Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

Why Pharmaceutical Firms Support Patent Trolls: The Disparate Impact Of Ebay V. Mercexchange On Innovation, Jeremiah S. Helm

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

Before the unanimous decision in eBay v. MercExchange, patent holders were almost always granted an injunction against an infringer. In fact, the Federal Circuit, in deciding eBay, noted that, upon a finding of infringement, an injunction would issue unless there were extraordinary circumstances. The Court, in a brief opinion, disagreed with the Federal Circuit and explained that the injunction issue in a patent case must be analyzed under the traditional four-factor test.[...] Is the four-factor test fairer or better than the Federal Circuit's near-automatic injunction rule? It is certainly more difficult to administer a factor test as compared to a …

21st Century Copyright Law In The Digital Domain Symposium Transcript, Symposium Panelists

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

21st Century Copyright Law in the Digital Domain Symposium held at Universtiy of Michigan Law School Friday, March 24, 2006

The Supreme Court Report 2005-06, Julie M. Cheslik, Jamie Landes, Leah Pollema, Michael Shelton

Faculty Works

This article reviews the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court for the 2005-2006 term focusing on decisions of particular relevance to state and local government. The Court's 2005-06 Term began with much speculation as one, then a second new Justice joined the Court. After the close of the 2004-05 Term, the Court suffered the loss of Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who succumbed to the thyroid cancer that had plagued him during that Term. President Bush ultimately replaced him with Judge John G. Roberts, who began the new Term and authored his fi rst opinion, the traditional 9-0 opinion of a …

Commandeering And Its Alternatives: A Federalism Perspective, Neil S. Siegel

Faculty Scholarship

This inquiry argues that current Tenth Amendment jurisprudence causes net harm to federalism values under certain circumstances. Specifically, New York v. United States and Printz v. United States protect state autonomy to some extent by requiring the federal government to internalize more of the costs of federal regulation before engaging in regulation, and by addressing any accountability problems that commandeering can cause. But anticommandeering doctrine harms state autonomy in situations where the presence of the rule triggers more preemption going forward. Preemption generally causes a greater compromise of federalism values than does commandeering by eroding state regulatory control.

While it …

Reckoning With Rapanos: Revisiting "Waters Of The United States" And The Limits Of Federal Wetland Regulation, Jonathan H. Adler

Faculty Publications

Rapanos v. United States is the latest episode in the serial effort to identify the precise meaning of "waters of the United States." Federal courts have struggled to define the scope of federal regulatory jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act ("CWA") since the law was adopted.

Although no single opinion in Rapanos commanded a majority of the Court, the Court delivered a discernible holding. Specifically, the Court held that CWA jurisdiction over private lands is limited...and reaffirmed that federal regulatory authority only extends to those wetlands that have a "significant nexus" to navigable waters of the United States. Nonetheless, the …

How Antidiscrimination Law Learned To Live With Racial Inequality, Matthew Lindsay

All Faculty Scholarship

This Article explores a great paradox at the heart of the prevailing paradigm of American antidiscrimination law: the colorblindness ideal. In theory, and often in practice, that ideal is animated by a genuine commitment to liberal, individualist, race-neutral egalitarianism. For many of its partisans, colorblindness entails not only a negative injunction against race-conscious decisionmaking, but also, crucially, an affirmative program for the achievement of true racial equality. For these proponents, scrupulously race-neutral decisionmaking both advances the interests of racial minorities and embodies the best aspirations of the civil rights movement. In this worldview, colorblindness offers the only true antidote for …

Grutter V. Bollinger, Clarence Thomas, Affirmative Action And The Treachery Of Originalism: "The Sun Don't Shine Here In This Part Of Town", André Douglas Pond Cummings

Law Faculty Scholarship

Careful examination of Justice Clarence Thomas's dissenting opinion in the landmark affirmative action case Grutter v. Bollinger is important for a number of reasons: First, as one of the youngest members of the U.S. Supreme Court, Thomas stands a reasonable chance of still being a member of the court in 25 years, the self imposed implosion date (sunset provision) established by Justice O'Connor's majority opinion. No doubt, Thomas relishes the idea of writing the majority opinion that kills affirmative action and racial preferences for good.

