Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

Brief Of Civil Procedure Professors Suzette Malveaux, Alan Trammell, Alexi Pfeffer-Gillett, And Doug Rendleman As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondents: Trump V. Casa, Trump V. Washington & Trump V. New Jersey, Suzette M. Malveaux, Alan Trammell, Alexi Pfeffer-Gillett, Doug Rendleman

Scholarly Articles

Nationwide injunctions are constitutional. Their core feature—courts’ power to render decisions that directly benefit nonparties—is consistent with traditional equitable practices. Accordingly, the Article III “judicial power” comprehends such remedies. Nationwide injunctions also comport with Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement, including constitutional standing.

Broad remedies are sometimes necessary, especially when government actors willfully disregard people’s rights, and the usual tools of aggregate litigation (such as class actions) are not practically available to vindicate those rights. Moreover, courts can readily navigate prudential concerns about nationwide injunctions, from fears of judge shopping to prematurely freezing the law. Courts remain attuned to these concerns, and …

Remaking Rulemaking: Lessons From The History Of Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 54(B), Brad Baranowski, Emery G. Lee Iii

Cleveland State Law Review

This Article uses the lost history of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) to provide a framework for rulemaking at the busy intersection of complex litigation and appellate finality. The drafters of the original civil rules spent more time thinking through how to efficiently combine claims and parties in civil actions—a promised benefit of the proposed law-equity merger—than about how combined claims should be dis-assembled. This failure would haunt the original Advisory Committee on Civil Rules for years. Nowhere was this more evident than in the first decades of Rule 54(b)’s existence.

Promulgated in 1938, Rule 54(b) was designed to …

The Impact Of Erlinger V. United States On State Recidivist Sentencing Laws, Chad Flanders

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

In Erlinger v. United States, the United States Supreme Court ruled that finding that an offender had committed two felonies “on separate occasions” under the Armed Career Criminal Act had to be done by a jury, not a judge. In one respect, the decision is narrow: it is an extension of the Court’s Apprendi jurisprudence. But in another respect, the decision is far-reaching. As some state appeals courts have already realized, the decision makes unconstitutional state laws that give the judge—rather than the jury—the power to decide whether someone is a “persistent” or “habitual” offender based on whether a …

Courting Oblivion Part Ii: How To Revive American Reconstruction By Feigning Forgetfulness, Joshua J. Schroeder

Cleveland State Law Review

This is the second part of the three-part Courting Oblivion series on the legal concept of oblivion, meaning legal forgetfulness, letting go of the past, or forgiveness usually to predicate a second chance, a restart, or even an era of reconstruction. This Article demonstrates how to apply the “right to move on” described in Part I to the law in the United States through acts of oblivion and amnesty. It describes the general uses of acts of oblivion and amnesty to the general framework of government in the United States, leading to the final discussion in Part III about the …

Hoodwinked By Rucho: The Illusion Of Protection For Racial Gerrymandering In Federal Courts, Krystell Fienco

University of Miami Race & Social Justice Law Review

"lt is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule." - Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).

"[W]e must never forget, that it is a constitution we are expounding." - McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819).

The Right To Gender-Affirming Care, Justin J. Soulas

Theses and Dissertations

As of recent, twenty-four states have enacted bans on gender-affirming care, restricting minors from accessing medically necessary treatment. Existing scholarship has begun to explore the profound impact of these bans on transgender youth, their parents or guardians, and the medical professionals who support them. However, the body of literature on this rapidly evolving issue remains limited. This thesis aims to fill that gap by offering a legal defense of gender-affirming care, grounded in judicial precedent. It argues that parental rights to make medical decisions for their children—recognized in constitutional jurisprudence—extend to decisions involving gender-affirming treatment. Additionally, it draws on anti-discrimination …

Amgen Enablement And Its Undue Burden On An Overburdened Biomedical Industry, Carter Chippi

Journal of Law and Health

This paper examines the Supreme Court decision in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi and its profound impact on the patentability of biotechnology inventions, particularly biologic drugs. By virtually eliminating the possibility of claiming genera patents, the decision exacerbates existing challenges within the biologic sector, including high development costs and rigorous regulatory hurdles. The analysis sets forth the enablement requirement’s precedent, emphasizing historical case law and the unforeseen implications of setting a stringent standard for biotechnology patents. This paper further critiques suggested industry compromises, deeming them insufficient to address the ramifications of Amgen, and proposes legislative intervention. Options include granting biologics …

