Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

A True Fact Should Not Be Controversial: Analyzing The Zauderer Standard And Defining “Uncontroversial”, Edina Hartstein

Fordham Law Review

In Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized an exception to the compelled speech doctrine that allowed the government to regulate commercial speech if it was “purely factual and uncontroversial.” However, the Court failed to define what it meant for a disclosure to be “purely factual” or what it meant to be “uncontroversial.” This lack of clarity led to lower courts inconsistently applying the Zauderer standard. In 2018, the Supreme Court decided National Institute for Family Life & Advocates v. Becerra (NIFLA), which held that the Zauderer standard cannot apply when the disclosure …

Red, White-, And Blue-Collar Crime: Federal Sentencing Practices Among White-Collar And Blue-Collar Offenders, Henna Judge

Fordham Law Review

Under the current federal sentencing regime, district courts exercise immense amounts of discretion when sentencing. Though strict adherence to the U.S. Sentencing Commission Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) was once mandatory, courts must now use these Guidelines as an advisory starting point and make a series of fact-specific determinations when sentencing a defendant. Though judicial discretion in this realm aids in preventing undue reliance on Guidelines-range recommendations that can lack nuance, it also invites bias.

In recent years, scholars and courts alike have called attention to a potential disparity in the way blue-collar and white-collar offenders are sentenced. This Note examines relevant …

Opioids And Oblivion: Corporate Bankruptcy And The Erosion Of Accountability In Big Pharma, Ying Yuan

Washington Law Review

In June 2024, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma that nonconsensual releases for nondebtors are unconstitutional. The decision marked a key development in mass tort litigation involving Purdue Pharma, the company at the center of the opioid crisis. The Sackler family sought to use Purdue’s bankruptcy proceedings to shield themselves from liability, but the Court’s ruling invalidated the use of nondebtor releases to protect third parties from claims without the full consent of affected parties. While the ruling strengthens creditor protections, it creates uncertainty regarding how mass tort bankruptcies can efficiently compensate victims, particularly in …

From The Bench To The Feed: Conflict Between Public Official Accounts And The First Amendment, Betty Yu

Washington Law Review

Imagine one day waking up, opening Facebook, and discovering that the official White House account blocked you because you left a comment expressing a viewpoint. In this case, your First Amendment right to free speech would most likely be violated. However, what happens if your local official blocks you or deletes your comments? Are your First Amendment rights violated? Well, it depends.

Historically, public officials have used public forums such as town halls to meet with citizens and answer questions. However, as social media platforms like X and Facebook have become increasingly crucial tools for communication, the distinction between personal …

A Dangerous Challenge To The Constitutionality Of The Felon-In-Possession Statute: United States V. Bullock, Matthew Matherne

MC Law Review

In United States v. Bullock, Judge Carlton Reeves held that the federal felon-in-possession statute was unconstitutional as applied to Mr. Bullock. Although Mr. Bullock had been previously convicted of multiple violent felonies involving a firearm, including one that resulted in the death of an individual, Judge Reeves dismissed the charges because the government failed to establish a historical tradition of prohibiting felons from possessing firearms. Judge Reeves’ determination that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to Mr. Bullock is a decision that is not only “dangerous” to society, but it contradicts the historical tradition of firearm regulation in America. …

Rethinking The Key Role Of Private Antitrust Enforcement, Filippo Lancieri

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

This Article focuses on the institutional design of American competition policy. It argues that any long-term effective revival of U.S. antitrust policy requires a better acknowledgement of the key and irreplaceable role played by private litigation and proposes a rethink of private anti-trust enforcement policy.

To unpack the nuanced interconnection between public and private competition enforcement, the Article begins by tracing the rise and fall of private antitrust. It builds on a novel, hand-coded, and comprehensive analysis of the entire Supreme Court antitrust track record—all 474 decisions over 130 years—to outline how an ideologically …

Judicial Ethics, The Supreme Court, And The Rule Of Law, Charles G. Geyh

Articles by Maurer Faculty

This Essay begins with a short history of judicial ethics regulation in the United States, ending with the adoption of codes of conduct by every state and federal judicial system except the Supreme Court of the United States. It then turns to a series of ethics controversies encircling the Supreme Court and its justices, which culminated in the Supreme Court adopting a Code of Conduct in 2023. Tapping into the social science literature, it argues that for codes to improve the ethical climate of an institution they must encourage psychological ownership of and “buy-in” to a code by those subject …

