Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

Tiers Of Scrutiny In A Hierarchical Judiciary, Tara Leigh Grove

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Book Review Of Constitutional Personae, Michael N. Umberger

Library Staff Publications

No abstract provided.

Mariculture: A New Ocean Use, J. Owens Smith, David L. Marshall

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Ftc V. Phoebe Putney And Municipalities As Nongovernments, Peter F. Nascenzi

Northwestern University Law Review

American courts have long struggled with categorizing municipalities. They treat municipalities sometimes as private corporations, sometimes as governmental bodies, and sometimes as something in between. This uncertainty provides a shaky foundation for local government law and hampers its development. Local governments are not sure of their powers, and states are unable to create a comprehensive vision of municipal governance. When federal law is involved, the situation is muddled further.

In FTC v. Phoebe Putney, the Supreme Court’s application of the state action doctrine unnecessarily injected federal antitrust law into the relationship between states and municipalities. The state action doctrine …

Prosecuting Online Threats After Elonis, Michael Pierce

Northwestern University Law Review

In Elonis v. United States, decided last term, the Supreme Court vacated a conviction for online threats on the ground that the lower court erred in its instructions to the jury regarding mens rea. In doing so, however, the Court declined to articulate which mens rea standard would have sustained a conviction. It is thus currently uncertain which mens rea the government must prove when prosecuting online threats under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c). The Elonis Court discussed three potential mens rea standards; as universal standards for online threats, each leaves something to be desired. Fortunately, federal courts need not …

Nfib V. Sebelius And The Individual Mandate: Thoughts On The Tax/Regulation Distinction, Kyle D. Logue

Michigan Business & Entrepreneurial Law Review

When Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion of the Court in National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius (NFIB) explaining the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) minimum essential coverage provision (sometimes referred to as the individual mandate), he reasoned that the mandate—or, more precisely, the enforcement provision that accompanied the mandate (the Shared Responsibility Payment or SRP)—could be understood as a tax on the failure to purchase health insurance. According to this view, the enactment of the mandate and its accompanying enforcement provisions fell within Congress’s virtually unlimited power to “lay and collect taxes.” This tax-based interpretation …

“Criminal Records” - A Comparative Approach, Sigmund A. Cohn

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Recent Decision: Constitutional Law - Restriction Of American Citizens’ Right Of Access To Information And Ideas In The Court Of Government Control Of Immigration Is Not Unconstitutional When Supported By A Facially Legitimate Reason, W. P. Bishop, Joseph C. Vanzant

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Law Enforcement As Political Question, Zachary S. Price

Notre Dame Law Review

Across a range of contexts, federal courts have crafted doctrines that limit judicial secondguessing of executive nonenforcement decisions. Key case law, however, carries important ambiguities of scope and rationale. In particular, key decisions have combined rationales rooted in executive prerogative with concerns about nonenforcement’s “unsuitability” for judicial resolution. With one nonenforcement initiative now before the Supreme Court and other related issues percolating in lower courts, this Article makes the case for the latter rationale. Judicial review of nonenforcement, on this account, involves a form of political question, in the sense of the “political question doctrine”: while executive officials hold a …

Habeas As Forum Allocation: A New Synthesis, Carlos Manuel Vázquez

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The scope of habeas relief for state prisoners, especially during the decades before the Supreme Court’s 1953 decision in Brown v. Allen, is a famously disputed question – one of recognized significance for contemporary debates about the proper scope of habeas review. This Essay provides a new answer. It argues that, until the enactment of AEDPA in 1996, state prisoners were always entitled to de novo review of the legal and mixed law/fact questions decided against them by the state courts. Until 1916, such review was provided by the Supreme Court; after 1953, such review was provided by the lower …

Sexual Harassment In Schools, Charles J. Russo

Educational Leadership Faculty Publications

Eliminating sexual harassment in schools continues to be a national concern. In fact, the Supreme Court has resolved three major cases on this topic, and lower courts continue to resolve a steady stream of disputes. The litigation has moved beyond teacher–student and peer–peer claims to include disputes over harassment because of actual or perceived sexual orientation.

The One Exhibition The Roots Of The Lgbt Equality Movement One Magazine & The First Gay Supreme Court Case In U.S. History 1943-1958, Joshua R. Edmundson

Electronic Theses, Projects, and Dissertations

The ONE Exhibition explores an era in American history marked by intense government sponsored anti-gay persecution and the genesis of the LGBT equality movement. The study begins during World War II, continues through the McCarthy era and the founding of the nation’s first gay magazine, and ends in 1958 with the first gay Supreme Court case in U.S. history.

