The Trouble With Amicus Facts,
2014
William & Mary Law School
The Trouble With Amicus Facts, Allison Orr Larsen
Faculty Publications
The number of amicus curiae briefs filed at the Supreme Court is at an all-time high. Most observers, and even some of the Justices, believe that the best of these briefs are filed to supplement the Court’s understanding of facts. Supreme Court decisions quite often turn on generalized facts about the way the world works (Do violent video games harm children? Is a partial birth abortion ever medically necessary?). To answer these questions, the Justices are hungry for more information than the parties and the record can provide. The consensus is that amicus briefs helpfully add factual expertise to the …
Upending A Global Debate: An Empirical Analysis Of The U.S. Supreme Court’S Use Of Transnational Law To Interpret Domestic Doctrine,,
2014
Texas A&M University School of Law
Upending A Global Debate: An Empirical Analysis Of The U.S. Supreme Court’S Use Of Transnational Law To Interpret Domestic Doctrine,, Ryan C. Black, Ryan J. Owens, Daniel E. Walters, Jennifer L. Brookhart
Faculty Scholarship
Over the last ten years, judges, scholars, and policymakers have argued — quite vehemently at times — about whether U.S. courts should use transnational sources of law to interpret domestic legal doctrine. All eyes in this debate focus on the U.S. Supreme Court and its use, misuse, and alleged use of transnational law. And almost all the debates are normative. Some scholars and judges argue the Court is correct to use transnational law. Others believe to do so is constitutional apostacy. Still, the controversy seems to have generated more heat than light. Among the clamor can be found little empirical …
The Al Bahlul Argument: Article Iii, Conspiracy, And Precepts Of International Law,
2014
Roger Williams University School of Law
The Al Bahlul Argument: Article Iii, Conspiracy, And Precepts Of International Law, Peter Margulies
Law Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
How To Make Sense Of Supreme Court Standing Cases – A Plea For The Right Kind Of Realism,
2014
William & Mary Law School
How To Make Sense Of Supreme Court Standing Cases – A Plea For The Right Kind Of Realism, Richard H. Fallon Jr.
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
No abstract provided.
Standing And The Role Of Federal Courts: Triple Error Decisions In Clapper V. Amnesty International Usa And City Of Los Angeles V. Lyons,
2014
William & Mary Law School
Standing And The Role Of Federal Courts: Triple Error Decisions In Clapper V. Amnesty International Usa And City Of Los Angeles V. Lyons, Vicki C. Jackson
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
No abstract provided.
Does The Supreme Court Ignore Standing Problems To Reach The Merits? Evidence (Or Lack Thereof) From The Roberts Court,
2014
University of Alabama School of Law
Does The Supreme Court Ignore Standing Problems To Reach The Merits? Evidence (Or Lack Thereof) From The Roberts Court, Heather Elliott
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
No abstract provided.
Governmental Sovereignty Actions,
2014
William & Mary Law School
Governmental Sovereignty Actions, Ann Woolhandler
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
No abstract provided.
Partitioning And Rights: The Supreme Court's Accidental Jurisprudence Of Democratic Process,
2014
SUNY Buffalo Law School
Partitioning And Rights: The Supreme Court's Accidental Jurisprudence Of Democratic Process, James A. Gardner
Florida State University Law Review
In democracies that allocate to a court responsibility for interpreting and enforcing the constitutional ground rules of democratic politics, the sheer importance of the task would seem to oblige such courts to guide their rulings by developing an account of the nature and prominent features of the constitutional commitment to democracy. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, has from the beginning refused to develop a general account—a theory—of how the U.S. Constitution establishes and structures democratic politics. The Court’s diffidence left a vacuum at the heart of its constitutional jurisprudence of democratic process, and like most vacuums, this one was almost …
Miller V. Alabama: Something Unconsitutional Now Was Equally Unconstitutional Then,
2014
University of Michigan Law School
Miller V. Alabama: Something Unconsitutional Now Was Equally Unconstitutional Then, W. Patrick Conlon
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform Caveat
In June 2012, the United States Supreme Court found mandatory life-without-parole sentences against juvenile offenders unconstitutional in Miller v. Alabama. The Court determined that because children possess “immaturity, impetuosity, and [fail] to appreciate risks and consequences,” they are fundamentally different than adults. Although Miller invalidated every juvenile mandatory life-without-parole (JMLWOP) statute across the United States, there is no clear indication regarding whether Miller retroactively applies to juveniles sentenced to mandatory life-without-parole before the Court’s ruling. As a result, states are split on whether to apply Miller retroactively. Fifteen states have yet to decide whether Miller applies retroactively, while several other …
