Communication Breakdown: How Courts Do - And Don't - Respond To Statutory Overrides,
2020
Indiana University Maurer School of Law
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 …
Dreamers Interrupted: The Case Of The Rescission Of The Program Of Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals,
2020
Texas A&M University School of Law
Dreamers Interrupted: The Case Of The Rescission Of The Program Of Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals, Rachel F. Moran
Faculty Scholarship
In 1994, California voters went to the polls to pass Proposition 187, a measure designed to deter unauthorized immigration by denying a range of public benefits to the undocumented. Twenty-five years later, undocumented immigration remains a deeply polarizing issue in our country. But if the political discourse seems similar, the civil rights toolkit is not. In an earlier era, equal protection arguments had pride of place, but today, advocates rely heavily on structural and institutional arguments to constrain official discretion.
In 1982, the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Plyler v. Doe declared unconstitutional a Texas statute that denied undocumented …
What Can We Expect Of Law And Religion In 2020?,
2020
University of Nevada, Las Vegas William S. Boyd School of Law
What Can We Expect Of Law And Religion In 2020?, Leslie C. Griffin
SMU Law Review Forum
The United States is in a religion-friendly mood—or at least its three branches of government are. The Supreme Court is turning away from its Free Exercise Clause analysis that currently holds that every religious person must obey the law. At the same time, the Court is rejecting its old Establishment Clause analysis that the government cannot practice or support religion. The old model of separation of church and state is gone, replaced by an ever-growing unity between church and state. This Article examines how much union of church and state this Court might establish.
Waiving Federal Sovereign Immunity In Original Actions Between States,
2020
Alexander Blewett III School of Law, University of Montana
Waiving Federal Sovereign Immunity In Original Actions Between States, Sandra B. Zellmer
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
There are tremendous disparities between high stakes original actions between states before the U.S. Supreme Court, where there is no waiver of federal sovereign immunity, and other types of cases in the lower courts, where a plethora of immunity waivers allow states and other parties to seek relief from the federal government for Fifth Amendment takings, unlawful agency action, and tort claims. Federal actions or omissions are often at the heart of the dispute, and federal involvement may be crucial for purposes of providing an equitable remedy to the state parties, but there is no reliable mechanism for bringing the …
Gerrymandering Justiciability,
2020
Georgetown University Law Center
Gerrymandering Justiciability, Girardeau A. Spann
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
As illustrated by its 2019 decision in Rucho v. Common Cause, the Supreme Court has gerrymandered its justiciability doctrines in a way that protects the political power of white voters. Comparing the Court’s willingness to find racial gerrymanders justiciable with its refusal to find partisan gerrymanders justiciable reveals a lack of doctrinal constraint. That gives the Court the discretionary power to uphold or strike down particular gerrymanders by deeming them racial or partisan in nature. Such discretion is problematic because, when the Supreme Court has exercised discretion in a racial context, it has historically done so to protect the …
Return Of The King: Corruption Backsliding In America,
2020
LSU Paul M. Hebert Law Center
Return Of The King: Corruption Backsliding In America, Pedro Gerson
Cardozo International & Comparative Law Review
The United States appears to be going through a crisis of corruption. However, it is hard to know whether this is a matter of appearance or if the country is at risk of high levels of corruption making a comeback. The Article applies the equilibrium model of corruptionthe leading social science account of how corruption operates-to the current U.S. system, and shows that the United States may indeed be backsliding. The potential for corruption to creep back up is due to more than the political moment. Rather, it is the result ofpolitics combined with the relatively powerless institutional controls for …
Implied Presidential And Congressional Powers,
2020
Harvard Law School
Implied Presidential And Congressional Powers, David M. Driesen, William C. Banks
Cardozo Law Review
No abstract provided.
Merchant Restraints In Ohio V. American Express—Why The Supreme Court Got It Wrong,
2020
Brigham Young University Law School
Merchant Restraints In Ohio V. American Express—Why The Supreme Court Got It Wrong, Trent Earl
Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law
No abstract provided.
