Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

The Supreme Court's Quiet Revolution In Induced Patent Infringement, Timothy R. Holbrook

Faculty Articles

The Supreme Court over the last decade or so has reengaged with patent law. While much attention has been paid to the Court’s reworking of what constitutes patent-eligible subject matter and enhancing tools to combat “patent trolls,” what many have missed is the Court’s reworking of the contours of active inducement of patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). The Court has taken the same number of § 271(b) cases as subject matter eligibility cases—four. Yet this reworking has not garnered much attention in the literature. This Article offers the first comprehensive assessment of the Court’s efforts to define active …

Evidence Laundering In A Post-Herring World, Kay L. Levine, Jenia I. Turner, Ronald F. Wright

Faculty Articles

The Supreme Court’s decision in Herring v. United States authorizes police to defeat the Fourth Amendment’s protections through a process we call evidence laundering. Evidence laundering occurs when one police officer makes a constitutional mistake when gathering evidence and then passes that evidence along to a second officer, who develops it further and then delivers it to prosecutors for use in a criminal case. The original constitutional taint disappears in the wash.

Courts have allowed evidence laundering in a variety of contexts, from cases involving flawed databases to cases stemming from faulty judgments and communication lapses in law enforcement teams. …

The Founding Fathers Said I Am Not Subject To Term Limits, Elias Arroyo

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Supreme Court As A Filter Between International Law And American Constitutionalism, Curtis A. Bradley

Faculty Scholarship

As part of a symposium on Justice Stephen Breyer’s book, “The Court and the World,” this essay describes and defends the Supreme Court’s role as a filter between international law and the American constitutional system. In this role, the Court ensures that when international law passes into the U.S. legal system, it does so in a manner consistent with domestic constitutional values. This filtering role is appropriate, the Essay explains, in light of the different processes used to generate international law and domestic law and the different functions served by these bodies of law. The Essay provides examples of this …

The Amplified Need For Supreme Court Guidance On Student Speech Rights In The Digital Age, William Calve

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract forthcoming.

Energy Deference, Sharon B. Jacobs

Publications

Electricity law is complex, and the Supreme Court knows it. Lawyers are familiar with the adage that generalist courts tend to defer to agency decisions where the subject matter is complex or technical. But what features of a case make the Court more or less likely to defer to the agency's judgment? And how exactly do deference regimes work in the presence of complexity? This essay offers insights gleaned from Court's opinion in Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v. Electric Power Supply Ass’n (“EPSA”). It explains, first, that Courts are highly deferential in energy cases due to both the complexity of …

When The Police Get The Law Wrong: How Heien V. North Carolina Further Erodes The Fourth Amendment, Vivan M. Rivera

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

No abstract provided.

It’S Complicated: The Unusual Way Obergefell V. Hodges Legalized Same Sex Marriage, Kristin Haule

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Rise Of The Unilateral Executive, Anna Kitsmarishvili

Global Tides

This paper addresses the impact of executive order issuance on the separation of powers among the executive and legislative branches—particularly in the realm of foreign affairs. It concludes that judicial vagueness and avoidance regarding presidential directives has resulted in increased Executive authority. The aggrandizement of presidential powers in foreign affairs is revealed through examples from both the Bush and the Obama Administrations. By reviewing landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases, such as United States v. Curtiss-Wright Corp. (1936) and Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952), the paper examines the traditional framework of the Court regarding presidential direct action and …

Who Has Standing? Why The Supreme Court's Holding In Hollingsworth V. Perry Empowers Politicians At The Expense Of Citizens, Omar Subat

Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development

No abstract provided.

