Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

Litigating Time In America At The Turn Of The Twentieth Century, Jenni Parrish

Akron Law Review

Time may have become a television celebrity this season, but telling time is something taken for granted by most people alive in 2002. Telling time however, has not always been as easy, straightforward, and mechanical, as it is today. By the late nineteenth century, there was already sufficient conflict over how to tell time to force Americans to litigate the subject. The courts wrestled with this dilemma while legislatures reluctantly moved toward establishing a uniform method of telling time. Congress did not act until 1918.6 Why did it take so long to legally establish standard time in the United States? …

Finding Time For Federal Habeas Corpus: Carey V. Saffold, Karen M. Marshall

Akron Law Review

This Note begins by looking at the history of the writ of habeas corpus in the United States. There is a brief overview of the background and history of the AEDPA, specifically targeting the changes the AEDPA made to the law of federal habeas corpus. Next, the habeas corpus procedure in California is reviewed. Finally, this Note explains the Supreme Court’s decision in Carey v. Saffold, focusing on the Court’s policy rationale and what the lack of support for habeas corpus means for the future of the writ.

Not Just Old Wine In New Bottles: Kentucky Ass'n Of Health Plans, Inc. V. Miller Bottles A New Test For State Regulation Of Insurance, Matthew G. Vansuch

Akron Law Review

For nearly two decades, the “regulating insurance” aspect of the savings clause was as confusing and convoluted as trying to distinguish between the casks of unlabeled barrels of old wine that all smelled horribly similar. Miller clarified the savings clause analysis by establishing a broad, two-step test for determining if a state law regulates insurance. However, the district courts have been sluggish in recognizing the differences between the tests. The Supreme Court did not even cite to or rely on Miller when it struck down Texas’ patient rights statute on the basis of ERISA preemption in Aetna Health Inc. v. …

Dismantling The Private Enforcement Of The Privacy Act Of 1974: Doe V. Chao, Haeji Hong Esq.

Akron Law Review

A divided Supreme Court recently decided in Doe v. Chao that the federal government’s disclosure of the social security number, while constituting a violation of the Privacy Act of 1974 (the “Privacy Act”), was not enough to compensate the victim. After examining the civil remedy section of the Privacy Act, the Supreme Court ruled that the victim must also prove that he sustained actual damages before recovering the statutory minimum damage of $1,000. This latest decision will greatly affect the enforcement of the Privacy Act by private citizens and reduce the effectiveness of the already much criticized Privacy Act.

This …

Treat All Men Alike: An Analysis Of United States V. White Mountain Apache Tribe And Suggestions For True Reparation, Joel A. Holt

Akron Law Review

In 1492, Christopher Columbus landed on the shores of the New World. He brought with him dreams of gold, a sword, fire and disease. In doing so, he began the systematic annihilation of the Western Hemisphere’s indigenous people. The torture and genocide of Native Americans, motivated by desire for gold and land, did not end with the Spaniards: it carried on through English rule and young America’s taming of the west.

It is estimated that the indigenous population of the continental United States at the time of first contact was between five and ten million. According to the 2000 census, …

Newdow Calls For A New Day In Establishment Clause Jurisprudence: Justice Thomas's "Actual Legal Coercion" Standard Provides The Necessary Renovation, James A. Campbell

Akron Law Review

This Comment examines the concurring opinions of Justice O’Connor and Justice Thomas in Newdow and explores whether either approach is able to solve the problems inherent in the Court’s current analysis. Section II discusses the meaning of the Establishment Clause and explores its historical background. Section III outlines current Establishment Clause analysis and its inherent hostility toward religion. Section IV introduces O’Connor’s ceremonial deism approach and Thomas’s “actual legal coercion” test, as outlined in Newdow. Section V discusses the inability of O’Connor’s approach to solve the inherent deficiencies in the Court’s current analysis, whereas, Section VI argues that Thomas’s actual …

Chief Justice William Rehnquist: His Law-And-Order Legacy And Impact On Criminal Justice, Madhavi M. Mccall, Michael A. Mccall

