Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

Supreme Court Review: Church/State Jurisprudence, William Bentley Ball

The Catholic Lawyer

No abstract provided.

The Enforcement Of Irs Summonses And Section 7609, Madeline Tusa

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

This Note argues that because the Tenth Circuit decision ignores important policy concerns dealing with the efficiency of the IRS, failing to comply with notice requirements under Section 7609(a) should be analyzed under the totality of the circumstances standard. Part I discusses the history and development of Section 7609(a) and notice requirements for third-party summonses in IRS investigations. Part II outlines the general requirements for the enforcement of an IRS summons and how Section 7609(a) is analyzed in light of those requirements. Part III discusses the current circuit split and the significance of each respective court’s holdings and reasoning. …

The Intelligible Principle: How It Briefly Lived, Why It Died, And Why It Desperately Needs Revival In Today's Administrative State, Meaghan Dunigan

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

This Note addresses the flaws in the current intelligible principle standard and proposes a new three-part standard that would better revitalize the intelligible principle as it was first articulated almost a century ago. This Note concedes that while legislative delegation in any form is a violation of the original meaning of the nondelegation doctrine, our society and the growth of administrative agencies removed any chance of having our laws created solely by Congress. What can happen, and what this Note proposes, is for the Supreme Court to adopt a new intelligible principle standard that scales back the amount of …

Unequal Law, Unequal Burden: The All-Male Selective Service Act, Civilian Rights, And The Limits Of Military Deference In Modern Supreme Court Jurisprudence, Amy Mccarthy

Florida State University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Communitarianism And The Roberts Court, Robert M. Ackerman

Florida State University Law Review

In this Article, Professor Ackerman examines the work of the Roberts Court through a communitarian lens. Communitarians strive for a reasonable balance between individual rights and the collective good. They believe that even in a rights-conscious society, rights have limits, and involve responsibilities. And so, communitarians will often consider whether the Supreme Court has struck a proper balance between individual liberty and the public interest.

But communitarian theory has other, multidimensional aspects. Communitarians view people as social animals, who are not mere autonomous agents with nobody to care about but themselves. They therefore see the value not only of large-scale …

The Total Takings Myth, Lynn E. Blais

Fordham Law Review

For almost thirty-five years, the U.S. Supreme Court has attempted to carve out a total takings doctrine within its regulatory takings jurisprudence. Most regulatory takings claims are evaluated under the “ad hoc” threefactor test first articulated in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York. Exceedingly few of these claims are successful. But the Court has identified certain categories of government actions that are compensable takings per se, otherwise known as total takings. This began in 1982 with Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., where the Court held that a land use ordinance requiring a landowner to …

Disrespectful Dissent: Justice Scalia's Regrettable Legacy Of Incivility, J. Lyn Entrikin

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

No abstract provided.

Child Welfare's Scarlet Letter: How A Prior Termination Of Parental Rights Can Permanently Brand A Parent As Unfit, Vivek S. Sankaran

Articles

In many jurisdictions, once a parent has her rights terminated to one child, the State can use that decision to justify the termination of parental rights to another child. The State can do so regardless of whether the parent is fit to parent the second child. This article explores this practice, examines its origins, and discusses its constitutional inadequacies.

Justice Blackmun And Preclusion In The State-Federal Context, Karen Nelson Moore

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

No abstract provided.

Justice Blackmun And Individual Rights, Diane P. Wood

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

Of the many contributions Justice Blackmun has made to American jurisprudence, surely his record in the area of individual rights stands out for its importance. Throughout his career on the Supreme Court, he has displayed concern for a wide variety of individual and civil rights. He has rendered decisions on matters ranging from the most personal interests in autonomy and freedom from interference from government in life’s private realms, to the increasingly complex problems posed by discrimination based upon race, sex, national origin, alienage, illegitimacy, sexual orientation, and other characteristics. As his views have become well known to the public, …

Bringing Compassion Into The Province Of Judging: Justice Blackmun And The Outsiders, Pamela S. Karlan

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

No abstract provided.

