Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

First, We'll Neuter All The Judges, A. Benjamin Spencer

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Revitalizing Fourth Amendment Protections: A True Totality Of The Circumstances Test In § 1983 Probable Cause Determinations, Ryan Sullivan

Nebraska College of Law: Faculty Publications

The Article analyzes claims of police misconduct and false arrest, specifically addressing the issue of whether a police officer may ignore evidence of an affirmative defense, such as self-defense, when determining probable cause for an arrest. The inquiry most often arises in § 1983 civil claims for false arrest where the officer was aware of some evidence a crime had been committed, but was also aware of facts indicating the suspect had an affirmative defense to the crime observed. In extreme cases, the affirmative defense at issue is actually self-defense in response to the officer’s own unlawful conduct. As police …

Putting The "Notice" Back Into Pleading, Robin J. Effron

Cardozo Law Review

In the wake of Twombly and Iqbal, courts and commentators have questioned whether notice pleading died with those cases. But what exactly was notice pleading? In this Essay, I argue that the question of whether the Court had "really" abandoned notice pleading in Twombly and Iqbal was a distraction from the fact that a full-bodied doctrine of notice pleading had never really existed in the first place. It had little separate existence from general theories of openness and liberalism, yet the name provided some rhetorical cover by insinuating that the standard was doing some sort of work aside from …

Summary Dispositions As Precedent, Richard C. Chen

William & Mary Law Review

The Supreme Court’s practice of summarily reversing decisions based on certiorari filings, without the benefit of merits briefing or oral argument, has recently come under increasing scrutiny. The practice is difficult to square with the Court’s stated criteria for granting certiorari and its norms against reviewing fact-bound cases to engage in mere error correction. Nonetheless, there is growing acceptance that the practice is likely to continue in some form, and the conversation has shifted to asking when the use of summary dispositions should be considered proper. Commentators have had no trouble identifying the Court’s tendencies: summary dispositions are most commonly …

Olmstead V. L.C.: The Supreme Court Case, Samuel R. Bagenstos, Irv Gornstein, Michael Gottesman, Jennifer Mathis

Articles

You have an incredible luxury here at Georgetown Law. You have faculty who are engaged in the world like two of my colleagues on this panel. To my immediate left is Professor Michael Gottesman (Georgetown University Law Center) who argued the case on behalf of Lois and Elaine, and to my next far left, Professor Irv Gornstein (Georgetown University Law Center) who argued the case on behalf of the United States. Between them is Jennifer Mathis (The Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law) who has spent, I think, most of her career at the Bazelon Center litigating, and organizing, and …

A Brief History Of Judical Appointments From The Last 50 Years Through The Trump Administration, Donald F. Mcgahn Ii

William & Mary Law Review

Thank you so much for that kind introduction. I really appreciate the opportunity to be here today. I am going to talk about the confirmation process generally. There is no better place to talk about it than here. Let me begin with some numbers and statistics, before I turn to the main thrust of my talk, to give some context as to what recent Presidents have done with respect to judicial appointments. President Trump has appointed two Supreme Court Justices, Neil Gorsuch and Brett of Appeals; twenty-nine so far have been confirmed. The Senate Leader, Senator Mitch McConnell, has already …

An Honor Or A Curse? The Untold Story Of Shortlisted Female Jurists, Melissa Mortazavi

Other Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Docket Control, Mandatory Jurisdiction, And The Supreme Court's Failure In Rucho V. Common Cause, Carolyn Shapiro

All Faculty Scholarship

This paper, part of a Symposium on Andrew Coan's book, Rationing the Constitution: How Judicial Capacity Shapes Supreme Court Decision-Making, traces congressional changes to Supreme Court jurisdiction over more than a century, noting that those changes were regularly made in response to concerns about the Court's caseload. To the extent that Coan, and the Court, turn to doctrinal methods of controlling caseloads, such as deferential standards of review, they are overlooking the important congressional role in setting the Court's jurisdiction. The paper concludes by criticizing the recent decision of Rucho v. Common Cause in which the Court held that extreme …

Courts, Culture, And The Lethal Injection Stalemate, Eric Berger

Nebraska College of Law: Faculty Publications

The Supreme Court's 2019 decision in Bucklew v. Precythe reiterated the Court's great deference to states in Eighth Amendment lethal injection cases. The takeaway is that when it comes to execution protocols, states can do what they want. Events on the ground tell a very different story. Notwithstanding courts' deference, executions have ground to a halt in numerous states, often due to lethal injection problems. State officials and the Court's conservative Justices have blamed this development on "anti-death penalty activists" waging ''guerilla war" on capital punishment. In reality, though, a variety of mostly uncoordinated actors motivated by a range of …

Comparative Capacity And Competence, Eric Berger

Nebraska College of Law: Faculty Publications

Andrew Coan’s excellent book, Rationing the Constitution, sheds important new light on an important facet of Supreme Court decision-making: judicial capacity. Professor Coan argues persuasively that courts’ capacity—and, in particular, the U.S. Supreme Court’s capacity—plays an important role in shaping various constitutional doctrines. By “capacity,” Coan means the number of cases that courts can realistically decide while preserving the judiciary’s own professional commitments to careful deliberation and reasoned decision-making.3 Because judges realize that their resources are limited, they shape various constitutional doctrines to deter potential litigants, lest a flood of constitutional plaintiffs inundate them with more cases than they …

Chief Justice Melville Weston Fuller And The Great Mustache Debate Of 1888, Todd C. Peppers

Scholarly Articles

Over the long history of the Supreme Court, nominees to the highest court in the land have been opposed for a variety of reasons. Often opponents are concerned about the nominee’s political ideology or competency. Occasionally, allegations are raised about political cronyism. And candidates have come under fire for their religion. But nominee Melville Weston Fuller’s selection launched a national debate that went to the very heart of what makes one qualified to sit on the Supreme Court: whether a judge should have a mustache.

