Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

Brief Amici Curiae Of Religious Liberty Law Scholars In Support Of Petitioner, W. Thomas Wheeler, Thomas C. Berg, Richard W. Garnett

Court Briefs

No. 24-291
Apache Stronghold v. United States

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

From the Introduction and Summary of Argument

The federal government owns the land at Oak Flat, where Apache people have worshiped and conducted ceremonies for centuries. As the district court’s findings show, “Apaches view Oak Flat as a ‘direct corridor’ to their Creator’s spirit”—a place “‘uniquely endowed with holiness and medicine’”—“and neither ‘the powers resident there, nor [the Apaches’] religious activities . . . can be relocated.’” App. 201a (opinion of Murguia, C.J.) (quoting Apache Stronghold …

Brief Of Apache Elder Ramon Riley, Professor Michalyn Steele, And Six Native American Rights And Cultural Heritage Organizations As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioner, John A. Meiser, Meredith H. Kessler

Court Briefs

No. 24-291
Apache Stronghold v. United States of America

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

From the Summary of Argument

Meaningful access to sacred sites such as Oak Flat is an indispensable part of many Indigenous tribes’ religious exercise. Nonetheless, the government has repeatedly denied necessary access to these sites, and even destroyed them, thwarting the ability of tribal members to exercise core aspects of their spiritual practices. Regrettably, the Ninth Circuit’s errant decision denies the Apache people critical legal protections against such destruction—and thus only invites the …

Obstructing Precedent, Bill Watson

Northwestern University Law Review

Critics of the Supreme Court sometimes accuse the Justices of disrespecting or being unfaithful to precedent—of undermining certain precedents while leaving them formally in place. Yet it remains unclear what exactly these criticisms mean or why they point to anything objectionable. This Article proposes that critics are often drawing attention to a particular practice: obstructing precedent. A better grasp of what obstructing precedent is and when it is legitimate is important to understanding the Roberts Court’s treatment of precedent in a range of cases.

A court obstructs precedent when it refuses to cooperate with its prior self in building a …

Climate Change, Democracy, And The Major Questions Doctrine, Joshua Ulan Galperin

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

This brief Essay progresses in four parts. I will first argue that climate change is impacting the Court’s decisionmaking. Next, I will show that the significance of climate change as a modern political issue has caused the Court to downplay the statutory arrangement Congress created in the Clean Air Act. Third, I will suggest that the Court is not genuinely failing to appreciate the design of the Clean Air Act. Instead, the Court is aware of that design and feels the design goes beyond a constitutionally acceptable delegation of legislative power. Confronting the Nondelegation Doctrine head-on, however, would force the …

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.

The Origins Of The Major Questions Doctrine, Rachel Rothschild

Indiana Law Journal

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 …

Popularity Contest: Is An Independent Judiciary Compatible With Popular Constitutionalism?, Lulu S. Faulk

Indiana Law Journal

Can the theory of popular constitutionalism—where the people have authority to shape constitutional law—exist alongside judicial independence? On the surface, these two ideas seem like contestants in a popularity contest: Popular constitutionalism embraces the will of the people in defining constitutional law, while judicial independence insists that judges disregard any and all external pressure in an effort to uphold the tenets of the Constitution even when they are unpopular. The contrast of these competing ideas is all the more evident with recent Supreme Court decisions such as Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, demonstrating a deviation from majority opinion in …

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 …

The Fourteenth Amendment And The Vénus Noire, Farah Peterson

William & Mary Law Review

This Essay makes two points. The first is that originalism is not a promising path for progressive causes. The second is that as the Constitution is amended, the meaning of the entire document is altered, and earlier text should be interpreted in light of what has changed. But instead of making these observations in the usual law review style, I’m calling on a figure out of nineteenth-century art, the Vénus Noire, to serve as our companion and guide.

This abstract has been taken from the author's introductory paragraphs.

Identity And Procedural Subordination In Lgbtq Religious Exemption Cases, Kyle C. Velte

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

This Article proceeds in four Parts. Part I summarizes the legal literature on procedural injustice. Part II briefly describes the white Christian nationalism movement, its connection with the LGBTQ civil rights movement, and contends that it is an identity-based movement akin to traditional identity-based civil rights movements. Part III summarizes the holdings of the Religious Exemptions Trilogy [Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, and 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis] and makes the argument that they are strongly procedural decisions. Part IV contends that the Court has engaged in identity-based …

Chilling Victims’ Rights: The Supreme Court Creates A “Pride Of Place” For True Threats, Ana Maria Matovic

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

Living in the Information Age means that information is literally always at our fingertips. This also means that keeping tabs on one another is as easy as a tap on a screen. The effortless ability to follow another’s life on the internet has led to a sinister phenomenon: cyberstalking. Prosecuting cyberstalking cases poses complex constitutional challenges. Specifically, prosecuting these cases may clash with a perpetrator’s First Amendment right to free speech. However, the First Amendment does not protect all categories of speech. One of those unprotected categories is the category of “true threats.” If a perpetrator’s conduct constitutes a “true …

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 …

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.