Brief Of Amici Curiae Professors Of Constitutional And Criminal Law In Support Of Petitioner (Whitton V. Dixon - 25-580), Ira P. Robbins, Jeffrey Fagan, Michael Cassidy, Barbara O'Brien, Catherine Grosso, William W. Berry Iii, Ellen C. Yaroshefsky

Amicus Briefs & Court Filings

Brief in support of Petitioner.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT: This Court has “consistently held that a conviction obtained by the knowing use of perjured testimony is fundamentally unfair” because it “involve[s] a corruption of the truth-seeking function of the trial process.” United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 103–04 (1976). Here, the Eleventh Circuit acknowledged that the state committed a Giglio violation when it permitted a jailhouse informant to falsely testify at trial that he lacked a violent criminal record despite prosecutors knowing that he did. The Eleventh Circuit deemed this violation harmless, however, based on its erroneous consideration of …

Turbulence In The Courts: Jetblue Suffers From Faulty Antitrust Actions, Rudolph Veiga

Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial & Commercial Law

Recently, the Department of Justice has become the leading force behind antitrust challenges against airline alliances and mergers. Unfortunately, it is difficult for someone to determine when the department will challenge an airline joint venture because the department has not consistently challenged all alliances or mergers over the last few years. JetBlue Airways defended itself against two different antitrust challenges by the department—one against the Northeast Alliance with American Airlines, and one against the acquisition of Spirit Airlines—and JetBlue lost both. The Department of Justice did not challenge the merger of Alaska Airlines and Hawaiian Airlines, which was finalized just …

The Heteronormative Language Of Law: The Win In Bostock And The Loss For Title Ix, Negar Khalaf

Journal of Law and Policy

The struggle for equality in education begins with language. Legal categories like “sex” and “gender identity” shape who is protected and who is left behind. When the Supreme Court decided Bostock v. Clayton County, it extended protection to LGBTQ+ workers but offered no definition robust enough to secure similar rights for students under Title IX. Subsequent efforts by the Department of Education to bridge that gap—culminating in Tennessee v. Cardona and constrained by Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo—reveal the limits of agency action in a post-Chevron era. This Note calls for a legislative solution: an amended Equality Act Bill (“EAB”) …

Local Government Standing As State Standing, Katharine Cooney, Katherine Mims Crocker

Faculty Scholarship

It is increasingly common, and controversial, for local governments to bring lawsuits as plaintiffs in federal court. Many questions about this practice raise matters that sound in policy. But some, including the issue of standing to sue, also raise issues of constitutional law. How local governments fit into standing rules should reflect how they fit into the U.S. constitutional system more broadly. As the Supreme Court put it in the famous (and infamous) 1907 case Hunter v. City of Pittsburgh, "[m]unicipal corporations are political subdivisions of the State, created as convenient agencies for exercising such of the governmental powers of …

"The Terms And Spirit": Preserving The Purpose Of The Fair Labor Standards Act By Applying The Clear And Convincing Evidence Standard In Flsa Exemption Cases, Bridget Mccourt

Cleveland State Law Review

In 2023, the Fourth Circuit in Carrera v. E.M.D. Sales split from its sister courts by requiring employers to prove by clear and convincing evidence that an employee is exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). The Supreme Court reversed the Fourth Circuit’s decision, resolving the split by holding that the preponderance of the evidence is the correct standard. This Note argues that the Fourth Circuit, despite failing to provide a justification for its heightened standard, was correct because it preserves the terms and spirit of the FLSA. Congress enacted the FLSA as a remedial statute aimed to alleviate …

A Rendezvous With Destiny: The President's Ftc Removals And The Rule Of Law, George Sakkopoulos

Cleveland State Law Review

In March 2025, the President removed two commissioners of the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”). The removed commissioners called the removals unlawful and challenged them in court, citing the FTC Act’s for-cause removal protection and the Supreme Court’s decision in Humphrey’s. After President Roosevelt removed an FTC commissioner, the Supreme Court in Humphrey’s in 1935 upheld the constitutionality of the FTC Act’s removal limitation based on the FTC being expert, nonpartisan/independent, quasi-judicial, and quasi-legislative. The Court in Seila in 2020 held that the President has “unrestricted removal power” as to the executive branch unless the Humphrey’s exception for “multimember expert …

