Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

Rulemaking Petitions In A World Without Deference To Agencies: A New Lease On Life?, Daniel E. Walters

Faculty Scholarship

Often overlooked in the study and practice of administrative law, rulemaking petitions are means by which interested persons can prompt federal agencies to implement the statutes they administer in particular ways. After the Supreme Court’s 2024 decisions in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 144 S. Ct. 2244 (2024), and Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency, 144 S. Ct. 2040 (2024), rulemaking petitions are about to experience a renaissance—one that could reshape environmental law, should environmental advocates choose to leverage the procedure.

The Great Unsettling: Administrative Governance After Loper Bright, Cary Coglianese, Daniel E. Walters

Faculty Scholarship

“Chevron is overruled.” These three words surely captured more attention than any others in the U.S. Supreme Court’s thirty-five-page opinion in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. For forty years, the Chevron doctrine had been virtually synonymous with administrative law. Now that the Court has taken a step that many scholars thought unfathomable even just a few years ago, speculation abounds about the possible downstream impacts of Loper Bright on both what agencies will be able to do in the future and how lower courts will respond when reviewing agency action. The vast majority of early expert commentaries suggest …

Moral Politics Theory Applied To Abortion: Utopias, Dystopias, And Dobbs, Susan Ayres

Faculty Scholarship

This article examines Moral Politics Theory (MPT) as a way to understand current tensions in the US concerning reproductive justice. MPT, as developed and researched for over thirty years by cognitive scientist, George Lakoff, provides a way to explain differences in political worldviews. According to Lakoff’s research in Moral Politics and Don’t Think of an Elephant!, conservatives tend to hold a strict-father model, and progressives hold a nurturant-parent model. People in the political middle tend to endorse both models; Lakoff labels those in the middle as “biconceptuals,” and discusses how this group is most susceptible to persuasion because metaphors frame …

Consensus And Conflict Over Context: Select Criminal Law And Procedure Cases From The Supreme Court's 2024-25 Term, Eve Brensike Primus, Elena Schultz

Articles

In its 2024-2025 Term, the Supreme Court emphasized the utility—and necessity—of context-based, fact-sensitive analyses throughout its criminal law and procedure cases. Though the Justices sparred over how to derive meaning from factual, structural, legal, and historical contexts, they tended to agree that courts should not be artificially restricted from considering the breadth of the record before them.

The New Substantive Due Process, Leah M. Litman

Articles

After the Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade, commentators made much about the possible demise of substantive due process—the idea that the Constitution safeguards certain substantive liberties that are not specifically or explicitly spelled out in the Constitution. Judges and scholars are debating which substantive due process decisions are next on the chopping block and whether the entire domain of substantive due process is in jeopardy. But a curious thing happened as the Court scaled back and openly questioned the traditional individual-rights line of substantive due process: Rather than eliminating it entirely, the Court seems to have transposed it elsewhere. …

Recusal Reform: Treating A Justice's Disqualification As A Legal Issue, Michael J. Broyde, Hayden H. Hall

Faculty Articles

This article addresses the pressing issue of recusal in the U.S. Supreme Court. It critiques the current practice of Supreme Court Justices deciding individually whether to recuse themselves from cases, highlighting the flaws and potential biases inherent in this practice. The authors advocate for a reform where initial recusal decisions are made by individual Justices but then are subject to review by the Supreme Court as a whole.

