Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

Hester's Dubious Roots And Legacy: Open Fields Doctrine Under Scrutiny, Laura K. Donohue

Texas A&M Law Review

For over a century, open fields doctrine has shaped Fourth Amendment law, denying people the right to be secure on their own property. Its impact has steadily expanded, with the result that, by some estimates, the government can now engage in warrantless surveillance of some 96% of private land and buildings regardless of fences, postings, the distance from public roads or byways, or the use to which the property is put. An originalist approach throws the doctrine into disarray: at the time of the Founding, common law protected the curtilage, which extended to the fields, barns, storehouses, and other buildings …

In Defense Of The Ten Commandments In Public Spaces: An Analysis Based On The Supreme Court’S New Judicial Standard, Songfeng Li

Arkansas Law Review

On June 19, 2024, Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry signed legislation mandating the display of the Ten Commandments in all public K-12 schools and colleges in the state. On June 21, 2024, Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick announced his intention to introduce a similar bill in the next legislative session that would require the display of the Ten Commandments in schools. Immediately after the Louisiana law’s enactment, a group of local parents with the help of multiple organizations filed a federal lawsuit seeking to block its implementation. As of today, the district court and appellate court have issued differing rulings. The …

Should Judicial Opinions Be Read Like Statutes?, Margaret H. Lemos

Northwestern University Law Review

Should judicial opinions be interpreted with an eye to their purpose, context, or the intent of their authors, or should interpreters focus on the ordinary meaning of the text? Opinions present the same sorts of interpretive puzzles as other legal texts, and yet they have been omitted from the debates over interpretive methodology that dominate the fields of constitutional and statutory interpretation. The omission is no accident: the Supreme Court has stated repeatedly—and with increasing frequency in recent years—that judicial opinions are not to be read like statutes. Yet neither courts nor commentators have explained why the principles that ground …

The Ex Parte Young Cause Of Action: A Riddle, Wrapped In A Mystery, Inside An Enigma, Andrew S. Oldham, Adam I. Steene, John W. Tienken

Northwestern University Law Review

Ex parte Young ushered in a new era of the American judicial system. Most famously, the decision allowed plaintiffs, in certain circumstances, to sue state officials without having to worry about sovereign immunity. Young’s other holding, though perhaps lesser known, is no less important: individuals, the Supreme Court held, have an equitable cause of action to sue government officials for injunctive relief.

Even today, that second holding remains something of a riddle. Did this cause of action always exist in American law? Or was it an invention of the Young Court? And, at any rate, does the Ex parte …

A Tale Of Two Credits: The Post-Nestlé Alien Tort Statute And Carbon Credit Externalities, Stephanie Mao

Northwestern University Law Review

As companies increasingly embrace carbon-neutrality commitments, many rely on the voluntary carbon market to offset their emissions rather than reduce them directly. Regulatory and consumer scrutiny has focused on the widespread use of “phantom” carbon credits, i.e., credits that fail to produce meaningful climate benefits. But less attention has been paid to what this Note terms “colonial” carbon credits: those that may technically reduce emissions but do so at the expense of communities abroad. These projects may contribute to land dispossession, human rights abuses, and threats to public and environmental health. Yet, current regulatory and legal frameworks, with their focus …

Correcting Confusion Over Commandeering, Supremacy, And Preemption: A User’S Guide To Modern Federalism, Vikram David Amar

Pepperdine Law Review

Current disputes between state/local entities and the Trump administration, some of which build on flare-ups over the past few decades, place in sharp relief the key doctrinal features of modern federalism, many of which seem to confound the Supreme and lower courts, to say nothing of political actors and legal analysts. The mistakes being made run in both directions; sometimes states are wrongly confined, and in other episodes states are given (or are seeking) more than they are constitutionally due. In this Essay, I use several case studies—some from recent weeks or months and others from recent years or decades—to …

The Executive’S Takeover Of Independent Agencies: How Institutional Design Gave Way To Political Will, Neal Devins

Pepperdine Law Review

The anticipated demise of the independent agency is a saga that implicates Congress as much as it does the President or the Supreme Court. By capitulating to presidential initiatives and failing to defend their institutional prerogatives, Congress has facilitated presidential control of the administrative state. Indeed, irrespective of whether the Court formally repudiates Humphrey’s Executor, Congress has largely acquiesced to a regime whereby presidents essentially control independent agencies. By highlighting the competing incentives of Congress and the White House, this Essay explains the rise of presidential unilateralism vis-à-vis independent agencies. This Essay also casts light on a critically important but …

“The Future Of Executive Power”: An Overview, Robert J. Pushaw Jr.

