Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

Minimal Justiciability, Riley T. Keenan

Law Faculty Publications

Federal courts adjudicate only justiciable disputes. But justiciable as to whom? The Supreme Court has hinted at an answer, holding that at least one plaintiff must show standing for each remedy sought in a federal case. But it has never explained this “one-plaintiff rule,” and recently some scholars have criticized it, arguing that Article III instead requires each plaintiff to show standing in every federal case.

This Article offers the missing explanation. Justiciability limits judicial power, it contends, and judicial relief is the constitutionally relevant expression of that power. Thus, Article III requires only one plaintiff with standing and a …

How Does The Modern Supreme Court Treat The Idea Of Retribution In The Context Of Capital Punishment?, Paige Forsberg

Honors Undergraduate Theses

This thesis explores the modern U.S. Supreme Court's treatment of retribution in the context of capital punishment, analyzing how justices have framed and justified the death penalty as a form of justice. Through the examination of key Supreme Court rulings and legal arguments, this study evaluates the evolving role of retribution in the Court’s decisions on death penalty cases, highlighting how judicial reasoning has shifted over time in response to legal, philosophical, and societal developments.

Retribution, long considered one of the primary justifications for capital punishment, is examined through a nuanced lens in this study. While historically viewed as a …

Takings Doctrinalization, Gerald S. Dickinson

Washington and Lee Law Review

The U.S. Supreme Court’s takings jurisprudence is shaped by an unusually strong reliance on doctrinalist methods of interpretation and reasoning. From Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon to Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York to Kelo v. City of New London, the Court heavily consults its past takings decisions or refers to the tests, principles, or standards from those decisions as epistemic guides to draw meaning from the Takings Clause. This long history of takings doctrinalization, however, was abruptly disturbed in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard. There, Justices Scalia and …

Is Federal Question Jurisdiction Arising Or Setting, Lumen N. Mulligan

Faculty Works

In this essay, I respond to Professor Arthur D. Hellman. Hellman argues that "there is reason to be concerned that the [federal] judicial system falls short of the Framers' expectations--primarily by denying many litigants in cases presenting federal questions 'their real day in an Article III court,' but also by fostering 'balkanization' rather than uniformity in the interpretation of federal law." It is a privilege to comment upon Hellman's thoughtful piece. In doing so, I begin by questioning the value of originalist interpretations of Article III jurisdiction both descriptively and normatively. I then turn to an intra-originalist critique that paints …

Inconclusive History, Allen Roston

Faculty Works

No abstract provided.

Pozen And The Puzzle Of Counterfactuals, Louis Michael Seidman

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Constitution and the War on Drugs, David Pozen’s carefully researched and brilliantly argued book, is both illuminating and disturbing: illuminating because it unearths forgotten moments when judicially formulated constitutional doctrine that could have ended or sharply restricted the War on Drugs were well within the Overton Window, and disturbing because it surfaces hard questions about historical contingency and the scope of the change that might have occurred in a counterfactual world. In this review, the author argues that the failure to specify both the nature of the counterfactual and the breadth of the alternative possibility have confused discussions …

Going En Banc, Randy J. Kozel

Journal Articles

This Article examines the law of en banc review in the federal courts of appeals. It explores key doctrinal questions and advances a theory that maintains the primacy of three judge panels by focusing the en banc process on a specialized set of institutional tasks.

What Is Trump Immunity?, Carlos Manuel Vázquez

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In Trump v. United States, the Supreme Court held that a former President is entitled to an immunity in criminal cases in certain circumstances. The decision has been heavily criticized, with many commentators saying it places the President above the law. Exactly how it does so depends on what type of immunity a former President enjoys. Is the immunity enjoyed by former Presidents in criminal cases an immunity from the operation of the primary obligations imposed by the criminal laws in question? Or is it an immunity from being subjected to certain types of sanctions for having violated validly …

I Am A Person Too: The State's Failure To Secure Transgender Rights And Personhood, Trevor L.M. Reynolds

Law Student Publications

The winds of change appeared to blow on June 15, 2020, when the Supreme Court decided Bostock v. Clayton County. The Bostock decision - in which the Court held that discrimination based upon an employee's gender identity violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act - has been heralded as a revolutionary triumph for the LGBTQ+ community. And yet, while the Bostock decision dictated that employers cannot terminate people based on their gender identity, it failed in the most important regard: establishing gender identity as a protected constitutional class. The Court, however, is not unique in its failure to …

White Christian Nationalism & Antisemitism: A True Threat, Doron Kalir

FIU Law Review

The ideology of Jewish hatred, also known as antisemitism, has deep roots. In the United States, antisemitism has known a long and complicated history; in the early 1940s, it reached peak levels. Now, more than 80 years later, antisemitism again rears its ugly head, aiming to end the Golden Age of American Jewry. The exclusionary ideology aiming to obliterate the wall separating Church and state, and to institutionalize Christian identity and values into the public square, also known as White Christian Nationalism, has deep roots. In the United States, it had a long and complicated history; by the mid 1920s, …

