Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

Virtual Technology And The Changing Rituals Of Courtroom Justice, Meredith Rossner, David Tait

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

Race, Peremptory Challenges, And State Courts: A Blueprint For Change, Nancy S. Marder

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

An Exegesis Of The Meaning Of Dobbs: Despotism, Servitude, & Forced Birth, Athena D. Mutua

Journal Articles

The Dobbs decision has been leaked. Gathered outside of New York City's St. Patrick's Old Cathedral, pro-choice protesters chant: "Not the church, not the state, the people must decide their fate."

A white man wearing a New York Fire Department sweatshirt and standing on the front steps responds: "l am the people, l am the people, l am the people, the people have decided, the court has decided, you lose . . . . You have no choice. Not your body, not your choice, your body is mine and you're having my baby."

Despicable but not unexpected,³ this man's comments …

Changemakers: Juris Doctorate: Saad Ahmad: Immigration Lawyer Saad Ahmad L'00 Shows That Appellate Practice Isn't Just For Large Firms, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

The 2024 Cardozo Colloquium On Global And Constitutional Theory, Benjamin N. Cardozo School Of Law

2024 Event Invitations

The US Supreme Court is currently experiencing a significant decrease in public approval, as are several courts in many other parts of the world, such as the Israel Supreme Court and top courts in various Eastern European countries. At the same time, in certain other parts of the world, such as Western Europe, constitutional courts persist as well integrated and are widely perceived as trustworthy guarantors of workable checks and balances. The Colloquium will explore what accounts for these differences and whether the various crises concerning judicial review arise from similar or different types of circumstances. To what extent are …

Livestream Of Supreme Court Oral Argument: Trump V. Anderson, Floersheimer Center For Constitutional Democracy

2023–2024 Flyers

No abstract provided.

The 2024 Cardozo Colloquium On Global And Constitutional Theory Presents: Linda Greenhouse On The Roberts Court, Benjamin N. Cardozo School Of Law

2024 Event Invitations

Join Linda Greenhouse, Senior Research Scholar in Law at Yale Law School, to discuss the exceptional trajectory of the Roberts Court. Greenhouse is also a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter who has covered the United States Supreme Court for nearly three decades for The New York Times.

The Judicial Grassroots Of The "Arbitration Revolution", Tamar Meshel

William & Mary Business Law Review

The “arbitration revolution”—the meteoric rise in the use of arbitration in the United States—is commonly imputed to the Supreme Court’s unilateral and ideologically driven expansion of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The portrayal of the FAA’s evolution as a campaign launched by a Supreme Court that is out of touch with society and with the judicial system over which it presides usefully serves to delegitimize both this one-hundred year-old statute and arbitration more generally. This Article argues that the popular description of the Supreme Court as the sole instigator of the “arbitration revolution” is misleading because it conveniently ignores a …

Abortion Politics And The Rise Of Movement Jurists, Robert L. Tsai, Mary Ziegler

Faculty Scholarship

This Article employs the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization and litigation in its wake as the jumping off point to reconsider the connections between judges, the Constitution, and social movements. That movements influence constitutional law, and that judicial pronouncements in turn are reshaped by politics, is well-established. But, while these accounts of legal change depend upon judges to embrace movement ideas, less has been written about the conditions under which judicial entrenchment can be expected to take place. There may, in fact, be different types of judicial dispositions towards external political phenomena.

