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 (2054)
- Judges (1459)
- State and Local Government Law (1296)
- Jurisprudence (1131)
-
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (1047)
- Legal History (973)
- 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 (461)
- 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 (125)
- 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 (61)
- 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 4411 - 4440 of 7881
Full-Text Articles in Supreme Court of the United States
Supreme Court Strikes Down Doma’S Key Provision, Ducks On Prop 8, Arthur S. Leonard
Supreme Court Strikes Down Doma’S Key Provision, Ducks On Prop 8, Arthur S. Leonard
Other Publications
No abstract provided.
Introduction: Trial By Jury Or Trial By Motion? Summary Judgment, Iqbal, And Employment Discrimination, Arthur S. Leonard
Introduction: Trial By Jury Or Trial By Motion? Summary Judgment, Iqbal, And Employment Discrimination, Arthur S. Leonard
Articles & Chapters
No abstract provided.
Supra Synopses, Ryan W. Dumm, Laura Turczanski
Supra Synopses, Ryan W. Dumm, Laura Turczanski
Seattle University Law Review Online
No abstract provided.
"The Magna Carta Of Free Enterprise" Really?" , Daniel A. Crane
"The Magna Carta Of Free Enterprise" Really?" , Daniel A. Crane
Articles
In U.S. v. Topco Associates, Inc., Justice Thurgood Marshall announced that "[a] ntitrust laws in general, and the Sherman Act in particular, are the Magna Carta of free enterprise.", In The Antitrust Constitution, Thomas Nachbar takes seriously the idea that federal antitrust laws serve a constitutional function. He argues that, contrary to common assumptions, the antitrust laws cannot be understood merely as a form of economic utilitarianism. Rather, they serve the additional purpose of preventing "regulatory harm," the assertion of law-like control over the conduct of others outside the sphere of one's own property interests.
A Rejoinder To Professor Schauer's Commentary, Yale Kamisar
A Rejoinder To Professor Schauer's Commentary, Yale Kamisar
Articles
It is quite a treat to have Professor Frederick Schauer comment on my Miranda article.1 Professor Schauer is a renowned authority on freedom of speech and the author of many thoughtful, probing articles in other areas as well, especially jurisprudence. I am pleased that in large measure, Schauer, too, laments the erosion of Miranda in the last four-and-a-half decades2 and that he, too, was unhappy with the pre-Miranda due process/“totality of circumstances”/“voluntariness” test.3 I also like what Schauer had to say about “prophylactic rules,” a term that has sometimes been used to disparage the Miranda rules.4 As Schauer observes, the …
Grutter's Denouement: Three Templates From The Roberts Court, Ellen D. Katz
Grutter's Denouement: Three Templates From The Roberts Court, Ellen D. Katz
Articles
Precedent from the Roberts Court shows the Justices taking three distinct approaches to precedent they dislike. Each provides a template for the Court to criticize race-based affirmative action in higher education, as Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin is widely expected to do. Most narrowly, the Court might use Fisher to issue a warning, much like it did in 2009 when it sidestepped a constitutional challenge to the Voting Rights Act; under this approach, the opinion would spell out why the Justices think the diversity celebrated in Grutter v. Bollinger no longer provides sufficient justification for the use of …
What Was Wrong With The Record?, Ellen D. Katz
What Was Wrong With The Record?, Ellen D. Katz
Articles
Shelby County v. Holder offers three reasons for why the record Congress amassed to support the 2006 reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) was legally insufficient to justify the statute's continued regional application: (1) the problems Congress documented in 2006 were not as severe as those that prompted it to craft the regime in 1965; (2) these problems did not lead Congress to alter the statute's pre-existing coverage formula; and (3) these problems did not exclusively involve voter registration and the casting of ballots.
Real Judicial Restraint, Joel Alicea
Real Judicial Restraint, Joel Alicea
Scholarly Articles
The conservative legal movement has long stood simultaneously for originalism and judicial restraint. But in the past few years, the tension between a commitment to interpreting the Constitution as its authors intended and deferring to the will of legislators and the executive has become painfully clear. Does originalism demand judicial restraint, or is the Constitution undermined by such restraint?
A Visual Guide To United States V. Windsor: Doctrinal Origins Of Justice Kennedy’S Majority Opinion, Colin Starger
A Visual Guide To United States V. Windsor: Doctrinal Origins Of Justice Kennedy’S Majority Opinion, Colin Starger
All Faculty Scholarship
After finding the Court had jurisdiction, Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in United States v. Windsor reached the merits and concluded that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was in violation of the Fifth Amendment. In his dissent, Justice Scalia attacked the majority’s doctrinal reasoning on the merits as “nonspecific handwaving” that invalidated DOMA “maybe on equal-protection grounds, maybe on substantive due process grounds, and perhaps with some amorphous federalism component playing a role.”