Government Speech Doctrine—Legislator-Led Prayer's Saving Grace,
2020
St. John's University School of Law
Government Speech Doctrine—Legislator-Led Prayer's Saving Grace, Daniel M. Vitagliano
St. John's Law Review
(Excerpt)
This Note argues that Lund was decided incorrectly in part because the Fourth Circuit failed to analyze the type of speech at issue before assessing the constitutionality of the prayer practice. This Note is composed of four parts. Part I surveys the Supreme Court’s legislative prayer jurisprudence—Marsh and Town of Greece. Part II outlines Lund and Bormuth, and the Fourth and Sixth Circuits’ dissimilar applications of the Supreme Court’s precedent. Part III argues that courts must first classify legislative prayers as either government or private speech before assessing whether a prayer practice violates the Establishment Clause. It further argues …
Free Exercise Standing: Extra-Centrality As Injury In Fact,
2020
St. John's University School of Law
Free Exercise Standing: Extra-Centrality As Injury In Fact, Brendan T. Beery
St. John's Law Review
(Excerpt)
Part I of this Article surveys standing doctrine generally and tackles the problem of psychic insult—what might fairly, in some cases, be characterized as hurt feelings—as an injury. Part II addresses the special problems of finding concrete and palpable injuries in religion cases, noting that it is more difficult to identify such injuries in Establishment Clause cases than in free exercise cases. When free exercise is viewed as dynamic and kinetic, free exercise injuries are discernible and concrete: they occur when a person is forced to participate in religious undertakings or express beliefs against his or her will, or …
Supreme Court Journalism: From Law To Spectacle?,
2020
Loyola University Chicago, School of Law
Supreme Court Journalism: From Law To Spectacle?, Barry Sullivan, Cristina Carmody Tilley
Washington and Lee Law Review
Few people outside certain specialized sectors of the press and the legal profession have any particular reason to read the increasingly voluminous opinions through which the Justices of the Supreme Court explain their interpretations of the Constitution and laws. Most of what the public knows about the Supreme Court necessarily comes from the press. That fact raises questions of considerable importance to the functioning of our constitutional democracy: How, for example, does the press describe the work of the Supreme Court? And has the way in which the press describes the work of the Court changed over the past several …
Supreme Court Journalism: From Law To Spectacle?,
2020
Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law
Supreme Court Journalism: From Law To Spectacle?, Barry Sullivan, Cristina Carmody Tilley
Faculty Publications
Few people outside certain specialized sectors of the press and the legal profession have any particular reason to read the increasingly voluminous opinions through which the Justices of the Supreme Court explain their interpretations of the Constitution and laws. Most of what the public knows about the Supreme Court necessarily comes from the press. That fact raises questions of considerable importance to the functioning of our constitutional democracy: How, for example, does the press describe the work of the Supreme Court? And has the way in which the press describes the work of the Court changed over the past several …
How Conscientious Objectors Killed The Draft: The Collapse Of The Selective Service During The Vietnam War,
2020
Hanyang University School of Law
How Conscientious Objectors Killed The Draft: The Collapse Of The Selective Service During The Vietnam War, Bill Raley
Cleveland State Law Review
This Article argues that a key-but-overlooked factor in the Vietnam-era breakdown of the draft system was the Supreme Court’s expansion of the religious conscientious objector ("CO") exemption. It asserts that the Court understood that the CO exemption violated the Establishment Clause, but rather than strike the exemption down, the Court avoided the constitutional issue by interpreting away the religious element of CO statutes. The Article concludes that the Court’s rulings caused CO exemptions to skyrocket, which in turn caused the draft system to collapse toward the end of the Vietnam War.
2001 Supreme Court Redux,
2020
American University Washington College of Law
2001 Supreme Court Redux, Mary Stevens
Sustainable Development Law & Policy
No abstract provided.
