Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

Interpreting Religious Doctrine: The Third Rail That Wags The Dog In Religion Clause Jurisprudence, Samuel J. Levine

Washington and Lee Law Review

This Article is part of a broader project exploring and assessing the United States Supreme Court’s hands-off approach to interpreting religious doctrine. The mixed metaphor that constitutes the title of this Article incorporates various aspects of the project’s interrelated themes and claims. First, as a descriptive matter, the Supreme Court has repeatedly and increasingly refused to adjudicate issues that require the interpretation, evaluation, and resolution of substantive areas of religious practice and belief. Thus, like the third rail of train tracks, interpreting religious doctrine is deemed off-limits and better left untouched. Indeed, the Court’s justifications for the hands-off approach rely …

The Origins Of The Major Questions Doctrine, Rachel Rothschild

Articles

In a series of recent cases, the Supreme Court has invoked the newly named “major questions doctrine” to strike down agency regulations that protect public health and the environment. Several Justices have argued that while the name “major questions” may be new, these decisions are simply the latest iteration in a longstanding effort of the courts to curtail the explosive growth of the administrative state since 1970. The first paradigmatic example of this line of cases is the 1980 “Benzene” case, in which the Supreme Court set aside the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)’s new workplace standards for the …

Dignifying Queerness, Ryan Thoreson

Cardozo Law Review

In recent years, courts that have affirmed the right of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people to engage in same-sex activity have often invoked the value of dignity. They have done so in spite of the fact that same-sex activity, and many other kinds of sex, have historically been deemed undignified and subject to criminal prohibition. This Article examines a rapidly growing body of comparative jurisprudence to examine how dignity has become an unlikely cornerstone of efforts to decriminalize same-sex conduct. By invoking dignity, courts have persuasively struck down some of the most immediate and egregious restrictions on sexual …

Book Review: John Paul Stevens, The Making Of A Justice: Reflections On My First 94 Years, New York, Little, Brown And Co., 2019, Pp. 549, $35.00 (Hardback), Stephen Wermiel

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

The autobiography of Justice John Paul Stevens, published just a few months before he died, is an enticing travelogue for Supreme Court nerds. Other travelers may want to pick a different landscape.

A New Era Of Deference: From Chevron To Loper Bright, Daniel E. Walters

Faculty Scholarship

Deference to administrative agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous statutory provisions has been a hallmark of administrative law and regulatory policy for the past forty years. The Supreme Court recently upended that settled allocation of power between agencies and courts, granting interpretive primacy to courts even where statutes essentially require policy choices. However, questions remain about precisely how courts will exercise this policymaking authority that agencies used to exercise, as well as about the multiple “offramps” from this nondeferential standard that the Court left open. Rather than a new era of nondeference, it is just as likely we are embarking on a …

2024 Supreme Court Preview Digital Notebook, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Brown V. Board Of Education: Enduring Caste And American Betrayal, Sheryll Cashin

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

This article reflects on the role of residential caste in reproducing school segregation and how the Supreme Court betrays the equality principles of Brown by applying a colorblind constitutionalism that renders so-called de facto residential caste, and subsequent school segregation, acceptable.

During the seven-decade Great Migration of the 20^th century, northern cities deployed policies to create an architecture of inequality in which African Americans and white Americans did not live in the same neighborhoods. While the Fair Housing Act of 1968 rendered intentional discrimination in housing markets illegal, and the Court also ruled against forms of intentional housing discrimination, …

Revitalizing Biotechnological Advancement In The United States: Patent Eligibility Reform To Promote Innovation While Preserving Morality, Sydney Virtue

West Virginia Law Review

Patent protection has long been recognized as a key part of promoting innovation; however, current patent eligibility law in the United States often produces the exact opposite result. While the basic framework for patent eligibility is provided by the Patent Act, the United States Supreme Court has crafted several significant exceptions to patent eligibility—laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas. These judicial exceptions have created a crisis in patent law and impeded biotechnological innovation, as they are too vague to be properly confined and carry tests that are too ambiguous for predictable application. To promote and retain world leadership …

Taking Liberties: The Supreme Court's New Hierarchy Of Rights And Its Victims, Richard B. Katskee

West Virginia Law Review

The legitimacy of our unelected Supreme Court comes from the nature and structural limitations on judicial power. Courts do not make policy in the abstract. Rather, Article III requires federal judges to decide only real, live disputes, on the facts before them. Stare decisis then prevents the courts from changing legal rules willy-nilly. The big, important changes come instead through collective decision-making by our elected representatives. When courts do break from stare decisis, it is normally to expand protections for the politically disempowered. Those protections then make legislatures more representative and act as brakes on abuses of minorities by an …

Major Questions, Common Sense?, Kevin Tobia, Daniel E. Walters, Brian Slocum

Faculty Scholarship

The Major Questions Doctrine (“MQD”) is the newest textualist interpretive canon, and it has driven consequential Supreme Court decisions concerning vaccine mandates, environmental regulation, and student loan relief. But the new MQD is a canon in search of legitimization. Critics allege that the MQD displaces the Court’s conventional textual analysis with judicial policymaking. Textualists have now responded that the MQD is a linguistic canon, consistent with textualism. Justice Barrett recently argued in Biden v. Nebraska that the MQD is grounded in ordinary people’s understanding of language and law, and scholarship contends that the MQD reflects ordinary people’s understanding of textual …

