Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

The Riddle Of Race-Based Redistricting, Travis Crum

Scholarship@WashULaw

The Supreme Court has adopted divergent interpretations of the Equal Protection Clause as applied to race and redistricting. Vote dilution doctrine requires mapmakers to consider race to ensure that racial minorities are not packed or cracked. Congress, moreover, has embraced vote dilution doctrine in Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. By contrast, racial gerrymandering doctrine triggers strict scrutiny if mapmakers subordinate traditional redistricting principles to race, thereby threatening Section 2’s constitutionality.

To resolve this doctrinal riddle, this Essay examines whether, as originally understood, the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendment governed the use of race during redistricting. The Equal Protection Clause …

Washu Expert: Can Trump Bypass Senate Approval Of Controversial Cabinet Nominees?, Andrea Scoseria Katz, Neil Schoenherr

Scholarship@WashULaw

Andrea Katz, an associate professor of law at Washington University in St. Louis, is an expert on constitutional law, with a focus on presidential power. Here, she discusses how Cabinet members are traditionally appointed and whether the Senate or the Supreme Court could stop Trump from doing an end-around on tradition.

The False Promise Of Jurisdiction Stripping, Daniel Epps, Alan M. Trammell

Scholarship@WashULaw

Jurisdiction stripping is seen as a nuclear option. Its logic is simple: by depriving federal courts of jurisdiction over some set of cases, Congress ensures those courts cannot render bad decisions. In theory, it frees up the political branches and the states to act without fear of judicial second-guessing. To its proponents, it offers the ultimate check on unelected and unaccountable judges. To critics, it poses a grave threat to the separation of powers. Both sides agree, though, that jurisdiction stripping is a powerful weapon. On this understanding, politicians, activists, and scholars throughout American history have proposed jurisdiction stripping measures …

A Regime Of Statutes: Building A Modern President In Gilded Age America (1873-1921), Andrea Scoseria Katz

Scholarship@WashULaw

At a time when the Supreme Court is turning its sights on the administrative state and enhancing the profile and powers of the president, it is worth recalling that behind our national complex of agencies lies a constitutional settlement that has structured government for approximately one hundred and thirty years. Its roots lie in the period from 1873-1921, and its defining values are interbranch cooperation, delegated problem-solving authority, and administrative expertise. This Article proposes to tell its story.

A century and a half ago, America was just healing from its Civil War wounds when a host of new problems descended: …

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

Journal Articles

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 statutes …

West Virginia V. Epa: Maybe A Big Deal, But Maybe Not, Michael Lewyn

Scholarly Works

In West Virginia v. EPA, the Supreme Court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lacked the statutory authority to implement the Clean Power Plan, a regulation designed to reduce coal-fired power plant emissions by encouraging the use of non-coal energy sources. The Court’s decision was primarily grounded in the "major questions doctrine," which asserts that courts may reject agency actions that involve significant and consequential powers not reasonably inferred from Congressional intent, even if a statute is unclear. This decision raised concerns among commentators that it might severely restrict environmental regulations and the broader administrative state. However, the …

Bill Of Rights Nondelegation, Eli Nachmany

BYU Law Review

Speculation about the “revival” of the nondelegation doctrine has reached a fever pitch. Although the Supreme Court apparently has not applied the nondelegation doctrine to declare a federal statute unconstitutional since 1935, the doctrine may be making a comeback. The common understanding is that the nondelegation doctrine prohibits Congress from “delegating” legislative power to the executive branch. While the nondelegation doctrine may appear to be about limiting Congress, its ultimate target is delegation. But if the nondelegation doctrine is about policing delegation, then the Court has been regularly — and rigorously — applying the doctrine in a different context: In …

Voluntary Dismissals, Jurisdiction & Waiving Appellate Review, Bryan Lammon

University of Cincinnati Law Review

Litigants have long tried to manufacture a final, appealable decision by voluntarily dismissing their claims after an adverse interlocutory decision. Recently—and especially since the Supreme Court’s decision in Microsoft Corp. v. Baker—courts have thought that these dismissals created a jurisdictional problem. Either the voluntary dismissal did not produce a final decision, or the dismissal extinguished Article III jurisdiction. But the problem with these appeals is not jurisdictional. It’s waiver. A voluntary dismissal after an adverse interlocutory decision waives the right to appellate review. This Article shows the flaws in the jurisdictional rejection of this kind of manufactured finality and …