In this Article, …

Responding To Alternatives, Daniel T. Deacon

Michigan Law Review

This Article is the first to comprehensively analyze administrative agencies’ obligation to respond to alternatives to their chosen course of action. The obligation has been around at least since the Supreme Court’s decision in Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Ass’n of the United States, Inc. v. State Farm, and it has mattered in important cases. Most recently, the Supreme Court invoked the obligation as the primary ground on which to invalidate the Trump Administration’s rescission of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. The obligation to respond to alternatives is also frequently invoked in the lower courts and in the …

State Sovereign Immunity And The New Purposivism, Anthony J. Bellia Jr., Bradford R. Clark

William & Mary Law Review

Since the Constitution was first proposed, courts and commentators have debated the extent to which it alienated the States’ preexisting sovereign immunity from suit by individuals. During the ratification period, these debates focused on the language of the citizen-state diversity provisions of Article III. After the Supreme Court read these provisions to abrogate state sovereign immunity in Chisholm v. Georgia, Congress and the States adopted the Eleventh Amendment to prohibit this construction. The Court subsequently ruled that States enjoy sovereign immunity independent of the Eleventh Amendment, which neither conferred nor diminished it. In the late twentieth-century, Congress began enacting …

Democratic Erosion And The United States Supreme Court, Jenny Breen

Utah Law Review

For many decades, confidence in American institutions and political culture consistently led scholars to sideline questions about “regime change” in the United States. And for many years, that approach seemed justified. Democratic institutions were firmly rooted and stable, and American voters participated in free and fair elections that resulted in the peaceful transfer of power between parties and candidates. Then came the campaign of Donald Trump and all that has followed since, including open challenges to the most basic and fundamental democratic norms. These changes have led many voters, commentators, and scholars to ask: Is democracy eroding in the United …

The Wages Of Crying Roe: Some Realism About Dobbs V. Jackson Women’S Health Organization, Neil S. Siegel

Faculty Scholarship

The U.S. Supreme Court’s reasoning in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organizationcannot be taken seriously. The Court’s stated rationale for rejecting continued protection of the abortion right—that abortion is not deeply rooted in nineteenth century history and tradition—applies with equal force to other substantive due process rights that the DobbsCourt repeatedly insisted were not under threat even without considering stare decisis, including contraception, sexual intimacy between consenting adults, and same-sex marriage. One should add inter-racial marriage and protection from involuntary sterilization to that list. Rather than applying its draconian version of the “history and tradition” test in a …

Corpus Linguistics And The Original Public Meaning Of The Sixteenth Amendment, Thomas R. Lee, Lawrence B. Solum, James C. Phillips, Jesse A. Egbert

Faculty Scholarship

Moore v. United States raises the question whether unrealized gains, such as an increase in property value or a stock portfolio, constitute “incomes, from whatever source derived” under the original meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment. Moore is widely viewed as the most important tax case to reach the United States Supreme Court in decades. It is also an opportunity for the Court to refine its theory and method of finding original meaning.

We focus here on the original public meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment—the ordinary, common meaning attributed to its text by the general public in 1913. So far, the …

Testing The Limits Of Virtual Compliance: Website Accessibility, "Tester" Plaintiffs, And Article Iii Standing Under The Ada, Ashlyn Dewberry

Georgia Law Review

Federal courts have split in determining whether “tester” plaintiffs bringing suit under the ADA assert the requisite injury in fact necessary for Article III standing. These “website accessibility testers” allege that defendants’ websites do not make certain information available to disabled persons in violation of Title III of the ADA and one of its implementing regulations. This split presents an excellent opportunity to clarify which informational and stigmatic harms qualify as injuries in fact for Article III standing purposes. This Note argues that ADA website accessibility testers cannot obtain standing under current law. Neither the text of the ADA nor …

“We Do No Such Thing”: 303 Creative V. Elenis And The Future Of First Amendment Challenges To Public Accommodations Laws, David Cole

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In 303 Creative v. Elenis, the Supreme Court ruled that a business had a right to refuse to design a wedding website for a same-sex couple. But properly understood, the decision’s parameters are narrow, and the decision should have minimal effect on public accommodations laws.