University Of The District Of Columbia Law Review, University Of The District Of Columbia Law Review

University of the District of Columbia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Dobbs Was Wrong: The Liberty To Choose To Give Birth Should Be Federally Protected, Alysa J. Wiggins

University of the District of Columbia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Returning Power To The Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe: Energy Policy And Tribal Autonomy, Nicolas Land-Kazlauskas

Capstone Collection

This policy brief addresses tribal autonomy, energy policy, and the resources of the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe in Massachusetts. Tribal sovereignty has been a difficult and often painful area of discussion for many tribal communities. For generations, tribes have had to carefully navigate their interactions with colonial forces and the residues of colonialist legacies, especially tied to resource wealth and decision-making. Even with the best of efforts by the tribe, their actions often have not impacted the basic legal or economic situations on-the-ground. Their on-going relationships with states and companies continue to undermine tribal autonomy and sovereignty oftentimes simply because they …

Sidestepping Substance: How Administrative Law Plays An Outsized Role In Shaping Environmental Policy And Why Recalibration Is Necessary, Sanne H. Knudsen

Articles

Administrative law and environmental law are companion fields. Still, they are not interchangeable. They promote different values. And yet, sometimes when courts resolve environmental disputes by relying on administrative doctrines, courts elevate the values of administrative law over those codified in environmental statutes. This is particularly concerning when courts rely on judicially-created administrative law doctrines to sidestep congressional intent as expressed by the substantive aims of environmental statutes.

To reduce the risk of sidestepping—whether inadvertent or intentional—this Article critically examines how administrative law doctrines can undermine environmental law. Drawing on prominent case examples, including the Supreme Court decision in Sackett …

Escaping Conditional Constitutionalism: Political Fear And Judicial Power In A Polarized Age, Lee Elton Dionne

Buffalo Law Review

Fear of judicial power in the wrong political hands is on the rise, particularly with respect to the Supreme Court. We confront a crisis of “conditional constitutionalism”—the expectation that the United States Constitution stands for a different set of principles and requires adherence to a different set of rules depending on which party has appointed the Supreme Court majority. Conditional constitutionalism erodes the distinction between supreme law and ordinary legislation for many partisans, rendering support for the constitutional order itself conditional on the partisan composition of the Court. Fear of the Court stems largely from its inability to settle on …

Brief Of Amici Curiae Federal Courts Scholars In Support Of Movants, Ryan J. Walsh, Derek T. Muller

Court Briefs

No. 158, Original
Alabama v. California

On Motion for Leave to File Bill of Complaint

From the Introduction and Summary of Argument

The resolution of state-against-state actions is a core function of this Court under our constitutional structure’s original design, which depends upon the peaceful resolution of interstate conflicts. The Framers assigned these suits to this Court precisely because they cannot be heard by state courts and because they raise serious matters of federal harmony.

This Court should grant the motion for leave to file a bill of complaint. Amici express no view on any other procedural or merits issues …

Confrontation, The Legacy Of Crawford, And Important Unanswered Questions, Paul F. Rothstein, Ronald J. Coleman

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The right to confront has a long history. In the United States, the Confrontation Clause provides: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right… to be confronted with the witnesses against him[.]” One of the most troublesome areas of Confrontation Clause jurisprudence has been the Clause’s application to “hearsay statements offered against a criminal defendant pursuant to a hearsay exception or exemption[.]” The Supreme Court’s confrontation analysis in this situation once hinged on the statement’s reliability, with the traditional hearsay rule and its exceptions and exemptions as a guide. But in Crawford v. Washington, the Court considered …

Protecting Minority Representation In An Era Of Political Polarization And The Hollowing Out Of Voting Rights Protections, Henry L. Chambers Jr.

Washington and Lee Law Review

The United States Supreme Court has hollowed out various voting rights protections, leaving all voters—minority and nonminority—less protected in a politically polarized America. Surprisingly, the Court has continued to protect representation for minority race voters who live in racially polarized areas. However, minority race voters risk losing that protection, typically provided through majority-minority districts authorized under the Voting Rights Act, if they build cross-racial coalitions with their neighbors. Under the Court’s interpretation of the VRA, cross-racial voting coalitions may be less protected than local majorities comprised of a single race of voters. The loss of such protection could leave their …

Unprincipled All The Way Down, Wilfred U. Codrington Iii

Washington and Lee Law Review

In 2006, the Supreme Court issued an emergency stay order in Purcell v. Gonzalez. Sparing in words and inattentive to the realities on the ground, the opinion nevertheless made a reasonable and understandable assertion: prior to issuing relief, courts presiding over elections should take into account any harms that judicial orders might cause, particularly in the lead-up to voting, alongside other considerations unique to elections. The statement was general enough to mollify the masses in the short-term. But over the long haul, it has proven to be a vehicle through which important election decisions might be made in less than …

A Major Wrong On A Private Right Of Action Under The Voting Rights Act, Macin Graber, Joshua A. Douglas

Washington and Lee Law Review

In Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, Justice Neil Gorsuch posited in a short concurrence that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (“VRA”) does not confer a private right of action. That idea seemingly came out of nowhere, as Supreme Court precedent was clear and no one had suggested that the VRA did not allow private parties to bring suit. Justice Gorsuch’s one-paragraph concurrence was both unsupported and wrong. Even the single case he cited did not support his proposition.

An Arkansas district court and then the Eighth Circuit, however, followed Justice Gorsuch’s lead, ruling that only the federal Department …