Conflicting Canons Of Construction: The Aftermath In Veterans’ Law, Carlissa R. Carson

Brooklyn Law Review

Until June 28, 2024, when the United States Supreme Court overturned decades of administrative law precedent, veterans' law judges, veterans, and practitioners alike would gather in the administrative law arena to watch an unpredictable battle: Chevron vs. Gardner. The outcome of bouts between these heavyweights was as unexpected as the plot twist in an M. Night Shyamalan film. As a result, our nation’s veterans were defeated. Federal courts tended to apply either Chevron (agency deference) or Gardner (veteran friendliness) and courts rarely mentioned both canons of construction in the same opinion. It was difficult to predict which canon of construction …

Do Bankruptcy Judges Belong In Chambers? Rethinking Inherent Civil Contempt Power In Bankruptcy, Abigail B. Willie

Brooklyn Law Review

In recent years, the Supreme Court of the United States has recognized limitations on the adjudicatory authority of the bankruptcy judge in certain contexts. In the face of this seeming erosion in the previously presumed power of the bankruptcy judge, the time is ripe to consider areas in which a bankruptcy judge’s adjudicatory authority may be further challenged. Inherent civil contempt power is one such area. Contempt power in the bankruptcy context has been murky since the creation of the non-Article III bankruptcy court in 1978. While today, courts generally agree that bankruptcy judges possess (at least some) inherent civil …

Climate Exceptionalism In Court, Zachary D. Clopton, David A. Dana

Northwestern University Law Review

Across a range of cases, fossil fuel companies, government actors, and some judges have conceded that climate change is an exceptional phenomenon, only to argue that its exceptional nature is a reason to keep climate change out of court. These parties and judges thus seek to avoid the adjudication of climate cases on the merits, even when the neutral application of existing law would provide for jurisdiction in these cases. We term this phenomenon “climate jurisdiction exceptionalism.”

This Article provides a comprehensive account of climate jurisdiction exceptionalism, focusing on two main threads: Article III standing and state court jurisdiction. First, …

Let's Get Personal: Due Process And Personal Jurisdiction As A New Path Forward For Extraterritoriality, Samy Abdelsalam

Northwestern University Law Review

The Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization has put fundamental principles of federalism and state sovereignty under attack. Legislation and lawsuits in states nationwide aim to limit the rights of American citizens to travel freely between states in search of medical care. Further, these measures have extraterritorial reach, legally entangling the rights of private citizens in other states who provide medical care even while fully within their own state borders. Scholars have analyzed this development through various doctrinal lenses, including the Dormant Commerce Clause. But these frameworks fail to adequately protect those who are unfortunate enough …

Brief Of Amici Curiae Scholars For The Advancement Of Children’S Constitutional Rights And Students Engaged In Advancing Texas In Support Of Respondents: Mahmoud V. Taylor, Catherine E. Smith, Tanya Washington, Jeremiah Chin, Sarah Medina Camiscoli, Travis F. Chance

Scholarly Articles

Amici are members of Students Engaged in Advancing Texas and United States legal scholars of children and the law, education law, family law, and anti-discrimination law.

Students Engaged in Advancing Texas is a nonprofit organization founded by young people to develop civic leadership and belonging and represents students of various faiths and identities who have an interest in the outcome of this case.

Amici draw this Court’s attention to the constitutional harms that public school students and LGBTQ+ students and students with LGBTQ+ parents would bear should the Court grant Petitioners’ injunctive relief.