The article offers several arguments to support this proposal. First, the authors explore the evolution of recusal laws, focusing on the significant amendments to 28 U.S.C. § 455 in 1948 and 1974. …

Chevron Stare Decisis In A Post-Loper Bright World, Jonathan R. Nash

Faculty Articles

In its June 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Supreme Court jettisoned the longstanding Chevron doctrine, which had directed courts to defer to agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes. The Loper Bright Court attempted to minimize the substantial effect this change would have on administrative law and governance by declaring that “[t]he holdings” of cases that relied on the Chevron test to conclude “that specific agency actions are lawful...are still subject to statutory stare decisis despite our change in interpretive methodology.” But there are two problems with Chevron stare decisis. First, Chevron stare decisis is …

Healing Communities With Police Divestment: Seeking Abolition Through Transformative Reform And Community-Government Collaboration, Jessica E. Gillson

Undergraduate Honors Theses

Concerns about the efficacy and sustainability of the U.S. carceral system have persisted throughout the country’s history, recently fueling renewed activism and bipartisan calls for reform. However, proposed solutions remain divisive. This thesis first defines the current status of our prison systems, then explores collaborative alternatives to incarceration and policing that support communities and break cycles of incarceration.

Focusing on partnerships among local governments, community organizations, justice-involved individuals, and law enforcement, this study examines holistic approaches to crime prevention, reentry, and reintegration. Using an interdisciplinary framework incorporating restorative justice, community resilience, and systems theory, it investigates how community-based strategies can …

Qualified Immunity & Subjective Knowledge, John F. Preis

Law Faculty Publications

There is something weird going on within the doctrine of qualified immunity. The Supreme Court and lower courts routinely claim that officers who “knowingly violate the law” are not entitled to qualified immunity, but then—in almost the same breath—assert that an officer’s knowledge of the law is irrelevant to the qualified immunity analysis. What is even more strange is that these two opposing views can apparently be traced to the foundational case in the field: Harlow v. Fitzgerald.

This Article explores and proposes a resolution to this apparent contradiction. Beginning with Harlow itself, the Article explores the case using the …

The Solicitor General, Consistency, And Credibility, Margaret H. Lemos, Deborah A. Widiss

Faculty Scholarship

This Article offers the first comprehensive look at cases in which the Solicitor General (SG) rejects a legal argument offered on behalf of the United States in prior litigation. Such reversals have received considerable attention in recent years, as shifts in presidential administrations have produced multiple high-profile “flip-flops”—as the Justices sometimes call them—by the SG. Even those observers who defend the SG, including veterans of the office, caution that inconsistency in legal argument poses a threat to the SG’s credibility with the Court. Our goal is to better understand the circumstances that lead the SG to change its position on …

Judicial Reform From The Inside Out, Daniel Epps, Marin K. Levy

Faculty Scholarship

The Judiciary Act of 1925, the subject of this Symposium, is known as “the Judges Bill” for a reason. The Justices of the Supreme Court, and Chief Justice Taft in particular, produced the Act and persuaded Congress to enact it. To modern eyes, such efforts seem indecorous, perhaps even scandalous. But in fact, Supreme Court Justices and other federal judges have been extensively involved in judicial reform throughout American history. This Essay examines participation by federal judges in judicial reform efforts—what we call judicial reform from the inside out.

We survey examples of judges participating in reform debates from across …

The Invention Of The Judicial Administrative State, Marin K. Levy

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Beyond Jarkesy: Rethinking The Role Of Administrative Law Judges In Sec Administrative Proceedings, Mark T. Uyeda, Jaime Marinaro

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

No abstract provided.

In Re Firstenergy Corp. Securities Litigation: Where Macquarie Meets Affiliated Ute, Elizabeth Cosenza, Amanda M. Payne

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

The central question this Article seeks to address is whether there is any world in which the Affiliated Ute presumption can still apply to cases under Rule 10b-5(b) after the Supreme Court’s decision in Macquarie? Put differently, if only half-truths and affirmative misrepresentations remain actionable under Rule 10b-5(b), is the Basic presumption the only pathway left for securities plaintiffs? The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit will likely be the first court to address this issue in In re FirstEnergy Corp. Securities Litigation. The case will test the availability of the Affiliated Ute presumption post-Macquarie in cases based …

Cryptocurrencies, Nfts, And The Expanding Definition Of "Investment Contract": Has The Sec Already Torpedoed The Howey Test?, David B. Guenther