Loper Bright And The Future Of Chevron Deference, Jack M. Beermann

William & Mary Law Review Online

This essay proposes that the Court overrule the Chevron two-step standard of review of agency statutory construction and replace it by reviving deference under the factors announced in the Skidmore case with a twist that preserves Chevron’s greatest virtue: agency freedom to alter its statutory interpretations so long as the agency remains within the zone of reasonable construction. This essay also proposes that the Court clarify the boundary between cases involving statutory construction and cases involving agency policy decisions that are reviewed under the arbitrary and capricious standard articulated in cases such as Motor Vehicles and Overton Park. …

Judicial Fidelity, Caprice L. Roberts

Pepperdine Law Review

Judicial critics abound. Some say the rule of law is dead across all three branches of government. Four are dead if you count the media as the fourth estate. All are in trouble, even if one approves of each branch’s headlines, but none of them are dead. Not yet. Pundits and scholars see the latest term of the Supreme Court as clear evidence of partisan politics and unbridled power. They decry an upheaval of laws and norms demonstrating the dire situation across the federal judiciary. Democracy is not dead even when the Court issues opinions that overturn precedent, upends long-standing …

Courting Citation Consistency: Justice Frankfurter And West Coast Hotel Co. V. Parrish, Helen J. Knowles-Gardner

Touro Law Review

This Article examines the three U.S. Supreme Court opinions authored by Justice Felix Frankfurter that cited the landmark decision in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937). I describe the three Parrish-citing opinions as: (1) “perfunctory”—Mayo v. Lakeland Highlands Canning Co. (1940) (Frankfurter, J., joined by Black and Douglas, JJ., dissenting); (2) “ugly”—Winters v. New York (1948) (Frankfurter, J., joined by Jackson and Burton, JJ., dissenting); and (3) “good”—American Federation of Labor v. American Sash & Door Co. (1949) (Frankfurter, J., concurring). Whatever one might think about the substance of these opinions, there is absolutely no doubt of the following. …

John Marshall And Felix Frankfurter: An Icon And A Disappointment?, William E. Nelson

Touro Law Review

This article shows how Chief Justice John Marshall first developed the doctrine of judicial restraint in Marbury v. Madison to assure the public that the Supreme Court would not engage in politically oriented judicial review as colonial courts had in holding Parliament’s 1765 Stamp Act unconstitutional. Justice Felix Frankfurter, in contrast, adopted judicial restraint differently—by reading the scholarship of James Bradley Thayer. This article also shows that Frankfurter did not abandon his commitment to judicial restraint when during his years on the bench it began to serve conservative purposes rather than the progressive purposes it had once served.

What Roosevelt Did To Brown V. Board Of Education, Or Race And Court Packing, Jill M. Fraley

Scholarly Articles

Roughly one-third of American schools remain segregated. Scholars have offered a variety of explanations, mostly social and cultural, but sometimes legal, for why desegregation did not proceed effectively after Brown v. Board of Education. This Article articulates a less expected and previously undocumented cause: President Roosevelt's prior attempt at court packing slowed--even derailed--desegregation.

The story of what Roosevelt's court packing did to make the work of integration harder is a cautionary tale, particularly for those who want to alter the U.S. Supreme Court now in furtherance of a modern cause. The only reasonable route for reforming the Supreme Court must …

National Pork Producers Council V. Ross: Reining In The Dormant Commerce Clause, Pushing The Limits Of State Sovereignty, Jessica Kowalski

Loyola University Chicago Law Journal

The dormant Commerce Clause is one of the oldest constitutional doctrines in the United States and is essential in maintaining equal sovereignty among the states. While the doctrine has been substantially refined since it was first recognized, it had gone largely unchanged in recent years, until a controversial California law required further clarification of its scope.