Pepperdine Law Review

This symposium overview examines the rapid expansion of presidential power in the modern era, culminating in what the author and contributors describe as an unprecedented assertion of Article II authority during President Trump’s second term. It argues that the Constitution’s original separation-of-powers framework—designed to prioritize legislative authority and constrain the executive—has been inverted due to the growth of presidential control over foreign affairs, the administrative state, and policymaking. The article traces this shift through historical developments such as the New Deal, the rise of independent agencies, and the emergence of the “unitary executive” theory, while also analyzing recent Supreme Court …

Interrogation Of Regents And Administrative Reliance Interests In The Context Of Vacillating Immigration Policy, Sarah Engelberg-Nolan

Fordham Law Review

Arbitrary and capricious review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) operates as an important agency-accountability tool when invoked as intended. But the recent U.S. Supreme Court case Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California and subsequent lower federal court cases have opened the floodgates to a more searching and potentially activist review. In Regents, the Court held that the administration of President Donald J. Trump could not rescind the discretionary immigration program Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) in the manner the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) attempted, in part because DHS failed to …

The Judiciary's Arbitrary And Capricious Problem, Jack D. Malich

West Virginia Law Review

The Supreme Court has not been shy in its efforts to change, and in some cases, overturn long-standing administrative law precedent. Yet in one area, arbitrary and capricious review under Motor Vehicles Manufacturers Ass’n v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co., the Court has ostensibly not acted to modify any part of the doctrine. Recently, however, the federal judiciary has increasingly used arbitrary and capricious review to invalidate major agency actions over what seem to be somewhat minor procedural flaws. The increased stringency of such review has led to increasing conflict between the executive and judicial branch. Two Supreme Court decisions …

Asarco Delenda Est, John Greabe

West Virginia Law Review

ASARCO Inc. v. Kadish is the most important Supreme Court decision addressing the adjudication in state courts of federal claims that Article III’s case-or-controversy requirements would bar lower federal courts from hearing. But there are two serious problems with the reasoning of ASARCO: one involving an error of omission and the other an error of commission. ASARCO’s error of omission is its apparent assumption that a party barred from asserting a federal claim in federal court because of a lack of redressable Article III injury caused by the conduct complained of should face no barriers to obtaining relief on the …

How Many Supreme Court Justices Can Stand On The Point Of A Needle? Originalist Scholarship, Political Neutrality, And Other Constitutional Nonsense, Stephen M. Feldman

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

In the 1935 article, "Transcendental Nonsense and the Functional Approach," Felix Cohen compared formalist legal reasoning, as practiced by traditional legal scholars and Lochner-era Supreme Court justices, to the philosophical musings of scholastic theologians. Unconnected to empirical reality, formalist legal reasoning was as nonsensical as a disquisition on “‘[h]ow many angels can stand on the point of a needle?’” Nowadays, originalist scholars are similarly engaged in nonsense. These scholars defend, refine, and practice originalist methods of constitutional interpretation as if the Supreme Court justices truly decided cases in accordance with the theory. Regardless, the justices—even the avowed originalists—do not consistently …

Reel It In: Untangling The Circuit Split On The Constitutionality Of Geofence Warrants Under The Fourth Amendment, Kate P. Risser

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

This Note examines geofence warrants and their ongoing threat to constitutionally protected rights such as privacy, speech, and assembly. Part I will provide background information on geofence warrants and examine the prominent justifications for the use of the warrants. Part II will examine how law enforcement’s use of geofence warrants threatens citizens’ constitutionally protected fundamental rights like privacy and reproductive rights. Specifically, Part II addresses how geofence warrants disproportionately target and affect women, people of color, and low-income individuals. Part III will detail the history of the Fourth Amendment tracing its roots to before the Founding Era then exploring applicable …

