Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

Ninth Circuit Protects Refugees With Assurances Of Sponsorship, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Section 2: Trump And The Court, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Section 3: Business Law Panel, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Section 6: Election Law Panel, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Section 4: Immigration Law Panel, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

2017-2018 Supreme Court Preview: Schedule And Panel Members, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Section 1: Moot Court: Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd., Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Section 5: Criminal Law Panel, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

2017-2018 Supreme Court Preview: Contents, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Newsroom: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg To Visit Rwu Law 08-31-2017, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Are Critical Area Buffers Unconstitutional? Demystifying The Doctrine Of Unconstitutional Conditions, Brian T. Hodges

Seattle Journal of Environmental Law

Washington’s cities and counties are increasingly demanding that owners of residential shoreline properties dedicate large, predetermined critical area buffers as a mandatory condition of any new development. Such demands, when imposed without regard to the specifics of the land use proposal, would appear to violate the essential nexus and rough proportionality tests established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987), and Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994). Early decisions from Washington courts faithfully applied these tests, invalidating open space and buffer dedications. But in a series of …

Inimicus Libertatis: Chief Justice Rehnquist’S Majority Or Plurality Opinions In The Field Of Criminal Procedure, Donald E. Wilkes Jr.

Scholarly Works

Since the early 1970’s an increasingly conservative Supreme Court of the United States has been leading this country through a “Criminal Procedure Counterrevolution” (also called “The Rehnquisition”), during which the federal rights and remedies of criminal defendants have been inexorably and significantly eroded. There are numerous books and law review articles discussing this counterrevolution. Chief Justice Rehnquist, the most articulate and ideological of the Courts conservative justices, may properly be regarded as the intellectual founder and leader of this trend in favor of restricting criminal procedure rights.

This article analyzes and provides a bibliography of Supreme Court criminal procedure opinions …

John Marshall, The Great Chief Justice, William & Mary Law School

Popular Media

John Marshall, the nation's fourth chief justice, was among the first to study law at W&M.

Dead Precedents, Riley T. Svikhart

Notre Dame Law Review Reflection

Part I explores the Roberts Court’s reluctance to overrule Supreme Court precedents more thoroughly. Part II provides a modest account for this phenomenon. Section II.A considers the relationship between the Roberts Court’s reluctance to overrule Supreme Court precedents and its law declaration bent. Section II.B evaluates this reluctance in light of the doctrinal commitment of stare decisis. Finally, Section II.C examines the link between the Roberts Court’s treatment of dying precedents and its trademark adherence to the constitutional avoidance doctrine.

Confirmation Bias, Patrick Barry

Articles

Supreme Court confirmation hearings are vapid. Supreme Court confirmation hearings are pointless. Supreme Court confirmation hearings are harmful to a citizenry already cynical about government. Sentiments like these have been around for decades and are bound to resurface each time a new nomination is made. This essay, however, takes a different view. It argues that Supreme Court confirmation hearings are a valuable form of cultural expression, one that provides a unique record of as the theater critic Martin Esslin might say, a nation thinking about itself in public.

Lost At Sea: The Continuing Decline Of The Supreme Court In Admiralty, Michael Sevel

University of Miami Law Review

For the first 200 years of its history, the United States Supreme Court served as the primary leader in the development of, and its cases the primary source of, the admiralty and maritime law of the United States. That appears to be changing. The Court’s admiralty cases over the last quarter century indicate that it is slowly giving up its traditional leading role in creating and developing rules of admiralty law, and instead deferring to Congress to make those rules, a trend that is tantamount to abandoning its Article III constitutional duty to serve as the country’s only national admiralty …

Trumping The Ninth Circuit: How The 45th President’S Supreme Court Appointments Will Strengthen The Already Strong Federal Policy Favoring Arbitration, Eric Schleich

Arbitration Law Review (2009 - Present)

No abstract provided.

The Future Of Class Action Waivers In Employment Agreements: Lewis Creates A Framework For The United States Supreme Court, Meghan Gonyea

Arbitration Law Review (2009 - Present)

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court Term In Review: Ot 2016, Donald Roth

Faculty Work Comprehensive List

"Even though the Court is expected to be apolitical, there are many who assume that the judges are beholden to party politics."

Posting about recent major cases before the U.S. Supreme Court from In All Things - an online journal for critical reflection on faith, culture, art, and every ordinary-yet-graced square inch of God’s creation.

http://inallthings.org/supreme-court-term-in-review-ot-2016/

Of Carrots And Sticks: General Jurisdiction And Genuine Consent, Craig Sanders

Northwestern University Law Review

The United States Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in Daimler AG v. Bauman changed how the courts will determine whether companies should be subject to general personal jurisdiction. In 1945, Pennoyer v. Neff’s geographical fixation gave way to International Shoe Co. v. Washington, which provided a test for courts to determine whether corporations had sufficient contact with a forum to meet the bar for personal jurisdiction there. Specific jurisdiction requires “minimum contacts,” provided the action is satisfactorily related to the forum. However, to be subject to general jurisdiction, a corporation must possess more than just “minimum contacts,” and claimants …