Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

The Pleading Problem, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

Federal pleading standards are in crisis. The Supreme Court's recent decisions in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal have the potential to upend civil litigation as we know it. What is urgently needed is a theory of pleading that can bring Twombly and Iqbal into alignment with the text of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and a half-century worth of Supreme Court precedent, while providing a coherent methodology that preserves access to the courts and allows pleadings to continue to play their appropriate role in the adjudicative process. This Article provides that theory. It develops a …

What Is "(Im)Partial Enough" In A World Of Embedded Neutrals?, Nancy A. Welsh

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court’s decision in Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co. highlighted the fragility of judicial independence and impartiality in the United States. A similar, less-noticed fragility of independence and impartiality exists among the arbitrators, mediators and administrative hearing officers who resolve an increasing number of disputes. Everywhere one looks, there is unremarked yet remarkable evidence of the rise of - embedded neutrals, particularly in uneven contexts between one-time and repeat players. This phenomenon becomes particularly worrisome when the embedded neutral’s role is due to their special relationship with the repeat player, and the one-time player is not as …

How Great Is America's Tolerance For Judicial Bias - An Inquiry Into The Supreme Court's Decisions In Caperton And Citizens United, Their Implications For Judicial Elections, And Their Effect On The Rule Of Law In The United States, Norman L. Green

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Taking Responsibilities As Well As Rights Seriously, James E. Fleming

Faculty Scholarship

In his first book, Ronald Dworkin famously called for “taking rights seriously” by treating them as “trumps” over considerations of utility or the general welfare.1 Taking Rights Seriously (along with other works) provoked calls for taking responsibilities as well as (or instead of) rights seriously, or for engaging in “responsibility talk,” not just “rights talk.”2 In Life’s Dominion, Dworkin himself got on the responsibility bandwagon in justifying the right to procreative autonomy and the right to die.3 He countenanced that government may encourage women to take the decision whether to have an abortion responsibly, so long as it does not …

Law Versus Ideology: The Supreme Court And The Use Of Legislative History, David S. Law, David Zaring

William & Mary Law Review

Much of the social science literature on judicial behavior has focused on the impact of ideology on how judges vote. For the most part, however, legal scholars have been reluctant to embrace empirical scholarship that fails to address the impact of legal constraints and the means by which judges reason their way to particular outcomes. This Article attempts to integrate and address the concerns of both audiences by way of an empirical examination of the Supreme Court’s use of a particular interpretive technique— namely, the use of legislative history to determine the purpose and meaning of a statute. We analyzed …

Iqbal And The Slide Toward Restrictive Procedure, A. Benjamin Spencer

Faculty Publications

Last term, in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, the Supreme Court affirmed its commitment to more stringent pleading standards in the ordinary federal civil case. Although the decision is not a watershed, since it merely underscores the substantial changes to pleading doctrine wrought in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, Iqbal is disconcerting for at least two reasons. First, the Court treated Iqbal 's factual allegations in a manner that further erodes the assumption-of-truth rule that has been the cornerstone of modern federal civil pleading practice. The result is an approach to pleading that is governed by a subjective, malleable standard that permits …

Did Congress Authorize The Nlrb To Decide Cases With Only Two Sitting Board Members, Where The Nlra’S Statutory Language Provides For A Three-Member Board Quorum?, Anne M. Lofaso

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Fcc V. Fox: Has The Supreme Court Sanctioned Political Influence In Agency Decision-Making?, Catherine E. Bell

Mercer Law Review

I. INTRODUCTION

Can agencies radically change policy simply because of a change in the White House? The United States Supreme Court's latest decision in FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. suggests that agencies can do exactly that. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), an independent United States agency, regulates the content of U.S. broadcasting stations. In 2002 and 2003, the FCC and Fox clashed when Fox aired two separate Billboard Music Awards (BMA) shows during which BMA guests uttered isolated expletives. Prior to these incidents, the FCC had never issued an indecency violation to a broadcaster for airing only isolated …

Issue 3: Table Of Contents

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Smart Grid Technology: The Future Of The Electric Utility Industry, Michael W. Yackira

University of Richmond Law Review

Energy is leading many agendas these days, and, indeed, the energy landscape is changing-taking it a step further, it is actually transforming. This could be as big a transformation for the electric utility industry as the automated teller machine was for the banking industry and the cell phone was for telecommunications.