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

The U.S. Supreme Court in SEC v. W.J. Howey Co. in 1946 famously defined the term “investment contract”—the catch-all term in the definition of “security” in the Securities Act of 1933—to mean (1) an investment of money, (2) in a common enterprise, (3) with an expectation of profits solely from the efforts of others. While the Howey test has endured as the standard definition of an investment contract, the Howey Court did not define the term “common enterprise,” and for more than fifty years, Howey’s common enterprise prong has eroded. Since 2017, the Securities and Exchange Commission has further eroded …

The Intended And Resulting Interpretations Of Article 9 Considering The Rise Of Textualism, Cat Gassiot

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

This Article is the first to examine the interpretive choices of judges for Article 9 of the UCC. Textualism has become one of the predominant methods of interpretation for courts across the state and federal systems in the United States. While there is a great deal of academic work on what this means for traditional statutes, there is limited discussion of the interpretive effects of textualism on the UCC, much less Article 9, which governs secured transactions. The continuity and uniformity of secured transactions jurisprudence is fundamental as it underlies bankruptcy proceedings, debt and credit financing, and commercial transactions more …

Supreme Court Preview 2025 (Flyer), Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Scienter Potentia Est: The Case For The Presumption Of Use Standard In Insider Trading, Audrey Nelson

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

Is it possible to accidentally insider trade? The Supreme Court has held that scienter is a necessary element of all § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 actions, but the federal appeals courts are split on how the scienter requirement applies to insider trading cases. In a non-insider- trading § 10(b) case, the Supreme Court stated that § 10(b) scienter requires intentional misconduct. Although the Supreme Court has not heard a case specifically about the scienter element in the context of insider trading, those who support a use requirement claim that the § 10(b) scienter element requires the plaintiff to show that …

War Courts: Fdr, National Security, And The War On Terrorism, Harvey Gee

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

No abstract provided.

Lewd, Rude, Obscene, And… Violent? Analyzing Student Clothing Depicting Firearms Under The First Amendment’S Obscenity Test, Luke Gorman

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

Today’s national news and social media have repeatedly exposed our school-age children to the effects of shootings occurring within their schools and communities. Each shooting brings with it commentary, sometimes from the students themselves. While in-school student speech is more limited than speech levied in the outside world, students do not shed their speech rights at the “schoolhouse gate.” As a result, courts have failed to outline a consistent approach for when a student will be punished for wearing a shirt depicting a firearm to school. This Comment addresses this delicate balance by proposing a consistent three-part test framed by …

Dobbs V. Brown, Benjamin H. Barton

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization1is the most important and impactful Supreme Court decision since at least Roe v. Wade, and potentially since Brown v. Board of Education. Past survey data show that most Americans can only name two Supreme Court opinions: Roe and Brown. Dobbs will surely join that list. This Article compares the history, drafting, and opinions of Dobbs and Brown to show what a missed opportunity Dobbs represents. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the opinion, it should be clear that Dobbs was one of those unique times (like that of Brown) where the Court …

Structural Originalism: A Second Amendment Case Study, Ian C. Bartrum

Scholarly Works

“Originalism” is having a national moment, even if it is not entirely clear what the word means. What should we be originalist about? The leading academic approach asks us to parse the communicative content of text ratified in a very different linguistic culture; then construct a modern legal meaning consistent with our semantic speculations. Too often the result enforces policy judgments made in a radically different moral and technological world. This makes very little sense.

