Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

Bostock And The Limits Of Textualism: A Doctrinal Structuralist Approach, Martin Katz

William & Mary Law Review

In Bostock v. Clayton County, the Supreme Court held that Title VII prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. This result, the majority claimed, was required by the interpretive theory called textualism. But textualist Justices in the dissent vehemently disagreed. This split, and the controversy that has followed it, has had two consequences. First, it added fuel to the ongoing debate about the value of textualism. Second, it opened the door for lower courts to decline to apply Bostock to similar antidiscrimination laws, such as Title IX in education or the Equal Protection Clause.

This Article argues …

Deadly Choices: Political, Legal, And Moral Understandings Of U.S. Supreme Court Death Penalty Decisions, Anabelle S. Bergstrom

Honors Scholar Theses

This thesis explores the political, legal, and moral factors that influence Supreme Court justices when penning capital punishment decisions. It also examines the evolution of thinking toward the death penalty by former justices John Paul Stevens and Harry Blackmun throughout their tenure on the Court. Cases are analyzed through fact-pattern analysis and the jurisprudential regime theory, which quantitatively build upon existing literature detailing the theoretical background of judicial decision-making through the attitudinal model. An analysis of Justices Blackmun and Stevens’ papers at the Library of Congress focuses on rhetoric that reflects utilitarian and retributive theories of punishment. Findings show that …

Litigating Corporate Risk, Henry B. Blaikie

Fordham Law Review

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) requires companies to disclose risk factors in Item 105 of Regulation S-K, which calls for “a discussion of the material factors that make an investment speculative or risky.” Whether companies incur liability for omitting or mischaracterizing risk factors in their disclosures is the subject of a three-way split between eight federal courts of appeals. The majority approach among the circuits—consisting of the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the First, Second, Third, Fifth, Tenth, and District of Columbia Circuits—imposes liability when companies omit or mischaracterize a risk factor that, at the time of disclosure, is …

Text, Context, Or Both?: Considering When And How To Use Statutory History In The New Textualist Framework, Devon Brostoff

Fordham Law Review

Statutory history represents the evolution of a statute through enacted amendments. Although textualists have widely rejected traditional forms of legislative history, statutory history has not received the same fate. Instead, textualists have accepted the use of statutory history as a resource separate from—and superior to—legislative history. Thus, this Note examines how courts are using statutory history, focusing primarily on the author’s analysis of a set of courts of appeals cases that rely on statutory history. Using these cases, this Note explores whether statutory history is best understood as text or context within the interpretation process. Further, this Note challenges the …

Misusing Eminent Domain: Pretextual Takings For A Traditional Public Use, Cameron P. Hellerman

Fordham Law Review

Eminent domain is a powerful tool at the disposal of local, state and federal governments. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution imposes two conditions on this sovereign power: the taking must be for “public use,” and the condemner must pay “just compensation” to the property owner. There are minimal guardrails in place to police potential misuse of the eminent domain power in the courts. The U.S. Supreme Court equates “public use” with “public purpose” and applies a deferential standard of review to a condemner’s determination that a taking serves a public purpose. Nonetheless, the Court in Kelo v. City …

Do Bans On Conversion Therapy Impose A Governmental "Orthodoxy" About Sex And Gender?, Linda C. Mcclain

Faculty Scholarship

In Part I, this Essay evaluates how orthodoxy arguments featured in Mr. Tingley’s challenge to Washington’s ban on conversion therapy. Part II offers a preliminary analysis of Chiles v. Salazar, ⁴² which the Court will hear during its 2025-2026 Term. I illustrate how the arguments made against Washington’s law by Chiles and her amici draw from the anti-orthodoxy and marketplace of ideas rhetoric found not only in Justice Thomas’s Tingley dissent and his NIFLA opinion but also in Justice Gorsuch’s majority opinion in the 303 Creative decision.⁴³ Woven together with these speech arguments are appeals to the Court’s …

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 …

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 …

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 …

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 …