Second, much as Justice Harlan's dissenting opinion in Plessy v. Ferguson was used as a …

Section 8: Election Law, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

2006-2007 Supreme Court Preview: Schedule, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Section 3: The Roberts Court, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Section 2: The War On Terror, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

2006-2007 Supreme Court Preview: Contents, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Section 7: Civil Rights, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Section 9: Miscellaneous, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Section 6: Business Law, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Section 1: Moot Court, Partial Birth Abortion, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Section 5: Criminal Procedure, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Brief Amicus Curiae Of Professors Keith N. Hylton, Kenneth G. Dau-Schmidt, Mark F. Grady, Jeffrey L. Harrison, Mark G. Kelman, And Thomas Ulen In Support Of Respondents In Philip Morris Usa V. Mayola Williams, Keith N. Hylton, Kenneth G. Dau-Schmidt, Mark F. Grady, Jeffrey L. Harrison, Mark G. Kelman, Thomas Ulen

Faculty Scholarship

There is no dispute that the punitive damages award that was upheld by the Oregon Supreme Court in this case satisfies the most rigorous law and economic standards for rationality. The Court need not credit the analysis of the undersigned amici on this score; the fact that Petitioner’s own amici – most notably law and economics scholars A. Mitchell Polinsky and Steven Shavell – have been unable to find anything economically amiss in the decision below speaks volumes. To be sure, Professors Polinsky and Shavell have filed an amicus brief in support of Philip Morris in this case, just as …

Section 4: Advocacy, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Brief Amici Curiae Of Christian Legal Society, National Association Of Evangelicals, Pro-Life Legal Defense Fund, Alliance Defense Fund And Concerned Women For America In Support Of Petitioner, Gregory S. Baylor, Steven H. Aden, Richard W. Garnett, Michael Stokes Paulsen

Court Briefs

No. 05-1382
Alberto R. Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc.

On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

From the Summary of Argument

For as long as the American public has known about partial-birth abortion, we have—by comfortable and consistent margins—agreed with former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan that this gruesome practice is “infanticide, and one would be too many.” Meet the Press (NBC television broadcast, Mar. 2, 1997). Whether we oppose elective abortions as a matter of moral principle or regard a woman’s legal access to abortion as a component of …

Drugged, Carl E. Schneider

Articles

The Supreme Court's recent decision in Gonzales v. Oregon, like its decision last year in Gonzales v. Raich (the "medical marijuana" case), again raises questions about the bioethical consequences of the Controlled Substances Act. When, in 1970, Congress passed that act, it placed problematic drugs in one of five "schedules," and it authorized the U.S. attorney general to add or subtract drugs from the schedules. Drugs in schedule II have both a medical use and a high potential for abuse. Doctors may prescribe such drugs if they "obtain from the Attorney General a registration issued in accordance with the …

The Military Commissions Act, Coerced Confessions, And The Role Of The Courts, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Due Process And Punitive Damages: The Error Of Federal Excessiveness Jurisprudence, A. Benjamin Spencer

Faculty Publications

The Supreme Court, in a line of several cases over the past decade, has established a rigorous federal constitutional excessiveness review for punitive damages awards based on the Due Process Clause. As a matter of substantive due process, says the Court, punitive awards must be evaluated by three "guideposts" set forth in BMW of North America v. Gore: the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct, the ratio between punitive and compensatory damages, and a comparison of the amount of punitive damages to any "civil or criminal penalties that could be imposed for comparable misconduct." Following up on this pronouncement …

The Democratic Prosecutor: Explaining The Constitutional Function Of The Federal Grand Jury, Niki Kuckes

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

"Nine, Of Course": A Dialogue On Congressional Power To Set By Statute The Number Of Justices On The Supreme Court, Peter Nicolas

Articles

Conventional wisdom seems to hold that Congress has the power to set, by statute, the number of justices on the United States Supreme Court. But what if conventional wisdom is wrong? In this Dialogue, I challenge the conventional wisdom, hypothesizing that the United States Constitution does not give Congress the power to enact such a statute. Under this hypothesis, the number of justices on the Supreme Court at any given time is to be determined solely by the President and the individual members of the United States Senate in exercising their respective powers of nominating justices and consenting to their …

Daimlerchrysler V. Cuno: An Escape From The Dormant Commerce Clause Quagmire?, S. Mohsin Reza

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Sausage-Making, Pigs' Ears, And Congressional Expansions Of Federal Jurisdiction: Exxon Mobil V. Allapattah And Its Lessons For The Class Action Fairness Act, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

The year 2005 witnessed two watershed developments in federal jurisdiction: the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc. and the enactment of the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Allapattah and CAFA raise the same fundamental question: how should courts interpret a statute whose text would expand federal jurisdiction far beyond what Congress apparently intended? In Allapattah, the Court confronted this question in resolving an aspect of the supplemental jurisdiction statute that had deeply divided both the judiciary and academia. CAFA's expansion of federal jurisdiction over class actions will require courts to struggle with this question …

Contents: Allen Chair Symposium-State Of The Chesapeake Bay In The Twenty-First Century

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Law Review Index, Volume Xl, 2005-2006

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Representative Government, Representative Court? The Supreme Court As A Representative Body, Angela Onwuachi-Willig

Faculty Scholarship

In this Symposium Essay, I propose, as a thinking matter, that we expand the number of Supreme Court justices to increase the representation of various demographic groups on the Court. In Part I, I advance the argument that the Court should be regarded as a demographically representative body of the citizens of the United States, and in Part II, I argue that the Court should be enlarged to ensure diverse representation of all voices on the most powerful judicial body of our nation.