In this paper I recommend a more perspicuous and coherent use of constitutional history, which I call “structural originalism.” Rather than saddle ourselves with the …

Pozen And The Puzzle Of Counterfactuals, Louis Michael Seidman

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Constitution and the War on Drugs, David Pozen’s carefully researched and brilliantly argued book, is both illuminating and disturbing: illuminating because it unearths forgotten moments when judicially formulated constitutional doctrine that could have ended or sharply restricted the War on Drugs were well within the Overton Window, and disturbing because it surfaces hard questions about historical contingency and the scope of the change that might have occurred in a counterfactual world. In this review, the author argues that the failure to specify both the nature of the counterfactual and the breadth of the alternative possibility have confused discussions …

Office Intent And Excessive Force, John F. Preis

Law Faculty Publications

In the mayhem that often accompanies a police officer’s use of force, all manner of mistakes and miscalculations can occur. Suspects are accidentally shot, innocent bystanders are bitten by police dogs, and hostages are killed instead of their kidnappers. To what degree may persons harmed by police mistakes obtain relief through excessive force claims?

At present, the answer to this question is surprisingly uncertain. It is clear that an excessive force claim requires that an officer intend to seize the suspect, but it is far less clear whether the officer must also intend the nature and extent of force used …

Minimal Justiciability, Riley T. Keenan

Law Faculty Publications

Federal courts adjudicate only justiciable disputes. But justiciable as to whom? The Supreme Court has hinted at an answer, holding that at least one plaintiff must show standing for each remedy sought in a federal case. But it has never explained this “one-plaintiff rule,” and recently some scholars have criticized it, arguing that Article III instead requires each plaintiff to show standing in every federal case.

This Article offers the missing explanation. Justiciability limits judicial power, it contends, and judicial relief is the constitutionally relevant expression of that power. Thus, Article III requires only one plaintiff with standing and a …

The Erosion Of Trust: Arizona V. Navajo, Climate Change, And The Potential Abrogation Of Tribal Water Rights, Dr. Taino J. Palermo

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

I Am A Person Too: The State's Failure To Secure Transgender Rights And Personhood, Trevor L.M. Reynolds

Law Student Publications

The winds of change appeared to blow on June 15, 2020, when the Supreme Court decided Bostock v. Clayton County. The Bostock decision - in which the Court held that discrimination based upon an employee's gender identity violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act - has been heralded as a revolutionary triumph for the LGBTQ+ community. And yet, while the Bostock decision dictated that employers cannot terminate people based on their gender identity, it failed in the most important regard: establishing gender identity as a protected constitutional class. The Court, however, is not unique in its failure to …

From Race-Conscious To Race-Neutral: The Next Generation Of Litigation Over Selective Admissions, Rachel F. Moran

Faculty Scholarship

In the wake of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, there have been fierce debates over the meaning of colorblindness in the higher education admissions process. Setting the stage for these controversies are recent lawsuits challenging changes to admissions policies at selective public high schools. In these cases, the plaintiffs allege that although school officials relied on facially race-neutral criteria, their actions were motivated by a desire to improve the representation of Black and Latino students. According to the complaints, these revised policies are an impermissible form …

Takings Doctrinalization, Gerald S. Dickinson

Washington and Lee Law Review

The U.S. Supreme Court’s takings jurisprudence is shaped by an unusually strong reliance on doctrinalist methods of interpretation and reasoning. From Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon to Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York to Kelo v. City of New London, the Court heavily consults its past takings decisions or refers to the tests, principles, or standards from those decisions as epistemic guides to draw meaning from the Takings Clause. This long history of takings doctrinalization, however, was abruptly disturbed in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard. There, Justices Scalia and …

Is Federal Question Jurisdiction Arising Or Setting, Lumen N. Mulligan

Faculty Works

In this essay, I respond to Professor Arthur D. Hellman. Hellman argues that "there is reason to be concerned that the [federal] judicial system falls short of the Framers' expectations--primarily by denying many litigants in cases presenting federal questions 'their real day in an Article III court,' but also by fostering 'balkanization' rather than uniformity in the interpretation of federal law." It is a privilege to comment upon Hellman's thoughtful piece. In doing so, I begin by questioning the value of originalist interpretations of Article III jurisdiction both descriptively and normatively. I then turn to an intra-originalist critique that paints …