Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

Deterrence, David Crump

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract forthcoming

Finality Of A Conviction: A Noncitizen's Right To Procedural Due Process, Daniela Mondragon

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract forthcoming

Piracy And Due Process, Andrew Kent

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Intellectual Property Law Scholars As Amici Curiae In Support Of Neither Party, Westerngeco Llc V. Ion Geophysical Corp., No. 16-1011, Us Supreme Court, Timothy R. Holbrook, Ann Bartow, Dan L. Burk, Donald P. Harris, David C. Hricik, Amy L. Landers, Yvette Joy Liebesman, Lee Ann W. Lockridge, Jason Rantanen

All Faculty Scholarship

This amici curiae brief was filed on behalf of Intellectual Property Law Scholars in WesternGeco LLC v. Ion Geophysical Corp. in the U.S. Supreme Court. The question presented is:

"Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit erred in holding that lost profits arising from prohibited combinations occurring outside of the United States are categorically unavailable in cases in which patent infringement is proven under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)."

In RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Community, 136 S. Ct. 2090 (2016), the Supreme Court articulated a two-step method for assessing the extraterritorial reach of a US statute:

1. …

Intergovernmental Federalism Disputes, Lochlan F. Shelfer

Georgia Law Review

Constitutional litigation is increasingly being waged
between governments, in both suits between a state and
the United States, and suits between two or more states.
The jurisdictionof the Federalcourts to hear such suits,
however, is disputed. The Supreme Court's cases are
famously difficult to reconcile, with some denying
jurisdiction and other seemingly identical cases
addressing the merits without discussing jurisdiction.
Some scholars have argued that intergovernmental
disputes over political jurisdiction historically are not
justiciableand that it is constitutionally illegitimate for
the Court to hear them. Recently, some scholars have
argued that the Court should hear such cases, but have
assumed …

Irreconcilable Differences? Whole Woman’S Health, Gonzales, And Justice Kennedy’S Vision Of American Abortion Jurisprudence, O. Carter Snead, Laura Wolk

Journal Articles

A law is unconstitutional if it "has the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus."' Twenty-five years have elapsed since a plurality of the Supreme Court articulated this undue burden standard in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, yet its contours remain elusive. Notably, two current members of the Court-Justice Breyer and Justice Kennedy-seem to fundamentally differ in their understanding of what Casey requires and permits. In Gonzales v. Carhart, Justice Kennedy emphasized a wide range of permissible state interests implicated by abortion and indicated …

Neil Gorsuch And The Ginsburg Rules, Lori A. Ringhand, Paul M. Collings Jr.

Scholarly Works

Supreme Court nominees testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee frequently invoke the so-called “Ginsburg Rule” to justify not answering questions posed to them. According to this “rule,” nominees during their testimony must avoid signaling their preferences about previously decided Supreme Court cases or constitutional issues. Using empirical data on every question asked and answered at every hearing from 1939–2017, we explore this “rule,” and its attribution to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. We demonstrate three things. First, the Ginsburg Rule is poorly named, given that the practice of claiming a privilege to not respond to certain types of questions predates the …

Ohio's Modern Courts Amendment Must Be Amended: Why And How, Richard S. Walinski, Mark D. Wagoner Jr.

Cleveland State Law Review

A 1968 amendment to the Ohio Constitution granted the Supreme Court of Ohio the authority to promulgate “rules governing practice and procedure” for Ohio courts. The amendment also provided that “[a]ll laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force or effect after such rules have taken effect” and that no rule may “abridge, enlarge, or modify any substantive right.”

Although the amendment was explicit about automatic repeal of existing laws, it says nothing about whether the General Assembly may legislate on a procedural matter after a court rule takes effect. That silence has caused enduring confusion. …

Stuck In Ohio's Legal Limbo, How Many Mistrials Are Too Many Mistrials?: Exploring New Factors That Help A Trial Judge In Ohio Know Whether To Exercise Her Authority To Dismiss An Indictment With Prejudice, Especially Following Repeated Hung Juries, Samantha M. Cira

Cleveland State Law Review

Multiple mistrials following validly-prosecuted trials are becoming an increasingly harsh reality in today’s criminal justice system. Currently, the Ohio Supreme Court has not provided any guidelines to help its trial judges know when to make the crucial decision to dismiss an indictment with prejudice following a string of properly-declared mistrials, especially due to repeated hung juries. Despite multiple mistrials that continue to result in no conviction, criminal defendants often languish behind bars, suffering detrimental psychological harm and a loss of personal freedom as they remain in “legal limbo” waiting to retry their case. Furthermore, continuously retrying defendants cuts against fundamental …