Central to the story is ONE The Homosexual Magazine, and its founders, as they embarked on a quest for LGBT equality by establishing the first ongoing nationwide forum for gay people in the U.S., and challenged the government’s right to engage …

The United States Supreme Court (Mostly) Gives Up Its Review Role With Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel Cases, Paul Marcus

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Thin Rationality Review, Jacob Gersen, Adrian Vermeule

Michigan Law Review

Under the Administrative Procedure Act, courts review and set aside agency action that is “arbitrary [and] capricious.” In a common formulation of rationality review, courts must either take a “hard look” at the rationality of agency decisionmaking, or at least ensure that agencies themselves have taken a hard look. We will propose a much less demanding and intrusive interpretation of rationality review—a thin version. Under a robust range of conditions, rational agencies have good reason to decide in a manner that is inaccurate, nonrational, or arbitrary. Although this claim is seemingly paradoxical or internally inconsistent, it simply rests on an …

Rescued From The Grave And Then Covered With Mud: Justice Scalia And The Unfinished Restoration Of The Confrontation Right, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

Some years before his death, when asked which was his favorite among his opinions, Antonin Scalia named Crawford v. Washington. It was a good choice. Justice Scalia's opinion in Crawford reclaimed the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution and restored it to its rightful place as one of the central protections of our criminal justice system. He must have found it particularly satisfying that the opinion achieved this result by focusing on the historical meaning of the text, and that it gained the concurrence of all but two members of the Court, from all ideological positions.

Major Questions About The "Major Questions" Doctrine, Kevin O. Leske

Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law

After over a decade of hibernation, the United States Supreme Court has awoken the “major questions” doctrine, which has re-emerged in an expanded form. Under the doctrine, a court will not defer to an agency’s interpretation of a statutory provision in circumstances where the case involves an issue of deep economic or political significance or where the interpretive question could effectuate an enormous and transformative expansion of the agency’s regulatory authority. While the doctrine’s re-emergence in recent Supreme Court cases has already raised concerns, a subtle shift in its application has gone unnoticed. Unlike in earlier cases, where the Court …

A Fourth Amendment Framework For The Free Exercise Clause, Adam Lamparello

Journal of Legislation

No abstract provided.

Going To Hell In A Hhs Notice: The Contraceptive Mandate's Next Impermissible Burden On Religious Freedom, Trey O'Callaghan

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that eligible religious organizations submit a notice objecting to providing their employees contraceptive coverage if they religiously object to contraception or abortifacients is as simple as filing a piece of paper. But to a collection of Catholic petitioners, complying with this requirement gives rise to “scandal” and causes them to “materially cooperate” with sin. Filing a piece of paper may seem far outside any exercise of religion, but these groups sincerely believe that the one page notice burdens their religious beliefs.

Zubik v. Burwell, like Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, presents a conflict between …

Asking The Right Federal Questions: Merrill Lynch V. Manning And The Exclusive Jurisdiction Provisions Of The Securities Exchange Act, Seth Taylor

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Suppose you run a small corporation in the business of auctioneering stamps, coins, and other collectibles. Sensing that your corporation’s financial prospects are on the decline, large financial institutions drive the price of the company’s stock down. Your shareholders sue in state court alleging a breach of state law in manipulating stock prices while also referencing breaches of federal securities law.

Can the defendant financial institutions remove the case to federal court? This question is set to be answered by the Supreme Court in Manning v. Merrill Lynch, which deals specifically with whether section 27 of the Securities Exchange …

Ocasio V. United States: The Scope Of A Conspiracy To Commit Hobbs Act Extortion, Benjamin Ludewig

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Ocasio v. United States presents the question of whether a conviction under the general federal conspiracy statute may be based on Hobbs Act extortion when a public official defendant has formed an agreement to obtain property from someone within the conspiracy. There is currently a circuit split on the question presented in Ocasio v. United States, which the Supreme Court will address. This commentary argues that the Court should allow a conviction under the general federal conspiracy statute to be based on Hobbs Act extortion when the property is obtained from someone within the conspiracy. This holding is consistent …

Utah V. Strieff And The Future Of The Exceptions To The Exclusionary Rule, Zack Gong

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

In the recent case State v. Strieff, the Supreme Court of Utah held that police’s discovery of a lawful outstanding warrant during an unlawful investigatory stop cannot save the evidence obtained during that arrest from suppression under the attenuation doctrine. To reach that decision, the court reasoned that the inevitable discovery doctrine, instead of the attenuation doctrine, is appropriate for this situation. However, the court failed to address whether the inevitable discovery doctrine can ultimately save the evidence from suppression.

