State Action"

The Catholic Lawyer

No abstract provided.

Recent Decision: State Anti-Discrimination Act Not A Burden On Interstate Commerce

The Catholic Lawyer

No abstract provided.

Recent Decision: With All Deliberate Speed - A Changing Concept In Desegregation

The Catholic Lawyer

No abstract provided.

Honoring Dan Meltzer, Bradford R. Clark

Notre Dame Law Review

Dan Meltzer was a giant in the field of Federal Courts, and it is hard to overstate his influence on its development. He taught Federal Courts at Harvard Law School and was a long-time co-author of Hart & Wechsler’s The Federal Courts and the Federal System (“Hart & Wechsler ”), the casebook that created the field and shaped how generations of judges, lawyers, and scholars think about complex questions of federal jurisdiction. In addition, Dan enriched the field immeasurably by writing seminal articles on a wide range of Federal Courts topics. His work was characterized by deep knowledge of the …

An Incomplete Discussion Of "Arising Under" Jurisdiction, David L. Shapiro

Notre Dame Law Review

My purpose in this brief Essay is to expand on this theme as it played out in Dan Meltzer’s role as collaborator, friendly critic, and keen analyst, and to do so by exploring a problem that in some ways lies at the heart of our elaborate system of judicial federalism, even though (perhaps because it does not arise that often) it has received somewhat less attention than it deserves. That problem addresses the nature of federal judicial authority—and especially the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court—when a federal issue is embedded in, or when its determination may affect the resolution …

Revising Our “Common Intellectual Heritage”: Federal And State Courts In Our Federal System, Judith Resnik

Notre Dame Law Review

This Essay pays tribute to Daniel Meltzer’s insight that, to the extent “lawyers have a common intellectual heritage, the federal courts are its primary source.” I do so by analyzing how that heritage is made and remade, as political forces press Congress to deploy federal courts to protect a wide array of interests and state courts absorb the bulk of litigation. The heritage that Meltzer celebrated and to which he contributed was the outcome of twentieth-century social movements that focused on the federal courts as hospitable venues, serving as vivid sources of rights and remedies. A competing heritage has since …

Who Speaks The Culture Of The Corporation?, Gwendolyn Gordon

Michigan Business & Entrepreneurial Law Review

Recent cases – Burwell v Hobby Lobby Stores and Citizens United chief among them – evince a new understanding of the nature of the corporation and its place in society. Whether a corporation has rights – such as those of religious exercise – is not, however, just a question of legal interpretation. To answer this question requires a theory of group or cultural identity, that is, a theory of how a group may have “culture” separate and apart from those of the individuals that comprise it. And such a theory must address how to understand the meaning of culture when …

Affirmative Action Returns To The Supreme Court, Charles J. Russo

Educational Leadership Faculty Publications

One of the most hotly contested issues in education during the past-half century is affirmative action, also known as race-based admissions policies. Supporters defend the practice as one designed to take “affirmative” steps to eliminate the present effects of past discrimination. Critics respond that these policies do not address how granting preferences today remedies past harms, especially because individuals who are passed over when affirmative action is applied played no role in creating past inequities.

Insofar as debate over affirmative action has heated up yet again, this column briefly examines the history of Fisher v. University of Texas II (2016) …

Superfund Chaos Theory: What Happens When The Lower Federal Courts Don't Follow The Supreme Court, Steven Ferrey

Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law

There is legal chaos in the national Superfund. The Supreme Court reversed decisions of eleven federal circuit courts in United States v. Atlantic Research Corp. There is no instance in modern Supreme Court history where the Court reversed every federal circuit court in the country, as it did in Atlantic Research. The Supreme Court’s reversal was through a unanimous decision. This was extraordinary: It not only reversed the entire legal interpretation of one of America’s most critical statutes, but also re-allocated billions of dollars among private parties.

The Supreme Court, when it rendered its decision, seemed to be rectifying a …

Defining Ambiguity In Broken Statutory Frameworks And Its Limits On Agency Action, Amanda Urban

Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law

“The Problem” occurs when a statute’s provisions become contradictory or unworkable in the context of new or unforeseen phenomena, yet the statute mandates agency action. The application of an unambiguous statutory provision may become problematic or unclear. Similarly, unambiguous provisions may become inconsistent given a particular application of the statute. During the same term, in Scialabba and UARG, the Supreme Court performed a Chevron review of agency interpretations of statutes facing three variations of the Problem, which this Note characterizes as direct conflict, internal inconsistency, and unworkability. In each case, the Court defined ambiguity in various, nontraditional ways and …

Justice Scalia’S Bottom-Up Approach To Shaping The Law, Meghan J. Ryan

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

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 …

The Distinctive Role Of Justice Samuel Alito: From A Politics Of Restoration To A Politics Of Dissent, Neil S. Siegel

Faculty Scholarship

Justice Samuel Alito is regarded by both his champions and his critics as the most consistently conservative member of the current Supreme Court. Both groups seem to agree that he has become the most important conservative voice on the Court. Chief Justice John Roberts has a Court to lead; Justice Antonin Scalia and his particular brand of originalism have passed on; Justice Clarence Thomas is a stricter originalist and so writes opinions that other Justices do not join; and Justice Anthony Kennedy can be ideologically unreliable. Justice Alito, by contrast, is unburdened by the perceived responsibilities of being Chief Justice, …

Insider Trading Law That Works: Using Newman And Salman To Update Dirks'S Personal Benefit Standard, Mark Hayden Adams

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

No abstract provided.

