Courts Commons^™

The Supreme Court Vs. Federal Prosecutors, Scott Ingram

Et Cetera

For the past forty years, the United States Supreme Court and federal prosecutors have waged an ongoing battle over statutory interpretation. As federal prosecutors have applied broad statutory interpretations to a variety of offenses, the Supreme Court, in a rare show of unanimity, have pushed back by interpreting the statutes narrowly. Throughout this process, the Supreme Court has employed a variety of rationales to support the narrow interpretations. Beginning with federalism concerns, the Court has more recently turned to fears about arbitrary and politically-motivated prosecutions. This article traces the evolution of this battle and concludes with insights about its future …

Recognition Without Authority? Why Vesting Government Recognition In The U.N. Credentials Committee Would Be A Mistake, Jorge Barrera-Rojas

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

When the legitimacy of a government is contested, courts, regional bodies, and states each decide independently who speaks for the state in law. In Recognition Rules, Justin Cole, Alaa Hachem, and Oona Hathaway argue that this fragmentation imposes real costs and propose to cure them by empowering the U.N. Credentials Committee to issue binding determinations of governmental authority across all international law contexts. This Article argues that, beyond Charter obstacles to such a reform, it would be a mistake. The effective-control criterion rewards actors who seize power by force over governments that retain democratic legitimacy; binding credentials decisions would …

Or Else: Statutes Without Sanctions And The Doctrine Of Meaningful Interpretation, Christian Davis

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

Mankind has been fashioning laws for millennia. And while the form and substance of laws vary widely across times and places, all laws are unified by a fundamental reality that transcends the particular legal and political institutions of the day. To put it simply: laws only work if someone is prepared to enforce them.

As arbiters of the American legal system, state and federal judges are aware that—in order for a law to have the conduct-influencing effect it was designed to have—it must be supported by some version of an “or else” clause, a punishment or penalty sufficient to dissuade …

The Judicial Police Power, Alice Ristroph

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Glossip’S Road Map To Nowhere, Vida Johnson

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Glossip v. Oklahoma was heralded as a victory for the defense. This essay argues that the 2025 Glossip decision does little to fix the myriad problems that led to Mr. Glossip’s wrongful conviction. While ultimately the Supreme Court reached the correct outcome this time, the ordinary judicial process and its purported safeguards were not what saved Mr. Glossip’s life. Rather, it was random chance that came to Mr. Glossip’s aid.

Ten years earlier, the Supreme Court, with many of the same Justices on the bench now, paved the way for Mr. Glossip’s execution. The …

Law School News: Rwu Names Richard "Dick" Sullivan '79 And Judge Lara E. Montecalvo As 2026 Honorary Degree Recipients 4-16-2026, Kelly Brinza

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Brief Of The American Immigration Lawyers Association And Immigration Law Scholars As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondents, Lindsay Nash

Amicus Briefs

Amicus curiae brief submitted by the American Immigration Lawyers Association and immigration law scholars in support of the respondents in Mullin v. Doe and Trump v. Miot before the Supreme Court of the United States. The brief argues that the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) statute strictly limits the Executive Branch's authority to terminate TPS designations and requires continuation of protection unless the statutory conditions justifying designation no longer exist. The amici further contend that TPS serves a critical humanitarian function by protecting individuals from removal, detention, and loss of work authorization while conditions in designated countries remain unsafe.

Evaluasi Terhadap Undang-Undang Pemilu Dan Peraturan Pelaksanaannya Kearah Penyempurnaan Sistim Pemilu, M. Riza Sihbudi

Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan

Abstract

Racial Bias In Jury Selection: The Fundamental And Pragmatic Issues With Batson Challenges, Abigail Lindsey

Arkansas Law Review

In April of 2024, the District Attorney of Alameda County in California revealed evidence of “serious misconduct” by several prosecutors who oversaw a murder trial in 1993, in which the jury found a Black man guilty and sentenced him to death. The evidence of misconduct included the prosecutors’ trial notes. The notes that have been released suggest the prosecutors struck potential jurors from the jury pool because they were Jewish—the notes include: “I liked him better than any other Jew but no way.” The District Attorney is now looking into the county’s other death penalty cases, some of which took …

Disproportionate Influence: Rethinking Control In American Corporate Governance, Dhruv Aggarwal, Ofer Eldar

Northwestern University Law Review

Corporate law has undergone a gradual transformation. Founding chief executive officers (“founder-CEOs”) and activist hedge funds increasingly dominate leading American corporations despite owning well short of a majority of shares. Founder-CEOs, through personal brands or dual-class voting structures, control firms despite having minority stakes; activist hedge funds, with single-digit holdings, press for major governance changes. We argue that these two types of shareholders, often treated as opposites, both dominate corporations through disproportionate influence rather than majority ownership. We describe these investors who dictate corporate policy through disproportionate influence as high-influence shareholders.

Delaware’s doctrinal response to high-influence shareholders has been inconsistent, …

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 …

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 …

Mister President & May It Please The Executive: Causal Barriers To Court-Packing, Mason Smith

Seaver College Research And Scholarly Achievement Symposium

As attacks on democracy have become increasingly ubiquitous, scholarship has begun to shed light on a common, effective, and inimical means of subverting governments accountable to the masses: court-packing. So, how can democracies prevent court-packing? Among many implicit causal theories taken from the extant research, which hasn’t directly tackled this problem, two seem the most plausible and ripe for analysis, suggesting that court-packing’s success turns on either the strength (i) of institutional constraints or (ii) of domestic judicial norms. To see which theory works better in practice, I use a narrowly tailored iteration of comparative process tracing, as it best …

Aspek Yuridis Pemutusan Hubungan Kerja Di Perusahaan Swasta, Abdul Bari Azed

Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan

Abstract

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 Imperious Presidency: Brazen Power Plays And Executive Overreach, Daniel Farber

Pepperdine Law Review

The Trump Administration has been prone to brazen power plays. These actions have three basic characteristics: they are dramatic deviations from conventional governance, generating headlines and online clicks; their legal (and sometimes factual) foundations are tenuous; and they are potentially effective even if they are ultimately held lawful. This Essay analyzes this phenomenon. It argues that such power plays can be a rational strategy for a president under certain circumstances. Power plays can help dominate the news flow and energize the political base. They can also cause behavior shifts in their targets, even when litigation would be likely to overturn …

“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 …

“Conditional” Class Certification Under The Flsa: Violation Of Rule 23 And The Rules Enabling Act, Markham R. Leventhal

University of Miami Law Review

So-called “collective” actions under § 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (the “FLSA”) are nothing more than “opt-in” class actions. This Article exposes the unjustifiable failure to apply Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to these actions, the erroneous conclusion by several circuit courts that these actions are not “representative” actions but rather some kind of “mass joinder,” and the resulting violation of the Rules Enabling Act when courts allow these “collective” actions to proceed without satisfying the requirements of Rules 23(a) and (b). The author explains why the vast majority of federal courts, using an …

Administering Election Disputes, Rebecca Green

University of Miami Law Review

U.S. election administration has become supercharged with controversy. A process that should be mundane—casting and counting votes—has become the target of relentless litigation, much of which ends in non-merits rulings that risk perpetuating rather than resolving public concerns. The high volume of election litigation is costly, strains election officials, and risks eroding public trust in both elections and the courts. Recognizing the need to resolve election claims fairly and efficiently, Administering Election Disputes examines administrative remedies as an under-theorized alternative to judicial resolution. Increased use of well-designed administrative election dispute resolution (AEDR) could reduce pressure on courts, deliver faster and …