The theoretical foundation of how the Fourth Amendment guaranty gives rise to the exclusionary rule has never been steadfast; …

Ring Around The Jury: Reviewing Florida's Capital Sentencing Framework In Hurst V. Florida, Richard Guyer

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

This commentary discusses Hurst v. Florida, a case in which the Supreme court will review Florida's death sentencing scheme to determine whether it violates the Sixth of Eighth Amendments. The author argues that Florida's capital sentencing framework violates the Sixth Amendment. A jury, rather than a judge, better reflects society's moral views, which are critical to weigh when deciding whether to impose the death penalty.

Gutting Public Sector Unions: Friedrichs V. California Teachers Association, Jake Wasserman

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

In Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, public-sector unions face a constitutional challenge that could lead to their demise. In California, all public school employees are represented by a union--whether or not they are union members--and are required to pay an agency fee. This requirement seems to run contrary to the First Amendment, which generally prohibits the government from compelling citizens to support the speech and expressive activities of a private organization. This commentary argues that the Court should not overrule its decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education and uphold the validity of agency-shop agreements.

Some Thoughts On The Study Of Judicial Behavior, Lee Epstein

William & Mary Law Review

Back in the 1940s the political scientist C. Herman Pritchett began tallying the votes and opinions of Supreme Court Justices. His goal was to use data to test the hypothesis that the Justices were not only following the “law,” but were also motivated by their own ideological preferences.

With the hindsight of nearly eighty years, we know that Pritchett’s seemingly small project helped to create a big field: Judicial Behavior, which I take to be the theoretical and empirical study of the choices judges make. Political scientists continue to play a central role, but they are now joined by economists, …

Judicial Recusation In The Federal Republic Of Germany, Sigmund A. Cohn

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Introduction: Is The Supreme Court Failing At Its Job, Or Are We Failing At Ours?, Suzanna Sherry

Vanderbilt Law Review

It is a pleasure and a privilege to write an introduction to this Symposium celebrating Dean Erwin Chemerinsky's important new book, The Case Against the Supreme Court. Chemerinsky is one of the leading constitutional scholars of our time and a frequent advocate before the U.S. Supreme Court. If he thinks there is a case to be made against the Court, we should all take it very seriously indeed. Chemerinsky's thesis may be stated in a few sentences. The primary role of the Supreme Court, in his view, is to "protect the rights of minorities who cannot rely on the political …

Letter To Supreme Court (Erwin Chemerinsky Is Mad. Why You Should Care), Barry Friedman

Vanderbilt Law Review

Whatever else you want to say about Erwin Chemerinsky, he's sincere. Chemerinsky is nothing if not sincere. As anyone who knows him will tell you so. And Chemerinsky is in pain. He informs us: "This book was far harder to write than I could have imagined." The question is why Chemerinsky is in pain? You'd think this would be the easiest thing in the world for him, going after a Court he sees as overly conservative. Like shooting fish in a barrel. The reason is because deep in his heart-despite his beefs with the outcomes of cases-Chemerinsky has always been …

Three Supreme Court "Failures" And A Story Of Supreme Court Success, Corinna B. Lain

Vanderbilt Law Review

The Supreme Court is not the institution that I once revered," writes Erwin Chemerinsky in The Case Against the Supreme Court-a provocative, important work that also happens to be a great read. Chemerinsky's claim is that the Supreme Court ought to be protecting vulnerable minorities from repressive majorities, but it has not done so. "The Court has frequently failed, throughout American history, at its most important tasks, at its most important moments," he argues.' This is Chemerinsky's case against the Supreme Court, and it is a sweeping indictment. Of the cases Chemerinsky cites to prove his point, three stand out …

Thinking About The Supreme Court's Successes And Failures, Erwin Chemerinsky

Vanderbilt Law Review

The Supreme Court often has failed at its most important tasks and at the most important times. I set out this thesis at the beginning the book:

To be clear, I am not saying that the Supreme Court has failed at these crucial tasks every time. Making a case against the Supreme Court does not require taking such an extreme position. I also will talk about areas where the Court has succeeded in protecting minorities and in enforcing the limits of the Constitution. My claim is that the Court has often failed where and when it has been most needed. …

Filling Federal Court Vacancies In A Presidential Election Year, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

Scholars and politicians who closely track the federal judicial selection process appreciate that confirmations slow and ultimately halt over presidential election years, a phenomenon which has greater salience in a chief executive's last administration. The first section of this article canvasses selection in Barack Obama's tenure, ascertaining that Republicans cooperated little and contravened numerous traditions, especially after the party captured a majority. Thus, section two analyzes why the GOP did not collaborate and the consequences. Because that obstruction-which undercuts justice and regard for the coequal branches of government- will actually continue across 2016, the piece surveys devices, which could rectify …