How Big Money Ruined Public Life In Wisconsin, Lynn Adelman

Cleveland State Law Review

This Article discusses how Wisconsin fell from grace. Once a model good government state that pioneered many democracy-enhancing laws, in a very short time, Wisconsin became a state where special interest money, most of which is undisclosed, dominates politics. This Article identifies several factors as being critical to Wisconsin’s descent. These include the state’s failure to nurture and build on the campaign finance reforms enacted in the 1970s and both the state’s and the United States Supreme Court’s failure to adequately regulate sham issue ads. As evidence of Wisconsin’s diminished status, this Article describes how several of the state’s most …

Travel Ban Update: Ninth Circuit Holds Eo-3 Exceeds President’S Power, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Pov: Scotus Should Not Permit “Boycott Of Same-Sex Marriage”, Linda C. Mcclain

Faculty Scholarship

On December 5, 2017, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, in which baker (self-described cake artist) Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, asked the court to decide “whether applying Colorado’s public accommodations law to compel artists to create expression that violates their sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.”

National Labor Relations Board V. Murphy Oil Usa, Inc.: A Test Of Might, Elizabeth Storey

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA pits two co-equal federal statutes head-to-head. The Federal Arbitration Act mandates that all arbitration clauses be enforced. The National Labor Relations Act grants employees the right to act collectively to bring claims against employers. The Supreme Court must decide whether arbitration clauses in employment contracts, which require employees to arbitrate work-related disputes on an individual basis, contravene the interests of the NLRA. This commentary argues that the Supreme Court should recognize how these arbitration clauses undermine and subvert the protections of the NLRA by disallowing employees to act collectively. By invoking the …

Something's Gotta Give: Origin-Based E-Commerce Sales Tax, Juliana Frenkel

Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial & Commercial Law

How to tax interstate online purchases is a frequently debated and contentious topic in the business and tax arena. There are numerous parties affected when a transaction occurs and each affected party would like a taxation policy that benefits its own economic interests, without regard for others. Neither the legislative nor the judicial branch has successfully resolved this e-commerce taxation issue. With the growing need for tax revenue, it is prudent for Congress to finally resolve this circuit split and agree on a unifying Online Sales Tax Law. As opposed to the vast majority of proposals pending in Congress, this …

Sessions V. Dimaya: Vagueness Doctrine & Deportation Statutes, Matthew Gibbons

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Sessions v. Dimaya seeks to determine whether the residual clause of a criminal provision, incorporated by reference into a civil immigration law, is void for vagueness. Although there is an instance of the Supreme Court applying the criminal vagueness standard to an immigration statute resulting in deportation, the United States argues that immigration law is not subject to that vagueness standard because it is civil and not criminal. This commentary argues that Sessions v. Dimaya presents the Supreme Court with an opportunity to conform with its precedents, further the principles underlying vagueness doctrine, and appear to apply judicial rules consistently. …

Travel Ban Update: Without Addressing The Merits, The Supreme Court Stays Injunction Pending Further Proceedings, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Copyright Infringement In Sound Recording: How Courts And Legislatures Can Get In Vogue In A Post-Ciccone World, Kristen B. Kennedy

Journal of Law and Policy

Music sampling is a legally complex and ambiguous area, with staggeringly high costs attached for copyright infringers. The legality of sampling frequently depends upon what jurisdiction the inquiry into the sampling takes place in, and has been guided by inconsistently applied doctrines of fair use, de minimis, and copyright infringement. The Ninth Circuit’s decision in VMG Salsoul v. Ciccone has dramatically highlighted these inconsistencies. This note suggests a four-part solution to resolve the tensions in copyrightable sound recordings magnified by the recent circuit split created by VMG Salsoul v. Ciccone. It incorporates elements of de minimis and fair use, a …

Gerrymandering And The Constitutional Norm Against Government Partisanship, Michael S. Kang

Michigan Law Review

This Article challenges the basic premise in the law of gerrymandering that partisanship is a constitutional government purpose at all. The central problem, Justice Scalia once explained in Vieth v. Jubilerer, is that partisan gerrymandering becomes unconstitutional only when it “has gone too far,” giving rise to the intractable inquiry into “how much is too much.” But the premise that partisanship is an ordinary and lawful purpose, articulated confidently as settled law and widely understood as such, is largely wrong as constitutional doctrine. The Article surveys constitutional law to demonstrate the vitality of an important, if implicit norm against …

Has Nihilism Politicized The Supreme Court Nomination Process?, Bruce Ledewitz

Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law

No abstract provided.

What Got Into The Court? What Happens Next?, Linda Greenhouse

Maine Law Review

We are now in the midst of an amazing Supreme Court term--more than half-way through on the calendar, far short of halfway through in terms of what has yet to be decided. It's been a roller-coaster term of sorts, beginning with the highly unusual early-September argument in the campaign finance case, followed by a rather quiet fall and winter, and then ending with an April sitting during which the Court will consider, in the context of the country's response to terrorism, cases that are likely to go quite far to define for the modern age the meaning of citizenship and, …