Us Supreme Court Reopens Door For Restitution Of Nazi Stolen Painting, David Seen

Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal (AELJ) Blog

The looting of works of art during World War II represents one of the most significant cultural thefts in history, with the Nazi state seeking to enrich itself by seizing property of the people it persecuted. The Nazis systematically seized thousands of invaluable works of art and cultural assets from museums, galleries, and private collections across Europe. The methods of seizure ranged from barefaced theft to indirect means such as forcing individuals to sell their property to finance their flights into exile. Due to the fact that many works of art were not looted directly but seized through indirect means, …

The Final Frontier Of Federal Power: Understanding, Defining, And Enforcing “Necessary And Proper” To Enhance The General Welfare And Limit Federal Power, Thomas Ralph

Catholic University Law Review

This comment explores the long and inconsistent history of the Necessary and Proper Clause and its unique role as both a grant of power to Congress and a limit on the outer reach of the federal government. The federal government is in theory one of limited powers; however, this promise of the Constitution cannot be truly recognized without developing a robust framework for applying the Necessary and Proper Clause as a reliable source of federal power. After establishing the need for a framework, this comment provides five judicial decision rules that can be applied by trial and appellate courts to …

A Matter Of Public Concern: Eliminating The Public Concern Test To Safeguard New York Times Co. V. Sullivan, Alyssa T. Calcerano

Catholic University Law Review

In recent years, Justices Thomas and Gorsuch have expressed a strong interest in reconsidering, and perhaps overruling, the landmark defamation decision, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. The Court’s defamation jurisprudence has undergone many changes since the landmark case was decided, namely, the Court has since adopted a test known as the “public concern” test. Though adopted by only a plurality of the Court, the “public concern” test has been integrated into the defamation decisions of lower federal courts and state courts. This comment encourages the Court to abandon any push toward the wholesale abandonment of Sullivan and, instead, …

The Law Of Disqualification And Problems With The Supreme Court Code Of Conduct, Donald K. Sherman, Marco A. White, Virginia Canter

Fordham Law Voting Rights and Democracy Forum

In this Article, we analyze the federal disqualification statute applicable to federal judges, magistrates, and Justices of the Supreme Court as compared to the disqualification provisions of the United States Supreme Court Code of Conduct and detail the ways in which the standards contained within the Code are contrary to law and history. To provide proper context, we examine the history, case law, and statutory framework that have created the current standards of judicial disqualification for all Article III judges and Justices. We demonstrate that the Court is bound to apply disqualification procedures in accordance with the United States Constitution, …

The Precedential Weight Of Summary Dispositions Of Appeals, Maine Law Review

Maine Law Review

The extent to which the Supreme Court's summary dispositions of appeals are entitled to precedential weight presents a serious problem for lower courts confronted with cases involving issues similar to those previously disposed of in a summarily decided appeal. A recent source of confusion in this area was the Supreme Court's 1975 opinion in Hicks v. Miranda. In Hicks, the lower court held a California statute unconstitutional despite the fact that one year earlier the Supreme Court had summarily dismissed an appeal from a decision upholding the constitutionality of the same statute., The Supreme Court reversed, pointing out that its …

A Peek Behind The Scenes Of Supreme Court Decision Making Concerning The Federal Ip System, Jonathan Band

Joint PIJIP/TLS Research Paper Series

In the 1970s and 80s, the Supreme Court decided three cases that continue to define the limits of the authority of the states within the federal intellectual property system: Goldstein v. California (1973); Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Oil Co. (1974); and Bonito Boats v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc. (1989). The papers of the Supreme Court Justices that decided these cases show the Court as a human institution wrestling with this complex issue. This issue has assumed new importance as state legislatures have rushed to enact laws on the use of generative artificial intelligence to replicate the voice …

Trump V. United States And The Half-Originalist Presidency, Christine Kexel Chabot

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Trump v. United States has been criticized for its ahistorical approach to presidential immunity. This Essay offers the first account of the historical mismatch between the Trump Court’s decision to immunize presidential removal power and Founding era conceptions of the presidency. Unlike the presumptive immunity that the Court recognized for most other official presidential acts, the immunity afforded for presidential removal power is absolute. The Court ruled that the President’s “unrestricted power of removal” can never be regulated by Congress or considered as evidence of wrongdoing, even when the President threatens removal to effectuate …

Democratizing Constitutional Memory, Reva B. Siegel

Michigan Law Review

The Court regularly makes claims on the past—claims that have grown in prominence since conservatives on the Roberts Court invoked “history and tradition” to overrule longstanding case law on religious free exercise, the right to bear arms, and the right to abortion in its 2021 term and to threaten other rights since. The Court claims its historically based approach constrains judges by focusing interpretation on objective and impersonal facts in the past.