Unfollowing Censorship: A Policy-Oriented Analysis Of Government Pressure On Social Media Content Management, William C. Morgan

Cleveland State Law Review

The introduction of social media has facilitated communications and connectivity globally. However, in recent years, social media companies have started to adopt content moderation practices that are directly influenced by government pressure to comply with their requests to arrange information. Typically, these newly adopted practices often aim to censor or diminish the exposure of certain views, comments, and/or posts that the U.S. government, through its actors, dislike or find threatening to national security. This paper examines how informal government outreach to indirectly monitor, and control social media companies’ content moderation practices undermine the platforms’ constitutionally protected editorial autonomy. Consequently, this …

Nonparty Protective Relief In The Early Republic: Judicial Power To Annul Letters Patent, James E. Pfander, Mary E. Zakowski

Northwestern University Law Review

Much of the debate over the constitutionality of universal or nonparty protective relief in the federal court system has focused on lessons drawn from historical practice. But with its emphasis on injunctive relief, the literature has largely ignored forms of adjudication that arose outside the courts of equity and led to judgments and decrees affecting the rights of nonparties. As a result, the story of nonparty protective relief has not yet been fully told.

This Article offers a more complete story, highlighting proceedings in which federal courts issued judgments that settled a matter once and for all. Some familiar examples …

First Amendment Exceptions To Otherwise Valid Laws: A Doctrinal And Meta-Doctrinal Perspective, Richard H. Fallon Jr.

Northwestern University Law Review

When do the First Amendment’s Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses require exceptions to generally valid laws? Recently, the Supreme Court has upheld a number of such exceptions, which excuse some speakers and religiously motivated actors from legal duties that apply to others, including in prominent cases under antidiscrimination statutes and emergency pandemic regulations. By contrast, other landmark cases––such as United States v. O’Brien and Employment Division v. Smith—insist that First Amendment exceptions should be rare.

In analyzing the fraught and confusing issues that surround First Amendment exceptions, this Article makes four main contributions. First, it conceptualizes claims to …

Malapportionment: A Murder Mystery, Daniel Wodak

Northwestern University Law Review

Malapportionment—electoral districts with divergent ratios of people to representation—was ruled to be unconstitutional in a widely venerated series of cases before the Warren Court. Those cases held that a principle of political equality, one person, one vote, is required by the Constitution. But what is the content of that principle? Many Justices and commentators declare that it is vague, empty, circular, or meaningless. This creates a murder mystery. Malapportionment was killed, but by what exactly? This Article seeks an answer by focusing on the Supreme Court’s commitments about the scope and strictness of one person, one vote: it …

Control As A Constitutional Threshold: Moody V. Netchoice And The Case For Human Authorship, Giselle Goad

Northwestern University Law Review

The Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Moody v. NetChoice, LLC left a critical question unanswered: when do algorithmic outputs on social media platforms, such as recommended posts and videos, constitute the platform’s protected speech under the First Amendment? This Note contends that courts and litigants should borrow from the First Amendment’s speech-promoting partner, copyright law, and its authorship framework when answering that question. Copyright doctrine has already begun to grapple with how much human control is required over expressive outputs generated with the aid of technology, including AI, in order for an author to receive copyright protection over those outputs. …

Torts And Pesticide Drift: Amending Right-To-Farm Acts In The Wake Of Widespread Dicamba Drift By Nicholas Brown** And Matt Roessing*

Journal of Legal Studies in Business

When crops die in a field prior to harvest, a farmer loses a portion of his salary for that year. When the cause of the crop loss is natural, farmers can usually seek compensation through crop insurance and government commodity support programs. When the crops were lost as a result of pesticide drift, these forms of compensation are not usually available to farmers.1 In order to make up for their losses, farmers can seek damages through judicial redress. For many decades, various state and federal laws have combined to complicate and at times prevent farmers adversely affected by pesticide drift …

Cover Page & Table Of Contents - Volume 23

Journal of Legal Studies in Business

JLSB vol. 23 Title Page & Table of Contents