Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

Dole’S Future: A Strategic Analysis, Neil S. Siegel

Faculty Scholarship

As the U.S. Supreme Court imposes federalism-based limits on congressional power under the Commerce Clause and Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress may be tempted to turn to the conditional spending power in order to achieve goals that it may not accomplish directly. In this article, I address whether a danger exists, as some suggest, that such use of the Spending Clause would render the Court more likely to cut back on its scope, narrowing or overruling South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987). Using doctrinal analysis and game theory, I conclude that Congress should proceed with …

Is A Forensic Laboratory Report Identifying A Substance As A Narcotic 'Testimonial'?, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

Is a state forensic analyst's laboratory report, prepared for use in a criminal proceeding and identifying a substance as cocaine, "testimonial" evidence and so subject to the demands of the Confrontation Clause as set forth in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004)?

Does An Accused Forfeit The Confrontation Right By Murdering A Witness, Absent A Purpose To Render Her Unavailable?, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

If an accused murdered a witness, should he be deemed to have forfeited the right under the Sixth Amendment "to be confronted with" the witness, absent proof that the accused committed the murder for the purpose of rendering her unavailable as a witness?

Stoneridge Investment Partners V. Scientific-Atlanta: The Political Economy Of Securities Class Action Reform, Adam C. Pritchard

Articles

I begin in Part II by explaining the wrong turn that the Court took in Basic. The Basic Court misunderstood the function of the reliance element and its relation to the question of damages. As a result, the securities class action regime established in Basic threatens draconian sanctions with limited deterrent benefit. Part III then summarizes the cases leading up to Stoneridge and analyzes the Court's reasoning in that case. In Stoneridge, like the decisions interpreting the reliance requirement of Rule 10b-5 that came before it, the Court emphasized policy implications. Sometimes policy implications are invoked to broaden the reach …

The Sit-Ins And The Failed State Action Revolution, Christopher W. Schmidt

Studio for Law and Culture

This article revises the traditional account of why the Supreme Court, when faced in the early 1960s with a series of cases arising out of the lunch counter sit-in movement, refused to hold racial discrimination in public accommodations unconstitutional. These cases are the great aberration of the Warren Court. At a time when the justices confidently reworked one constitutional doctrine after another, often in response to the moral challenges of the civil rights movement and often in the face of considerable public resistance, they broke pattern in the sit-in cases. And they did so despite a transformation in popular opinion …

Super Medians, Lee Epstein, Tonja Jacobi

Faculty Articles

It is not surprising that virtually all analyses of the Supreme Court stress the crucial role played by the swing, pivotal, or median Justice: in theory, the median should be quite powerful. In practice, however, some are far stronger than others. Just as there are “super precedents” and “super statutes”—those that are weightier or more entrenched than others—there are “super medians”—Justices so powerful that they are able to exercise significant control over the outcome and content of the Court’s decisions.

Conventional wisdom holds that Justices accumulate power by virtue of their personality, methodological approach, or even background characteristics. But our …

Really Leaving No Child Behind: How The Supreme Court's Student Speech Doctrine Compromises Modern Education Reform - And How It Can Use The In Loco Parentis Doctrine To Change It, Scott J. Street

Richmond Public Interest Law Review

tudent speech" doctrine defined by Tinker in favor of an in loco parentis standard that defers to the expertise of school officials in maintaining a safe, effective, and orderly school environment. Contrary to what its critics assume, an in loco parentis standard would not give school officials carte blanche to violate their students' rights. It would, for example, prohibit school officials from discriminating against students on the basis of viewpoint. But as long as Tinker's student speech doctrine survives, efforts to improve our schools and prepare our children for the rigors of the twenty-first century will suffer. The in loco …

Reconsidering Gobitis: An Exercise In Presidential Leadership, Robert Tsai

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

In June of 1940, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in Minersville School District v. Gobitis that the First Amendment posed no barrier to the punishment of two school age Jehovah's Witnesses who refused to pay homage to the American flag. Three years later, the Justices reversed themselves in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. This sudden change has prompted a host of explanations. Some observers have stressed changes in judicial personnel in the intervening years; others have pointed to the wax and wane of general anxieties over the war; still others have emphasized the sympathy-inspiring acts of …

Decline And Fall? The Roberts Court And The Challenges To Campaign Finance Law, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court has had a major impact on the development of campaign finance law. Court decisions have barred most expenditure limits, upheld contribution restrictions and disclosure requirements, and limited the kinds of electoral ads that can be subject to regulation. In the McConnell decision in 2003 the Court demonstrated a greater openness to campaign finance regulation when it upheld McCain-Feingold's soft money and issue advocacy restrictions. Since McConnell, however, the composition of the Court has changed, and in two decisions in the past two years, the new majority has been much more hostile to campaign finance limits. In …

