Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

Reconstituting A Constitution, And A Republic: The Architecture Of Authoritarian Rule, J. Maria Glover

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

A constitution can be remade without tearing it down, or even changing a single word. It is done by law.

“The judicial power is vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as Congress may establish,” whose “province and duty” it is to “say what the law is.” U.S. Const. Art. III §1; Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 1 (Cranch) 137 (1803). It is not the power to remake the Constitution that grants it.

The Supreme Court is turning the inherited powers that hold power to law into instruments of its own aggrandizement. It is taking authority from …

Two Questions For School-Choice Funding After Carson, Nicole Stelle Garnett, John A. Meiser

Journal Articles

In a series of recent cases, the Supreme Court of the United States has made clear that the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause prohibits religious discrimination in public benefit programs. That is, when the government creates a public benefit program, the Free Exercise Clause prohibits it from excluding private entities from participating because of their religious character or status or because they engage in religious conduct. This essay addresses two questions raised left unresolved by these cases and flags a third. The first question is, what is private? The religious nondiscrimination principle applies only when the government aids private conduct. …

Firearms And Fora: Constructing Public Carry Doctrine, Timothy Zick

Faculty Publications

Where can a person lawfully carry firearms in public? Under what conditions can they do so? Now that the Supreme Court has formally recognized a Second Amendment right to public carry, these are among the most important unresolved questions regarding the right to bear arms. The Second Amendment’s public carry doctrine is in its infancy. How the doctrine develops will have a profound impact on the exercise of Second Amendment rights in public places and on the public square. Integrating a new constitutional right into the public square is not a novel problem. After the Supreme Court recognized First Amendment …

Standard Textualism, James A. Macleod

Articles

For as long as legal scholars have been writing about the rules-versus-standards distinction, textualism has been understood to produce characteristically rule-like law. This Article argues for the opposite view. Far from generating the “law of rules” that Scalia famously envisioned, the rule of modern textualism produces a law of standards—much more so than anybody, proponent of textualism or critic, appears to have recognized.

Two aspects of today’s textualism produce this result. The first is its emphasis on ordinary language and communication. Modern textualism typically produces standards because ordinary language and communication are typically standard-like. The second is modern textualism’s drive …

The Rise And [?] Of Anti-Administrativism, Gary Lawson

BYU Law Review

Scholars have proclaimed the administrative state to be “Under Siege” or subject to a “Never-Ending Assault.” Was the election of President Donald Trump on November 5, 2024, the sixth, if not yet the seventh, day around the walls?

This seems an appropriate time to consider the present and future of opposition to the administrative state—something that has come to be dubbed “anti-administrativism.” The first task, as is usually the case when one seeks intellectual clarity, is to figure out what one is talking about. What is this “anti-administrativism”? Without knowing the answer to that seemingly simple question, one cannot accurately …

Rules Of Decision, Judicial Power, And The Valid Rule Requirement, John Harrison

Catholic University Law Review

Some current Supreme Court debates that concern seemingly specialized issues raise fundamental questions about the role of the Constitution in the legal system and the role of the courts when they decide constitutional issues. In recent years, Justice Thomas has suggested that the doctrines of First Amendment overbreadth, so-called third-party standing in cases involving constitutional liberty, and statutory inseverability call on federal courts to exceed their role under Article III. Justice Thomas maintains that when courts apply those doctrines, the courts decide cases not before them. Building on the work of Professor Henry Monaghan, this article argues that those concerns …

Splitting The Statute: Severability As A Canon Of Construction Or Constitutional Concern?, Amy L. Moore

Catholic University Law Review

Severability doctrine stands at the crossroads of statutory interpretation and constitutional structure. This Article traces how the Supreme Court has struggled to define whether severability is merely an interpretive presumption designed to preserve as much of Congress’ work as possible, or a constitutional limit on judicial power that forbids courts from reconstructing statutes Congress never enacted. Beginning with Marbury v. Madison and running through cases like Alaska Airlines, Booker, Ayotte, Seila Law, and Loper Bright, this Article charts the Court’s shifting rationales from legislative intent and functional operability to structural separation-of-powers concerns. It distinguishes between …