Controversial Gvrs And The "Degradation" Of The Gvr, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Brief Amici Curiae Of Christian Medical And Dental Associations, Beta Upsilon Chi, And Officers Of Various Christian Legal Society Student Chapters In Support Of Petitioner, Kelly J. Shackelford, Hiram S. Sasser Iii, Jeffrey C. Mateer, Roger L. Byron, Erin Leu, Thomas C. Berg, Richard W. Garnett

Court Briefs

No. 08-1371
Christian Legal Society Chapter of University of California, Hastings College of the Law v. Leo P. Martinez

On Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit

From the Introduction and Summary of Argument

This case poses the question whether a student group organized around religious beliefs will be able to ensure these beliefs are shared by its leaders and voting members, and still be able to participate in a program at a public educational institution designed to encourage speech from a wide range of student groups.

The University of California-Hastings Law School …

It Is Logic Rather Than Whom You Trust: A Rejoinder To Prof. Cohen, Douglas A. Kahn

Articles

This article is the continuation of an exchange that has taken place between Prof. Stephen B. Cohen and me concerning the validity of criticisms leveled by Chief Justice John Roberts on an opinion by then-Judge Sonia Sotomayor writing for the Second Circuit in the case of William L. Rudkin Testamentary Trust v. Commissioner. While affirming the Second Circuit’s decision, Chief Justice Roberts, writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, criticized and rejected Justice Sotomayor’s construction of the relevant statutory provision. In an article in the August 3, 2009, issue of Tax Notes, Cohen defended Justice Sotomayor’s construction of the statute and …

Brief Of Constitutional Law Professors As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioners, Ryan A. Shores, Richard W. Garnett

Court Briefs

No. 09-592
Eleanor McCullen v. Martha Coakley

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

From the Summary of Argument

The Court should grant certiorari to reverse the First Circuit's decision upholding against First Amendment challenge a prohibition on public-forum speech that applies only at freestanding clinics where abortions are performed, exempts clinic agents and employees, and criminalizes peaceful, non-obstructive speech, including conversation with willing listeners, stationary handbilling, and speech from a conversational distance. By granting certiorari, the Court can begin to reconstruct a consensus on free speech principles that …

Advising Noncitizen Defendants On The Immigration Consequences Of Criminal Convictions: The Ethical Answer For The Criminal Defense Lawyer, The Court, And The Sixth Amendment, Yolanda Vazquez

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

This Article discusses the tension between the Sixth Amendment analysis by courts on the issue of immigration consequences of criminal convictions and the moral and ethical duties that an attorney owes his noncitizen client. Under the majority of jurisdictions, federal circuit and state courts hold that there is no duty to advise on this issue because they are deemed to be “collateral”. However, a growing number of these jurisdictions have begun to find a Sixth Amendment violation for failure to advise. These jurisdictions have created a Sixth Amendment duty only when: 1) the attorney “knew or should have known” the …

What Best To Protect Transsexuals From Discrimination: Using Current Legislation Or Adopting A New Judicial Framework, S. Elizabeth Malloy

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

This article specifically examines the issues and controversies that transsexual individuals have encountered as a result of their lack of protection under anti-discrimination laws, particularly the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Title VII. Part I is an overview of our society's binary sex/gender system and how this system serves to exclude and disenfranchise transsexuals. Part II examines the relationship between disability law and transsexuals, both explaining why they were excluded from the ADA and how state disability laws have provided more protection. Part III discusses how transsexuals have fared under a Title VII sex discrimination approach. This section also …

The Roberts Court And The Environment, Stephen M. Johnson

Articles

During the October 2008 Term, the Supreme Court decided five cases that raised issues of environmental law and the environment was the loser in each case. While it may be difficult to characterize the decisions of the Roberts Court, generally, as “pro-environment” or “antienvironment,” a couple themes consistently appear in the Court’s decisions. First, in most of the environmental cases, the Court has adopted a position advocated or defended by a federal, state or local government when governmental interests are at issue. Second, in all of the cases that implicate federalism concerns, the Court has rendered decisions that favor States’ …

Barber V. Thomas: The Supreme Court's Interpretation Of The Federal Good Time Credits Statute Is Undermining Sentencing Reform, Max Hellman

McGeorge Law Review

No abstract provided.

"The Prejudice Of Caste": The Misreading Of Justice Harlan And The Ascendency Of Anticlassificaiton, Scott Grinsell

Michigan Journal of Race and Law

This Article reconsiders the familiar reading of Justice Harlan's dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson as standing for the principle of constitutional colorblindness by examining the significance of Harlan's use of the metaphor "caste" in the opinion. By overlooking Harlan's invocation of "caste," it argues that conservative proponents of anticlassification have reclaimed the opinion for "colorblindness," and buried a powerful statement of the antisubordination principle that is at the heart of our equality law. The Article begins by examining the emergence of a reading of the opinion as articulating a view of equality law based in anticlassification. The Article then returns …

Response: The Continuing Relevance Of The Establishment Clause: A Reply To Professor Richard C. Schragger, Caroline Mala Corbin

Articles

No abstract provided.