Rethinking Objectivity: The Problem Of Pretext In The Fourth Amendment, Monu S. Bedi

Indiana Law Journal

Pretextual encounters continue to erode the legitimacy of the Supreme Court’s Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Simply put, a police officer can act on personal bias or animus as long as the search or seizure is deemed “objectively reasonable.” Numerous scholars (e.g., Bennett Capers, Gabriel Chin, and David Harris) have critiqued this objective standard, contending it perpetuates discriminatory practices, particularly against communities of color. The late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg herself suggested that the Court might need to reconsider the legal precedent she helped establish. More recently, Orin Kerr has also argued that the Court’s reliance on objective determinations is inconsistent with …

Agenda Control And Precedent, Thomas P. Schmidt

Faculty Scholarship

The U.S. Supreme Court now has vast control over its agenda: It has the power to pick and choose not only what cases it will hear through writs of certiorari, but also what specific legal questions within those cases it will consider. As a result, the Court never revisits a precedent unless it has made a prior, discretionary choice to put the viability of a precedent on its agenda. For that reason, the Court’s powers of agenda control play a significant and underappreciated role in maintaining the continuity of the legal order. Indeed, it is no surprise that the formal …

Students' Rights In School, Gator Team Child Clinic

Gator Team Child Juvenile Law Clinic

An informational flyer that gives an overview of important students' rights cases in your pocket. The three cases in the flyer that are summarized are, New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985), Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) and In Re Gault (1967).

Against A Medical Exception To Equal Protection, Govind Persad

Washington and Lee Law Review

Government regulations of medicine sometimes treat patients differently based on their race or sex. Does heightened scrutiny apply to such regulations—as is usual when law treats someone differently based on a protected characteristic? Or is there a medical exception to equal protection?

Recently, in United States v. Skrmetti, the Supreme Court upheld a law that restricted access to medical treatments for transgender minors. Though its holding did not rely on medical exceptionalism, its discussion reinvigorated interest in a “medical exception” to equal protection: that medical decisions are exempt from the searching review applied when governmental decisions consider protected characteristics.

For …

American Public Law Revolution, Victoria Frances Nourse

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Supreme Court has birthed a public law revolution. This revolution should not be known as a constitutional revolution because it is bigger than constitutional law—it covers statutory and administrative law as well. This revolution has been powered not by social movements, but by an interpretive philosophy known as originalism. Originalism has been deeply misunderstood by its critics. This Article examines three myths about originalism—that it is primarily about history, that it is a traditional theory of adjudication, and that it is democratic. Originalism is a semantic theory, not a theory of history, and it is a theory that privileges …

The Revival Of Section 5: A Return To The Ftc’S Roots In A Time Of Democratic Crisis, Shaoul Sussman

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Evolution Of The Supreme Court's Second Amendment Jurisprudence, Kermit V. Lipez

Maine Law Review

We live in the shadow of an epidemic of gun violence. We dread the next report of an inevitable mass shooting. We no longer feel secure in public places. We fear for the safety of our children and our grandchildren at their schools. We shake our heads in disbelief at the empty ritual of "thoughts and prayers" for victims and their families. As one commentator put it, we suffer from the "[u]nbearable [m]onotony of [g]rief." Why must we live like this? Why are there no solutions? In conversations posing these questions, there are often references to the Supreme Court's Second …

U.S. Trade Law And Policy At A Crossroads, John K. Veroneau

Maine Law Review

The past decade has witnessed significant changes in U.S. international trade policy. In his first presidential term, Donald J. Trump moved the United States away from long-standing policies of lowering trade barriers to facilitate global commerce and replaced them with a more restrictive version not seen since the early twentieth century. President Trump's more trade-restrictive policies were largely extended by his successor, President Joseph R. Biden. The first year of President Trump's second term has indicated a strong desire to restrict imports further in an attempt to create U.S. manufacturing jobs and reduce reliance on Chinese imports. This Article seeks …

Access To Justice After Medina V Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, Daniel G. Aaron, Nicole Huberfeld

