Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

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 …

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 …

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

Incorporating Tax Law Into Legal And Regulatory Environment Of Business Courses

Journal of Legal Studies in Business

No abstract provided.

Too Much, Too Little, Or Just Right? Beyond The Perception (Or Reality) Of Law School Rigor In Teaching Undergraduate Copyright Law

Journal of Legal Studies in Business

No abstract provided.

The Major Question Left For The Roberts Court, Will Chevron Survive?, Caleb B. Childers

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Scotus's Summer Of 2022: Obfuscation Of And Disdain For Rationality And The Traditional Personal Liberties Framework, Roy G. Spece Jr.

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Investigating The Relationship Between Noun Classes And Plant Folk Taxonomy In Chasu Language Of Kilimanjaro Region In Tanzania, Peter Rabson Mziray

Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences

The current study investigates the relationship between noun classes and plant folk taxonomy in Chasu (G 22). The study focuses on two objectives: the first objective is to describe the plant folk taxonomy in Chasu and the second objective is to determine the relationship between noun classes and plant folk taxonomy in Chasu. Data were collected from rural villages in Same and Mwanga districts by using free listing, field interviews (jungle-walk-and-identify), and written texts containing Chasu plant names. The findings reveal that Chasu folk taxonomy reflects different ethnobotanical categories; including a unique beginner which is mmea/mimea ‘plant(s)’, and three life …

Thermtron: The Unsexy Case The Current Court Should Overturn (Statutory Stare Decisis Be Damned), Christine Tamer

Texas A&M Law Review

Since 1887, Congress has created an impenetrable dike wall to stop appellate review of remand orders in 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), which provides: “An order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise . . . .” Then, in 1976, the Supreme Court held “that § 1447(d) does not mean what it says” and, thereby, punctured not a tiny hole, but a big one in Congress’s dike wall that had been impenetrable for nearly 90 years. While you won’t find Thermtron—an unsexy jurisdictional case—on any list of the …

Discerning Interstate Groundwater Law: An Evaluation Of Federal Common Law And Its Impacts On Groundwater Management, Brooke Collishaw

Texas A&M Law Review

The Supreme Court has demonstrated a superficial understanding of ground water over the last century in interstate water disputes. In cases that indirectly affect groundwater, it has ignored the complexities of the resource and its connection with surface water. All but one Supreme Court case that mentions groundwater centers around surface water, leading to the inadequate consideration of groundwater. This has led to the development of a unique federal common law for how federal courts are to resolve interstate water disputes that affect groundwater. While the Court has applied the law consistently, gaps exist. Given the growing reliance on cross-border …

A Crisis Of Consensus: The Supreme Court’S Legitimacy And Recent Challenges Thereto, Abby Ulman

Notre Dame Law Review

Part I retells the history of Supreme Court decisions—from the time when Justices followed the British practice of issuing seriatim opinions to the time of Chief Justice John Marshall who instituted a policy of a single opinion for the Court. This norm of consensus lasted 140 years, during which the Court decided more than ninety percent of its cases unanimously. However, modern practice has been marked by division and dissensus, which have incited rhetoric of delegitimization. Part II examines two types of consensuses. Section A discusses internal consensus, or the extent to which the Justices agree with each other. Yet …

Habeas Corpus And Void Judgments, David Kinnaird

Notre Dame Law Review

In a string of recent opinions, Justice Gorsuch and Justice Thomas have posited that postconviction relief upon a writ of habeas corpus was historically unavailable except where the judgment of conviction was issued by a court lacking jurisdiction. In light of this history, Justices Gorsuch and Thomas have argued for a reconsideration of the modern scope of the writ, which generally allows for relitigation of alleged constitutional error in the course of criminal trial.

This Article argues that Justices Gorsuch and Thomas have the history half right. They are correct to assert that a valid judgment of conviction was a …

Rico V. United States, Meagan R. Hurley

Articles

Isabel Rico was serving a term of supervised release when she absconded from federal supervision. Years later, the government sought to revoke her release, arguing that her fugitive status “tolled” her supervised-release term. The Ninth Circuit agreed. Other circuits, however, have rejected the fugitive-tolling doctrine in the supervised-release context. The Supreme Court will now decide whether federal courts may judicially adopt fugitive tolling, or whether Congress’s silence in the supervised-release statute forecloses it.

Chimeric Contacts And Consent: The Ill-Reasoned Expansion Of Corporate Jurisdictional Exposure, James Paul George

Faculty Scholarship

Two recent Supreme Court decisions have imposed aspects of general jurisdiction in a way that exposes corporations and possibly other legal actors to litigation in spuriously connected forums. One case-Ford Motor Company v. Montana-reached a fair result but with strained reasoning that will support unfair results. The second case-Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railroad Company-was wrong on the facts and the law, imposing general jurisdiction based on a vaguely worded corporate registration statute validated by a more than century-old precedent based on Pennoyer v. Neff's limited territorial model. Both decisions were the result of conceptual corners the Supreme Court has created …

Defining “Cases” Or “Controversies”: A Fundamental Confusion In Article Iii Standing Doctrine And Its Consequences In Multi-Plaintiff Litigation, Dominic Signa

Fordham Law Review

The United States Supreme Court has addressed the absolute core requirements of standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution on several occasions. However, the Court has not clearly articulated what purpose standing serves relative to Article III’s limitations on the exercise of judicial power to only “cases” or “controversies,” and this has led to major downstream effects in the realm of multi plaintiff litigation. Specifically, the Court has not explained whether standing is meant to ensure (1) that all potential plaintiffs demonstrate that they are properly parties to the same case or controversy before a federal court or (2) …

Corporeal Property And The Limits Of Nagpra, M. Alexander Pearl

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

Competition, Comity, And Confusion: Reconciling The Ftaia’S Import Exclusion With Its Direct Effects Provision, Elliot Lam

Fordham Law Review

The debate surrounding the Sherman Act’s extraterritorial scope represents a tension between two competing objectives: protecting the U.S. economy from foreign anticompetitive conduct on one hand and respecting the sovereign authority of other nation-states on the other. Applying U.S. law abroad risks undermining sovereign authority by regulating foreign economies, though such regulation appears necessary in some cases to protect U.S. consumers.

Congress’s attempt to square these objectives through enacting the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act of 1982 (FTAIA) failed to settle the matter. The statute left courts with two new questions: how to distinguish “import” from “nonimport” commerce, and how …