Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

A Matter Of Public Concern: Eliminating The Public Concern Test To Safeguard New York Times Co. V. Sullivan, Alyssa T. Calcerano

Catholic University Law Review

In recent years, Justices Thomas and Gorsuch have expressed a strong interest in reconsidering, and perhaps overruling, the landmark defamation decision, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. The Court’s defamation jurisprudence has undergone many changes since the landmark case was decided, namely, the Court has since adopted a test known as the “public concern” test. Though adopted by only a plurality of the Court, the “public concern” test has been integrated into the defamation decisions of lower federal courts and state courts. This comment encourages the Court to abandon any push toward the wholesale abandonment of Sullivan and, instead, …

The Law Of Disqualification And Problems With The Supreme Court Code Of Conduct, Donald K. Sherman, Marco A. White, Virginia Canter

Fordham Law Voting Rights and Democracy Forum

In this Article, we analyze the federal disqualification statute applicable to federal judges, magistrates, and Justices of the Supreme Court as compared to the disqualification provisions of the United States Supreme Court Code of Conduct and detail the ways in which the standards contained within the Code are contrary to law and history. To provide proper context, we examine the history, case law, and statutory framework that have created the current standards of judicial disqualification for all Article III judges and Justices. We demonstrate that the Court is bound to apply disqualification procedures in accordance with the United States Constitution, …

The Precedential Weight Of Summary Dispositions Of Appeals, Maine Law Review

Maine Law Review

The extent to which the Supreme Court's summary dispositions of appeals are entitled to precedential weight presents a serious problem for lower courts confronted with cases involving issues similar to those previously disposed of in a summarily decided appeal. A recent source of confusion in this area was the Supreme Court's 1975 opinion in Hicks v. Miranda. In Hicks, the lower court held a California statute unconstitutional despite the fact that one year earlier the Supreme Court had summarily dismissed an appeal from a decision upholding the constitutionality of the same statute., The Supreme Court reversed, pointing out that its …

A Peek Behind The Scenes Of Supreme Court Decision Making Concerning The Federal Ip System, Jonathan Band

Joint PIJIP/TLS Research Paper Series

In the 1970s and 80s, the Supreme Court decided three cases that continue to define the limits of the authority of the states within the federal intellectual property system: Goldstein v. California (1973); Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Oil Co. (1974); and Bonito Boats v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc. (1989). The papers of the Supreme Court Justices that decided these cases show the Court as a human institution wrestling with this complex issue. This issue has assumed new importance as state legislatures have rushed to enact laws on the use of generative artificial intelligence to replicate the voice …

Trump V. United States And The Half-Originalist Presidency, Christine Kexel Chabot

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Trump v. United States has been criticized for its ahistorical approach to presidential immunity. This Essay offers the first account of the historical mismatch between the Trump Court’s decision to immunize presidential removal power and Founding era conceptions of the presidency. Unlike the presumptive immunity that the Court recognized for most other official presidential acts, the immunity afforded for presidential removal power is absolute. The Court ruled that the President’s “unrestricted power of removal” can never be regulated by Congress or considered as evidence of wrongdoing, even when the President threatens removal to effectuate …

Historical Firearm Licensing And Permitting Laws, Robert J. Spitzer

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court Gives States The Green Light To Go Ham: The Dormant Commerce Clause In Renewable Energy In Light Of National Pork Producers, Ellie Carl

Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law

Two years ago, the Supreme Court slaughtered the Dormant Commerce Clause in its decision in National Pork Producers v. Ross. While the case is not explicitly about environmental law, it significantly affects environmental laws and policies, especially pertaining to state renewable portfolio standards. These state policies are especially prone to Dormant Commerce Clause litigation, given the interstate nature of electric grids. This paper argues that the scope of the Dormant Commerce Clause in light of this decision is appropriate for ensuring that states have adequate wiggle room in renewable energy regulation, but not an excessive amount of leeway so …

Data Privacy At The Border: How To Balance National Security Concerns And Privacy Interests When Conducting Forensic Border Searches Of Electronic Devices, Eleni Filley

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

Do you know where your phone is? Can you describe the last five pictures in your camera roll? How many websites have you visited this month? Cell phones are an extension of our person and contain some of our most private data: location, banking, loved ones, sleep statistics, reproductive information, and more. As our technology develops, so too should our laws. This Note explores the lack of privacy protections at the U.S. border and how susceptible our data is to a government search. A Supreme Court ruling recognizing the unique piece of property a cell phone represents, even at a …

The Waiting Is The Hardest Part: The Constitutionality Of Firearm Waiting Periods, F. Lee Francis

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

This Article examines the constitutionality of firearm waiting period laws through the lens of the Supreme Court’s evolving Second Amendment jurisprudence. Although such laws are frequently defended as prudent public safety measures, their validity turns not on legislative purpose but on constitutional principle, particularly as framed in District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen.

Under those decisions, the scope of the Second Amendment is determined not by judicial balancing of contemporary interests, but by reference to the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The Article surveys that tradition and finds no …

When Rights Require Permission: The Discriminatory History Of Licensing Laws For Firearm Possession, Bob Barr, Joseph G.S. Greenlee

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

No abstract provided.