Facial Challenges, Remedies, And The Judicial Power, Natalie R. Schmidt

Catholic University Law Review

The Supreme Court has long maligned facial, as opposed to as-applied, challenges to the constitutionality of statutes, warning that they are disfavored and difficult to win. But recently, in his separate opinion in Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, Justice Thomas has launched a stronger attack: facial challenges are improper exercises of the judicial power. Facial challenges, he asserted, require courts to go beyond the case or controversy before them, improperly distort standing doctrine, and thus violate Article III of the U.S. Constitution.

This Symposium Piece addresses Justice Thomas’s charge head on, arguing that facial challenges do not implicate the judicial …

Rethinking Judicial Power & Remedial Restraint, Caprice L. Roberts

Catholic University Law Review

This Article maintains that groundbreaking Supreme Court cases reshaping judicial power and restraint are frequently remedies centric. The much- anticipated ruling in Trump v. CASA illustrates this correlation. Interpreting traditional equity, the Supreme Court circumscribed federal judicial power to issue universal relief. The Court relied on Marbury v. Madison to bolster its reasoning on the limits of judicial power. Ironically, both cases denied any remedy while enhancing the potential for future judicial power. Whether via judicial review and supremacy power or the Court’s future ability to now be the only federal court able to issue universal remedies—the Court’s role in …

Disregarding Severability, Kevin C. Walsh

Catholic University Law Review

The infirmities of severability doctrine have elicited increased attention at the Supreme Court. In his application of severability doctrine for a five-Justice majority in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., Chief Justice Roberts began to reformulate the doctrine in a way that can free the Court from the misleading mental imagery conjured by the conception of courts as “severing” provisions from a statute. Roberts's reformulation more properly depicts the relevant judicial activity to be judicial disregard of statutory rules to avoid unconstitutional applications of law rather than judicial severance of textual provisions to fix a problem that inheres in the …

Brief Of The Notre Dame Education Law Project, Islam And Religious Freedom Action Team, Jewish Coalition For Religious Liberty, And Manhattan Institute As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioners, John A. Meiser, Meredith Holland Kessler, Domenic Canonico

Court Briefs

No. 25-581
St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Lisa Roy

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

From the Summary of Argument

Three times in the last eight years, this Court has struck down efforts to exclude religious institutions from otherwise available funding programs. Each time, opponents of the Court’s decisions have sought to riddle them with holes, requiring the Court to intervene to prevent its rulings—and the First Amendment’s command against religious discrimination—from being so easily evaded. Regrettably, this Court must step in again, as some states, like Colorado, still …

From Sidewalks, Streets, And Parks To Social Media: How Should Courts Apply The Public Forum Doctrine In The Digital Age?, Laurel Wanger

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

This Note examines the circuit split over whether government officials’ social media pages constitute public forums and analyzes how the Supreme Court settled the doctrinal uncertainty in Lindke v. Freed. Part I presents context for this issue by explaining the origins of the public forum doctrine, the ways in which government officials use social media as a means of interacting with their constituents, and the circuit split regarding the proper test to be used when deciding these issues. Part II provides an overview of the majority test used by the Second, Fourth, Eighth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits, and …

Packing Our Way To Balance: A Necessary Correction For The Supreme Court, Robert E. Wagner

St. John's Law Review

The Supreme Court is in turmoil. It has the lowest recorded approval rating in its history. Multiple decisions over the past decade made by Justices nominated by a single political party, that the majority of the country viewed as political in nature, have tarnished the reputation of what was once a beacon of justice and impartiality. The Court is increasingly seen as a partisan institution with political actors rather than the fair and honest arbiter America needs it to be. In addition to dramatically unpopular decisions, the Court has suffered increasingly hostile and political machinations in its nominating process. This …

Gilded Executive Privilege: The Unstated Evidentiary Rule In Trump V. United States, Matthew D. Woodham, Ramona C. Albin