Faculty Scholarship

Access to justice is “the ability of all people to seek and obtain effective remedies through accessible, affordable, … and culturally competent institutions of justice.”¹ Historically, patients and physicians have worked together to protect the integrity of medical care as well as patients’ rights by challenging unlawful government actions in court. Yet the US Supreme Court recently issued decisions that may impede access to justice, potentially empowering federal, state, and local governments to interfere with evidence-based care. We explore constraints on access to justice that may arise after Medina v Planned Parenthood South Atlantic (PPSA) (606 US 357, 2025), …

The Supreme Court's Goldilocks: Why The Major Questions Doctrine Is The Ideal Compromise Between Two Unattractive Extremes, Bradley P. Simpson

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Does Textualism Constrain Supreme Court Justices?, James J. Brudney, Lawrence Baum

Northwestern University Law Review

A principal justification for textualism is the constraint hypothesis. Conservative Justices and leading textualist scholars contend that—in stark contrast to reliance on legislative history—focus on the ordinary meaning of enacted text leaves little room for the Justices to be policy-oriented or ideological in their interpretations. This Article represents the first systematic study probing the validity of the constraint hypothesis, one that employs both quantitative and qualitative analysis.

The Article examines the Justices’ reliance on interpretive resources in over 660 statutory decisions in the field of labor and employment, decided by the Burger Court, the Rehnquist Court, and the Roberts Court—during …

The Vanishing Enforcer: Consumer Protection In An Era Of Dual Retrenchment, Alisher Juzgenbayev

Northwestern University Law Review

Recent developments, including reductions in the federal workforce, effective suspension of certain enforcement activities, and attempted centralization of independent agency rulemaking in the White House, have significantly weakened administrative agencies. This administrative retrenchment is concerning as private enforcement of a number of consumer protection statutes has been simultaneously curtailed through the Supreme Court’s decisions in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins and TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, which dramatically narrowed plaintiffs’ standing. These decisions rely in part on a vision of strong executive authority, positing that broad private standing conflicts with an Article II framework where a politically accountable President faithfully implements laws …

To Vacate Or Not To Vacate: Partial Remedies And Mootness In Federal Habeas Of State Convictions, Jeffrey Greenbaum

University of Cincinnati Law Review

This Article addresses two related issues in the federal habeas of state convictions. First, it analyzes a circuit split that recently emerged over whether a state’s appeal would be moot after a federal district court grants habeas and a state vacates its own judgment. One view is that the state vacatur would render the appeal moot because the prisoner is no longer in custody. A second view is that the appeal would not necessarily be moot because a partial remedy could be available. Second, this Article identifies some courts conflating the language of a state’s vacatur in habeas and evaluates …

Checkmate Or Stalemate: The Epa, California, And The Future Of Waivers Under The Clean Air Act, William B. Gale

Villanova Environmental Law Journal (1991 - )

No abstract provided.

Zivotofsky V. Kerry Commentary From The Counsel Behind The Case, Jewish Law Student Association (Jlsa), Jewish Graduate Student Initiative, Alyza Lewin, Akiva Shapiro

2025–2026 Flyers

Join Alyza Lewin, President of Us Affairs for Combat Antisemitism Movement, and Akiva Shapiro, partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, as they share their experience litigating the landmark Supreme Court case Zivotofsky v. Kerry before the Supreme Court. In Zivotofsky, the court ruled that only thе president has the exclusive power to formally recognize a foreign sovereign and its territorial boundaries. This case paved the way for president Donald J. Trump to declare Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

Brief Of First Amendment Scholars As Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioner, Joseph M. Terry, Stephen J. Fuzesi, James N. Sasso, Langston E. Ward, Richard W. Garnett

Court Briefs

No. 25-927
Richard Lowery v. Lillian Mills

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

From the Summary of Argument

The suppression of constitutionally protected speech violates the First Amendment. A speaker need not be punished to be able to state a cause of action if the government has suppressed or threatens to suppress his or her speech through other means. This Court, across decades, and in a range of contexts, repeatedly has reaffirmed that principle. It has done so in cases affirming that a party may challenge a criminal statute …

2026 Ruth Bader Ginsburg Contest Winners Announced At Rwu Law Women In Law Leadership Lecture 3-4-2026, Roger Williams University School Of Law

School of Law Conferences, Lectures & Events

No abstract provided.