Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

How Traditional And Social Media Shapes Public Perception Of United States Surpeme Court Decisions On Civil Liberties, Leila P. Martin

Williams Honors College, Honors Research Projects

This study examines how traditional and social medai shape public perception of U.S. Supreme Court decisions on Civil liberties, focusing on four landmark cases: Dobbs v. Jackson, District of Columbia v. Heller, Materpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, and Obergfell v. Hodges. Using Entmans framing theory, the research analyzes how tone, language, emphasis, and ideological slant differ across media platofrms and how these frames infleunce public attitudes, insitutional trust, and civic understanding. A mixed-methods design combines archival media analysis, national polling data from Pew Rsearch Center and gallup, and an independent survery to asses how media narratives, rather than …

Governance Costs And The Reallocation Of Administrative Agency Authority, John Meisel

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

The Article examines competing approaches to delegation and the administrative state through the lens of governance costs. It argues that many longstanding debates concerning delegation, agency discretion, judicial review, and constitutional structure are best understood as disputes over the allocation of recurring governance risks, including accountability, agency drift, concentration of power, expertise, delay, coordination costs, and regulatory underproduction.

Rather than treating formalist, pragmatic, and institutional approaches as fundamentally incommensurable, the Article develops a governance‑cost taxonomy that provides a common analytical framework for comparing competing theories of administrative governance. The framework demonstrates how scholars, judges, and doctrines often address similar institutional …

Algorithmic Models And The Freedom Of Speech, Alexander Tsesis

Fordham Law Review

Intentionality and reason are intrinsic features of the human mind that large language models (LLMs) entirely lack. Although LLMs generate natural-language sentences through algorithmic processes, autonomously produced machine speech lacks the consciousness of human speakers. This intrinsic distinction between natural persons and artificial machines is consequential to whether LLM-generated outputs are covered by the First Amendment. Scholars who equate the constitutional value of human speech with algorithmic outputs tend to emphasize the informational value of those outputs to audiences while giving insufficient attention to the absence of machine consciousness. The conscious underpinnings of thought and their relation to constitutional protections …

Royal Canin And The Jurisdiction It Left Behind: The Class Action Fairness Act, Nicole Brosnan

Fordham Law Review

Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger created waves in the federal litigation world by setting forth a new rule, declaring that a plaintiff’s amendment of a complaint following removal is capable of destroying federal jurisdiction. Prior to this case, courts generally followed the “time-of-filing rule” by which federal jurisdiction attached at the time of removal. The U.S. Supreme Court was clear that this rule applies to federal claim jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, but the Court remained generally silent on its application to jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act.

This Note explores this lack of clarity and proposes …

Crossing The Toll Bridge: American Pipe And The Fate Of State Law Claims After Class Certification Denial In Federal Court, Alexander Schnur

Fordham Law Review

Rule 23(c)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) provides that, “At an early practicable time after a person sues . . . as a class representative, the court must determine by order whether to certify the action as a class action.” In American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the interplay of this FRCP 23(c)(1)(A) class certification decision and statutes of limitations, holding that the commencement of a putative class action suspends the statute of limitations for putative class members while class certification is pending. Over the last fifty years, the American …

Judicial Independence As A Constitutional Construction, Keith E. Whittington

Texas A&M Law Review

An independent judiciary, in the American context, might best be understood as a constitutional construction. That is, it is a politically constructed set of practices, institutions, and norms that extend, but do not contradict, the legal requirements of the formal constitution. As such, judicial independence has come to occupy a fundamental status within our inherited constitutional order. But importantly, it is mutable. Our inherited practice of judicial independence has been built up and fought over across time, and within the contours of the written constitution, can be significantly reconstructed.

