Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

The Right To Carry Firearms Outside Of The Home: Separating Historical Myths From Historical Realities, Saul Cornell

Fordham Urban Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Second Amendment In Historiographical Crisis: Why The Supreme Court Must Reevaluate The Embarrassing “Standard Model” Moving Forward, Patrick J. Charles

Fordham Urban Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Ideological Imbalance: Why Democrats Usually Pick Moderate-Liberal Justices And Republicans Usually Pick Conservative Ones, Lawrence Baum, Neal Devins

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Roe V. Wade's Nightmare: The Current Legal State Of Abortion Rights In The Dominican Republic, Sharly Larios

Journal of International and Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Stanley V. Illinois’S Untold Story, Josh Gupta-Kagan

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Stanley v. Illinois is one of the Supreme Court’s more curious landmark cases. The holding is well known: the Due Process Clause both prohibits states from removing children from the care of unwed fathers simply because they are not married and requires states to provide all parents with a hearing on their fitness. By recognizing strong due process protections for parents’ rights, Stanley reaffirmed Lochner-era cases that had been in doubt and formed the foundation of modern constitutional family law. But Peter Stanley never raised due process arguments, so it has long been unclear how the Court reached this decision. …

Maintaining Institutional Power And Constitutional Principles: A Rhetorical Analysis Of United States V. Nixon, R. Scott Medsker, Todd F. Mcdorman

Speaker & Gavel

In examining these implications we argue that the Court’s Nixon decision was a uniquely strategic response to a complex rhetorical situation. In fact, the elements of the situation were so fundamental to the tenor of the Court’s response that this essay’s framework is drawn from Lloyd F. Bitzer’s construction of the rhetorical situation. The use of this system will allow for deeper consideration of the context of United States v. Nixon as well as assessment of the legal text as responsive to that context.

Discrimination And Business Regulation, Eileen Kaufman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Districtly Speaking: Evenwel V. Abbott And The Apportionment Population Debate, Joey Herman

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, promises substantial equality of population within state legislative districts under the “one-person, one-vote” rule. Most frequently, total population is the basis for state reapportionament, but state citizenship and voter registration populations have also been acceptable bases in certain situations. The case of Evenwel v. Abbott, provides the Court with the opportunity to resolve the permissible population basis for reapportionment of state legislative districts. This Commentary argues that a state may rely upon total population as the basis for apportionment because such an approach is consistent …

The Latest Word From The Supreme Court On Punitive Damages, Leon D. Lazer

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Impact Of Padilla V. Kentucky On The Immigration Courts: Does The Potential For Vacating A Criminal Plea Effect Removal/Deportation Proceedings?, Hon. Dorothy A. Harbeck, M. Michelle Park, Yoonji Kim, J.D.

Journal of International and Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Revisiting Erisa Preemption In Gobeille V. Liberty Mutual, Nicole B. Gage

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Under the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, federal law preempts state law. In 1974 Congress passed the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) governing benefits offered by employers to their employees. The purpose of this statute was ensuring the uniformity of the law applicable to employee benefts. The Supreme Court case of Gobeille v. Liberty Mutual concerns the limits of ERISA’s preemption of state law, specifically whether a state law governing employee benefits is merely peripheral to the core ERISA functions. This Commentary argues that ERISA does not preempt a state law which does not interfere with the administration of ERISA …

Of All The Gin Joints: Harris And The Supreme Court’S Reluctant Jurisprudence On Partisanship In Redistricting, Andrew Bellis

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

As interpreted by the Supreme Court, the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause protects the voting power of citizens. Thus, drawing state legislative districts resulting in dilution of citizens’ voting power may violate the Constitution. However, the question of what factors a state may take into account when redistricting has not been settled. In the upcoming Supreme Court case of Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, the Court faces the question of whether partisan makeup of the population and whether an attempt by a state to obtain federal preclearance for redistricting are valid factors a state can take into account …

Brief Of The Catholic University Of America School Of Canon Law, The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, The Queens Federation Of Churches, And The Serbian Orthodox Church In North And South America, As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioners, Richard W. Garnett, David H. Hyams

Court Briefs

No. 15.1005
Chabad-Lubavitch of Michigan v. Dr. Dov Schuchman

On Petition for a Writ of Ceriorari to the Supreme Court of Michigan

This brief addresses the importance of the principle of church autonomy and the protections provided by the First and Fourteenth Amendments and this Court's precedents regarding religious denominations' internal mandatory dispute-resolution procedures.

Reality's Bite, Kerri Lynn Stone

Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development

No abstract provided.

The Rise And Fall Of Plausibility Pleading?, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court's 2007 decision in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and its 2009 decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal unleashed a torrent of scholarly reaction. Commentators charged these decisions with adopting a new pleading regime, "plausibility pleading," that upended the notice-pleading approach that had long prevailed in federal court. Whether a complaint could survive a motion to dismiss — it was argued — now depends on whether the court found the complaint plausible, allowing courts to second-guess a complaint's allegations without any opportunity for discovery or consideration of actual evidence. Lower courts began to cite Twombly and Iqbal at a …

Legal Scholarship Spotlight: The Evolution Of Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings, Lori A. Ringhand, Paul Collins

Popular Media

This article appearing at the SCOTUSblog on March 25, 2016, discusses the role of the Senate Judiciary Committee plays in the nomination of Supreme Court Justices.

Issue 3: Allen Chair Table Of Contents

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Peril Of Paroline: How The Supreme Court Made It More Difficult For Victims Of Child Pornography, Janet Lawrence

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Tyson Foods, Inc. V. Bouaphakeo: The Use Of Statistical Evidence In Class Actions, Wenbo Zhang

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Statistical analysis potentially plays an important role in class-action litigation, but the use of such evidence is limited at the class-certification stage of such suits. This Commentary previews an upcoming Supreme Court case that deals with the question of whether inferential evidence may be used to certify a class in a class-action lawsuit. Because this case deals with a violation of a duty, imposed by statute, on the defendant, this Commentary argues that under existing precedent, inferential statistical evidence is appropriate for determining the question of class-certification.

The Young And The Redemptionless? Juvenile Offenders Before Miller V. Alabama, Katherine Johnson

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits excessive criminal sanctions, and the Supreme Court has held that this provision has special application in situations dealing with juvenile offenders. This Commentary looks at the recent Supreme Court case of Montgomery v. Louisiana, in which the Court held that there was a constititutional prohibition of life sentences without parole for juvenile offenders. This Commentary argues that this is the correct result under the Court’s Eighth Amendment jurisprudence but that the Court should also have held that the sole remedy for such constitutional violations is resentencing.