Accounting For Federalism In State Courts: Exclusion Of Evidence Obtained Lawfully By Federal Agents, Robert M. Bloom, Hilary Massey

University of Colorado Law Review

After the terrorist attacks on September 11th, Congress greatly enhanced federal law enforcement powers through enactment of the U.S.A. Patriot Act. The Supreme Court has provided more leeway to federal officers in the past few decades by limiting the scope of the exclusionary rule, for example. At the same time, many states have interpreted their constitutions to provide greater individual protections to their citizens than provided by the federal constitution. This phenomenon has sometimes created a wide disparity between the investigatory techniques available to federal versus state law enforcement officers. As a result, state courts sometimes must decide whether to …

Business As Usual: The Roberts Court's Continued Neglect Of Adequacy And Equity Concerns In American Education, Osamudia R. James

Articles

No abstract provided.

Heller And Insurrectionism, Carl Bogus

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The "Scope Of A Student": How To Analyze Student Speech In The Age Of The Internet, Erin Reeves

Georgia Law Review

In three seminal cases dating from 1969-1988, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that students have a more limited right to free speech while within the confines of a public school building. In recent years, however, more and more cases have arisenin which it is not so clear whether a student speaker is "on-campus,"due in large part to the rapid increase in speech communicated over the Internet. This Note explores the possibility of how far the "confines of a public school building" should be extended in this age of the Internet. After analyzing the current confusion regarding what amount of restriction …

Independent Of The Constitution?--Issues Raised By An Independent Federal Legislative Ethics Commission With Independent Enforcement Authority, Paul Taylor

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Acknowledgements

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court Report 2007-2008, Julie M. Cheslik, Aimee L. Morrison, Tyler J. Scott

Faculty Works

This article reviews the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court for the 2007-2008 Term that are of particular relevance to state and local governments including those involving voting and elections, speech, class-of-one equal protection claims, immunity, taxation, preemption, and the Fourth and Sixth Amendments.

Against the backdrop of the 2008 presidential election between Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain, and an economy plagued by recession and federal bailouts of the finance and mortgage industries, the Court continued in a largely conservative vein, reflecting the policies and predilections of the majority of justices. The Court reasserted its distaste for unfettered …

Really Leaving No Child Behind: How The Supreme Court's Student Speech Doctrine Compromises Modern Education Reform - And How It Can Use The In Loco Parentis Doctrine To Change It, Scott J. Street

Richmond Journal of Law and the Public Interest

tudent speech" doctrine defined by Tinker in favor of an in loco parentis standard that defers to the expertise of school officials in maintaining a safe, effective, and orderly school environment. Contrary to what its critics assume, an in loco parentis standard would not give school officials carte blanche to violate their students' rights. It would, for example, prohibit school officials from discriminating against students on the basis of viewpoint. But as long as Tinker's student speech doctrine survives, efforts to improve our schools and prepare our children for the rigors of the twenty-first century will suffer. The in loco …

Washington V. Glucksberg Was Tragically Wrong, Erwin Chemerinsky

Michigan Law Review

Properly focused, there were two questions before the Supreme Court in Washington v. Glucksberg. First, in light of all of the other non-textual rights protected by the Supreme Court under the "liberty" of the Due Process Clause, is the right to assisted death a fundamental right? Second, if so, is the prohibition of assisted death necessary to achieve a compelling interest? Presented in this way, it is clear that the Court erred in Washington v. Glucksberg. The right of a terminally ill person to end his or her life is an essential aspect of autonomy, comparable to aspects …

The More Things Change: A Psychological Case Against Allowing The Federal Sentencing Guidelines To Stay The Same In Light Of Gall, Kimbrough, And New Understandings Of Reasonableness Review, Jelani Jefferson Exum

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

In December 2007, through two decisions, the Supreme Court sought to clean up the confusion that it created just shy of three years earlier when it rendered the Federal Sentencing Guidelines advisory in United States v. Booker and called for circuit courts to begin reviewing sentences for "unreasonableness." In one of those December decisions, Gall v. United States, the Court clarified what it meant by reasonableness review and explained that such review had both a procedural and substantive component. In the other decision, Kimbrough v. United States, the Court gave more meaning to the substantive component, …

Twombly: The Demise Of Notice Pleading, The Triumph Of Milton Handler, And The Uncertain Future Of Private Antitrust Enforcement, Edward D. Cavanagh

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly reversed the Second Circuit and held that a complaint that alleged mere parallel behavior among rival telecommunications companies, coupled with stray statements of agreement that amounted to legal conclusions, failed as a matter of law to state a claim for an antitrust conspiracy in violation of the Sherman Act. The Court ruled that in order to withstand a motion to dismiss, an antitrust conspiracy complaint must plead such factual material that, if taken as true, would suggest that the defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement. …

Constitutional Law And Values - Version '08 (Not Necessarily And Upgrade), Nadine Strossen

Articles & Chapters

No abstract provided.