Revisiting Congresssional Delegation Of Interpretative Primacy As The Foundation For Chevron Defense, Mark Seidenfeld

Scholarly Publications

Although congressional delegation is the rationale used most often to justify the Chevron doctrine, most scholars who have written about this justification have recognized that it is a fiction, albeit, they claim, a useful one. In “Chevron’s Foundation,” I proposed an alternative foundation for the Chevron doctrine—a judicial self-limitation justification for Chevron deference—based on an implicit understanding of Article III that courts should not resolve cases by making policy choices where alternative means for deciding these cases exists. In this essay, I first revisit my original critique of the delegation rationale and explicitly respond to the arguments …

Lines In The Sand: Interstate Groundwater Disputes In The Supreme Court, Noah D. Hall, Joseph Regalia

Scholarly Works

As states increasingly rely on groundwater to meet their freshwater demands, interstate conflicts have emerged across the country. This article discusses the two most prominent interstate groundwater disputes, one from the east and one from the west. The eastern case, Mississippi v. Tennessee, is the first interstate groundwater case before the Supreme Court and will set important precedent for future litigation. The western case, a dispute between Utah and Nevada, provides a promising alternative to litigation—an interstate compact that could serve as a model for cooperative management and protection of shared interstate aquifers.

Interstate Groundwater Law Revisited: Mississippi V. Tennessee, Noah D. Hall, Joseph Regalia

Scholarly Works

In June 2015, the United States Supreme Court granted the State of Mississippi leave to file a bill of complaint against the State of Tennessee, the City of Memphis, and Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division for wrongfully converting groundwater from the interstate Sparta-Memphis Aquifer. The dispute arises from Memphis and its municipal utility pumping groundwater within Tennessee, which Mississippi alleges has lowered the water tables within its territory. The Supreme Court's grant of leave raises for the first time the question of what legal doctrine applies to transboundary interstate groundwater resources. Tennessee and lower courts would subject interstate groundwater …

Introduction To The U.S. Feminist Judgments Project, Linda L. Berger, Kathryn M. Stanchi, Bridget J. Crawford

Scholarly Works

The U.S. Feminist Judgments Project turns attention to the U.S. Supreme Court. Contributors to this volume challenge the formalistic concepts that U.S. Supreme Court opinions are, or should be, written from a neutral vantage point and that they are, or should be, based on deductive logic or “pure” rationality. When the project’s authors brought their own feminist consciousness or philosophy to some of the most important (and supposedly “neutral”) decisions and assertions about gender-related issues, the judicial decisions took on a very different character. Feminist consciousness broadens and widens the lens through which we view law and helps the decision …

Justice Harlan's Enduring Importance For Current Civil Liberties Issues, From Marriage Equality To Dragnet Nsa Surveillance, Nadine Strossen

Articles & Chapters

No abstract provided.

Gay Rights Versus Religious Freedom, And The Influence Of Obergefell V. Hodges On Distinguishing The Dividing Line, Kathleen Rainey Mcstravick

St. Mary's Law Journal

Obergefell v. Hodges, a United States Supreme Court case, added more fuel to the fire, leaving many to wonder how to voice religious opposition to same-sex marriages, and what are the second order effects for religious opposition in light of the new rule. The Court held the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation. Obergefell, brings the conflict between freedom of religion and LGBT rights to a new level by questioning how far freedom of religion can be used to refuse anti-discrimination statutes regarding sexual …

Feminist Justice: Review Of Sisters In Law: How Sandra Day O'Connor And Ruth Bader Ginsburg Went To The Supreme Court And Changed The World, By Linda Hirshman, Corinna Barrett Lain

Law Faculty Publications

Like most good books, Sisters in Law has a number of strengths and also a few weaknesses. In this review, I briefly reflect on both, then turn to what struck me most about the book, the thing I’m still thinking about and struggling with: what it means to be an elite. The good, the bad, and the ugly (truth)—here is my reaction to Sisters in Law.

Re-Ordering The First Amendment, Melissa Hart

Publications

No abstract provided.

Comparative Reflections On Duncan V. Louisiana And Baldwin V. New York, William Pizzi

Publications

No abstract provided.

I Don’T Believe That Answers Our Question: The Story Of White V. Woodall And How The Supreme Court’S Silence Is Adversely Affecting The Fifth Amendment Privilege, Nathan B. Hall

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.