Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

Why Dobbs Is No Roadmap For Deciding State Constitutional Abortion Issues, Daniel A. Small

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

In deciding that Fourteenth Amendment “liberty” does not protect a woman’s decision to end her pregnancy, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization sought to distinguish the precedent that Roe and Casey relied on to recognize an abortion right. The Dobbs majority claimed that this precedent did not support a right to abortion because, in its view, destroying a fetus is more immoral than the conduct at issue in those earlier cases. However, moral concerns about fetal destruction shed no light on the nature or characteristics of a woman’s liberty interest in an abortion decision. These concerns, therefore, cannot show whether …

What Is “The Nation’S History And Tradition?”: Using History To Redefine “Liberty” And Applying A New Deeply Rooted Test To Transgender Rights, Kaori Kawaguchi

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

INTRODUCTION: “In a Constitution for a free people, there can be no doubt that the meaning of ‘liberty’ must be broad indeed.” In Roe v. Wade, the Court considered a woman’s liberty right to decide whether to continue a pregnancy or have an abortion and recognized the constitutional validity of a liberty right to abortion as part of the right to privacy. In Roe, the Court concluded, “[o]nly personal rights that can be deemed ‘fundamental’ or ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty’ are included in the guarantee of a right of personal privacy.” Liberty should be “left to …

A Theory Of Major Questions, Nicholas Almendares

Cardozo Law Review

The major questions doctrine has been fiercely criticized as an example of the Supreme Court’s “imperial” turn where it concentrates ever more power in its own hands. The doctrine is sweeping, vague, and lacks a clear justification. Not only does the Court get to decide when the doctrine applies and when the heightened standard is satisfied, but it has also not offered good reasons behind this rule. A well-defined theory would give the doctrine structure, clarity, and consistency. While majority opinions have been conspicuously quiet on the theory behind the major questions doctrine, concurrences, namely by Justice Gorsuch, have argued …

Spending Programs And The New Roberts Court, Nicole Huberfeld

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court is poised to place new limits on Congress’s spending power at the urging of states vying for regulatory dominance, particularly in health care and public health. This article is the first to highlight and catalog the throughlines of argumentation, which sparked after states successfully challenged the ACA but have grown into opposing more than Medicaid’s cooperative federalism. This means federal and state programs that heavily rely on federal spending power are at risk, so studying this pattern is imperative. The article begins with a descriptive account of increasing spending power challenges, which make use of converging factors …

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 …

Gienapp's Big Book: Conceptual Rupture, Modernism, And The End Of Originalism, Logan E. Sawyer Iii

Scholarly Works

For decades, we have lived in an age of partisan jurisprudence, in which nearly every Republican has embraced originalism, and nearly every Democrat has rejected it. One can mark the start of that era in multiple places, but one good choice is November 11th, 1977. That day, in the pages of National Review, William F. Buckley previewed Government by Judiciary, Raoul Berger’s originalist critique of the Warren Court’s rights revolution. The review, entitled “Berger’s Big Book,” was highly complimentary. Berger’s rebuke of Warren Court activism was, Buckley thought, “devastating.” And he was not alone. Following the publication of Government by …

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. …

Taking Legality Seriously: What The Major Questions Doctrine Is — And Isn't, Andrea Scoseria Katz, Ofra Bloch

Scholarship@WashULaw

The Major Questions Doctrine (MQD), a controversial recent innovation of the Roberts Court that applies stricter scrutiny to “major” actions taken by federal agencies, has faced criticism for being atextual, unprincipled, and nakedly ideological. But this critique misses the fact that the doctrine has near-exact analogues in many other legal systems, where it is an established tool for reining in executive overreach. This Article argues that, while the MQD reflects valid rule-of-law concerns, as applied, it lacks theoretical clarity, consistency and limits. More importantly, the Court itself lacks a theory of what the MQD is. We provide an answer grounded …

Foreword: The Constitution And Public Finance—Why Now And Why Ever?, Conor Clarke, Eric Kubo

Scholarship@WashULaw

This paper introduces the Washington University Law Review’s 2026 symposium issue on “Taxing, Spending, and the Constitution.” We situate the symposium’s ten papers within three interconnected developments in public finance law: the Supreme Court’s recent decision on the Sixteenth Amendment in Moore v. United States; the Trump Administration’s assertions of executive control over appropriated funds; and the use of emergency and trade statutes to justify sweeping tariff authority.

We also step back to ask why constitutional issues in public finance—long treated as a technical backwater—have become such a central site of doctrinal and political conflict. We offer several explanations beyond …

Excavating Miranda, Samuel J. Levine

Scholarly Works

Sixty years after it was decided, Miranda v. Arizona remains one of the most significant and renowned cases—as well as, arguably, one of the most controversial cases—in the history of the United States. Chief Justice Earl Warren’s majority opinion, establishing the eponymous Miranda warnings for custodial interrogation of criminal suspects, has prompted voluminous and continuing commentary, among both critics and supporters. This Article is part of an ongoing project exploring a particular aspect of Chief Justice Warren’s majority opinion: a footnote referencing Jewish legal sources, documenting an important passage at the start of a pivotal section of the opinion.

Building …

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 …