Brief Of Constitutional Law Scholars As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioners,
2020
Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, Cleveland State University
Brief Of Constitutional Law Scholars As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioners, David F. Forte, Ronald J. Colombo, Richard Epstein, Carl H. Esbeck, Robert P. George, Mary Ann Glendon, Brian Mccall, Stacy Scaldo, Steven Smith
Law Faculty Briefs and Court Documents
Lurking behind the regulatory issues presented by this appeal is a concerted effort to displace the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq. ("RFRA"), with a novel approach that would trivialize a law's burden on religion. The Court should not indulge it.
The critics' argument suffers from several analytical defects that can be remedied by (1) a proper constitutional understanding of RFRA's relationship to the Establishment Clause; (2) an accurate understanding of how the Religion Clauses safeguard third-party interests; and (3) the correct application of these understandings to the Final Rules.
Brief Of Amici Curiae Michael L. Rosin, David G. Post, David F. Forte, Michael Stokes Paulsen, And Sotirios Barber In Support Of Presidential Electors,
2020
Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, Cleveland State University
Brief Of Amici Curiae Michael L. Rosin, David G. Post, David F. Forte, Michael Stokes Paulsen, And Sotirios Barber In Support Of Presidential Electors, David F. Forte, Michael L. Rosin, David G. Post, Michael Stokes Paulsen, Sotirios Barber
Law Faculty Briefs and Court Documents
The Framers of the Constitution crafted the Electoral College to be an independent institution with the responsibility of selecting the President and Vice-President. Therefore, they intended each elector to exercise independent judgment in deciding whom to vote for. A state cannot revise the Constitution unilaterally by reducing the elector to a ministerial agent who must vote in a particular way or face a sanction. The question of each elector’s moral or political obligation is not before the Court. Nor is the desirability of the current electoral system. Rather, this case turns on what the Constitution allows, and what it prohibits. …
Second Guessing Double Jeopardy: The Stare Decisis Factors As Proxy Tools For Original Correctness,
2020
William & Mary Law School
Second Guessing Double Jeopardy: The Stare Decisis Factors As Proxy Tools For Original Correctness, Justin W. Aimonetti
William & Mary Law Review Online
In Gamble v. United States, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the 170-year-old dual-sovereignty doctrine. That doctrine permits both the federal and state governments—as “separate sovereigns”—to each prosecute a defendant for the same offense. Justice Thomas concurred with the majority opinion in Gamble, but wrote separately to reject the traditional stare decisis formulation. In particular, the factors the majority used to evaluate stare decisis, in his view, amount to nothing more than marbles placed subjectively on either side of the stare decisis balancing scale. He would have preferred, instead, an inquiry into whether the precedent was demonstrably erroneous as an original matter, …
Abortion Case May Not Overturn Roe, But Could Effectively Nullify It,
2020
William & Mary Law School
Abortion Case May Not Overturn Roe, But Could Effectively Nullify It, A. Benjamin Spencer
Popular Media
No abstract provided.
The Traditions Of American Constitutional Law,
2020
St. John's University School of Law
The Traditions Of American Constitutional Law, Marc O. Degirolami
Notre Dame Law Review
This Article identifies a new method of constitutional interpretation: the use of tradition as constitutive of constitutional meaning. It studies what the Supreme Court means by invoking tradition and whether what it means remains constant across the document and over time. Traditionalist interpretation is pervasive, consistent, and recurrent across the Court’s constitutional doctrine. So, too, are criticisms of traditionalist interpretation. There are also more immediate reasons to study the role of tradition in constitutional interpretation. The Court’s two newest members, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, have indicated that tradition informs their understanding of constitutional meaning. The study of traditionalist …
Public Rights After Oil States Energy,
2020
Faulkner University, Thomas Goode Jones School of Law
Public Rights After Oil States Energy, Adam J. Macleod
Notre Dame Law Review
The concept of public rights plays an important role in the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of the United States. But as the decision in Oil States last Term revealed, the Court has often used the term to refer to three different concepts with different jurisprudential implications. Using insights drawn from historical and analytical jurisprudence, this Article distinguishes the three concepts and examines how each of them is at work in patent law. A precise reading of Oil States also bears lessons for other areas of law that implicate both private rights and duties and the administration of public, regulatory …
