Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

Restorative Justice For Young Adults: Lessons From School Discipline, Caroline Perrin

University of Richmond Law Review

Public policy debates about discipline and punishment often center around a tension between punitive and rehabilitative ideals. Since the 1970s, there has been a trend in criminal justice away from rehabilitation and toward increasingly retributive forms of punishment. Both state and federal governments began to enact “zero-tolerance” laws in an effort to make up for perceived shortcomings in the criminal justice system. This led to a system where individuals were automatically punished for crimes that previously would have been addressed through more rehabilitative methods. The resulting zero-tolerance regime had a particularly disproportionate impact on the young-adult population being funneled through …

Uniform Climate Control, Anthony Moffa

University of Richmond Law Review

Part I will briefly recount the recent history of subnational environmental law in the United States and the scholarly treatment of it. Part II will do the same with the model- and uniform-law movements. Part III will focus on the most successful organization in terms of drafting and promoting model legislation at the subnational level—the American Legislative Exchange Council (“ALEC”). Because ALEC’s efforts on climate change attempt to entrench inaction for the benefit of its fossil fuel industry members, Part IV examines organizations and resources that facilitate subnational action on climate change. In doing so, it also provides a taxonomy …

A More Perfect Pickering Test: Janus V. Afscme Council 31 And The Problem Of Public Employee Speech, Alexandra J. Gilewicz

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

In June 2018, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited—and, for the American labor movement, long-feared—decision in Janus v. AFSCME Council 31. The decision is expected to have a major impact on public sector employee union membership, but could have further impact on public employees’ speech rights in the workplace. Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito’s broad interpretation of whether work-related speech constitutes a “matter of public concern” may have opened the floodgates to substantially more litigation by employees asserting that their employers have violated their First Amendment rights. Claims that would have previously been unequivocally foreclosed may now …

Unfoxing Judicial Review Of Agency Policy Reversals Or “We Were Told To Like The New Policy Better” Is Not A Good Reason To Change, Richard W. Murphy

University of Richmond Law Review

Part I of this Article provides context for the debate over the Fox power by tracing the evolution of leading efforts over the last century to legitimize agency policymaking and close the “democracy deficit” that it purportedly creates. Part I focuses in particular on the courts’ development of arbitrariness review as a means of controlling agency policymaking, and it also pays particular attention to the “presidentialist” model that White House control of agency policymaking democratizes and legitimizes it. Part II takes a close look at the Fox litigation itself. This discussion reveals that Justice Scalia’s Fox power, like presidentialism, presupposes …

Prosecutors And Police: An Unholy Union, Maybell Romero

University of Richmond Law Review

This Article argues that, with the once-unheard-of step of prosecutors and police unionizing together in St. Louis, and with relationships between prosecutors and police trending toward growing closer all the time, government at all levels—federal, state, and local—should consider the potential risks of such relationships. Part I explores different types of relationships that go beyond what was once the traditional working relationship between police and prosecutors, including formalized labor unions, employee association groups, friendships, and even marriages. Part II discusses the varying conflicts and deleterious effects that such close relationships cause, unduly influencing investigation priorities and other policies. Part III …

The State Attorney General’S Duty To Advise As A Source Of Law, Winthrop Jordan

University of Richmond Law Review

This Comment seeks to help fill that gap by considering how a state attorney general’s duty to advise functions as a source of law, by proposing six general models of how the opinions of a state attorney general can alter the legal rights, duties, and relations of persons. In doing so, this Comment still seeks to acknowledge and respect the fact that each state’s individual constitution and traditions will create a unique role for its attorney general’s duty to advise in shaping state law.

