Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

The Supreme Court And Pledge Of Allegiance: Does God Still Have A Place In American Schools?, Charles J. Russo

Educational Leadership Faculty Publications

The dearth of statistical or anecdotal evidence aside, combined with the relative lack of reported litigation, it appears that most students and teachers regularly participate in perhaps the most common daily school ritual by joining in the patriotic recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance (Pledge) and the salute to the American Flag. Yet, as discussed throughout this article, this daily practice has had a history of controversy, whether in schools or political settings.

Turning specifically to schools, in Newdow v. United States Congress (Newdow), the Ninth Circuit set off a firestorm of controversy when, in a case from California, it …

Executive And Judicial Overreaction In The Guantanamo Cases, Neal K. Katyal

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The U.S. Supreme Court in Rasul v. Bush and Al-Odah v. United States held that detainees at Guantanamo Bay may challenge their detentions via writs of habeas corpus. Justice Stevens' majority opinion held that "the federal courts have jurisdiction to determine the legality of the Executive's potentially indefinite detention of individuals who claim to be wholly innocent of wrongdoing." This holding is potentially unbounded, perhaps enabling someone detained at Kandahar or even Diego Garcia to challenge his detention via the great writ. It appears to be a striking break from the 1950 Johnson v. Eisentrager decision, which strongly intimated that …

A Glimpse Behind And Beyond Grutter, Evan H. Caminker

Articles

Many people have suggested that the recent battle over affirmative action was a defining moment for the contemporary relevance of Brown v. Board of Education and that it would determine the promise and potential for widespread societal integration. In my remarks, I want to comment upon a couple of comparisons and links between the Brown, Bakke, Grutter, and Gratz cases.

The Useful, Dangerous Fiction Of Grand Jury Independence, Niki Kuckes

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court To Decide Jurisdiction Over Guantanamo Detainees, John Anderson

Public Interest Law Reporter

No abstract provided.

Two Wrongs Make A Right: Hybrid Claims Of Discrimination, Ming Hsu Chen

Publications

This Note reinterprets and recontextualizes the pronouncement in Employment Division v. Smith (Smith II) that exemptions from generally applicable laws will not be granted unless claims of free exercise are accompanied by the assertion of another constitutional right. It argues that when Arab American Muslims, and others who are of minority race and religion, bring claims for exemption from generally applicable laws on the basis of free exercise and equal protection principles, they ought to be able to invoke Smith II's hybridity exception, thus meriting heightened judicial scrutiny and increased solicitude from courts.

A Narrative Of Sovereignty: Illluminating The Paradox Of The Domestic Dependent Nation, Sarah Krakoff

Publications

For the last thirty years the Supreme Court has been adjusting the boundaries of American Indian tribal sovereignty. Some cases affirm tribal inherent powers, but recently the trend has been to limit those powers. Yet neither the Court nor the Congress, which can reverse Supreme Court decisions on questions of tribal sovereignty, has been informed about how these alterations to tribal powers actually affect American Indian tribes on the ground. This article provides that information by examining the interplay between Supreme Court decisions and the Navajo Nation's exercise of its sovereign governmental powers from 1970-2003. In the categories of general …

Marbury's Legacy Of Judicial Review After Two Centuries, Harry F. Tepker

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Law: Beyond The Bounds Of Roe: Does Stenberg V. Carhart Invalidate The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act Of 2003, Scott A. Hodges

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Committee To Evaluate Judicial Conduct And Disability Act, Carl Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

In late May, Chief.Justice William H. Rehnquist appointed the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act Study Committee to analyze how the federal judicial system has implemented the Judicial Councils Reform and Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (28 U.S.C. §§ 351-54). That legislation authorizes anyone to file a complaint alleging that a federal appellate, district, magistrate, or bankruptcy judge has "engaged in conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts" or is mentally or physically unable to perform the judicial officer's duties. The statute neither prescribes ethical standards nor applies to the United States …

The Jose Padilla Story, Donna R. Newman

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Torture Warrant: A Response To Professor Strauss, Alan M. Dershowitz

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

Investigating New York’S Son Of Sam Law: Problems With The Recent Extension Of Tort Liability For People Convicted Of Crimes, Jessica Yager

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

Five Critical Issues In New York’S Grandparent Visitation Law After Troxel V. Granville, Stephen A. Newman

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

Homophobia And The “Matthew Shepard Effect” In Lawrence V. Texas, Kris Franklin

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

Yale Kamisar: Warrior Scholar, Francis A. Allen

Michigan Law Review

My association with Yale Kamisar dates back to the 1950s. At that time I became aware of the interesting publications of a young faculty member at the University of Minnesota. The articles were well done, most of them dealing with the Supreme Court's notable expansion of constitutional doctrine relating to criminal procedure, then at full tide, a field in which I also was writing. In addition, Yale had published a remarkable article on the subject of euthanasia, impressive for the thoroughness of its research and the clarity and force of its argument. Fortunately, I decided to write to Yale and …

Illinois Brick: A Look Back And A Look Ahead, Edward D. Cavanagh

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

In June 1977, the United States Supreme Court decided Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, ruling that only those dealing directly with price-fixers, and not others in the chain of distribution, are "injured" within the meaning of Section 4 of the Clayton Act in price-fixing cases. The decision struck the death knell to claims by indirect purchasers that illegal overcharges incurred by first purchasers had been passed-on to them through the distribution chain. The so-called direct purchaser rule of Illinois Brick was clear and unequivocal, the very essence of a bright-line rule. Yet, after over a quarter century, the …