Substantive Habeas,
2014
University of Michigan Law School
Substantive Habeas, Kimberly A. Thomas
Articles
Substantive Habeas identifies the US. Supreme Court's recent shift in its habeas jurisprudence from procedure to the substance of habeas review and explores the implications of this change. For decades, the US. Supreme Court has attempted to control the flood of habeas corpus petitions by imposing procedural requirements on prisoners seeking to challenge constitutional error in their cases. These restrictive procedural rules have remained at the center of habeas decision making until recently. Over the past few years, instead of further constraining the procedural gateway for habeas cases, the Supreme Court has shifted its focus to the substance of habeas. …
Introduction To The Micro-‐‑Symposium On Scalia & Garner's “Reading Law”:The Textualist Technician,
2014
Saint Louis University School of Law
Introduction To The Micro-‐‑Symposium On Scalia & Garner's “Reading Law”:The Textualist Technician, Karen Petroski
All Faculty Scholarship
Recently, the Green Bag issued a call for short (1,000 words) essays on Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts, by Antonin Scalia and Bryan Garner. We sought “[a]ny theoretical, empirical, or practical commentary that will help readers better understand the book.” The result is this micro-symposium. Our call drew dozens of micro-essays, some thought-provoking, some chuckle-prompting, and some both. Blessed with an abundance of good work but cursed by a shortage of space, we were compelled to select a small set – representative and excellent – of those essays to publish in the Green Bag and its sibling publication, …
Federalism As A Way Station: Windsor As Exemplar Of Doctrine In Motion,
2014
Texas A&M University School of Law
Federalism As A Way Station: Windsor As Exemplar Of Doctrine In Motion, Neil S. Siegel
Faculty Scholarship
This article asks what the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in United States v. Windsorstands for. It first shows that the opinion leans in the direction of marriage equality but ultimately resists any dispositive “equality” or “federalism” interpretation. The article next examines why the opinion seems intended to preserve for itself a Delphic obscurity. The article reads Windsor as an exemplar of what judicial opinions may look like in transition periods, when a Bickelian Court seeks to invite, not end, a national conversation, and to nudge it in a certain direction. In such times, federalism reasoning and rhetoric—like declining to …
Employment Arbitration Reform: Preserving The Right To Class Proceedings In Workplace Disputes,
2014
University of Michigan Law School
Employment Arbitration Reform: Preserving The Right To Class Proceedings In Workplace Disputes, Javier J. Castro
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
The recent judicial enforcement of class waivers in arbitration agreements has generated ample debate over the exact reach of these decisions and their effects on the future of collective action for consumers and employees. In AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court majority held that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempted state laws prohibiting companies from incorporating class action waivers into arbitration agreements. The Court upheld such waivers on the grounds that they are consistent with the language and underlying purpose of the FAA. Most courts across the country have since reinforced the strong federal policy …
Section 6: Criminal,
2014
William & Mary Law School
Section 6: Criminal, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.
2014-2015 Supreme Court Preview: Contents,
2014
William & Mary Law School
2014-2015 Supreme Court Preview: Contents, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.
Section 3: Civil Rights,
2014
William & Mary Law School
Section 3: Civil Rights, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.
Race-Based Preferences And The Supreme Court,
2014
University of Dayton
Race-Based Preferences And The Supreme Court, Charles J. Russo
Educational Leadership Faculty Publications
So-called race-conscious remedies ensure that all citizens are considered fairly and equally for employment and education opportunities. The legal status of race-conscious remedies continues to present challenges for education leaders, policymakers, and lawmakers.
2014-2015 Supreme Court Preview: Schedule And Panel Members,
2014
William & Mary Law School
2014-2015 Supreme Court Preview: Schedule And Panel Members, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.
Section 2: Congress & The Obama White House,
2014
William & Mary Law School
Section 2: Congress & The Obama White House, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.
Section 1: Moot Court: King V. Burwell,
2014
William & Mary Law School
Section 1: Moot Court: King V. Burwell, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.
