Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

Advice And Consent Vs. Silence And Dissent? The Contrasting Roles Of The Legislature In U.S. And U.K. Judicial Appointments, Mary Clark

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

The Senate‘s role in judicial appointments has come under increasingly withering criticism for its uninformative and spectacle-like nature. At the same time, Britain has established two new judicial appointment processes - to accompany its new Supreme Court and existing lower courts - in which Parliament plays no role. This Article seeks to understand the reasons for the inclusion and exclusion of the legislature in the U.S. and U.K. judicial appointment processes adopted at the creation of their respective Supreme Courts.

The Article proceeds by highlighting the ideas and concerns motivating inclusion of the legislature in judicial appointments in the early …

Notes On Borrowing And Convergence, Robert Tsai, Nelson Tebbe

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

his is a response to Jennifer E. Laurin, "Trawling for Herring: Lessons in Doctrinal Borrowing and Convergence," 111 Colum. L. Rev. 670 (2011), which analyzes the Supreme Court's resort to tort-based concepts to limit the reach of the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule. We press three points. First, there are differences between a general and specific critique of constitutional borrowing. Second, the idea of convergence as a distinct phenomenon from borrowing has explanatory potential and should be further explored. Third, to the extent convergence occurs, it matters whether concerns of judicial administration or political reconstruction are driving doctrinal changes.

Civil Rights And Systemic Wrongs, Melissa Hart

Publications

Systemic employment discrimination is a structural, social harm whose victims include not only those who can be specifically identified, but also many who cannot. Pattern and practice claims in employment litigation are an essential tool for challenging this structural harm. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart v. Dukes brushes aside the systemic nature of the plaintiffs' claims, making both theoretical and doctrinal mistakes in its application of the procedural and substantive law applicable in employment discrimination class action litigation. The most troubling part of the Court's opinion--its rejection of statistical modeling for remedial determinations--has received little attention. This article …

Ten Years After: Bartnicki V. Vopper As Laboratory For First Amendment Advocacy And Analysis, Eric Easton

All Faculty Scholarship

How many ways can one approach a First Amendment analysis? What influences a lawyer or a judge to select one analytical approach over another? And what is the long-term effect of a court's choice of one over another? In Bartnicki v. Vopper, a 2001 case in which the U.S. Supreme Court considered federal and state statutes prohibiting the disclosure of illegally intercepted telephone conversations, we are privileged to have a small laboratory through which to study the first two questions. And, from the vantage point of ten years, we ought to be able to make some informed predictions as to …

When Will Race No Longer Matter In Jury Selection?, Bidish Sarma

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

We are coming upon the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Supreme Court's opinion in Batson v. Kentucky, which made clear that our Constitution does not permit prosecutors to remove prospective jurors from the jury pool because of their race. The legal question in Batson-when, if ever, can governmental race discrimination in jury selection be tolerated?-was easy. The lingering factual question, however-when will prosecutors cease to discriminate on the basis of race?-has proven far more difficult to answer. The evidence that district attorneys still exclude minorities because of their race is so compelling that it is tempting to assume that race will …

Teva V. Eisai: What's The Real Controversy, Grace Wang

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

This Note examines the changing role of declaratory judgment actions in challenging patents upon generic entry and evaluates alternative regulatory schemes to the FDA's current system of patent enforcement in the drug approval setting. Part I reviews the Federal Circuit's recent decisions regarding generic drug entry, focusing on how the courts justify declaratory judgments in the current system and when a "controversy" exists to create Article III jurisdiction. Part II examines the complex system of regulating generic drug entry and how attempts to stop the exploitation of loopholes have resulted in a patchwork of regulation by various parties. It challenges …

Response: Metaphor And Meaning In Trawling For Herring, Colin Starger

All Faculty Scholarship

In this essay responding to Professor Jennifer Laurin’s essay, Trawling for Herring: Lessons in Doctrinal Borrowing and Convergence, I advance Laurin’s project of recovering the exclusionary rule’s lost lineage through a critical reflection upon her doctrinal metaphors. Specifically, I parse the jurisprudential significance of Laurin’s idea of “trawling” in order to understand Herring v. United States and show how this metaphor successfully builds upon a second water-based metaphor animating Laurin’s analysis — the “hydraulics” of borrowing and convergence. By attending to both Laurin’s specific exclusionary rule arguments and to how Laurin’s conceptualization of “hydraulics” extends Professors Tebbe and Tsai’s constitutional …