Overcoming Lochner In The Twenty-First Century: Taking Both Rights And Popular Sovereignty Seriously As We Seek To Secure Equal Citizenship And Promote The Public Good, Thomas B. Mcaffee

University of Richmond Law Review

Professor McAffee reviews substantive due process as the textual basis for modern fundamental rights constitutional decision-making. He contends that we should avoid both the undue literalism that rejects the idea of implied rights, as well as the attempt to substitute someone's preferred moral vision for the limits, and compromises, that are implicit in and intended by the Constitution's text. He argues, moreover, that we can largely harmonizethe variousgoals of our constitutionalsystem by taking rights se- riously and by understanding that securing rights does not ex-haustthe Constitution'spurposes.

Parker V. District Of Columbia: Putting The "I'S" In Milita, Katharine E. Kohm

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court Reversals: Exploring The Seventh Court, Stephen Wermiel

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

No abstract provided.

The California Greenhouse Gas Waiver Decision And Agency Interpretation: A Response To Galle And Seidenfeld, Nina A. Mendelson

Articles

Professors Brian Galle and Mark Seidenfeld add some important strands to the debate on agency preemption, particularly in their detailed documentation of the potential advantages agencies may possess in deliberating on preemption compared with Congress and the courts. As they note, the quality of agency deliberation matters to two different debates. First, should an agency interpretation of statutory language to preempt state law receive Chevron deference in the courts, as other agency interpretations may, or should some lesser form of deference be given? Second, should a general statutory authorization to an agency to administer a program and to issue rules …

Mandatory Arbitration: Why It's Better Than It Looks, Theodore J. St. Antoine

Articles

"Mandatory arbitration" as used here means that employees must agree as a condition of employment to arbitrate all legal disputes with their employer, including statutory claims, rather than take them to court. The Supreme Court has upheld the validity of such agreements on the grounds that they merely provide for a change of forum and not a loss of substantive rights. Opponents contend this wrongfully deprives employees of the right to a jury trial and other statutory procedural benefits. Various empirical studies indicate, however, that employees similarly situated do about as well in arbitration as in court actions, or even …

When Should Original Meanings Matter?, Richard A. Primus

Articles

Constitutional theory lacks an account of when each of the familiar sources of authority-text, original meaning, precedent, and so on-should be given weight. The dominant tendency is to regard all sources as potentially applicable in every case. In contrast, this Article proposes that each source of authority is pertinent in some categories of cases but not in others, much as a physical tool is appropriate for some but not all kinds of household tasks. The Article then applies this approach to identify the categories of cases in which original meaning is, or is not, a valid factor in constitutional decisionmaking.

Public Rights, Social Equality, And The Conceptual Roots Of The Plessy Challenge, Rebecca J. Scott

Articles

This Article argues that the test case that gave rise to the 1896 decision in Plessy v. Ferguson is best understood as part of a wellestablished, cosmopolitan tradition of anticaste activism in Louisiana rather than as a quixotic effort that contradicted nineteenth-century ideas of the boundaries of citizens' rights. By drawing a dividing line between civil and political rights, on the one hand, and social rights, on the other, the Supreme Court construed challenges to segregation as claims to a "social equality" that was beyond the scope of judicially cognizable rights. The Louisiana constitutional convention of 1867-68, however, had defined …

Requiem For Section 1983, Paul D. Reingold

Articles

Section 1983 no longer serves as a remedial statute for the people most in need of its protection. Those who have suffered a violation of their civil rights at the hands of state authorities, but who cannot afford a lawyer because they have only modest damages or seek only equitable remedies, are foreclosed from relief because lawyers shun their cases. Today civil rights plaintiffs are treated the same as ordinary tort plaintiffs by the private bar: without high damages, civil rights plaintiffs are denied access to the courts because no one will represent them. Congress understood that civil rights laws …

Waiting For The Other Shoe: Hudson And The Precarious State Of Mapp, David A. Moran

Articles

I have no idea whether my death will be noted in the New York Times. But if it is, I fear the headline of my obituary will look something like: "Professor Dies; Lost Hudson v. Michigan' in Supreme Court, Leading to Abolition of Exclusionary Rule." The very existence of this Symposium panel shows, I think, that my fear is well-grounded. On the other hand, I am not quite as fearful that Hudson foreshadows the complete overruling of Mapp v. Ohio2 and Weeks v. United States3 as I was when I published an article just three months after the Hudson decision …