Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

The Antidote Of Free Speech: Censorship During The Pandemic, Christopher Keleher

Catholic University Law Review

Free speech in America stands at a precipice. The nation must decide if the First Amendment protects controversial, unconventional, and unpopular speech, or only that which is mainstream, fashionable, and government-approved. This debate is one of many legal battles brought to the fore during Covid-19. But the fallout of the free speech question will transcend Covid-19.

During the pandemic, the federal government took unprecedented steps to pressure private entities to push messages it approved and squelch those it did not. The Supreme Court will soon grapple with the issue of censorship during the pandemic. This article examines this litigation, along …

How Far Have Standards Of Decency Evolved In Fifteen Years? An Update On Atkins Jurisprudence In Mississippi, Alexander Kassoff

Mississippi College Law Review

In 2002, the United States Supreme Court handed down Atkins v. Virginia, holding that the Eighth Amendment prohibits the execution of people with intellectual disability. In the years since that ruling, some change has occurred, but questions remain. This article will examine significant developments in Atkins jurisprudence during that time period. It will look at the two post-Atkins United States Supreme Court cases, and the development of the law - in Mississippi especially, but also to some extent in other jurisdictions that still have the death penalty.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. V. Superior Court Of California, San Francisco County: An Exploration Of The "Arises Out Of" Prong In Personal Jurisdiction, Loden Walker

Mississippi College Law Review

The concept of personal jurisdiction in its modern context has existed since the early 1900s. In time, courts have vetted the idea that an individual, company, or legal entity may be brought under the jurisdiction of a state or federal court by reason of its particular contacts with the jurisdiction. In its creation, the Supreme Court of the United States added the requirement that the contact must "arise out of or relate to" the forum state. But dismally, the Court has provided very little on how to apply and operate the "arise out of" prong. As a result, both federal …

The Twenty-First Century Death Penalty And Paths Forward, Jeffrey Omar Usman

Mississippi College Law Review

Today, states are moving closer to another moment of critical decision-making in charting the course of the death penalty in the United States. Unlike the sudden and dramatic immediacy of Furman, however, this moment is arriving through a slower and quieter progression, or perhaps more accurately a deceleration. While not abolished, in many states application of the death penalty is grinding or has ground to a halt. If the status quo holds, the vast majority of defendants who are sentenced to death by the states will instead live out their natural lives in prison for decades dying of old age …

Unraveling A Ball Of Confusion: Layers Of Criminal Intent, Facebook, Rap, And Uncertainty In Elonis V. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2001 (2015), Cameron L. Fields

Mississippi College Law Review

“So, round and around and around we go. Where the world's heading nobody knows...Just a ball of confusion."

Elonis v. United States was a much-awaited case needed to clarify many questions within its realm. Part of the case's allure was its facts: threats, rap, and Facebook. While the alluring circumstances were well-presented, the potential for clarification was not realized. As the quotes from the various opinions above suggest, a song from the oldies had hinted at this ruling correctly when its lyrics said it's "just a ball of confusion." This Note seeks to unravel this ball of confusion to give, …

Slaughtering Slaughter-House: An Assessment Of 14th Amendment Privileges Or Immunities Jurisprudence, Caleb Webb

Senior Honors Theses

In 1872, the Supreme Court decided the Slaughter-House Cases, which applied a narrow interpretation of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14^th Amendment that effectually eroded the clause from the Constitution. Following Slaughter-House, the Supreme Court compensated by utilizing elastic interpretations of the Due Process Clause in its substantive due process jurisprudence to cover the rights that would have otherwise been protected by the Privileges or Immunities Clause. In more recent years, the Court has heard arguments favoring alternative interpretations of the Privileges or Immunities Clause but has yet to evaluate them thoroughly. By applying the …

Forced To Bear The Burden And Now The Children: The Dobbs Decision And Environmental Justice Communities, Mia Petrucci

Washington Journal of Social & Environmental Justice

No abstract provided.

Navigating The First Amendment In School Choice: The Case For The Constitutionality Of Washington’S Charter School Act, Stephanie Smith

Washington Journal of Social & Environmental Justice

No abstract provided.

The Future Of “History And Tradition”: The First Amendment Implication Of Bruen, The Floersheimer Center For Constitutional Democracy

Flyers 2023-2024

No abstract provided.

The Future Of “History And Tradition”: The First Amendment Implications Of Bruen, The Floersheimer Center For Constitutional Democracy

Event Invitations 2024

Did SCOTUS turn all lower court judges into armchair historians? Could landmark free speech precedents like New York Times Co. v. Sullivan be at risk? How will the Court address modern questions like social media content moderation?