The Case For Rebalancing Antitrust And Regulation, Howard A. Shelanski

Michigan Law Review

The continued growth of forensic DNA databases has brought about greater interest in a search method known as "familial" or "kinship" matching. Whereas a typical database search seeks the source of a crime-scene stain by making an exact match between a known person and the DNA sample, familial searching instead looks for partial matches in order to find potential relatives of the source. The use of a familial DNA search to identify the alleged "Grim Sleeper" killer in California brought national attention to the method, which has many proponents. In contrast, this Article argues against the practice of familial searching …

Rid Of Habeas Corpus - How Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel Has Endangered Access To The Writ Of Habeas Corpus And What The Supreme Court Can Do In Maples And Martinez To Restore It, 45 Creighton L. Rev. 185 (2011), Hugh Mundy

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Judicial Power And The Inferior Federal Courts: Exploring The Constitutional Vesting Thesis, A. Benjamin Spencer

Georgia Law Review

The Third Branch of our federal government has
traditionally been viewed as the least of the three in
terms of the scope of its power and authority. This
view finds validation when one considers the
extensive authority that Congress has been permitted
to exercise over the Federal Judiciary. From the
beginning, Congress has understood itself to possess
the authority to limit the jurisdiction of inferior
federal courts. The Supreme Court has acquiesced to
this understanding of congressional authority
without much thought or explanation.
It may be possible, however, to imagine a more
robust vision of the Judicial Power through closer …

Foreword - The Legacy Of Bush V. Gore In Public Opinion And American Law, Nathaniel Persily

St. Thomas Law Review

Very few Supreme Court decisions achieve a level of salience with the mass public comparable to that achieved by Bush v. Gore on the day it was delivered. Because the 2000 presidential election seemed to turn on the Court's decision, even the large majority of people who never pay attention to the work of the Supreme Court decided to tune in. Given the perceived stakes and the decision's unusually high salience, the fact that Bush v. Gore polarized Americans along racial and partisan lines should have come as no surprise. Where you stood on the decision depended on whether your …

To Secure These Rights: The Supreme Court And Snyder V. Phelps, Ethan Fishman

St. Thomas Law Review

Historically, the United States Supreme Court has taken a morally neutral approach towards issues involving freedom of expression. Instead of evaluating the content or substance of the views being expressed, the Court has relied primarily upon formalistic time, place, and manner considerations to guide its judgment in such cases. The rationale, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of this judicial approach are vividly illustrated in Snyder v. Phelps-the Court's March 2011 ruling that patently hateful protests at military funerals are protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. Matthew Snyder was a heterosexual twenty-year-old, Marine Corps Lance Corporal who …

Flawed Assumptions: A Corporate Law Analysis Of Free Speech And Corporate Personhood In Citizens United, Anne M. Tucker

Faculty Publications By Year

In the wake of the January, 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United, special interest groups, citizens, and politicians alike have engaged in a rigorous debate about the role of corporate speech within our democratic process. The First Amendment issues raised in Citizens United - to that extent do corporations have a constitutionally protected right to participate in and influence our elections through expenditures - evoke larger questions about the roles, rights, and responsibilities of corporations within our society. This article concludes that the Supreme Court did not reference corporate law principles when analyzing the fundamental First Amendment debate in …

Is The Roberts Court Really A Court?, Eric J. Segall

Faculty Publications By Year

When facing a question that the law does not clearly answer, courts are generally obligated to resolve legal disputes by examining, interpreting, and applying prior positive law such as text and precedent. This Article argues that three cases decided by the Roberts Court – Gonzales v. Carhart, District of Columbia v. Heller, and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission – exemplify the Supreme Court’s propensity for disregarding prior positive law when deciding cases. The Author contends that the Roberts Court, quite possibly like all the Supreme Courts before it, is not a “court” at all because it does not take …

Extra! Read All About It: Why Notice By Newspaper Publication Fails To Meet Mullane's Desire-To-Inform Standard And How Modern Technology Provides A Viable Alternative, Jennifer L. Case