Akron Law Review

In this article, we explore Chief Justice Rehnquist’s criminal justice decisions through an empirical analysis of the Court’s decision-making tendencies for the most recent natural court and a review of selected criminal justice decisions written by Justice Rehnquist throughout his career. To start, we limit the analysis, with only two exceptions, to decisions actually written by Justice Rehnquist. Although Chief Justice Rehnquist, in that position, had an important role in leading other justices to agree with him by assigning cases, we gleaned a substantial amount of information regarding his decisional patterns and policy preferences by analyzing the opinions he personally …

The Constitutional Jurisprudence Of Sandra Day O'Conor: A Refusal To "Foreclose The Unanticipated", Wilson Ray Huhn

Akron Law Review

Part I of this essay covers an early period on the Court when Justice O’Connor seemed principally concerned with questions of jurisdiction and appellate process, during which she was frequently inclined to dispose of cases on technical or procedural grounds. Part II discusses Justice O’Connor’s attention to detail and consideration of factual context and her tendency to adjust the traditional standards of review in light of the circumstances of the case. Part III outlines Justice O’Connor’s respect for precedent and commitment to the principle of stare decisis particularly as it relates to her refusal to overrule Roe v. Wade. Part …

Refusing To Remove An Obstacle To The Remedy: The Supreme Court's Decision In Town Of Castle Rock V. Gonzales Continues To Deny Domestic Violence Victims Meaningful Recourse, Nicole M. Quester

Akron Law Review

The Supreme Court’s opinion in Castle Rock illustrates that more conscious efforts must be made by every branch of the legal system to eradicate domestic abuse. The entire legal system must work together to raise the curtain on domestic violence. Legislatures must continue to promote social change in the area of domestic violence, and courts must enforce legislation without questioning the legislature’s policy determinations. Police departments must enforce strict policies aimed at protecting the abused, while being held accountable when failing to provide any measure of protection. The legal system must heed a woman’s pleas for help and prevent court …

Holding On To What Is Most Precious: Ohio Juvenile Law After In Re C.R., Rose Semple, Esq.

Akron Law Review

This article will endeavor to show that the Ohio Supreme Court’s ruling in In re C.R. makes it too difficult for parents to retain custody of their own children. By exploring United States Supreme Court precedent, it will be shown that the rule emerging from In re C.R. does not pass procedural due process muster. It will also be shown that the Ohio Supreme Court disregarded its own precedent and in doing so, created a rule that undermines the policies of its own juvenile law system. By providing the rudiments of juvenile jurisprudence, the facts and decision of In re …

Standing In The Mud: Hein V.Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc.

Akron Law Review

In 1968, in Flast v. Cohen, the Supreme Court first set forth the requirements that a plaintiff must satisfy to have standing to challenge a government action in federal court solely based on his or her status as a taxpayer. The subsequent history of taxpayer standing is littered with precedents supported by unclear reasoning. Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc. represents the Supreme Court’s latest effort to address the limits of taxpayer standing in an Establishment Clause challenge. Unfortunately, the Court in Hein maintained its tradition of providing perplexing decisions in taxpayer standing cases. In Hein, a plurality of …

Two Wrongs Don't Make A Fourth Amendment Right: Samson Court Errs In Choosing Proper Analytical Framework, Errs In Result, Parolees Lose Fourth Amendment Protection, Rachael A. Lynch

Akron Law Review

This Note will follow the Fourth Amendment from its origins to its modern application to parolee rights, as evidenced by the Samson Court. Part II focuses on the Fourth Amendment, from the circumstances surrounding its adoption to modern court cases that have applied its tenets to prisoners, probationers, and, finally, parolees. Part III details the Supreme Court’s decision in Samson v. California, including a thorough discussion of the facts that gave rise to the case and lower court decisions. Part IV explores the problems with the Court’s framework and suggests other possible frameworks the Court could have used to come …

