Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

The New Oral Argument: Justices As Advocates, Tonja Jacobi, Matthew Sag

Notre Dame Law Review

No abstract provided.

“A Matter Of Great Importance”: Interest Groups, The Senate Judiciary Committee, And Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings, Elizabeth A. Lane, Jessica A. Schoenherr

Arlen Specter Center Research Fellowship

As Senator Arlen Specter once explained, the Supreme Court confirmation process is a “matter of great importance” to the president, the nominee, senators, and the public at large. The public cares who sits on the Court, and interest groups play a key role in disseminating information about the nominee and his or her qualifications for the job. In this paper, we focus on one piece of interest groups’ involvement in Supreme Court confirmation hearings: their decision to send senators summarized information about the nominees via briefing books. We use a combination of archival research and text analysis to examine the …

Pleading Conditions Of The Mind Under Rule 9(B): Repairing The Damage Wrought By Iqbal, A. Benjamin Spencer

Faculty Publications

In 2009, the Supreme Court decided Ashcroft v. Iqbal, in which it pronounced-among other things- that the second sentence of Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure-which permits allegations of malice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of the mind to be alleged "generally" -requires adherence to the plausibility pleading· standard it had devised for Rule 8(a)(2) in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly. That is, to plead such allegations sufficiently, one must offer sufficient facts to render the condition-of-the-mind allegation plausible. This rewriting of the standard imposed by Rule 9(b)'s second sentence-which came only veritable moments after the Court …

Fool Me Once... The Need For Federal Legislation To Remedy Fraud And Misrepresentation In Ballot Initiatives That Negatively Affect Minority Communities, Jessica George

Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development

(Excerpt)

This Note proposes new federal legislation to provide relief for voters who might be negatively affected by fraud and deception at any phase of a ballot initiative, including the signature-gathering process. Ballot initiatives are a significant part of the democratic process. They must be protected from fraud, especially when those practices result in initiatives that harm specific minority group interests. This legislation will give deceived voters a cause of action to stop the effect of a ballot initiative before it negatively impacts them. Voters can bring a civil action in federal court for preventive relief, including a permanent or …

The Business Of Guns: The Second Amendment & Firearms Commerce, Corey A. Ciocchetti

Pepperdine Law Review

Does the Second Amendment protect commerce in firearms? The simple answer is: yes, to an extent. An individual’s right to possess and use a gun for self-defense in the home is black-letter law after District of Columbia v. Heller. The right to possess and use a gun requires the ability to obtain a gun, ammunition, and firearms training. Therefore, gun dealers, servicers, and training providers receive some constitutional protection as facilitators of their customers’ Second Amendment rights. Whether these constitutional rights belong to firearms-related businesses independently of their customers is unclear. The scope of the Second Amendment matters as recent, …

Justice Kavanaugh, Lorenzo V. Sec, And The Post-Kennedy Supreme Court, Matthew C. Turk, Karen E. Woody

Scholarly Articles

This Article analyzes a recent Supreme Court case, Lorenzo v. Securities and Exchange Commission, and explains why it provides a valuable window into the Court's future now that Justice Kennedy has retired and his seat filled by Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Lorenzo is an important case that raises fundamental interpretative questions about the reach of federal securities statutes. But most significant is its unique procedural posture: when the Supreme Court issues its decision on Lorenzo in 2019, Justice Kavanaugh will be recused while the other eight Justices rule on a lower court opinion from the D.C. Circuit in which he wrote …

Mourning The Magnificent Yankee: The Funeral Of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Todd C. Peppers

Scholarly Articles

Funerals of Supreme Court Justices are now complicated and highly choreographed affairs. Lying in repose in the Great Hall at the Supreme Court. Funeral services in the grand Washington National Cathedral. Eulogies from fellow Justices, former law clerks, and prominent legal figures. Live coverage by national television networks. But for one of the greatest jurists to sit on the Supreme Court, a simple Unitarian service and the rites accorded an old soldier sufficed.

A Patent Reformist Supreme Court And Its Unearthed Precedent, Samuel F. Ernst

Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal

How is it that the Supreme Court, a generalist court, is leading a project of innovation reform in our times while the court of appeals established to encourage innovation is having its precedent stricken down time and again? This decade the Supreme Court has issued far more patent law decisions than in any decade since the passage of the Patent Act of 1952. In doing so, the Supreme Court has overruled the Federal Circuit in roughly threequarters of the patent cases in which the Supreme Court has issued opinions. In most of these cases, the Supreme Court has established rules …

Justice Anthony Kennedy As Senior Associate Justice: Influence And Impact, 53 Uic J. Marshall L. Rev. 907 (2019), Charles Jacob, Christopher Smith

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Gamble, Dual Sovereignty, And Due Process, Anthony J. Colangelo

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

The Constitution’s Double Jeopardy Clause is an analytically gnarly beast. What seems like a fairly straightforward prohibition on multiple prosecutions for the same crime turns out to be a bramble bush of doctrinal twists and snarls. At the center is the so-called “dual sovereignty” doctrine. This principle holds that separate sovereigns may prosecute for what looks like the same “offence”—to use the Constitution’s language—because they have separate laws, and those laws prohibit separate offenses, and thus the Double Jeopardy Clause’s bar on multiple prosecutions for the same offense simply does not come into play. As a doctrine that relates to …