Georgia Law Review

Decades ago the Supreme Court articulated that due
process requires adopting a means of service that one
would naturally adopt if he actually desired to inform
another. For generations newspaper publication has been
allowed where the party to be notified is not known or
cannot be located. But, given the rapid transformation

of information dissemination over our country's recent
history, are newspapers a method that anyone would use if
they truly wanted to relay information to another person?
This Note examines the shift in how American's receive
news and information in our modern society. It explores
the decline in newspaper …

Four Constitutional Limits That The Minimum Coverage Provision Respects, Neil S. Siegel

Faculty Scholarship

Opponents of the minimum coverage provision in the Affordable Care Act charge that if Congress can require most people to obtain health insurance or pay a certain amount of money, then Congress can impose whatever mandates it wishes - or, at least, whatever purchase mandates it wishes. This Essay refutes that claim by identifying four limits on the Commerce Clause that the minimum coverage provision honors. Congress may not use its commerce power: (1) to regulate noneconomic subject matter; (2) to impose a regulation that violates constitutional rights, including the right to bodily integrity; (3) to regulate at all, including …

Juvenile Life Without Parole: Unconstitutional In Michigan?, Kimberly A. Thomas

Articles

Last term, in Graham v Florida,1 the United States Supreme Court found unconstitutional the sentence of life without parole for a juvenile who committed a non-homicide offense. This attention to the sentencing of juvenile offenders is a continuation of the Court's decision in Roper v Simmons,2 in which the Court held that juvenile offenders could not constitutionally receive the death penalty. This scrutiny should be a signal to Michigan to examine its own jurisprudence on juveniles receiving sentences of life without parole. Michigan has the second-highest number of persons serving sentences of life without parole for offenses committed when they …

The Need To Overrule Mapp V. Ohio, William T. Pizzi

University of Colorado Law Review

This Article argues that it is time to overrule Mapp v. Ohio. It contends that the exclusionary rule is outdated because a tough deterrent sanction is difficult to reconcile with a criminal justice system where victims are increasingly seen to have a stake in criminal cases. The rule is also increasingly outdated in its epistemological assumption which insists officers act on "reasons" that they can articulate and which disparages actions based on "hunches" or "feelings." This assumption runs counter to a large body of neuroscience research suggesting that humans often "feel" or "sense" danger, sometimes even at a subconscious level, …

From Closet To Court Room: Asylum As A Judicial Step Towards Full Equality Between Sexual Orientations, Rory Riley

Richmond Public Interest Law Review

Part I of this article provides a history of the federal appellate system, noting the detrimental impact circuit splits can have on the resolution of a particular legal issue. Part II sets out the history and the current state of asylum and sexual identity claims in the United States. Part III provides an analysis of when the Supreme Court has historically intervened in previous social controversies, such as segregation, interracial marriage, and gay rights in the context of substantive due process. Part IV discusses the importance of timely Supreme Court intervention in asylum sexual identity matters, particularly as issues surrounding …

Remarks By Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal, Neal K. Katyal

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Few have served the public with greater distinction than Justice John Paul Stevens. That service began with Justice Stevens's work as a naval intelligence officer during World War II, continued through his five years of service as a judge on the Seventh Circuit, and culminated with thirty-four and a half years on the United States Supreme Court. It also included a twenty-six-day stint in September 2005, during which Justice Stevens served as the Acting Chief Justice of the United States.

Advising Terrorism: Material Support, Safe Harbors, And Freedom Of Speech, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Promulgating Proportionality, William W. Berry Iii

Georgia Law Review

Two lines of cases have dominated the Supreme Court's
Eighth Amendment death penalty jurisprudence: the
Furman-Gregg line of cases emphasizes the need to adopt
rules to eliminate the arbitrariness inherent in unguided
capital sentencing by juries, while the Woodson-Lockett
line of cases emphasizes the opposite concern-the need for
juries to make individualized sentencing determinations-
highlighting the inadequacy of rules.
At first glance, these competing aims create some
internal tension, if not outright conflict. In his
concurrence in Walton v. Arizona, Justice Scalia argued
that this conflict was - irreconcilable: "[t]he latter
requirement [of individualized factual determinations]
quite obviously destroys whatever …

When Delegation Begets Domination: Due Process Of Administrative Lawmaking, Evan J. Criddle