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

In Trump v. United States, the Supreme Court of the United States held that a former President has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts within his core constitutional powers, presumptive immunity for all other official acts, and no immunity for private conduct undertaken while in office. Although the Court granted certiorari to address an immunity question, it then strayed into an evidentiary one in holding certain official acts evidence to be categorically inadmissible in the prosecution of private conduct. This Article interrogates the evidentiary foundation for this lesser-explored aspect of the Trump opinion and the danger …

Greenhat’S Greenlight To The Cftc: The Case For A Jurisdictional Shift Of Financial Transmission Rights From The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission To The Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Timothy K. Shaw Ii

DePaul Business & Commercial Law Journal

Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators are a relatively new platform to buy and sell wholesale electricity and transmission service of that electricity. These groundbreaking organizations have been around since 1996 after the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) issued Order 888. FERC regulates the physical electricity wholesale sale and transmission service market managed by a Regional Transmission Organization (“RTO”) or Independent System Operator (“ISO”),through its Federal Power Act mandate. Many RTOs and ISOs offer a product called a Financial Transmission Right (“FTR”). Traditionally, FTRs assist the holder by providing price certainty, or a hedge, in the capacity market. This …

Choosing The Best Entity For Investments Trading After Understanding The Tax Limitations And Restrictions, Ray A. Knight, Joseph Lakatos

DePaul Business & Commercial Law Journal

The trading of various securities is subject to market rules. However, when securities trading is completed within a business entity, the entity is subject to tax limitations and restrictions. The tax benefits cannot be the dominant purpose for the entity structure; economic substance including profit motive and business purpose for each transaction must be able to be shown.

The trading of investment securities must be housed in the right entity to gain the best economic results as well as to minimize the tax burden. The entity selection process must first consider the characteristics and nature of the securities (e.g., currencies, …

Volume 23 - Front Matter

DePaul Business & Commercial Law Journal

No abstract provided.

United States V. Skrmetti: L’Identité De Genre Dans Le Droit Et La Politique De L’Égale Protection, Olatunde C.A. Johnson

Faculty Scholarship

French Abstract: L’article analyse l’arrêt United States v. Skrmetti, dans lequel la Cour suprême américaine juge que l’interdiction, par le Tennessee, des bloqueurs de puberté pour les mineurs trans ne viole pas la clause constitutionnelle d’égalité, dite clause « d’égale protection ». Refusant de considérer qu’il s’agit d’une discrimination fondée sur le sexe, la Cour applique le contrôle le plus déférent (base rationnelle) et accepte l’argument de l’État selon lequel il protège les mineur·es de risques médicaux incertains. L’auteure montre ici que cette approche s’inscrit dans un contexte plus large de lois et de décrets fédéraux visant les personnes …

Separation-Of-Powers Lochnerism, Andrea Scoseria Katz

Fordham Law Review

One hundred and twenty years ago, in 1905, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered one of the single most notorious opinions in history, striking down a New York labor law for violating the right to contract—a right found nowhere in the text of the Constitution. Though the era of Lochner v. New York is well past us, the judicial impulses that gave rise to the case remain. With a new champion in the Roberts Court, Lochnerism is alive and well, deployed in a new context to redefine the relationships between the president, Congress, federal agencies, and the courts.

Bringing together two …

The Equal Pay Act’S Hidden Loophole: Eliminating Prior Compensation As A “Factor Other Than Sex”, Madeleine Bol

Fordham Law Review

The Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA or the “Act”) prohibits employers from engaging in sex-based wage discrimination. The Act includes four exceptions that allow an employer to circumvent liability, the last of which allows for pay disparities when the “differential [is] based on any other factor other than sex.” The language of this exceedingly broad exception raises questions among courts on what “other than sex” entails—specifically, whether a court can rely on an employee’s prior compensation to justify a pay disparity between employees of the opposite sex. This Note examines how federal circuit courts have interpreted this catchall exception. …