The example of judicial independence can serve as a useful illustration …

Fighting Fraud With Two Hands Tied Behind Your Back: Health Care Fraud In The New Administrative State, Joan H. Krause

Journal of Law and Health

Although not directed at health care fraud, recent Supreme Court administrative law decisions—particularly Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and SEC v. Jarkesy—have destabilized the administrative foundations of federal health care fraud enforcement. The end of Chevron deference has shifted interpretive authority from agencies to courts, potentially increasing challenges to regulations and other administrative interpretations while encouraging agencies to rely more heavily on informal and less stable forms of guidance. Jarkesy further complicates enforcement by threatening the legality of civil monetary penalties, a common administrative penalty in health care fraud cases. Heightened judicial scrutiny, regulatory uncertainty, shifting executive priorities, …

Narrowing The Path To Justice: The Impact Of Pulsifer On The First Step Act And Federal Sentencing Reform, Olivia Santora

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

The Supreme Court’s decision in Pulsifer resolved a critical circuit split regarding the scope of the safety valve provision, but did so in a way that denied hope of reduced sentences for thousands of incarcerated individuals. The case centered on a statutory interpretation question: whether a defendant becomes ineligible for safety valve relief if they meet any one of the three criminal history conditions—A, B, or C—or only if they satisfy all three conditions simultaneously.  The Court sided with the narrower interpretation, holding that meeting any one condition disqualifies a defendant from an opportunity for relief.

This distinction …

المحكمة العليا الأميركية في النقاش القانوني المعاصر: مراجعة المحكمة القضائية بين نظرية جن هارت إيلي ونظرية روبرت بورك, شبلي الملاّط

Proche-Orient, Études juridiques

No abstract provided.

Originalism's General-Law Turn, Nina Varsava, Bill Watson

Northwestern University Law Review

Originalists are increasingly turning to a general-law theory of constitutional rights. Under this theory, constitutional enactment declared but did not create constitutional rights. The content of those rights was, and remains, a question of general law—a species of common law, regularly employed at the Founding, that transcends jurisdictional boundaries. This preoccupation with general law has precipitated a wave of scholarship developing general-law accounts of various constitutional rights. Yet the nature of general law itself remains poorly understood.

This Article offers a theory of general law. Using philosophical methods to reexamine early American cases and recent work in legal history, the …

Old Rulings, New Reasons, Jack Boeglin

Michigan Law Review

When the Supreme Court does away with a longstanding legal principle, what should become of the hundreds, if not thousands, of precedents across the judicial system that rely upon it? Does some residual precedential value continue to attach to a decision even after its reasoning has been rejected? Or should it be overturned unless it can be upheld on a new, independently persuasive legal basis?

These are the questions courts must ask when deciding whether to “reharmonize” precedent. A court reharmonizes a past decision by supporting it on alternative grounds that better fit with changing legal or factual understandings.

The …

What Can States Teach? The Right To Education After Mahmoud, Will Simon

Fordham Law Review

In the summer of 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court set new limits on what public schools could require students to learn. Mahmoud v. Taylor pitted a school district interested in promoting pluralism against religious parents who wished to withdraw their children from classroom instruction that promoted celebration and acceptance of LGBTQ+ people. The Court found a violation of those parents’ constitutional right to freely exercise their religion, which both expanded the control parents can exert over their child’s public school education and increased the likelihood of similar claims going forward. As federal courts hear this newly expanded set of First …

What's Really Wrong With The Supreme Court -- And Why And How We Should Fix It, Stephen I. Vladeck

William & Mary Law Review

If this Essay accomplishes nothing else, hopefully it at least convinces you that [the Supreme Court's] hard-earned authority is more fickle than it might appear at first blush—and that its continuing maintenance depends upon far more than the letter of the Constitution or the ipse dixit of the Justices. Ultimately, there is nothing inevitable about the Supreme Court we had, the Court we have, or the Court we need. Rather, the persistence of a Court that can live up to its intended constitutional function depends upon all of us—not just to understand the institutional history of the Supreme Court of …

