Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

Significant Entanglements: A Framework For The Civil Consequences Of Criminal Convictions, Colleen F. Shanahan

Faculty Scholarship

A significant and growing portion of the U.S. population is or has recently been in prison. Nearly all of these individuals will face significant obstacles as they struggle to reintegrate into society. A key source of these obstacles is the complex, sometimes unknown, and often harmful collection of civil consequences that flow from a criminal conviction. As the number and severity of these consequences have grown, courts, policymakers, and scholars have struggled with how to identify and understand them, how to communicate them to defendants and the public, and how to treat them in the criminal and civil processes. The …

Signal Lost: Is A Gps Tracking System The Same As An Eyeball?, Eric Andrew Felleman

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform Caveat

On November 8th, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in United States v. Jones. One of the primary issues in the case is whether law enforcement personnel violated Mr. Jones' Fourth Amendment right to freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures by using a GPS tracking device to monitor the location of his car without a warrant. The 7th Circuit and the 9th Circuit have both recently held that use of GPS tracking is not a search under the Fourth Amendment.

Tax Exceptionalism: Wanted Dead Or Alive, Gene Magidenko

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform Caveat

Tax law has just not been the same since January 2011. Did Congress pass earthshaking legislation affecting the Internal Revenue Code? Did the IRS dramatically change regulations? If only it were that exciting. Instead, eight jurists sitting at One First Street in our nation’s capital transformed tax law in a less bloody, but no less profound, way. The thought must have gone through many a tax mind – is tax exceptionalism dead?

State Amici, Collective Action, And The Development Of Federalism Doctrine, Michael E. Solimine

Georgia Law Review

State attorneys general (SAGs) have been individually
and collectively active on many legal and regulatory fronts
in recent years. One of those activities has been the filing
of amicus curiae briefs in the United States Supreme

Court, especially in cases impacting the states and
federalism doctrine. Frequently SAGs will join in one
amicus brief, and briefs signed by forty or more states are
not uncommon. This phenomenon has been the subject of
attention by legal scholars and political scientists, but the
normative jurisprudential significance of such briefs has
not. In their opinions, the Justices vary in how much legal
weight, …

A Judicial Solution To The Forum-Selection Clause Enforcement Circuit Split: Giving Erie A Second Chanc, Kelly A. Blair

Georgia Law Review

In The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., the Supreme
Court established the federal standard of enforcing forum-
selections clauses as presumptively reasonable. The Court,
however, first addressed the enforceability of forum-
selection clauses in a diversity case in Stewart
Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., in which the Court held
that under Erie, federal law, specifically 28 U.S.C.
§ 1404(a), governs the enforceability of forum-selection
clauses. After Stewart, a split within the United States
Courts of Appeals developed when litigants used Rule 12
motions to dismiss-a procedural vehicle unaddressed by
the Stewart Court-to enforce these clauses. The circuit
split has two …

Iqbal And Interpretation, Karen Petroski

All Faculty Scholarship

Assessing a year’s worth of debate over the 2009 Supreme Court decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, this Article provides a novel explanation for the decision and presents it as radical indeed, but in a way previously unremarked by commentators. The sharp divisions in the responses to Iqbal have masked a deeper consensus and have blocked wide awareness of the decision’s constructive potential for diverse interest groups. This consensus is based on a simplified account of the ideal function of pleading in our system of civil litigation, one that first took hold in the early twentieth century. What unsettles many observers …

Unintended Consequences: The Impact Of The Court's Recent Cases On Structural Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel Claims, Lauren Sudeall Lucas

Faculty Publications By Year

The Supreme Court’s recent Sixth Amendment cases have garnered much attention for their potential impact on ineffective assistance of counsel claims asserted in the context of a criminal case. This short article explores the unintended consequences of these decisions on structural ineffective assistance of counsel claims made in the civil context alleging that systemic deficiencies are likely to lead to right to counsel violations. The article concludes that the Court’s departure from a trial-centered conception of the right to counsel, its willingness to articulate specific pre-trial duties of counsel and its more pragmatic approach towards enforcing the Sixth Amendment will …

The First Amendment, Public School Students, And The Need For Clear Limits On School Officials' Authority Over Off-Campus Student Speech, Rory A. Weeks

Georgia Law Review

When, if ever, can school officials punish a student's off-
campus speech? The Supreme Court's student-speech
jurisprudence does not provide a clear answer. But this
much is clear: School officials do not possess absolute
authority over students' on-campus speech. Public school
students do not shed their First Amendment rights at the
schoolhouse gate. And yet during school or school-related
activities, public school students do not have coequal First
Amendment rights with adults in other contexts. During
school or school-related activities, school officials may
proscribe otherwise-permitted speech in order to fulfill the
school's basic educational mission, which includes
instructingstudents in civility. …

Fdr And Chief Justice Hughes: The President, The Supreme Court, And The Epic Battle Over The New Deal, James F. Simon

Books

By the author of acclaimed books on the bitter clashes between Jefferson and Chief Justice Marshall on the shaping of the nation’s constitutional future, and between Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney over slavery, secession, and the presidential war powers. Roosevelt and Chief Justice Hughes's fight over the New Deal was the most critical struggle between an American president and a chief justice in the twentieth century.