On March 23, 1888, Morrison R. Waite died of pneumonia after sitting for fourteen years …

Practical Truth: The Value Of Apparent Honesty In Supreme Court Opinions, Timothy C. Macdonnell

Scholarly Articles

Judicial honesty or judicial candor is the subject of significant scholarly attention, but it is not the focus of this Essay. Rather, the author's focus is on the importance that appearing honest has on the persuasive force of an opinion and the dangers associated with failing to achieve that goal. This distinction is not intended to suggest Justices should seek apparent honesty while not being actually honest. Rather, this Essay emphasizes that actually honest opinions must also be apparently honest. Thus, judicial candor is necessary to apparent honesty, but it is not always sufficient on its own.

To support the …

Deborah Gelin: Supreme Court Pioneer, Todd C. Peppers

Scholarly Articles

Monday, October 2, 1972 was a momentous day at the United States Supreme Court. At approximately 10:00 a.m., the Justices processed into the com1room to start October Term 1972. For the first time in the Court's history, a young woman took a seat on the raised rostrum. She was not Sandra Day O'Connor, who would become the first female Justice approximately nine years later. Her name was Deborah Gelin, and she was a fourteen-year-old high school student from Rockville, Maryland. Hired by the Court in September of 1972, Gelin was the first young woman to serve as a Supreme Court …

A Secretary's Absence For A Law School Examination, Todd C. Peppers

Scholarly Articles

The May 5, 1893 letter from Justice Horace Gray to Chief Justice Melville Weston Fuller touches upon several different strands of Supreme Court history. To place the letter in context, we need to briefly discuss the creation of the law clerk position as well as the different functions of this first generation of law clerks. And we need to talk about the untimely death of a young Harvard Law School graduate named Moses Day Kimball.

Institutional Loyalty And The Design Of Partisan Gerrymandering Adjudication In The Federal Courts, Michael E. Solimine

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

In 2019 the Supreme Court held in Rucho v. Common Cause that challenges in federal court to partisan gerrymandering were nonjusticiable political questions. Writing for the 5-4 majority, Chief Justice John Roberts expressed concern that frequently deciding such cases would politicize the Court itself. Such expressions seem to fit well within the characterization of the Chief Justice as an institutionalist concerned with the legitimacy and reputation of the federal courts. This article addresses how the unique design and procedures of gerrymandering litigation in federal courts ought to inform such institutional loyalty arguments. Those features include that such cases are litigated …

Supreme Court Of The United States, October Term 2020 Preview, Georgetown University Law Center, Supreme Court Institute

Supreme Court Overviews

No abstract provided.

The Supreme Court's Facilitation Of White Christian Nationalism, Caroline Mala Corbin

Articles

Doug Jager, a band student of Native-American ancestry, complained about the Christian prayers at his Georgia public school’s football games. Rather than address his concerns, the school lectured him on Christianity and proposed an alternative that appeared neutral yet would result in the continuation of the Christian prayers. In striking down the school’s proposal, Judge Frank M. Johnson Jr. understood some of the ramifications of state-sponsored Christianity.

Despite Supreme Court rulings limiting Christian invocations at public-school events, government-sponsored Christian prayers and Christian symbols remain plentiful in the United States. This proliferation of government-sponsored Christianity around the country both reflects and …

Can The Federal Government Use The Generic Wire Fraud Statute To Prosecute Public Officials For Corrupt Activities That Are Conducted For Political Rather Than Private Gain?, Nora V. Demleitner

Scholarly Articles

The defendants, two former New Jersey officials convicted in “Bridgegate,” challenge the scope of federal prosecutorial power under the generic wire fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1343. They argue that the government sidestepped the Court’s explicit prohibition on inquiries into an official’s real reasons for an official act, unless bribery or kickbacks are involved. The defendants urge the Court to foreclose the government from circumventing limitations on the honest-services fraud doctrine under McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350 (1987), and Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010). The government argues that the defendants’ actions met all …

An Inside History Of The Burger Court's Patent Eligibility Jurisprudence, Christopher B. Seaman, Sheena X. Wang

Scholarly Articles

Patent eligibility is one of the most important and controversial issues in intellectual property law. Although the relevant constitutional and statutory text is extremely broad, the Supreme Court has significantly narrowed the scope of patentable eligibility by creating exceptions for inventions directed to abstract ideas, laws of nature, and natural phenomenon. In particular, the Supreme Court’s decisions on this issue over the past decade have created considerable uncertainty regarding the patentability of important innovations. As a result, numerous stakeholders have called for reform of the current rules regarding patent eligibility, and members of Congress have introduced legislation to amend the …

The Supreme Court And The 117th Congress, Andrew K. Jennings, Athul K. Acharya

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.