Chevron Usa Inc. V. Plaquemines Parish: Did The Removal Clarification Act Of 2011 Abrogate The “Causal Nexus” Requirement For Removal Pursuant To 28 U.S.C. § 1442—The Federal Officers Removal Statute?, E. Farish Percy

Cardozo Law Review

On June 16, 2025, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Chevron USA, Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish to address whether the causal-nexus requirement survived the Removal Clarification Act of 2011’s amendment to 28 U.S.C. § 1442, the federal officer removal statute (FORS). The consolidated cases before the court include some of the more than forty civil cases that were brought by Louisiana parishes against various oil companies seeking to hold them responsible for the loss and deterioration of Louisiana’s coastal wetlands caused by the oil companies’ alleged violations of a Louisiana state permitting law. The cases were filed in 2013 and …

How Did We Get Here?, Michael J. Klarman

Fordham Law Review

President Donald J. Trump’s second administration has transgressed basic rules and norms of democracy and the rule of law in myriad ways. Below, I have laid out my own top ten list of transgressions, though others could surely have made out a good case for their own “favorites.” It would not be difficult to come up with a longer list, yet the purpose of my Levine Lecture is less to describe where we are than to explain how we got here. Following an enumeration of Trump administration transgressions, my lecture turns to two questions. First, why have traditional checks on …

The Role Of Reliance In Stare Decisis Doctrine, Rochelle Hestnas

Fordham Law Review

The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent treatment of reliance interests in stare decisis doctrine is in flux. The Court has overruled long-standing precedent such as Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey with scant analysis as to how reliance interests factor into stare decisis doctrine, despite continuing to name reliance as a factor that should be considered. Arguments for whether and how reliance interests deserve protection are inherently challenging because it cannot be the case that every precedent should stand. Using Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization as a case study, this Note analyzes the Court’s claim …

The Mirage Of Meta Pixel Code: Redefining Pii In The Era Of Generative Ai, Sophie Venter

Fordham Law Review

Data privacy laws are intended to put consumers in control of whether their identifying data can be sold and used for targeted advertising. However, these laws do not provide adequate protections in the era of generative artificial intelligence (AI). This Note examines one way that existing privacy law permits companies to profit from selling data for targeted advertising without obtaining user consent: transferring video watching data in a pixel code. Some U.S. Courts of Appeals have determined that these data transfers do not sufficiently identify users and the videos they watched to constitute violations of user privacy. This has led …

Legalist Verses Realist Accounts Of United States V. Skrmetti, Neil S. Siegel

Faculty Scholarship

Although the Supreme Court is increasingly adopting an understanding of sex discrimination that is biologically focused and/or formalistic, this Article argues that the Court does not consistently apply that conception when doing so benefits transgender Americans. The Court’s conclusion in United States v. Skrmetti that no facial sex classification exists in Tennessee’s law banning gender-affirming care for transgender—but not cisgender—minors is irreconcilable with its conclusion five years earlier in Bostock v. Clayton County that Title VII’s prohibition on sex discrimination prohibits employers from firing employees just because they are transgender. Perhaps tellingly, only Justice Gorsuch, Bostock’s author, and Chief Justice …

Brief Of Professors Mark Storslee, John Meiser, Douglas Laycock, Nathan Chapman, Thomas Berg, Christopher Lund, Michael Helfand, Steven Collis, Meredith Kessler, Carl Esbeck, John Inazu, Asma Uddin, Christopher Hampson, And Kathleen Brady As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioners, Mark Storslee, John A. Meiser, Meredith Holland Kessler

Court Briefs

No. 26-257
Mara Nathan v. Alamo Heights Independent School District

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

From the Summary of Argument

For more than seventy years, this Court has made clear that a state “may not coerce anyone ... to take religious instruction” or use public schools to “force ... religion on any person.” Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 314 (1952). For good reason. Doing so advances one of the “true evil[s] of religious establishment" that Founding-era Americans rejected: “the use of government power” to foster “uniformity …

Supreme Court Preview 2026 (Event Program), Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.