In National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, the Supreme Court considered whether a California law prohibiting the in-state sale of pork produced in cruel conditions was constitutional under the dormant Commerce Clause. The Court ultimately upheld the California law, holding that a regulation …

Another Lochner Era?, Wilson Huhn

Duquesne Law Review

Many legal scholars have observed that the current Supreme Court is returning to the doctrines, values, and methods of reasoning that were employed between 1873 and 1937-the Lochner era and the era immediately preceding it.¹ As it did during the Lochner era, the current Supreme Court elevates property rights over personal rights;² strikes down major civil rights legislation;³ arrogates power to itself by ignoring legislative intent and administrative expertise;⁴ and relies on tradition instead evidence-based reasoning to interpret the law.⁵

The Law Professor As Public Intellectual: Felix Frankfurter And The Public And Its Government, R. B. Bernstein

Touro Law Review

Professor R.B. Bernstein was a legal historian with a J.D. from Harvard Law School who taught at the Colin Powell School for Civic and Global Leadership at City College of New York and New York Law School. He presented the paper below on Professor Felix Frankfurter’s The Public and Its Government, published in 1930. A little more than two months after the conference, sadly, Professor Bernstein passed. His brother Steven Bernstein provided the Touro Law Review with the draft of the paper that Professor Bernstein was preparing to submit for publication. We have added footnotes and made only minor revisions. …

The Purpose And Practice Of Precedent: What The Decade Long Debate Over Stare Decisis Teaches Us About The New Roberts Court, Russell A. Miller

Scholarly Articles

The Supreme Court’s tectonic decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health upended the Doctrine of Substantive Due Process by radically reinterpreting the doctrine of stare decisis. The Court’s established practice regarding stare decisis should have operated to preserve the fifty-year-old abortion jurisprudence. But we should have seen this change coming. Although there has been an intense and involved debate over the purpose and practice of precedent for generations, that debate shifted at the beginning of 2018. Four approaches to stare decisis emerged along a continuum, from complete abandonment of the doctrine and incremental erosion to modernized adherence to precedent. This …

On Traditionalism In Free Speech Law, R. George Wright

Journal of Legislation

No abstract provided.

Foreword: Major 2022-23 Supreme Court Cases, Richard L. Heppner Jr.

Duquesne Law Review

Last year, Duquesne Law Review published a symposium issue about the United States Supreme Court's momentous 2021 Term.¹ In it, faculty from the Thomas R. Kline School of Law of Duquesne University analyzed that Term's historic rulings, from Dobbs overruling Roe v. Wade² to Kennedy v. Bremerton School and Carson v. Makin upending years of freedom-of-religion jurisprudence.³ We explored the Court's apparent interest in arrogating more power to itself⁴ and how two controversial new doctrines-the major questions doctrine and the independent state legislature doctrine would or would not allow it to do so.⁵

The Ersatz Of The Plain-Meaning Rule Of Statutory Construction In Sackett V. Epa (Ii), Dana Neacsu

Duquesne Law Review

This essay uses the United States Supreme Court second decision in Sackett v. EPA,¹ or Sackett (II), to stress the obvious: judges are tasked with decoding the nation's laws for everyone's understanding. Or, in the words of John Marshall: "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is."² Later that century, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. further clarified that judicial duty: "Thereupon we ask, not what this man meant, but what those words would mean in the mouth of a normal speaker of English, using them in circumstances …

Not Everything Has To Be A Taking: Tyler V. Hennepin County, Maryann Herman

Duquesne Law Review

In Tyler v. Hennepin County, we see the United States Supreme Court's continuation of the strengthening of individual property rights. The Court endeavored to address two issues in this case: 1) whether the seizing and selling of property to satisfy a tax debt without returning the surplus violates the Takings Clause; and 2) whether the forfeiture of the surplus resulting from a tax sale is an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment. The Court answered the first question in the affirmative and, thus, did not address the second question.

The Domino Effect: Discussing The Future Implications Of Students For Fair Admissions, Inc. V. Harvard, Marissa C. Meredith

Duquesne Law Review

Since 1978, the United States Supreme Court has grappled with creating fair policies and just parameters to enable institutions of higher education to incorporate race -conscious admission policies to diversify students' educational experience.¹ The Court began this vital discussion with its landmark ruling in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, where it determined not just that diversity in education was a compelling state interest that could survive strict scrutiny,² but also that it could not be achieved through the use of a quota system or a specialized track.3 The Court continued shaping the parameters of …