Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

The Federalist Society Majority, Lawrence Baum, Neal Devins

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Justice Kennedy’S Controversial Judicial Philosophy, Described By A Former Clerk, Nancy Amoury Combs

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Personal Jurisdiction Over Orb-Web Corporations: A Re-Routed Approach For "Change In The Navigation Of Time", Vidhya Iyer

Global Business Law Review

The law of personal jurisdiction lies at the heart of all litigation. Our courts must recognize the rights of individuals as well as the rights of corporations. The motto placed at the entrance of the United States Supreme Court—"Equal Justice Under Law"—ensures the promise of equal justice under the law to all persons. It expresses the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States (the "Court") as the highest tribunal for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States and functions as a guardian and interpreter of the Constitution. From the …

Righting A Wrong: Woodrow Wilson, Warren G. Harding, And The Espionage Act Prosecutions, David Forte

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

This is a story of excess and reparation. It is a chronicle of one President from the elite intellectual classes of the East, and another from a county seat in the heartland. Woodrow Wilson was the college president whose contribution to the art of government lay in the principle of expertise and efficiency. When he went to war, he turned the machinery of government into a comprehensive and highly effective instrument for victory. For Wilson, it followed that there could be little tolerance for those who impeded the success of American arms by their anti-war propaganda, draft resistance, or ideological …

"It's Open Season At The Border": Why The Bivens Remedy Should Extend To U.S. Border Patrol Agents In Cross-Border Shootings, Samantha Garza

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Way Pavers: Eleven Supreme Court-Worthy Women, Meg Penrose

Faculty Scholarship

Four women have served as Associate Justices on the United States Supreme Court. Since the Court’s inception in 1789, 162 individuals have been nominated to serve as Supreme Court Justices. Five nominees, or roughly 3 percent, have been women. To help put this gender dearth in perspective, more men named “Samuel” have served as Supreme Court Justices than women. Thirteen U.S. Presidents have nominated more people to the Supreme Court than the total number of women that have served on the Court. Finally, there are currently more Catholics serving on the Supreme Court than the number of women appointed in …

The ‘Ginsburg Rule’ Is Not An Excuse To Avoid Answering The Senate’S Questions, Lori A. Ringhand, Paul M. Collins Jr.

Popular Media

An op-ed by Lori Ringhand and Paul M. Collins Jr. on Supreme Court nominees' unwillingness to provide answers on cases under the wrongly named "Ginsburg Rule." Nominees since the 1930s have balanced the competing needs of the Senate and the Judiciary by claiming a privilege to not opine on currently contested cases while freely offering their opinion about cases that used to be controversial but are no longer.

Rwu First Amendment Blog: Michael J. Yelnosky's Blog: Janus V. Afscme And "Weaponizing The First Amendment 06-30-2018, Michael J. Yelnosky

Law School Blogs

No abstract provided.

Scotus's 2017-2018 Term: More Of The 'Passive Virtues', John M. Greabe

Law Faculty Scholarship

[exerpt] "Examine a timelier topic: the court's decision to effectively punt on the major religious freedom and partisan gerrymandering cases it was poised to decide this term. For the court's restrain in these cases may have some relation to our turbulent political times."

Book Review: Courtrooms And Classrooms: A Legal History Of College Access, 1860-1960, Mark A. Addison

Journal of College Access

Issues of college access are increasingly met with resolutions within social and economic contexts. Models such as cost of production output, and race and socioeconomic-conscious strategies form the basis of such analyses (Jenkins & Rodriguez, 2013; Henriksen, 1995; Treager Huber, 2010; Schmidt, 2012). We can expect retooling and reinventing of such models with increasing college costs and changes in student demographics.

Supreme Court Institute Annual Report, 2017-2018, Georgetown University Law Center, Supreme Court Institute

SCI Papers & Reports

During the U.S. Supreme Court’s October Term (OT) 2017 – corresponding to the 2017-2018 academic year –the Supreme Court Institute (SCI) provided moot courts for advocates in 98% of the cases heard by the Supreme Court, offered a variety of programs related to the Supreme Court, and continued to integrate the moot court program into the education of Georgetown Law students.

A list of all SCI moot courts held in OT 2017 – arranged by argument sitting and date of Moot, and including the name and affiliation of each advocate and the number of observers – follows the narrative portion …

Why Did Liberals Join The Majority In The Masterpiece Case?, Katherine A. Shaw

Online Publications

It was no surprise that Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has cast the decisive vote in so many important Supreme Court cases, wrote Monday’s majority opinion in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The court ruled in favor of a Colorado baker named Jack Phillips who, on religious grounds, had refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.