The Wrongly Read Right: Insurrection And The Second Amendment Right To Bear Arms, Aman Mcleod, Jacob M. Jones

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

Several judges and scholars have interpreted the Second Amendment as creating a right to bear arms to facilitate armed resistance against the government whenever it threatens to impose tyranny. These arguments have been made in books, scholarly articles, and court decisions. Many of the proponents of the pro-armed insurrection interpretation of the Second Amendment root this point of view in the history of the right to bear arms in the Anglo-American legal tradition. This Article argues that the Second Amendment does not create a right to bear arms to resist government authority because such a right is inconsistent with several …

Familial Fairness: Guaranteeing The Right To Counsel For Indigent Parents In Juvenile Dependency Proceedings, Jake Toth

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

Fairness principles enumerated in the seminal case Gideon v. Wainwright stand for the proposition that fundamental fairness and due process require appointment of counsel for indigent litigants. However, this principle has been constrained to criminal contexts. Many other types of litigation are just as impactful as a criminal proceeding, including juvenile dependency proceedings. Nevertheless, indigent parents do not enjoy an unqualified representation right.

This Comment traces the history of the representation right and how it has been treated in a juvenile dependency context, beginning with Gideon itself and examining other cases such as Eldridge and Lassiter. It then examines …

Big Business As Gun Control, David B. Kopel, George A. Mocsary, Bhav Ninder Singh

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

Gun control increasingly bypasses direct legislative enactments by co-opting the commercial marketplace. Financial institutions and insurers often face regulatory pressures, frequently articulated through vague notions of “reputational risk,” to terminate or restrict services for lawful firearms businesses and advocacy groups. The debanking tactic, seen in initiatives such as Operation Choke Point, can deny essential financial products to firearm owners, merchants, and organizations, curtailing the practical exercise of constitutionally protected rights. Simultaneously, government agencies sometimes pursue warrantless data collection from bank records and merchant category codes, building profiles of lawful purchasers and eroding privacy and due-process norms.

Social media platforms compound …

Dangerous And Unusual: How Heller’S Ahistorical Assumption Violates The Founders’ Original Intent, Oliver Krawczyk, Gilbert Ambler

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

When the U.S. Supreme Court ended its generational silence on the Second Amendment in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court held that “a prohibition of an entire class of ‘arms’ that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society” is “invalid.” In so holding, the Court suggested that the Constitution protects only those weapons “in common use at the time,” a limitation thought to be “fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’” The Court defined none of these terms then, and it has not since.

Over a decade of constitutional infidelity ensued. …

Deference Or Preference: Analyzing The Treatment Of Chevron U.S.A., Inc. V. Nrdc As A Precedent At The Supreme Court, Allison Dehart

Senior Theses

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. is one of the most cited Supreme Court cases in history, with over 18,000 citations in federal courts alone (Merrill, 2012). It has reached doctrinal status and was widely considered a vital precedent, one that guided the fields of environmental and administrative law. However, in June of 2024, the Supreme Court released their opinion in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overturned Chevron. With the ubiquity of Chevron in US Courts, this decision caused widespread confusion and worry over what would replace the precedent. In an era where environmental …

Just To Be Safe, Let’S Keep Ignoring What “Arms” Meant In 1791, Jack Thorlin

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

The Supreme Court held in District of Columbia v. Heller and reaffirmed in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen that “arms,” referred to in the Second Amendment, are common weapons useful for lawful purposes. The majority argued that militiamen fought with whatever common weapons they had on hand for civilian purposes, such as self-defense and hunting. Therefore, under Heller, only those weapons are covered by the Second Amendment. However, Heller did little to ground the “self-defense” theory of “arms” in original public meaning or even actual history. Commonality and lawful purpose have proved difficult for lower …

Democratizing Constitutional Memory, Reva B. Siegel

Michigan Law Review

The Court regularly makes claims on the past—claims that have grown in prominence since conservatives on the Roberts Court invoked “history and tradition” to overrule longstanding case law on religious free exercise, the right to bear arms, and the right to abortion in its 2021 term and to threaten other rights since. The Court claims its historically based approach constrains judges by focusing interpretation on objective and impersonal facts in the past.

The Invention Of The Judicial Administrative State, Marin K. Levy

Michigan Law Review

A review of The Taft Court: Making Law for a Divided Nation, 1921–1930. By Robert C. Post.

Brennan And State Constitutions, Stephen Wermiel

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

The former Great Gorge Playboy Resort in New Jersey seems an unlikely place to help form a jurisprudential movement toward reliance on state constitutions to protect civil rights and liberties.

One need only turn back the clock to 1976 to find the story of one of the most significant moments in the rise of state constitutions. Anyone who is steeped in this movement is likely familiar with the lead article in the January 1977 issue of the Harvard Law Review, “State Constitutions and the Protection of Individual Rights.” The author was U.S. Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan Jr.

Put Me In, Coach: Constitutional Concerns Of Judicial Activism And Legislating From The Bench, Jacob M. Elliott

Senior Honors Theses

Unrestrained judicial activism and legislating from the bench at the Supreme Court level place federalism and freedom in jeopardy. By ignoring crucial doctrines like jurisdiction, deference, and independence, the Supreme Court has demonstrated a tendency toward reinterpreting existing Constitutional precedent as they see fit, basing judgments on extra-legal influences, and supplanting Constitutional principles with their own personal policy preferences.

Numerous cases demonstrate the looming threat of judicial overreach; these cases are often considered some of the most damaging and injurious decisions in the history of the American federal judiciary. One potential solution is to appoint justices who will operate …