Mr. Gorsuch, Meet Mr. Marshall: A Private-Law Framework For The Public-Law Puzzle Of Subdelegation, Gary S. Lawson

Faculty Scholarship

In the wake of Gundy v. United States, 139 S.Ct. 2116 (2019), there is reason to think that five Justices might be willing to consider reviving the constitutional non-subdelegation doctrine. But in what form? Judges and scholars have labored for more than two centuries to come up with a legally rigorous standard for evaluating the permissible scope and breadth of congressional grants of discretion to executive and judicial agents. Some, such as Justice Scalia, eventually gave up in despair. That is a grave mistake. Lawyers had faced subdelegation questions for centuries before the Constitution was ratified, in the context of …

The Passion Of John Paul Stevens, Linda Greenhouse

Michigan Law Review

Review of John Paul Stevens' The Making of a Justice: Reflections on My First 94 Years.

Translating The Constitution, Jack M. Balkin

Michigan Law Review

Review of Lawrence Lessig's Fidelity and Constraint: How the Supreme Court Has Read the American Constitution.

Why Justice Kavanaugh Should Continue Justice Kennedy’S Death Penalty Legacy—Next Step: Expanding Juvenile Death Penalty Ban, Alli Katzen

University of Miami Law Review

As science and society both progress, Supreme Court rulings should reflect those changes. The national consensus has been gradually moving away from the use of the death penalty, particularly as applied to offenders between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five. Research clarifies that the brain is not fully developed in the areas most directly linked to culpability until after this age range. The combination of these factors should compel the Court to raise the minimum age for death sentences, but the shifting bench presents unpredictability

Bucklew V. Precythe'S Return To The Original Meaning Of "Unusual": Prohibiting Extensive Delays On Death Row, Jacob Leon

Cleveland State Law Review

The Supreme Court, in Bucklew v. Precythe, provided an originalist interpretation of the term “unusual” in the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. This originalist interpretation asserted that the word “unusual” proscribes punishments that have “long fallen out of use.” To support its interpretation, the Supreme Court cited John Stinneford’s well-known law review article The Original Meaning of “Unusual”: The Eighth Amendment as a Bar to Cruel Innovation. This Article, as Bucklew did, accepts Stinneford’s interpretation of the word “unusual” as correct. Under Stinneford’s interpretation, the term “unusual” is a legal term of art derived from eighteenth-century …

Decoding Judicial Reasoning In China: A Comparative Empirical Analysis Of Guiding Cases, Runhua Wang

Cleveland State Law Review

The judicial system in China recently started using legal precedents—known as guiding cases—as a new legal source to eliminate adjudicative inconsistency. Guiding cases (“GCs”) present the current judicial reasoning to some extent and can be used to predict the future of judicial reasoning in China. What are GCs? What legal issues do GCs address? How do they address legal issues? How do GCs affect the legal system and adjudication in China? This Article answers these questions with empirical evidence and comparisons to judicial reasoning in the United States. It is the first empirical research providing a systematic review of all …

The Nfl Player, The Schoolchild, And The Entertainer: When The Term "Free Speech" Is Too Freely Spoken, Exactly "Who's On First?", Christian Ketter

Cleveland State Law Review

As America’s media and politicians continue to debate the free speech rights of NFL players, schoolchildren, and entertainers, the dialogue has confused many Americans as to what exactly the First Amendment protects. Chief Justice John G. Roberts ultimately assumes the role of an umpire in many of these issues, guiding the United States Supreme Court to incrementally “call balls and strikes.” In recent years, the Court has umpired employment rights and state action cases, and Roberts’s calls will likely further distance the Court that decided Morse v. Frederick from the one that decided Tinker v. Des Moines. Amid a …

Fmc Corp. V. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Seth T. Bonilla

Public Land & Resources Law Review

In 1998, FMC Corporation agreed to submit to the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes’ permitting processes, including the payment of fees, for clean-up work required as part of consent decree negotiations with the Environmental Protection Agency. Then, in 2002, FMC refused to pay the Tribes under a permitting agreement entered into by both parties, even though the company continued to store hazardous waste on land within the Shoshone-Bannock Fort Hall Reservation in Idaho. FMC challenged the Tribes’ authority to enforce the $1.5 million permitting fees first in tribal court and later challenged the Tribes’ authority to exercise civil regulatory and adjudicatory jurisdiction over …