Constitutional Right To A Fair Trial And Social Justice Influence, Kaitlyn Marchant

Pace Law Review

This article evaluates the challenges that have arisen from the growth of social media and its influence on the right to the fair trial process in high-profile cases. Pretrial publicity through media exposure can bias potential jurors, potentially leading to decisions based on outside information rather than courtroom evidence. The article highlights the risks associated with jurors being exposed to external information through various media sources, which can significantly impact their objectivity and ability to make impartial judgments. It scrutinizes the limitations of the existing legal framework in addressing these challenges, including the reliance on jurors’ assurances of impartiality and …

The Curious Case Of Justice Neil Gorsuch, Justin Burnworth

Pace Law Review

Justice Gorsuch has a propensity for unexpected decisions. His opinions in Bostock v. Clayton County, United States v. Vaello Madero, and McGirt v. Oklahoma confounded the legal community at large. Some argue that his Western upbringing played a role. Others argue that his time clerking for Justice Kennedy primed him for unpredictable decisions. These explanations do not get at the core of Justice Gorsuch’s legal reasoning. This article dives into the depths of these opinions to extract his “Enduring” theories of law. I argue that legal scholarship has incorrectly viewed these three decisions as isolated incidents when they are best …

Case Law On American Indians: October 2022 - August 2023, Thomas P. Schlosser

American Indian Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court Overreach Through Broad Discretionary Consideration Of Ameliorative Measures In International Child Abduction, Lauren Mayell

Global Business Law Review

This Note provides a critical analysis of the United States Supreme Court's recent decision in Golan v. Saada--a case setting precedent in the area of international child abduction by biological parents. It argues that the Supreme Court oversteps the presiding law in the field through the use of discretionary ameliorative measures. These ameliorative measures do not show evidence of protecting children from grave risk, directly usurp underlying custody proceedings, and hinder expeditious procedures, all of which are required by law in international child abduction cases. Additionally, this Note compares the European Union's approach to ameliorate analysis. Lastly this Note …

Tribal Sovereignty Preempted, Michael Doran

Brooklyn Law Review

In June of 2022, the US Supreme Court held in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta that a state may prosecute a non-Indian for a crime committed against an Indian within Indian country. That decision effectively overruled Worcester v. Georgia, an 1832 landmark case in which Chief Justice Marshall said that state law “can have no force” in Indian country. Although the conventional wisdom about Castro-Huerta sees the case as a radical departure from first principles of federal Indian law, this article argues that Castro-Huerta is the natural—although deeply deplorable—next step in a long line of Supreme Court cases expanding state governmental authority …

First Amendment Scrutiny: Realigning First Amendment Doctrine Around Government Interests, John Inazu

Brooklyn Law Review

This article proposes a simpler way to frame judicial analysis of First Amendment claims: a government restriction on First Amendment expression or action must advance a compelling interest through narrowly tailored means and must not excessively burden the expression or action relative to the interest advanced. The test thus has three prongs: (1) compelling interest; (2) narrow tailoring; and (3) proportionality. Part I explores how current First Amendment doctrine too often minimizes or ignores a meaningful assessment of the government’s purported interest in limiting First Amendment liberties. Part II shows how First Amendment inquiry is further confused by threshold inquiries …

Co-Managers? The Need For Clarification Regarding State And Federal Powers In Federal Elections, Amber Mccomas

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

This article argues that the Court needs to clarify the distinction between the state and federal government’s roles in federal elections to avoid chaos and unconstitutional overreach. As a part of this clarification, the Court should also clarify how information is deemed “necessary.” This article looks specifically at one potential consideration: public fears regarding election security. Data and logic indicate that such fears should not be a consideration in the necessity determination as they are unreliable. Section II examines the background of the Election Assistance Commission, the applicable law, as well as criticism and support the agency has received since …

The Anti-Constitutionality Of The Deeply Rooted Test In Dobbs V. Jackson, Reginald Oh