This Visual Guide is a “doctrinal map” that responds to Scalia’s accusation by charting the doctrinal origins of Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion. Specifically, the map shows how …
The Roberts Court And The Law Of Human Resources, Matthew T. Bodie
The Roberts Court And The Law Of Human Resources, Matthew T. Bodie
All Faculty Scholarship
The rise of human resources departments parallels the increase in the myriad statutory and regulatory requirements that govern the workplace. The Supreme Court's decisions in labor and employment law cases are largely monitored and implemented by HR professionals who must carry out these directives on a daily basis. This article looks at the Roberts Court's labor and employment law cases through the lens of human resources. In adopting an approach that is solicitous towards HR departments and concerns, the Roberts Court reflects a willingness to empower these private institutional players. Even if labor and employment law scholars do not agree …
Textualism And Obstacle Preemption, John D. Ohlendorf
Textualism And Obstacle Preemption, John D. Ohlendorf
Georgia Law Review
Commentators, both on the bench and in the academy,
have perceived an inconsistency between the Supreme
Court's trend, in recent decades, towards an increasingly
formalist approach to statutory interpretation and the
Court's continued willingness to find state laws preempted
as "obstacles to the accomplishment and execution of the
full purposes and objectives of Congress'"--so-called
"obstacle preemption." This Article argues that by giving
the meaning contextually implied in a statutory text
ordinary, operative legal force, we can justify most of the
current scope of obstacle preemption based solely on
theoretical moves textualism already is committed to
making.
The Article first sketches …
Jurisdictional Sequencing, Alan M. Trammell
Jurisdictional Sequencing, Alan M. Trammell
Georgia Law Review
The Supreme Court has begun to grapple with the
problems presented by the doctrine of jurisdictional
sequencing-the decision of certain issues, and even the
dismissal of cases, before a federal court has verified its
subject matter jurisdiction. Recent jurisprudence has
created confusion as to what, if anything, a federal court
may do before it verifies subject matter jurisdiction.
Moreover, scholars and courts have struggled to discern
an underlying rationale for jurisdictional sequencing, and
no theory has been able to explain the case law fully or
offer a satisfying normative defense of the doctrine.
This Article develops a theory of jurisdictional …
Chief Justice Robert's Individual Mandate: The Lawless Medicine Of Nfib V. Sebelius, Gregory P. Magarian
Chief Justice Robert's Individual Mandate: The Lawless Medicine Of Nfib V. Sebelius, Gregory P. Magarian
Scholarship@WashULaw
After the U.S. Supreme Court in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius held nearly all of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act constitutional, praise rained down on Chief Justice John Roberts. The Chief Justice’s lead opinion broke with his usual conservative allies on the Court by upholding the Act’s individual mandate under the Taxing Clause. Numerous academic and popular commentators have lauded the Chief Justice for his political courage and institutional pragmatism. In this essay, Professor Magarian challenges the heroic narrative surrounding the Chief Justice’s opinion. The essay contends that the opinion is, in two distinct senses, fundamentally …
Safe Haven No Longer: The Role Of Georgia Courts And Private Probation Companies In Sustaining A De Facto Debtors' Prison System, Sarah D. Bellacicco
Safe Haven No Longer: The Role Of Georgia Courts And Private Probation Companies In Sustaining A De Facto Debtors' Prison System, Sarah D. Bellacicco
Georgia Law Review
Georgia was specifically established as a colony for debtors-a haven where they could be safe from imprisonment. It is a haven no longer. Georgia courts are regularly imprisoning people for failing to pay debts, often through probation revocation of probationers who have failed to pay a fine or fee imposed as a condition of probation. Some of these probationers are on probation solely because they could not pay a fine on the day of sentencing, a practice which greatly increases the amount they owe due to the additional probation fees imposed. In Bearden v. Georgia, the Supreme Court held that …
One Voice Or Many: The Political Question Doctrine And Acoustic Dissonance In Foreign Affairs, Daniel Abebe
One Voice Or Many: The Political Question Doctrine And Acoustic Dissonance In Foreign Affairs, Daniel Abebe
Faculty Scholarship
This article examines the merits of the one-voice presumption of the political question doctrine. It has two goals. First, it aims to unpack the underlying assumptions supporting a presumption in favor of one voice in foreign affairs to determine the conditions under which the presumption holds. The traditional account about speaking with one voice focuses on the benefits of centralizing decision making in foreign affairs. The creation of foreign policy and the provision of national security, among other things, are public goods best provided by the national government, rather than the states. Relative to the national government, the states are …
When Is Finality Final? Second Chances At The Supreme Court, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl
When Is Finality Final? Second Chances At The Supreme Court, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl
Popular Media
No abstract provided.
Commentary On Marriage Grants: Article Iii & Same-Sex Marriage, Neal Devins, Tara Leigh Grove
Commentary On Marriage Grants: Article Iii & Same-Sex Marriage, Neal Devins, Tara Leigh Grove
Popular Media
No abstract provided.
