Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

Justice, Interrupted: The Effect Of Gender, Ideology, And Seniority At Supreme Court Oral Arguments, Tonja Jacobi, Dylan Schweers

Faculty Articles

Oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court are important—they affect case outcomes and constitute the only opportunity for outsiders to directly witness the behavior of the Justices of the highest court. This Article studies how the Justices compete to have influence at oral argument, by examining the extent to which the Justices interrupt each other; it also scrutinizes how advocates interrupt the Justices, contrary to the rules of the Court. We find that judicial interactions at oral argument are highly gendered, with women being interrupted at disproportionate rates by their male colleagues, as well as by male advocates. Oral argument …

Undignified: The Supreme Court, Racial Justice, And Dignity Claims, Darren L. Hutchinson

Faculty Articles

The Supreme Court has interpreted the Equal Protection Clause as a formal equality mandate. In response, legal scholars have advocated alternative conceptions of equality, such as antisubordination theory, that interpret equal protection in more substantive terms. Antisubordination theory would consider the social context in which race-based policies emerge and recognize material distinctions between policies intended to oppress racial minorities and those designed to ameliorate past and current racism. Antisubordination theory would also closely scrutinize facially neutral state action that systemically disadvantages vulnerable social groups. The Court has largely ignored these reform proposals. Modern Supreme Court rulings, however, have invoked the …

Solving A Mystery: Justice Brandeis’ Approach To Judicial Decision-Making, Judge Kermit V. Lipez

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Justice Brandeis And Civic Duty In A Pluralistic Society, Joel K. Goldstein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Soft Supremacy, Corinna Barrett Lain

Law Faculty Publications

The debate over judicial supremacy has raged for more than a decade now, yet the conception of what it is we are arguing about remains grossly oversimplified and formalistic. My aim in this symposium contribution is to push the conversation in a more realistic direction; I want those who claim that judicial supremacy is antidemocratic to take on the concept as it actually exists. The stark truth is that judicial supremacy has remarkably little of the strength and hard edges that dominate the discourse in judicial supremacy debates. It is porous, contingent- soft. And the upshot of soft supremacy is …

Judicial Departmentalism: An Introduction, Kevin C. Walsh

Law Faculty Publications

This Article introduces the idea of judicial departmentalism and argues for its superiority to judicial supremacy. Judicial supremacy is the idea that the Constitution means for everybody what the Supreme Court says it means in deciding a case. Judicial departmentalism, by contrast, is the idea that the Constitution means in the judicial department what the Supreme Court says it means in deciding a case. Within the judicial department, the law of judgments, the law of remedies, and the law of precedent combine to enable resolutions by the judicial department to achieve certain kinds of settlements. Judicial departmentalism holds that these …

Reciprocal Legitimation In The Federal Courts System, Neil S. Siegel

Faculty Scholarship

Much scholarship in law and political science has long understood the U.S. Supreme Court to be the “apex” court in the federal judicial system, and so to relate hierarchically to “lower” federal courts. On that top-down view, exemplified by the work of Alexander Bickel and many subsequent scholars, the Court is the principal, and lower federal courts are its faithful agents. Other scholarship takes a bottom-up approach, viewing lower federal courts as faithless agents or analyzing the “percolation” of issues in those courts before the Court decides. This Article identifies circumstances in which the relationship between the Court and other …

Judges' Varied Views On Textualism: The Roberts-Alito Schism And The Similar District Judge Divergence That Undercuts The Widely Assumed Textualism-Ideology Correlation, Scott A. Moss

University of Colorado Law Review

No abstract provided.

Bob Nagel And The Emptiness Of Supreme Court Standards Of Review, Larry Alexander

University of Colorado Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Conversation With Associate Justice Sonya Sotomayor, Sonia Sotomayor

University of Colorado Law Review

No abstract provided.

Scotus Denies Review In Gay Rights Case, Arthur S. Leonard

Other Publications

No abstract provided.

Fair For Whom? Why Debt-Collection Lawsuits In St. Louis Violate The Procedural Due Process Rights Of Low-Income Communities, Aimee Constantineau

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Limits Of Reading Law In The Affordable Care Act Cases, Kevin C. Walsh

Law Faculty Publications

One of the most highly lauded legacies of Justice Scalia's decades-long tenure on the Supreme Court was his leadership of a movement to tether statutory interpretation more closely to statutory text. His dissents in the Affordable Care Act cases- National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius and King v. Burwell- demonstrate both the nature and the limits of his success in that effort.

These were two legal challenges, one constitutional and the other statutory, that threatened to bring down President Obama's signature legislative achievement, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Both times the Court swerved away from a direct …

Confirming Supreme Court Justices In A Presidential Election Year, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

Justice Antonin Scalia’s death prompted United States Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) to argue that the President to be inaugurated on January 20, 2017—not Barack Obama—must fill the empty Scalia post. Obama in turn expressed sympathy for the Justice’s family and friends, lauded his consummate public service, and pledged to nominate a replacement “in due time,” contending that eleven months remained in his administration for confirming a worthy successor. Obama admonished that the President had a constitutional duty to nominate a superlative aspirant to the vacancy, which must not have persisted for …

Identity Criris: Claim Prevlusion In Constitutional Challenges To Statutes, Riley T. Keenan

Law Faculty Publications

Claim preclusion bars parties from relitigating in a later action claims that were or should have been litigated in a prior action. How does this doctrine apply in constitutional challenges to state and federal statutes? When a plaintiff challenges one provision of a statute in one action, can she challenge a different provision of the same statute in a later action? And when, if ever, can she bring two successive challenges to the same provision?

Though the Supreme Court addressed these questions two terms ago in Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt, its answers were incomplete. This Article searches for …

The Highest Court: A Dialogue Between Justice Louis Brandeis And Justice Antonin Scalia On Stare Decisis, P. Thomas Distanislao, Iii

Law Student Publications

The scene is the main reading room in the Supreme Court library. It is 12:01 AM on a Thursday night, and a hapless law clerk' named Madison Nomos' is working on a draft of a dissenting opinion for his Justice. Specifically, Nomos is researching whether an earlier Supreme Court case- one with which his Justice vehemently disagrees- should play a significant role in the Court's analysis of an issue that has gripped the nation. Nomos's Justice was recently confirmed, and this will be her first opportunity to firmly state her views on stare decisis in the Supreme Court. She has …

A Hobbesian Bundle Of Lockean Sticks: The Property Rights Legacy Of Justice Scalia, J. Peter Byrne

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

No modern United States Supreme Court Justice has stimulated more thought and debate about the constitutional meaning of property than Antonin Scalia. This essay evaluates his efforts to change the prevailing interpretation of the Takings Clause. Scalia sought to ground it in clear rules embodying a reactionary defense of private owners’ prerogatives against environmental and land use regulation. Ultimately, Scalia aimed to authorize federal judicial oversight of state property law developments, whether through legislative or judicial innovation. In hindsight, he stands in a long tradition of conservative judges using property law as a constitutional baseline by which to restrain regulation.

Illegal Stops And The Exclusionary Rule: The Consequences Of Utah V. Strieff, Emily J. Sack

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Illegal Stops And The Exclusionary Rule: The Consequences Of Utah V. Strieff, Emily Sack

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Directv, Inc. V. Imburgia And The Continued Ascendance Of Federal Common Law: Class-Action Waivers And Mandatory Arbitration Under The Federal Arbitration Act, Michael Yelnosky

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.