Cleveland State Law Review

The deeply rooted in history test used by Justice Alito in Dobbs v. Jackson to overturn Roe v. Wade is anti-constitutional. In Dobbs, Alito concluded that, because a majority of states in 1868 criminalized abortion, abortion is not deeply rooted in history, and is therefore not a fundamental liberty under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. However, relying on state laws in 1868 to interpret constitutional text not only has no basis in the Constitution, it goes against the fundamental nature of the Constitution as an integrated whole. What I call the Integrated Constitution is based on Chief Justice John …

Methodological Gerrymandering, David Simson

Cleveland State Law Review

The U.S. Supreme Court has come to decide many of the most consequential and contentious aspects of social policy via its interpretations of the U.S. Constitution. Institutional features of the Court create significant pressure on the Justices to justify their decisions as applications of “law” rather than the practice of “politics.” Their perceived failure to do so calls forth criticism sounding in a variety of registers—ranging from allegations of a lack of neutrality, lack of impartiality, or lack of “principle,” to allegations of opportunism, disingenuousness, and hypocrisy. Analyzing the Justices’ choices in relation to interpretational “methodology”—choosing one lens through which …

Can Superman Save The Supreme Court After Dobbs? Using Analogical Reasoning To Teach The American People The Superpower Of Stare Decisis, Brandon Stump

Cleveland State Law Review

In this Article, I propose that in this post-Dobbs America, if Americans are ever able to believe in, or even understand the magnitude of the Supreme Court’s power, practitioners, scholars, and educators should rely on the power of analogical reasoning, something attorneys are taught beginning their first weeks of law school. Using the power of analogy, we should take the simple story of Superman to explain the magnitude of the power held by the Supreme Court and the critical role that stare decisis must play in the Court’s decision-making. Perhaps if we explain legal principles and the judiciary by …

Putting The Brakes On California's Emissions Standards: An Analysis Of The Legal Challenges California's Advanced Clean Cars Ii Standards Will Face, Michael Maloof

Cleveland State Law Review

This Note discusses the legal implications of California’s Advanced Clean Cars II vehicle-emissions standards. These standards, which would affect vehicle model years 2026 through 2035, seek to eliminate the sale of new gasoline-powered vehicles in favor of only selling electric, zero-emission vehicles. In light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in West Virginia v. EPA, this type of “generation-shifting” plan stands on broken ground due to the applicability of the Major Questions Doctrine. The agency action here—EPA approval of a Clean Air Act §7543 waiver—is exactly the type of “extraordinary case” that the Court must strike down in order …

R.E.S.P.E.C.T.: The Court's Forgotten Virtue, Camille Pollutro

Cleveland State Law Review

This Article recommends a shift in constitutional interpretation that requires the existence of respect for the class at issue when a fundamental right is being considered under the narrow, historical deeply rooted test of the Fourteenth Amendment. By focusing on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, this Article highlights that the class at issue—women—are having their fundamental rights decided for them by the legal sources of 1868. In applying this strict and narrow historical deeply rooted test, the Court fails to consider the lack of respect and autonomy that women had in 1868. To the Court, if twenty-eight out …

Does The Discourse On 303 Creative Portend A Standing Realignment?, Richard M. Re

Notre Dame Law Review Reflection

Perhaps the most surprising feature of the last Supreme Court Term was the extraordinary public discourse on 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. According to many commentators, the Court decided what was really a “fake” or “made-up” case brought by someone who asserted standing merely because “she worries.” As a doctrinal matter, these criticisms are unfounded. But what makes this episode interesting is that the criticisms came from the legal Left, which has long been associated with expansive principles of standing. Doubts about standing in 303 Creative may therefore portend a broader standing realignment, in which liberal Justices become jurisdictionally hawkish. …

An Originalist Approach To Prospective Overruling, John O. Mcginnis, Michael Rappaport

Notre Dame Law Review

Originalism has become a dominant jurisprudential theory on the Supreme Court. But a large number of precedents are inconsistent with the Constitution’s original meaning and overturning them risks creating enormous disruption to the legal order. This article defends a prospective overruling approach that would harmonize precedent with originalism’s rise and reduce the disruption from overrulings. Under prospective overruling, the Court declares that an existing statute violates the original meaning but will continue to be enforced because declaring it unconstitutional would produce enormous costs; however, future statutes of this type will be voided as unconstitutional. Under our approach, the Court would …