Rwu First Amendment Blog: Jared Goldstein's Blog: Masterpiece Cakeshop Ruling: No Constitutional Right To Discriminate (For Now) 06-05-2018, Jared A. Goldstein

Law School Blogs

No abstract provided.

Certiorari, Universality, And A Patent Puzzle, Tejas N. Narechania

Michigan Law Review

The most important determinant of a case’s chances for Supreme Court review is a circuit split: If two courts of appeals have decided the same issue differently, review is substantially more likely. But practically every appeal in a patent case makes its way to a single court—the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. How, then, does the Supreme Court decide whether to grant certiorari in a patent case?

The petitions for certiorari in the Court’s patent docket suggest an answer: The Supreme Court looks for splits anyway. These splits, however, are of a different sort. Rather than consider whether …

Wrong Turn On The Ex Post Facto Clause, Paul D. Reingold, Kimberly Thomas

Articles

The Ex Post Facto Clause bars any increase in punishment after the commission of a crime. But deciding what constitutes an increase in punishment can be tricky. At the front end of a criminal case, where new or amended criminal laws might lengthen prisoners’ sentences if applied retroactively, courts have routinely struck down such changes under the Ex Post Facto Clause. At the back end, however, where new or amended parole laws or policies might lengthen prisoners’ sentences in exactly the same way if applied retroactively, courts have used a different standard and upheld the changes under the Ex Post …

Things Invisible To See: State Action & Private Property, Joseph William Singer, Isaac Saidel-Goley

Texas A&M Law Review

This Article revisits the state action doctrine, a judicial invention that shields “private” or “non-governmental” discrimination from constitutional scrutiny. Traditionally, this doctrine has applied to discrimination even in places of public accommodation, like restaurants, hotels, and grocery stores. Born of overt racial discrimination, the doctrine has inflicted substantial injustice throughout its inglorious history, and courts have continuously struggled in vain to coherently apply the doctrine. Yet, the United States Supreme Court has not fully insulated “private” or “horizontal” relations among persons from constitutional scrutiny. The cases in which it has applied constitutional norms to non-governmental actors should be celebrated rather …

The Husky Case: Fraud, Bankruptcy, And Veil Piercing, Harvey Gelb

Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial & Commercial Law

A recent Supreme Court decision, Husky International Electronics, Inc. v. Ritz, explores the meaning of the word “fraud” under a federal bankruptcy statutory section. That section uses the term “actual fraud,” and bears upon the question of whether a particular debt should be denied a discharge. The Court’s approach in defining fraud affords guidance to the question of defining fraud under other statutes. The Husky case also raised a veil piercing issue to be dealt with on remand. That issue involved the application of Texas statutory law precluding veil piercing in cases brought by contract creditors unless they were victims …

Forgotten Cases: Worthen V. Thomas, David F. Forte

Cleveland State Law Review

According to received opinion, the case of the Home Bldg. & Loan Ass’n v. Blaisdell, decided in 1934, laid to rest any force the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution had to limit state legislation that affected existing contracts. But the Supreme Court’s subsequent decisions belies that claim. In fact, a few months later, the Court unanimously decided Worthen v. Thomas, which reaffirmed the vitality of the Contract Clause. Over the next few years, in twenty cases, the Court limited the reach of Blaisdell and confirmed the limiting force of the Contract Clause on state legislation. Only …

Hearing The States, Anthony Johnstone

Pepperdine Law Review

The 2016 Presidential and Senate elections raise the possibility that a conservative, life-tenured Supreme Court will preside for years over a politically dynamic majority. This threatens to weaken the public’s already fragile confidence in the Court. By lowering the political stakes of both national elections and its own decisions, federalism may enable the Court to defuse some of the most explosive controversies it hears. Federalism offers a second-best solution, even if neither conservatives nor liberals can impose a national political agenda. However, principled federalism arguments are tricky. They are structural, more prudential than legal or empirical. Regardless of ideology, a …

Eight Justices Are Enough: A Proposal To Improve The United States Supreme Court, Eric J. Segall

Pepperdine Law Review

Over the last twenty-five years, some of the most significant Supreme Court decisions involving issues of national significance like abortion, affirmative action, and voting rights were five-to-four decisions. In February 2016, the death of Justice Antonin Scalia turned the nine-Justice court into an eight-Justice court, comprised of four liberal and four conservative Justices, for the first time in our nation’s history. This article proposes that an evenly divided court consisting of eight Justices is the ideal Supreme Court composition. Although the other two branches of government have evolved over the years, the Supreme Court has undergone virtually no significant changes. …