Two Roads Diverged: Statutory Interpretation By The Circuit Courts And Supreme Court In The Same Cases, Lawrence Baum, James J. Brudney

Fordham Law Review

Scholars and judges have long disagreed on whether courts of appeals construing statutes ought to adapt their use of interpretive resources to Supreme Court approaches. If circuit courts and the Supreme Court approach statutory issues in similar ways, this can perhaps provide a measure of predictability for litigants and the public while conserving judicial resources; it may also enhance perceptions of fairness in the judicial system. Such normative arguments invite—even demand—a fuller understanding of the underlying descriptive reality: whether anything approaching uniformity or consistency actually exists. This Article aims to provide that understanding. It does so through an in- depth …

New Metrics And The Politics Of Judicial Selection, Jeremy Kidd

Articles

Recent Supreme Court nomination hearings have become increasingly rancorous, revealing the increasing political importance of the judiciary in our system of government. We need to know more about those who are chosen to wield this power, but those being considered have strong incentives to obscure all but the most basic characteristics of integrity, decorum, intellect, and courtesy. One of the most important decisions in our democracy is therefore made with far less information than would be ideal. Only through development of new metrics and refinement of existing metrics can we begin to cut through obfuscation and identify the goals and …

"No Person . . . Shall Ever Be Molested On Account Of His Mode Of Worship Or Religious Sentiments . . . .": The Northwest Ordinance Of 1787 And Strader V. Graham, Allan W. Vestal

Marquette Law Review

The Article looks at the first article of compact of the Northwest Ordinance,

the religious liberty guarantee: “No person . . . shall ever be molested on

account of his mode of worship or religious sentiments . . . .” Congress

provided that the Northwest Ordinance articles of compact would “forever

remain unalterable.” But in a fugitive slave case from 1851, Strader v. Graham,

Chief Justice Roger Taney declared the articles of compact to be no longer in

force.

In evaluating Chief Justice Taney’s reasoning, the question posed at the

dawn of the 20th Century by historian Professor Andrew McLaughlin …

Magical Thinking And Trusts, Bridget J. Crawford

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

At a time of monumental economic inequality in the United States, wealthy individuals and their tax-motivated behavior have come under significant scrutiny from all corners. In 2019, the Supreme Court issued its first major ruling in over sixty years on the state income taxation of trusts. In North Carolina Department of Revenue v. Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust, the Court declined to close what some critics consider to be a major loophole that benefits the trusts that wealthy individuals create for family members. This Article makes two principal claims—one interpretative and the other normative. This Article explains why the …

The Faith And Morals Of Justice Antonin Scalia, David Forte

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

It is because of Justice Scalia's suspicion of philosophy and of history that he becomes an outspoken textualist. But why should text carry greater authority? Why should the written word, rather than evolving tradition, be of higher authority, particularly to a Roman Catholic? To understand Antonin Scalia's affirmation of the centrality of text, we must, as many already have, seek to find out how the man viewed his religion and how he practiced it.

Rethinking Religious Objections (Old-Testament Based) To Same-Sex Marriage, Doron M. Kalir

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

In Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court closed the door on one issue only to open the floodgates to another. While recognizing a constitutional right for same-sex marriage, the Court also legitimized religious objections to such unions, practically inviting complex legal challenges to its doors. In doing so, the Court also called for an "open and searching debate" on the issue. This Article seeks to trigger such debate.

For millennia, objections to same-sex marriage were cast in religious and moral terms. The Jewish Bible ("Old Testament"), conventional wisdom argues, provided three demonstrable proofs of the Bible's abhorrence of same-sex …

The Uncertain Path Of Class Action Law, Sergio J. Campos

Articles

For the past ten terms the Supreme Court has increased its focus on the law of class actions. In doing so, the Court has revised the law to better accord with a view of the class action as an exception to an idealized picture of litigation. This "exceptional" view of the class action has had a profound impact not only on class action law, but on procedural and substantive law in general. However, in the October 2015 term the Court decided three class action cases that support an alternative, 'functional" view of the class action, one that does not view …

Opportunistic Originalism And The Establishment Clause, Caroline Mala Corbin

Articles

This Article argues that the Supreme Court's use of originalism is opportunistic because sometimes the Court relies on it, and sometimes it does not. This inconsistency is evident in two recent decisions with significant Establishment Clause consequences: Town of Greece v. Galloway (2014) and Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer (2017). In Town of Greece, the Supreme Court applied an originalist analysis to uphold the government's policy of sponsoring predominantly Christian prayers before town meetings. In Trinity Lutheran Church, the Supreme Court failed to conduct an originalist analysis of direct government funding to churches before ordering a state to award a …

Article Iii, Judicial Restraint, And This Supreme Court, Joseph S. Diedrich

SMU Law Review

Article III of the U.S. Constitution establishes a federal judiciary with powers and functions separate and distinct from the other branches. During its October 2017 Term, the U.S. Supreme Court decided three cases that turned on an interpretation of Article III power: Patchak v. Zinke, Oil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy Group, and Gill v. Whitford.

This Article argues that in each of those three cases, a majority of the

Court coalesced around a unifying principle of judicial restraint. By “judicial restraint,” this Article refers to the principle that the judiciary should respect and defer to the elected branches. …

“And The Truth Shall Make You Free”: Schenck, Abrams, And A Hundred Years Of History, Rodney A. Smolla

SMU Law Review

No abstract provided.