Georgia Law Review

In federal administrative law, the nondelegation
doctrine purports to forbid Congress from entrusting its
essential legislative powers to administrative agencies.
The Supreme Court developed this doctrine during the
nineteenth century to safeguard republican values
embedded in the Constitution. Over time, however, the
Court has loosened the doctrine's grip, permitting federal
agencies to wield broad lawmaking powers subject to
minimalist "intelligible principles" established by
Congress. The Court has defended this approach on
pragmatic grounds, arguing that Congress cannot perform
its essential legislative function without entrusting
lawmaking authority to administrative agencies. What
the Court has never adequately addressed, however, is the
extent …

In Defense Of The Substance-Procedure Dichotomy, Jennifer S. Hendricks

Publications

John Hart Ely famously observed, "We were all brought up on sophisticated talk about the fluidity of the line between substance and procedure," but for most of Erie's history, the Supreme Court has answered the question "Does this state law govern in federal court? " with a "yes" or a "no." Beginning, however, with Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, and continuing with Semtek v. Lockheed Martin and the dissenting opinion in Shady Grove v. Allstate, a shifting coalition of justices has pursued a third path. Instead of declaring state law applicable or inapplicable, they have claimed for …

An Unintended Casualty Of The War On Terror, Aya Gruber

Publications

As the dust of the Bush administration's war on terror settles, casualties are starting to appear on the legal battlefield. The United States' human rights reputation and the Supreme Court's international influence lay wounded in the wake of U.S. policies that flouted international law by advocating torture, suborning indefinite detention, and erecting irregular tribunals. Through declining citation, the courts of the world are telling the Supreme Court that if it does not respect international and foreign law, international and foreign courts will not respect it. Some might object that the Supreme Court should not be lumped with the Bush administration …

The Overhyped Path From Tinker To Morse: How The Student Speech Cases Show The Limits Of Supreme Court Decisions--For The Law And For The Litigants, Scott A. Moss

Publications

Each of the Supreme Court's high school student speech cases reflected the social angst of its era. In 1965's Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, three Iowa teens broke school rules to wear armbands protesting the Vietnam War. In 1983, amidst parental and political upset about youth exposure to sexuality in the media, Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser and Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier allowed the censorship of an innuendo-filled student government speech and a school newspaper article on teen pregnancy and parental divorce. In 2007, Morse v. Frederick paralleled the rise of reality television …

The Need To Overrule Mapp V. Ohio, William T. Pizzi

Publications

This Article argues that it is time to overrule Mapp v. Ohio. It contends that the exclusionary rule is outdated because a tough deterrent sanction is difficult to reconcile with a criminal justice system where victims are increasingly seen to have a stake in criminal cases. The rule is also increasingly outdated in its epistemological assumption which insists officers act on "reasons" that they can articulate and which disparages actions based on "hunches" or "feelings." This assumption runs counter to a large body of neuroscience research suggesting that humans often "feel" or "sense" danger, sometimes even at a subconscious …

From Closet To Court Room: Asylum As A Judicial Step Towards Full Equality Between Sexual Orientations, Rory Riley

Richmond Journal of Law and the Public Interest

Part I of this article provides a history of the federal appellate system, noting the detrimental impact circuit splits can have on the resolution of a particular legal issue. Part II sets out the history and the current state of asylum and sexual identity claims in the United States. Part III provides an analysis of when the Supreme Court has historically intervened in previous social controversies, such as segregation, interracial marriage, and gay rights in the context of substantive due process. Part IV discusses the importance of timely Supreme Court intervention in asylum sexual identity matters, particularly as issues surrounding …

Stipulating The Law, Gary Lawson

Michigan Law Review

In Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, the Supreme Court decided important questions of structural constitutionalism on the assumption, shared by all of the parties, that members of the Securities and Exchange Commission are not removable at will by the president. Four Justices strongly challenged the majority's willingness to accept what amounts to a stipulation by the parties to a controlling issue of law. As a general matter the American legal system does not allow parties to stipulate to legal conclusions, though it welcomes and encourages stipulations to matters of fact. I argue that one ought to …

Cracks In The Wall, A Bulge Under The Carpet: The Singular Story Of Religion, Evolution, And The U.S. Constitution, Susan Haack

Articles

No abstract provided.