With Great Power Comes Ignored Responsibility: How The Supreme Court Failed To Save Spider-Man, Maya Zagayer

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

No abstract provided.

An Empirical Study Of Implicit Takings., James E. Krier, Stewart E. Sterk

Articles

Takings scholarship has long focused on the niceties of Supreme Court doctrine, while ignoring the operation of takings law "on the ground" in the state and lower federal courts, which together decide the vast bulk of all takings cases. This study, based primarily on an empirical analysis of more than 2000 reported decisions ovcr the period 1979 through 2012, attempts to fill that void. This study establishes that the Supreme Court's categorical rules govern almost no state takings cases, and that takings claims based on government regulation almost invariably fail. By contrast, when takings claims arise out of government action …

The Sec, Administrative Usurpation, And Insider Trading, Adam C. Pritchard

Articles

The history of insider trading law is a tale of administrative usurpation and legislative acquiescence. Congress has never enacted a prohibition against insider trading, much less defined it. Instead, the SEC has led in defining insider trading, albeit without the formality of rulemaking, and subject to varying degrees of oversight by the courts. The reason why lies in the deference that the Supreme Court gave to the SEC in its formative years. The roots of insider trading law are commonly traced to the SEC’s decision in Cady, Roberts & Co. Cady, Roberts was only made possible, however, by the …

Normalizing "Erie", Suzanna Sherry

Vanderbilt Law Review

This Article argues that the Erie doctrine should be normalized by bringing it into line with ordinary doctrines of federalism. Under ordinary federalism doctrines-such as the dormant commerce clause, implied preemption, federal preclusion law, and certain special "enclaves" of federal common law courts will displace state law to protect federal interests even when neither Congress nor the Constitution clearly articulates those interests. But under the Eric doctrine, the Supreme Court has mandated exactly the opposite approach: state law trumps federal interests unless those interests have been legislatively codified. This striking anomaly has not been noticed, in part because the voluminous …

Supreme Court Repeaters, Jason Iuliano, Ya Sheng Lin

Vanderbilt Law Review

A case that receives cert once is special. A case that receives cert twice is truly exceptional. This Article is the first to examine the phenomenon of "Supreme Court Repeaters." Although Repeaters may seem like mere curiosities, they are actually a valuable part of the Supreme Court's docket. Our analysis reveals that the Justices use Repeaters in three ways: (1) to set up important substantive questions that could not be addressed on the first pass, (2) to supervise lower courts, and (3) to address different substantive issues that arise at distinct points in litigation. In this Article, we investigate Supreme …

The Death Knell For The Death Penalty And The Significance Of Global Realism To Its Abolition From Glossip V. Gross To Brumfield V. Cain, Linda A. Malone

Faculty Publications

The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence regarding the death penalty, whether or not cruel, has most certainly been unusual in the annals of criminal punishment. In the short span of four years, the Court foreclosed and then reopened this form of punishment in Furman v. Georgia and Gregg v. Georgia. One year later the Court would categorically exclude the punishment for the rape of an adult. Five years later the Court would again preclude the punishment, for any defendant convicted of felony-murder who did not participate or share in the homicidal act or intent. In 1986 the Court would struggle with …

Restoring Chevron'S Domain, Jonathan H. Adler

Faculty Publications

For some three decades, Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. has stood at the center of administrative law. Although Chevron may have been somewhat "accidental," Chevron has been among the most important and consequential administrative law decisions of all time. It is, according to Cass Sunstein, a "foundational, even a quasi-constitutional text" in administrative law.

Foundational or not, Chevron's domain is under siege. In recent years, commentators have raised doubts about the doctrine's continued vitality and ultimate desirability. Indeed, some have suggested Chevron should be ditched altogether - if not by the courts, then perhaps by Congress. …

The Senate Has No Constitutional Obligation To Consider Nominees, Jonathan H. Adler

Faculty Publications

[After Justice Antonin Scalia's death in 2016 and i]n response to the Senate Republican leadership's stated intention to refuse to consider any nominee to replace Justice Scalia, some began to argue that the Senate has a constitutional obligation to act on a Supreme Court nomination.

The argument that the Senate has a constitutional obligation to act on a Supreme Court nomination is anything but "clear." This claim finds no support in the relevant constitutional text, constitutional structure, or the history of judicial nominations. While there are strong policy and prudential arguments that the Senate should promptly consider any and all …

The Modern Treaty-Executing Power: Constitutional Complexities In Contemporary Global Governance, Carlo Felizardo

Northwestern University Law Review

Treaties have evolved significantly since the ratification of the United States Constitution, leading to uncertainty as to the constitutional limits on their domestic execution. This Note adapts existing constitutional doctrine on treaty execution to two distinct complications arising in the contemporary treaty regime. First, voluntary treaties imposing aspirational obligations on signatories raise the issue of the extent of obligations that Congress may domestically enforce by federal statute. Second, originating treaties which create international organizations and authorize them to adopt rule- and adjudication-type post-treaty pronouncements bring up a question of when, if ever, to incorporate those pronouncements into U.S. law, and …

The Democratic First Amendment, Ashutosh Bhagwat

Northwestern University Law Review

Over the past several decades, the Supreme Court and most First Amendment scholars have taken the position that the primary reason why the First Amendment protects freedom of speech is to advance democratic self-governance. In this Article, I will argue that this position, while surely correct insofar as it goes, is also radically incomplete. The fundamental problem is that the Court and, until recently, scholars have focused exclusively on the Religion Clauses and the Free Speech Clause. The rest of the First Amendment—the Press, Assembly, and Petition Clauses—might as well not exist. The topic of this Article is the five …