Chevron In The Circuit Courts, Kent Barnett, Christopher J. Walker

Michigan Law Review

This Article presents findings from the most comprehensive empirical study to date on how the federal courts of appeals have applied Chevrondeference— the doctrine under which courts defer to a federal agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute that it administers. Based on 1,558 agency interpretations the circuit courts reviewed from 2003 through 2013 (where they cited Chevron), we found that the circuit courts overall upheld 71% of interpretations and applied Chevrondeference 77% of the time. But there was nearly a twenty-five-percentage-point difference in agency-win rates when the circuit courts applied Chevrondeference than when they did …

A Less Corrupt Term: 2016–2017 Supreme Court Roundup, Marc O. Degirolami, Kevin C. Walsh

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

In these unusually turbulent times for the presidency and Congress, the Supreme Court’s latest term stands out for its lack of drama. There were no 5–4 end-of-the-term cases that mesmerized the nation. There were no blockbuster decisions.

Even so, the Court was hardly immune to the steady transformation of our governing institutions into reality TV shows. Over the weekend leading into the final day of the term, speculation ignited from who-knows-where about the possible departure of its main character, Justice Anthony Kennedy. To us, the chatter seemed forced—as if the viewing public needed something to fill the vacuum left …

The Supreme Court: An Intentionist's Critique Of Non-Interpretive Review, William Gangi

The Catholic Lawyer

No abstract provided.

Lewis V. Clarke, Summer L. Carmack

Public Land & Resources Law Review

One manner in which Indian tribes exercise their inherent sovereignty is by asserting sovereign immunity. In Lewis v. Clarke, the Court decided that the sovereign immunity extended to instrumentalities of tribes did not further extend to tribal employees acting within the scope of their employment. The Court acknowledged the concerns of the lower court, namely, the possibility of setting a precedent allowing future plaintiffs to sidestep a tribe’s sovereign immunity by suing a tribal employee in his individual capacity. However, the Supreme Court ultimately felt that the immunity of tribal employees should not exceed the immunity extended to state …

Lichtenberger And The Three Bears: Getting The Private Search Exception And Modern Digital Storage "Just Right", Samuel Crecelius

Texas A&M Law Review

Finding a happy medium is hard. Often, it is a challenge to find a workable balance between two unworkable extremes. Known as the “Goldilocks Principle,” this phenomenon has been observed in fields as diverse as developmental psychology and astrobiology. As Goldilocks found in the Three Bears’ house, “just right” may not come on the first attempt. We may have to explore the extremes of the spectrum—“too hot” and “too cold”—before we can settle on “just right. Goldilocks also discovered that this process is all the more difficult in a new environment—like the Three Bears’ house. Goldilocks persevered, however, until she …

Brief Of The National Association For Public Defense As Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioner, Stein V. United States Of America (U.S. September 15, 2017) (No. 17-250)., Janet Moore

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

Petitioner’s case asks a basic but fundamental question: Will our criminal justice system permit convictions obtained through the knowing use of false testimony, simply because the prosecutor has not also suppressed evidence indicating the testimony was false? The Eleventh Circuit answered this question in the affirmative, but for decades this Court has known a very different justice system, one in which the knowing, uncorrected use of false testimony by the prosecutor could never be countenanced. And for good reason. As this Court has long recognized, the knowing use of false testimony is “as inconsistent with the rudimentary demands of justice …

Full Supreme Court Stays Ninth Circuit Order On Refugee Assurances, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court Stays Ninth Circuit Order On Refugee Assurances, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Juveniles Make Bad Decisions, But Are Not Adults & Law Continues To Account For This Difference: The Supreme Court’S Decision To Apply Miller V. Alabama Retroactively Will Have A Significant Impact On Many Decades Of Reform And Current Debate Around Juvenile Sentencing, Danielle Petretta

Pace Law Review

In January 2016, the Supreme Court made a monumental decision, reflecting the notion that juveniles are not adults. For years, courts have been grappling with the notion that juveniles are not adults. The Supreme Court has finally published an opinion that will have extreme implications on the juvenile justice system.

Part I of this Note will discuss the birth of the juvenile justice system. Part II of this Note will briefly introduce the recent oral argument heard before the Supreme Court regarding whether the Supreme Court will apply Miller v. Alabama retroactively or non-retroactively. Part III will discuss the history …