Brief Of Amici Curiae Professors Ronald A. Cass, David F. Forte, James L. Huffman, Donald J. Kochan, Jesse J. Richardson And Reed Watson In Support Of Petitioners, David F. Forte, Ronald A. Cass, James L. Huffman, Donald J. Kochan, Jesse J. Richardson, Reed Watson

Law Faculty Briefs and Court Documents

The Court of Federal Claims ruled that the Klamath, Yurok and Hoopa (hereafter Tribes) reserved water rights in the Klamath River Basin are of a volume at least equal to the amount of water the Environmental Protection Agency has determined to be necessary to trigger endangered species protection. In the absence of an adjudication in state or federal court and contrary to the long history of federal deference (both by Congressional enactment and judicial precedent) to state adjudication of water rights, the Federal Circuit affirmed and thus preempted, without the participation of affected parties including petitioners, the State of Oregon’s …

First Amendment “Harms”, Stephanie H. Barclay

Indiana Law Journal

What role should harm to third parties play in the government’s ability to protect religious rights? The intuitively appealing “harm” principle has animated new theories advanced by scholars who argue that religious exemptions are indefensible whenever they result in cognizable harm to third parties. This third-party harm theory is gaining traction in some circles, particularly in light of the Supreme Court’s pending cases in Little Sisters of the Poor and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. While focusing on harm appears at first to provide an appealing, simple, and neutral principle for avoiding other difficult moral questions, the definition of harm …

Classifying Systems Of Constitutional Review: A Context-Specific Analysis, Samantha Lalisan

Indiana Journal of Constitutional Design

Modern constitutional drafters and advisors increasingly use judicial review classifications and the current model for classification does not accurately capture constitutional review in Latin America. This paper proposes context-specific classification that can accurately capture constitutional review in the Latin American region. Specifically, this paper argues that the context-specific analysis suggests that the more salient point of classification in Latin America is that of access mechanisms to constitutional courts. As such, the paper proceeds in four parts: Part I examines the traditional model of classification in Europe and focuses on the Spanish and German direct access mechanisms. Part II explores the …

Rodriguez, Tucker, And The Dangers Of Textualism, Reuven S. Avi-Yonah

Articles

The Supreme Court is increasingly turning toward textualism in interpreting statutes. This is part of its general hostility toward judge-made law, as evidenced by its recent unanimous decision in Rodriguez that there should be no federal common law except in extraordinary circumstances. Textualism poses a particular danger in the tax context because the Internal Revenue Code is so complicated and lends itself to manipulation so that courts have since the 1930s used a variety of judge-made legal doctrines to prevent such results. The classic Gregory decision from 1935 involved just such a case: The literal application of the code resulted …

Revisiting A Classic Problem In Statutory Interpretation: Is A Minister A Laborer?, Tammy Gales, Lawrence M. Solan

Georgia State University Law Review

This study presents a new analysis of an iconic United States Supreme Court case, Holy Trinity Church v. United States (1892). The question in Holy Trinity Church concerned whether a law making it illegal to pay the transportation of a person entering the U.S. under contract to perform “labor or service of any kind” applied to a wealthy Manhattan church that had paid to bring its new rector from England to New York. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the law did not apply to the church’s contract, relying first on the ordinary meaning of “labor” and second on the …

Communication Breakdown: How Courts Do - And Don't - Respond To Statutory Overrides, Deborah A. Widiss

Articles by Maurer Faculty

Earlier commentators, including many well-respected judges, have offered thoughtful suggestions for facilitating communication from courts to Congress about problems in statutes that Congress might want to address. My research explores the opposite question. How effective is communication from Congress back to courts? The answer is: Not very. Even when Congress enacts overrides, courts frequently continue to follow the prior judicial precedent. This is likely due more to information failure than willful disregard of controlling law. Nonetheless, a key aspect of the separation of powers is broken.

My research shows that when the Supreme Court overrules a prior decision, lower courts …