A New Reporter Confronts The Supreme Court’S Unpublished Decisions, Peter W. Martin

Cornell Law Faculty Working Papers

For over two hundred years, the United States Supreme Court has been served by an officially designated “Reporter” charged with overseeing the publication of its decisions. While the statutory framework within which the Court’s Reporter of Decisions must operate has been revised from time to time, it has always reflected the need for that publication to be timely. It has also been focused solely on the production of printed volumes, a growing anachronism in an era of linked and searchable law data. Because of the disconnect, delays in official publication of the Court’s decisions grew over the course of this …

Ethics In The Judiciary And The Legal Profession: Are We In Crisis?, The Cardozo Law Review, Floersheimer Center For Constitutional Democracy, Jacob Burns Center For Ethics In The Practice Of Law

Event Invitations 2024

The recent conduct of Supreme Court justices and lawyers acting on behalf of former president Trump has led many to think that something has gone profoundly wrong at the most elite levels of the American legal profession.

Ethics In The Judiciary And The Legal Profession: Are We In Crisis?, Cardozo Law Review, Floersheimer Center For Constitutional Democracy, Jacob Burns Center For Ethics In The Practice Of Law

Flyers 2023-2024

No abstract provided.

Do Patents Drive Investment In Software?, James Hicks

Northwestern University Law Review

In the wake of a quartet of Supreme Court decisions which disrupted decades of settled law, the doctrine of patentable subject matter is in turmoil. Scholars, commentators, and jurists continue to disagree sharply over which kinds of invention should be patentable. In this debate, no technology has been more controversial than software. Advocates of software patents contend that denying protection would stymie innovation in a vital industry; skeptics argue that patents are a poor fit for software, and that the social costs of patents outweigh any plausible benefits. At the core of this disagreement is a basic problem: the debate …

The Supreme Court And Children, Aaron Tang

Northwestern University Law Review

How do children fare at the Supreme Court? Empirical research on the question is sparse, but existing accounts suggest a disheartening answer. A 1996 study found that children lost more than half of their cases in the Court, and a pair of prominent scholars lamented twenty years later that “the losses in children’s rights cases” had “outpace[d] and overwhelm[ed] the victories.”

In this Article, I present evidence that complicates this understanding. Based on an original dataset comprising 262 Supreme Court decisions between 1953 and 2023, I find that children have prevailed in 62.6% of their cases. This win rate is …

Once Is Enough: Why Title Ix's Pervasive Requirement Necessitates Adopting The Totality Inquiry, Evan S. Thompson

University of Cincinnati Law Review

No abstract provided.

Born In The U.S.A.: Analyzing The Domesticity Of Judgments In The Civil Rico Context, Alex Reid

University of Cincinnati Law Review

No abstract provided.

Free Exercise, The Respect For Marriage Act, And Some Potential Surprises, Mark Strasser

Cleveland State Law Review

Congress recently passed the Respect for Marriage Act to assure that certain marriages would remain valid even if the Supreme Court were to overrule past precedent and hold that the Constitution does not protect the right to marry a partner of the same sex or of a different race. However, the Act, as written, may not offer protection for certain same-sex or interracial marriages and may open the door to the federal protection of plural marriages, congressional intent notwithstanding, because of the Court’s increasingly robust free exercise jurisprudence.

Assessing The Future Of “Offended Observer” Standing In Establishment Clause Cases, Larry J. Obhof

Cleveland State Law Review

This Article looks at the anomaly of “offended observer” standing in Establishment Clause challenges. It calls for greater consistency in the courts’ application of constitutional standing requirements.

Under Article III, Plaintiffs seeking to raise claims in federal court must allege a concrete and particularized injury in fact in order to support federal jurisdiction. Likewise, plaintiffs seeking to challenge a government policy must allege a unique injury that is separate from the interests of the public at large. The notable exception is where plaintiffs claim personal offense at alleged government entanglement in religion. These “offended observers” are frequently given access to …

Filling The Potholes Of Pretextual Traffic Stops: A Better Road Forward For Ohio, Jordan Weeks

Cleveland State Law Review

The Fourth Amendment was one of the driving forces behind the United States Revolution. This Amendment generally protects individuals against “unreasonable” searches and seizures. But what does “reasonable” mean in the context of a traffic stop?

In 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court in Whren v. United States tried answering this question. In so doing, the Court determined that pretextual traffic stops are “reasonable.” Pretextual traffic stops occur where an officer stops a vehicle and cites a lawful reason for the stop, yet the underlying reason is unlawful. The Whren Court determined that an officer’s intent is completely irrelevant to whether …