Does A Diverse Judiciary Attain A Rule Of Law That Is Inclusive?: What Grutter V. Bollinger Has To Say About Diversity On The Bench, Sylvia R. Lazos Vargas

Michigan Journal of Race and Law

This Article concludes that political dialogue engendered by controversial minority judicial nominations, like those of Miguel Estrada and Janice Rogers Brown, could be an avenue to educating the polity as to why it is important to achieve greater minority representation on the bench. The pluralistic process-based model of judging advocates that a critical mass of diverse judges be achieved, not that the minority judges be liberal rather than conservative, communitarian rather than individualist, or Democrat rather than Republican. The goal is that there be a critical mass of minority judges on benches that make decisions as a group, like circuit …

Postscript: Another Look At Patane And Seibert, The 2004 Miranda 'Poisoned Fruit' Cases, Yale Kamisar

Articles

Some months after I finished writing an article that, inter alia, discussed the lower court opinions in Patane and Seibert (an article that appears elsewhere in this issue of the Journa),1 the Supreme Court handed down its decisions in those cases.2 In Patane, a 5-4 majority held admissible a Glock pistol located as a result of a failure to comply with Miranda. In Seibert, a 5-4 majority agreed with the state court that a "second confession," one obtained after the police had deliberately used a two-stage interrogation technique designed to undermine the Miranda warnings, was inadmissible. 3 In Patane, Justice …

The Confrontation Clause Re-Rooted And Transformed, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

For several centuries, prosecution witnesses in criminal cases have given their testimony under oath, face to face with the accused, and subject to cross-examination at trial. The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the procedure, providing that ‘‘[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witness against him.’’ In recent decades, however, judicial protection of the right has been lax, because the U.S. Supreme Court has tolerated admission of outof- court statements against the accused, without cross-examination, if the statements are deemed ‘‘reliable’’ or ‘‘trustworthy.’’ …

Labor And Employment Law In Two Transitional Decades, Theodore J. St. Antoine

Articles

Labor law became labor and employment law during the past several decades. The connotation of "labor law" is the regulation of union-management relations and that was the focus from the 1930s through the 1950s. In turn, voluntary collective bargaining was supposed to be the method best suited for setting the terms and conditions of employment for the nation's work force. Since the 1960s, however, the trend has been toward more governmental intervention to ensure nondiscrimination, safety and health, pensions and other fringe benefits, and so on. "Employment law" is now the term for the direct federal or state regulation of …

Cross Burning: Virginia V. Black, Rodney A. Smolla

Law Faculty Publications

My first encounter with Virginia's cross-burning law was in a meeting of the Virginia ACLU Legal Panel. I sat in a group of about a dozen other volunteer lawyers listening as potential cases were presented to the panel for review. We were told the story of a Ku Klux Klan leader who had been arrested for burning a cross during a Ku Klux Klan rally conducted on a backwoods farm in southwestern Virginia, with the permission of a landowner. A copy of the Virginia cross-burning statute was distributed for us to read:

It shall be unlawful for any person or …

Grutter And Gratz: A Critical Analysis, Lackland H. Bloom Jr.

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

This Article will analyze the Grutter and Gratz opinions, especially Justice O'Connor's important opinion for the majority in Grutter, and will consider the significance of these decisions in terms of university admissions policy, justifications for racial preferences, and equal protection doctrine. The article will conclude that the Court's defense of the use of racial preferences does not square well with the Powell opinion in Bakke on which it relied so heavily. It will suggest that the Court could have offered a more persuasive explanation for the result it reached but probably felt precluded by precedent from doing so.

Public Ruses, James E. Krier, Christopher Serkin

Articles

The public use requirement of eminent domain law may be working its way back into the United States Constitution. To be sure, the words "public use" appear in the document-and in many state constitutions as well, but the federal provision applies to the states in any event-as one of the Fifth Amendment's limitations on the government's inherent power to take private property against the will of its owners. (The other limitation is that "just compensation" must be paid, of which more later.) Any taking of private property, the text suggests, must be for public use. Those words, however, have amounted …

What Brown Teaches Us About The Rehnquist Court's Federalism Revival, Neal Devins

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Diversity And The Practice Of Interest Assessment, Robert F. Nagel

Publications

No abstract provided.

Preemption Of Common Law Claims And The Prospects For Fifra: Justice Stevens Puts The Genie Back In The Bottle, Jennifer S. Hendricks

Publications

In the upcoming Term, the Supreme Court will consider a case raising the question whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act preempts state tort law, or only state positive law. FIFRA, under which the Environmental Protection Agency regulates pesticide labels, has an express preemption clause and clearly preempts state positive law on labeling. The question presented is whether and to what extent it also preempts state tort law, particularly claims for failure to warn. The Court's precedent on preemption of state tort law is erratic, but for some reason, the pro-preemption view has been much more popular with lower …

Mutiny, Shipboard Strikes, And The Supreme Court's Subversion Of New Deal Labor Law, Ahmed A. White

Publications

No abstract provided.

The Ultimate Independence Of The Federal Courts: Defying The Supreme Court In The Exercise Of Federal Common Law Powers, Ronald H. Rosenberg

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Better Lucky Than Good, Neal Devins

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.