Did The Court In Sffa Overrule Grutter?, Bill Watson

Notre Dame Law Review Reflection

In Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (SFFA), the Supreme Court held that affirmative action programs designed to comply with the precedent set in Grutter v. Bollinger were unlawful. Yet the Court nowhere said that it was overruling Grutter and, in fact, relied on Grutter as authority. Neither the Justices themselves nor subsequent commentators have been able to agree on what, if anything, remains of Grutter today. Did SFFA overrule Grutter or not? This Essay analyzes that question and its normative fallout. The Essay concludes that SFFA at least partially overruled Grutter and that …

Just Extracurriculars?, Emily Gold Waldman

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

Extracurricular activities have been the battleground for a striking number of Supreme Court cases set at public schools, from cases involving speech to religion to drug testing. Indeed, the two most recent Supreme Court cases involving constitutional rights at public schools--Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022) and Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. (2021)--both arose in the extracurricular context of school sports. Even so, the Supreme Court has never fully clarified the status of extracurricular activities themselves. Once a school offers an extracurricular activity, is participation merely a privilege? Does the fact that extracurricular activities are voluntary for students affect …

Wills, Trusts, And Estates, Allison A. Tait, Hunter M. Glenn

University of Richmond Law Review

This year’s legislative and judicial activity surrounding wills, trusts, and estates did not bring any radical shifts in the law, but rather expansions and clarifications. In the legislative realm, the bulk of the activity centered on expanding protections for parties under guardianship, with a sensitivity to safeguarding vulnerable parties from neglect or even predation. The new rules aim to increase transparency in process, preserve confidential financial information, and ensure minimums of care and contact. The rules affect these goals by providing for more transparency through notice requirements as well as required written filings. Moreover, they protect parties under guardianship by …

The Illusion Of Due Process In School Discipline, Diana Newmark

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Long-term suspensions and expulsions can be enormously consequential for students and their families. Not only do exclusionary disciplinary measures directly result in lost learning opportunities for children, but school discipline decisions can also result in significant collateral consequences. These consequences range from lower rates of graduation and higher rates of contact with the criminal justice system to disruptions in foster care placements, violations of juvenile probation, and even possible immigration consequences for undocumented students.

The Supreme Court has recognized the significance of suspensions and expulsions, requiring due process for such exclusionary discipline measures. But the Supreme Court has never explained …

Historians Wear Robes Now? Applying The History And Tradition Standard: A Practical Guide For Lower Courts, Alexandra Michalak

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Never before has the Supreme Court relied on the history and tradition standard to such a magnitude as in the 2021 term to determine the scope of a range of constitutional rights. [...] In reaffirming this standard, the Supreme Court provided no guidance to lower courts on how to apply and analyze the history and tradition standard. Along with balancing the lack of resources in deciding cases with the history and tradition framework, lower courts must face the reality that this standard presents ample opportunity for one-sided historical analysis. To combat the temptation of conducting unbalanced and cursory reviews of …

Wrong Or (Fundamental) Right?: Substantive Due Process And The Right To Exclude, Jack May

Washington Law Review

Substantive due process provides heightened protection from government interference with enumerated constitutional rights and unenumerated—but nevertheless “fundamental”—rights. To date, the United States Supreme Court has never recognized any property right as a fundamental right for substantive due process purposes. But in Yim v. City of Seattle, a case recently decided by the Ninth Circuit, landlords and tenant screening companies argued that the right to exclude from one’s property should be a fundamental right. Yim involved a challenge to Seattle’s Fair Chance Housing Ordinance, which, among other things, prohibits landlords and tenant screening companies from inquiring about or considering a …

Preface, Alexandra M. Voehringer

University of Richmond Law Review

The University of Richmond Law Review proudly presents the thirty-eighth issue of the Annual Survey of Virginia Law. Since 1985, the Annual Survey has served as a guiding tool for practitioners and students to stay abreast of recent legislative, judicial, and administrative developments in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Today, the Annual Survey is the most widely read publication of the Law Review, reaching lawyers, judges, legislators, and students in every corner of the Commonwealth.

Table Of Contents

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.