Balancing Disclosure And Privacy Interests In Campaign Finance, Sarah Harding

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

The law of campaign finance pits two important First Amendment interests against each other: disclosure and privacy. The Supreme Court has recognized the need to balance these two interests to allow for effective elections and to safeguard individual rights. However, through the years the Court has failed to balance these interests equally, resulting in vacillating decisions that unfairly sacrifice one for the other. From Burroughs v. United States in 1934 to Citizens United v. FEC in 2010, the Court has failed to provide a workable roadmap for legislatures in the creation of campaign finance disclosure laws and for lower courts …

The Sistren: Ranking The Top 10 Female Supreme Court Justices, Meg Penrose

Faculty Scholarship

Of all the “best” and “worst” Supreme Court lists published, there has never been a listing of the Top Ten female Justices. The reason for this scholarly void is simple: only four women have served on the Court. Indeed, only five women have been nominated. I am pleased to present the first, though admittedly incomplete, listing of the Top Ten female Justices.

The Nlrb, The Courts, The Administrative Procedures Act, And Chevron: Now And Then, Theodore J. St. Antoine

Articles

Decisions of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), like those of other administrative agencies, are subject to review by the federal judiciary. Standards of review have evolved over time. The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 provides that administrative decisions must be in accord with law and required procedure, not arbitrary or capricious, not contrary to constitutional rights, within an agency's statutory jurisdiction, and supported by substantial evidence. In practice, more attention is paid to two Supreme Court decisions, Skidmore (1944) and Chevron (1984). For many years Chevron seemed the definitive test. A court must follow a clear intent of Congress, …

The Forms Had A Function: Rule 84 And The Appendix Of Forms As Guardians Of The Liberal Ethos In Civil Procedure, A. Benjamin Spencer

Faculty Publications

The Appendix of Forms that, from the time of their adoption have accom - panied the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, are a seeming anachronism, more appropriate for a much simpler time that hardly characterizes modem day federal civil litigation. Perhaps the form for a negligence complaint is the most striking in this regard, offering only that at a certain time and place "the defendant negligently drove a motor vehicle against the plaintiff," causing harm.2 Not only does such a complaint fail to typify the negligence claims one might find on any federal docket, but it also fails to reflect …

Measuring Party Polarization In Congress: Lessons From Congressional Participation In Amicus Curiae, Neal Devins

Faculty Publications

First, I will detail the prevalence of party polarization and how party polarization has limited congressional interest in its institutional prerogatives vis-à-vis the executive. Second, I will discuss my research findings governing congressional amicus briefs. I will consider patterns in bipartisan filings over time (comparing the less polarized 1974–1985 Supreme Court terms with the more polarized 2002–2013 terms). I will also consider the types of issues lawmakers and their institutional counsel have pursued in their filings. This investigation will reveal a decline in briefs in institutional cases and an upswing in briefs on politically salient issues that divide the parties …

Newsroom: Nason '05 Cited By U.S. Supreme Court, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Examining Crack Cocaine Sentencing In A Post-Kimbrough World, Michael B. Cassidy

Akron Law Review

This article examines Kimbrough’s effect on crack cocaine sentencing. Part I discusses the rise of crack cocaine use in the United States during the 1980s. Part II provides a short history on modern federal sentencing, including the Sentencing Reform Act, the Commission’s Guidelines, and its reports to Congress concerning the 100-to-1 ratio. Part III examines the Supreme Court’s recent Sixth Amendment jurisprudence through its seminal cases, Apprendi and Blakely. In Part IV, this article analyzes the Court’s Booker holding as well as Kimbrough and Gall v. United States, two cases that clarified Booker and its application to crack cocaine cases. …

Rationalizing The Constitution: The Military Commissions Act And The Duboius Legacy Of Ex Parte Quirin, Chad Deveaux

Akron Law Review

Alexander Hamilton famously characterized the Judiciary as the “least dangerous” branch. It “has no influence over either the sword or the purse” and thus “must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.” But this perceived safeguard has sometimes proven to be the institution’s undoing. Faced with the prospect of appearing impotent, the Supreme Court has, on occasion, played the role of doctrinal apologist. The Court has bent seemingly immutable constitutional prerogatives to sanction Executive action when a contrary ruling would likely go unheeded.