The confrontation threatened the New Deal in the middle of the nation’s worst depression. The activist president bombarded the Democratic Congress with a fusillade of legislative remedies that shut down insolvent banks, regulated stocks, …

Index To The Journal Of Supreme Court History Volumes 1-35 (1976-2010), Joel Fishman

Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

American Electricpower V. Connecticut: Disaster Averted By Displacing The Federal Common Law Of Nuisance, Damian M. Brychey

Georgia Law Review

Historically, the federal common law of nuisance has
provided a means to regulate interstate pollution. With
the passing of legislative acts such as the Clean Water Act
and the Clean Air Act, however, traditional federal
nuisance lawsuits were displaced. The continued viability
of the federal common law of nuisance to regulate
pollution, specifically greenhouse gases, was brought to
the forefront of American jurisprudence in American
Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut. There, the Supreme
Court held that the Clean Air Act and the EPA actions the
Act authorizes displace any federal common law right to
seek abatement of greenhouse gases-reversing the …

The Loss Of Constitutional Faith: Mccleskey V. Kemp And The Dark Side Of Procedure, Scott E. Sundby

Articles

No abstract provided.

The Flight From Judgment: Reflections On Benjamin Barton’S An Empirical Study Of Supreme Court Justice Pre-Appointment Experience, Jennifer Hendricks

Publications

Discusses J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro as an example of the Supreme Court's failure to rely on practical wisdom, in connection with the historic shift toward increasingly elite credentials for the justices.

Bridging The Great Divide--A Response To Linda Greenhouse And Reva B. Siegel's Before (And After) Roe V. Wade: New Questions About Backlash, Lolita Buckner Inniss

Publications

This essay discusses the history of Roe v. Wade as recently addressed by Linda Greenhouse and Reva B. Siegel. Going beyond their assertions, I suggest that an additional, more encompassing inquiry focuses on what factors are implicated in the politics of abortion and how these factors relate to larger social, political, and cultural conflicts both before and after Roe. By naming party politics and the Catholic Church, Greenhouse and Siegel posit two crucial elements that shaped the abortion debate. I assert, however, that what is not discussed in their Article is the way numerous other factors have figured into …

Arbitration In The Roberts Supreme Court, George A. Bermann

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court’s most recent set of arbitration law rulings — Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l, Rent-A-Center West v. Jackson, and AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion — merits all the attention it has been receiving. Taken collectively, the three decisions evidence the powerful commitment of a Supreme Court majority to arbitration as an alternative form of dispute resolution — a commitment so strong as to override important consumer welfare interests. At a minimum, the trilogy erects substantial barriers to the conduct of class arbitration, a form of arbitration that consumer advocates regard as essential to protecting consumer welfare.

In …

Issue 2: Table Of Contents

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Short-Sighted Attack On Patent Eligibility Of Healthcare Related Patents, Gregory Dolin

All Faculty Scholarship

On March 20, 2012, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously decided the case of Mayo Collaborative Svc. v. Prometheus Labs. At issue was a patent, held by Prometheus that taught doctors how to adjust the amount of thiopurine (a drug used for treatment of a variety of autoimmune diseases) administered to a patient. In an opinion by Justice Breyer, the Court held Prometheus’s invention to not be patent eligible and invalidated the patent. Though I believe that the reasoning the Court employed was erroneous and highly problematic (of which more later), the decision could have been viewed as …

A Visual Guide To Nfib V. Sebelius, Colin Starger

All Faculty Scholarship

Though Chief Justice Roberts ultimately provided the fifth vote upholding the Affordable Care Act (ACA) under the Tax Power, his was also one of five votes finding the ACA exceeded Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause.

The doctrinal basis for Roberts’ Commerce Clause analysis was hotly contested. While Roberts argued that the ACA’s purported exercise of Commerce power “finds no support in our precedent,” Justice Ginsburg accused the Chief Justice of failing to “evaluat[e] the constitutionality of the minimum coverage provision in the manner established by our precedents.”

These diametrically opposed perspectives on “precedent” might prompt observers to ask whether …

Playing Well With Others-But Still Winning: Chief Justice Roberts, Precedent, And The Possibilities Of A Multi-Member Court, William D. Araiza

Georgia Law Review

This Essay considers methods by which a Supreme
Court Justice inclined to weaken precedent may do so
without explicitly overruling cases. Adding to the
literature examining "stealth overruling" and the

dynamics of multi-judge courts, it examines instances
from the first five years of the Roberts Court where Chief
Justice Roberts acted in a way consistent with that of a
judge who strategically situates himself among his
colleagues so as to erode precedent while appearing to
uphold it. The Essay does not speculate that the Roberts
Court, or Chief Justice Roberts himself, is any more
inclined than past Courts or Justices …

Who Said The Crawford Revolution Would Be Easy?, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

One of the central protections of our system of criminal justice is the right of the accused in all criminal prosecutions "to be confronted with the witnesses against him." It provides assurance that prosecution witnesses will give their testimony in the way demanded for centuries by Anglo-American courts-in the presence of the accused, subject to cross-examination- rather than in any other way. Witnesses may not, for example, testify by speaking privately to governmental agents in a police station or in their living rooms. Since shortly after it was adopted, however, the confrontation right became obscured by the ascendance of a …