Youngstown Sheet To Boumediene: A Story Of Judicial Ethos And The (Un)Fastidious Use Of Language, Laura A. Cisneros
Youngstown Sheet To Boumediene: A Story Of Judicial Ethos And The (Un)Fastidious Use Of Language, Laura A. Cisneros
West Virginia Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Incredible Shrinking Confrontation Clause, Jeffrey Bellin
The Incredible Shrinking Confrontation Clause, Jeffrey Bellin
Faculty Publications
Sharp turns in the Supreme Court’s recent Confrontation Clause jurisprudence have left scholars reeling from conflicting emotions: exhilaration, despair, denial, and soon, perhaps, cynical acceptance. While most commentators celebrated the demise of the incoherent Ohio v. Roberts framework, their excitement largely faded as the Court’s decisions in Davis v. Washington and Bryant v. Michigan revealed nascent flaws in the evolving doctrine and sharply curtailed the newly revitalized confrontation right.
Recent scholarship strives to reanimate the jurisprudence by expanding the doctrinal definition of “testimonial” statements – the sole form of evidence that the Court now recognizes as implicating the Confrontation Clause. …
The Mosaic Theory Of The Fourth Amendment, Orin S. Kerr
The Mosaic Theory Of The Fourth Amendment, Orin S. Kerr
Michigan Law Review
In the Supreme Court's recent decision on GPS surveillance, United States v. Jones, five justices authored or joined concurring opinions that applied a new approach to interpreting Fourth Amendment protection. Before Jones, Fourth Amendment decisions had always evaluated each step of an investigation individually. Jones introduced what we might call a "mosaic theory" of the Fourth Amendment, by which courts evaluate a collective sequence of government activity as an aggregated whole to consider whether the sequence amounts to a search. This Article considers the implications of a mosaic theory of the Fourth Amendment. It explores the choices and puzzles that …
Issue 1: Annual Survey 2012 Table Of Contents
Issue 1: Annual Survey 2012 Table Of Contents
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
Brief Of Benjamin N. Cardozo School Of Law Tax Clinic As Amicus Curiae In Support Of The Respondents, Carlton M. Smith
Brief Of Benjamin N. Cardozo School Of Law Tax Clinic As Amicus Curiae In Support Of The Respondents, Carlton M. Smith
Amicus Briefs
The Cardozo Tax Clinic represents, for free, low-income taxpayers with respect to their federal income tax matters – both before the Internal Revenue Service and in the federal courts. Occasionally, the Clinic’s assistance has been sought after those individuals, on their own, filed a document late – either with the IRS or the courts -- under a time deadline set out in the Internal Revenue Code or in a regulation promulgated thereunder. Usually, no extraordinary equitable reasons occurred that might excuse such late filing. See, e.g., Iljazi v. Commissioner, T.C. Summary Op. 2010-59 (client simply filed administrative claim for …
Expanding Stare Decisis: The Role Of Precedent In The Unfolding Dialectic Of Brady V. Maryland, Colin Starger
Expanding Stare Decisis: The Role Of Precedent In The Unfolding Dialectic Of Brady V. Maryland, Colin Starger
All Faculty Scholarship
Does stare decisis constrain the expansion of constitutional doctrine? Does existing precedent preclude the Supreme Court from expanding a criminal defendant’s right to exculpatory evidence? While commentators frequently clash on when stare decisis should prevent the Court from overruling its own precedents, the question of when fidelity to precedent should inhibit doctrinal expansion is surprisingly under-theorized. This Article begins to fill this gap through an in-depth case study of stare decisis and the expansion of criminal due process doctrine.
This Article analyzes the longstanding constitutional dialectic between procedural and substantive schools of criminal due process. Focus is on Brady v. …
Confronting Supreme Court Fact Finding, Allison Orr Larsen
Confronting Supreme Court Fact Finding, Allison Orr Larsen
Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
A Financial Economic Theory Of Punitive Damages, Robert J. Rhee
A Financial Economic Theory Of Punitive Damages, Robert J. Rhee
Michigan Law Review
This Article provides a financial economic theory of punitive damages. The core problem, as the Supreme Court acknowledged in Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, is not the systemic amount of punitive damages in the tort system; rather it is the risk of outlier outcomes. Low frequency, high severity awards are unpredictable, cause financial distress, and beget social cost. By focusing only on offsetting escaped liability, the standard law and economics theory fails to account for the core problem of variance. This Article provides a risk arbitrage analysis of the relationship between variance, litigation valuation, and optimal deterrence. Starting with settlement …
Section 2: Roberts Court, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Section 2: Roberts Court, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.
Section 7: Gay Rights, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Section 7: Gay Rights, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.
Section 1: Moot Court: Fisher V. University Of Texas At Austin, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Section 1: Moot Court: Fisher V. University Of Texas At Austin, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.
Section 5: Business, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Section 5: Business, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.
Section 4: International Law, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Section 4: International Law, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.