The Ethical Dilemma Of The Highest Court: Could Congress Constitutionally Impose A Binding Code Of Ethics On The United States Supreme Court?, Amys Serret

FIU Law Review

In response to mounting ethical concerns about Supreme Court Justices, the Court introduced its own Code of Conduct in November 2023, likely prompted by recent controversies involving Justice Clarence Thomas. This code aimed to dispel the public perception that Supreme Court Justices operate without ethical boundaries. The code mirrors the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, established in 1973, outlining ethical rules and principles for the Justices. It shares the same five canons and includes most provisions from the lower federal judges’ code, albeit with some differences. Although the Court’s ability to establish its own code is unquestioned, this …

Consensus And Conflict Over Context: Select Criminal Law And Procedure Cases From The Supreme Court's 2024-25 Term, Eve Brensike Primus, Elena Schultz

Articles

In its 2024-2025 Term, the Supreme Court emphasized the utility—and necessity—of context-based, fact-sensitive analyses throughout its criminal law and procedure cases. Though the Justices sparred over how to derive meaning from factual, structural, legal, and historical contexts, they tended to agree that courts should not be artificially restricted from considering the breadth of the record before them.

Race Without Racism: Religious School Curricula And The Race-Neutral Legacy Of Brown, Vania Blaiklock

Scholarly Articles

Current conversations about race and equity curricula in primary and secondary education exclude examining religious curricula because of their private classification. Yet, this omission prevents us from exploring how religious curricula might mirror the legal transformation of Brown’s racial equality legacy to constitutional race neutrality. This Article brings religious curricula into these conversations by specifically linking the Court’s race-neutral transformation of Brown to the way religious curricula frame discussions about race without racism. Throughout the Article, I argue that the Court’s transformation of Brown is not just a top-down legal framework but also a bottom-up educational ideology. By making …

The Excluded: Where Did Our Rights Come From, Who Paid The Price Trying To Establish Them, And Who Is Trying To Take Them Away? The Centuries-Long Struggle For Inclusion, Jim Brosnahan

University of San Francisco Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Whiteness Of Wealth & Black Student Loan Debt, Renee Nicole Allen

Faculty Publications

On June 30, 2023, to the dismay of many anxious borrowers, the Supreme Court held that the Secretary of Education did not have the authority to cancel roughly $430 billion in federal student loan balances, thus blocking President Biden’s plan for student loan forgiveness. Despite authority delegated to the Secretary to waive or modify provisions of the Education Act to ensure low-to-middle income borrowers were not placed in a worse financial position because of the COVID-19 national emergency, the Court rejected the forgiveness plan and borrowers resumed payments in October 2023. Anti-Black racism in federal law and policy have contributed …

Emergency Oversight, Catherine Baylin Duryea

Faculty Publications

This Article examines one of the most pressing questions in administrative law: How much judicial oversight should administrative agencies face during an emergency? This issue was particularly salient during the COVID epidemic, but it is not new. The Second World War saw a significant expansion and consolidation of the power of administrative agencies as well as experimentation with the appropriate oversight role for courts. This Article analyzes one such experiment: judicial oversight of agencies implementing wartime anti-inflationary measures, i.e., price controls and rationing. During the war, Congress created a specialized court, the Emergency Court of Appeals (ECA), to hear disputes …

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

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Understanding The Mechanisms Of Interpretative Change, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Faculty Publications

Interpretive methodology changes over time, and we appear to be in a period of particular ferment. In federal statutory interpretation, which is the focus of this Article, several important changes in interpretive methods have occurred in recent decades or are underway. There has been a gradual, decades-long shift away from intentionalist tools like legislative history. In addition, as the culmination of a series of smaller steps, the Supreme Court has just reshaped the doctrine governing deference to agency interpretations, a move that will require years of further clarification. And, although this shift is still taking shape, it appears that some …

Restoring Unanimity To The Alabama Death Penalty, Daniel Butler Friedman

Articles & Chapters

In Alabama, one of the jurisdictions most responsible for executions in the United States, the death penalty statute contains a very unusual provision: juries can sentence defendants to death even if they are not unanimous. This is a surprising fact to many people, including lawyers, who largely believe that the U.S. Supreme Court eliminated non-unanimous juries in 2020. That provision is enormously important to the capital punishment regime in Alabama, where 80% of people on death row were sentenced non-unanimously. The law's history, however, is poorly understood. This article lays out that history, showing it to be part of the …

When Is Free Speech “Beyond” The Constitution?, Abner S. Greene

Faculty Scholarship

The constitution of a nation without a state action doctrine might limit private restriction or compulsion of speech just as it limits the state. In such a nation, “free speech beyond the constitution” might not be a particularly meaningful concept. In the United States, however, the First Amendment’s free speech clause limits only what the federal, state, and local governments may do. As a nonconstitutional policy matter, it might or might not be a good idea for the government to impose First Amendment- like restrictions on private actors or for private actors to voluntarily impose First Amendment-like restrictions on themselves. …