Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

Vaccines, Religious Liberty, And The Gvr As Doctrinal Signal, Zalman Rothschild

Articles

This Essay proceeds in four Parts. Part I traces the doctrinal baseline, showing that vaccines have long functioned as the limit case for religious liberty. Part II briefly describes the doctrinal changes of the COVID-19 era — the Supreme Court’s expansion of religious equality doctrine, and its emergency-docket denials that left vaccine mandates formally unresolved — before explaining why the GVR in Miller signals a different move: the extension of the religious liberty framework to vaccine mandates, bypassing the comparability analysis that had allowed most courts to sustain them under the equality model. Part III turns to Miller itself and …

Cornerstones And Keystones: Confronting Stealth Attacks On The Regulatory State, Michael Allan Wolf

UF Law Faculty Publications

This Article is the first to identify the Roberts Court’s pattern of stealth overruling of several takings precedents by neutralizing or ignoring essential language from prior decisions. The Article explores six examples of this phenomenon and proposes a framework for identifying when a subsequent Court’s critical assessment of key language from a prior decision, whether it technically qualifies as a “holding” or not, necessitates consideration of the stare decisis factors used in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Rather than focusing on the sometimes-arbitrary distinction between holding and dictum, the Article introduces two other indicia of precedential language that …

The Quiet Revival Of The Effective Vindication Of Rights Doctrine, Myriam Gilles

Fordham Law Review

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in American Express v. Italian Colors Restaurantwas widely seen as the death knell for the “effective vindication of rights” doctrine—a judicially created rule that arbitration agreements are enforceable only “so long as the prospective litigant effectively may vindicate its statutory cause of action in the arbitral forum.” By upholding a class action–banning arbitration provision that rendered arbitration economically irrational, Italian Colors appeared to extinguish any meaningful limits on the enforcement of arbitration agreements.

But reports of the doctrine’s demise were premature. This Article uncovers how, in the decade since Italian Colors, lower …

The Unitary Executive And The Federal Reserve, Lev Menand

Fordham Law Review

The U.S. Supreme Court may soon embrace an interpretation of the U.S. Constitution that would significantly expand the power of the president over federal administrators and invalidate key provisions in dozens of federal statutes. A critical question is whether this interpretation—known as the unitary executive theory (UET)—would also render unconstitutional central bank independence (CBI), an arrangement where a country’s monetary policy is formulated by a semiautonomous body of experts insulated from partisan political pressure. Several justices have suggested that it would not, and a growing scholarly literature has proposed ways for the Court to distinguish the country’s central banking apparatus …

Is Bruen The New Usery?, Tonja Jacobi, Cory Conley

William & Mary Law Review

In 2022, in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, the Supreme Court revolutionized the Second Amendment, achieving the long-held conservative goal of limiting gun restrictions by imposing an expansive, originalist view of the right to bear arms. However, within just three years, Bruen is showing cracks. Lower court judges are struggling mightily to apply it and are expressing their frustrations in exceptionally frank ways. And already the Supreme Court, in Rahimi v. United States, was forced to reconsider its approach. The Court has been here before, when it tried to revitalize the Tenth Amendment in …

Fifty Ways To Leave Your Lover: Using State Constitutions To Escape The Dead Hand Of Article V, Meg Penrose

Faculty Scholarship

Thomas Jefferson believed that “the earth always belongs to the living generation.” His constitutional approach would empower twenty-first century Americans to decide twenty-first century problems regularly determined by the United States Supreme Court. Article V, the formal method for constitutional change, seemingly relegates these decisions to the Supreme Court because amending the federal Constitution is nearly impossible.

Unfortunately, our fixation on federal constitutional law often eclipses the power of state constitutional law. State constitutions balance our relatively static federal Constitution with responsive state governments. There is no need to debate what the Framers thought about modern issues when Americans can …

Court-Stripping, Court-Packing, And Court Defying: Revisiting The Supreme Court’S Essential Functions, Curtis A. Bradley, Neil S. Siegel

Faculty Scholarship

The "essential functions thesis" is one of the most famous structural arguments in the field of federal courts. The thesis, which has been endorsed by a number of prominent scholars and the executive branch, posits that there are implicit, structural limits on Congress's authority to "strip" the Supreme Court of its appellate jurisdiction. Court-stripping, the thesis contends, is not allowed if it would undermine the essential functions of the Court-in particular, maintaining the supremacy and uniformity of federal law. In this Article, we revisit that thesis with three goals in mind. First, we aim to show that the structural arguments …

Chicago, Arbitrary Detention And Torture: An Examination Of Human Rights Violations And Legal Responses Under The Second Trump Administration, Gianna Keuer

Bates College Undergraduate Law Review

This paper uses a human rights-based analysis to explore the legal implications of the second Trump administration’s deportation policies, using frameworks enacted by international legal organizations and state-level bodies. Drawing upon the Convention Against Torture, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and established state policies, the paper identifies important jus cogens norms against arbitrary detention and torture. With Chicago serving as a case study, the paper explores different avenues that have been employed to counter violations of prohibitions of arbitrary detention and torture, ultimately concluding that state-level policy responses and impact litigation cases serve as a more efficacious …

The Paradox Of Equal Protection: Anti-Subordination Rhetoric In Service Of Anti-Classification Ends, Aanya Ghosh

Bates College Undergraduate Law Review

This article examines the evolution of Equal Protection jurisprudence through the competing lenses of anti-classification and anti-subordination. Anti-classification holds that the Constitution prohibits governmental use of racial categories regardless of purpose; anti-subordination holds that the Equal Protection Clause targets the perpetuation of racial hierarchy rather than the mere use of racial categories. Beginning with the foundational ambiguity of Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and tracing the doctrinal trajectory through Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (2007), and Students for Fair Admissions …

Money And State Politics: State Legislature Partisan Dynamics And Ideology Outcomes Following Citizens United V. Fec, Jillian E. Pastore

Bates College Journal of Political Studies

What effect has Citizens United v. FEC had on state-level partisanship and the policy outcomes that follow from it? Scholarship on the influence of corporate and union spending in political campaigns has largely centered on federal elections. In this paper, I extend the analysis to the state level, leveraging the fact that Citizens United created a natural experiment across the states. Prior to the Supreme Court ruling, roughly half of the states prohibited corporate and union independent expenditures in state elections (including for governor, state senate, state house, and state supreme court races). The Citizens United decision effectively nullified these …

It's The Night Of The Living Deepfakes: The Threat Of Deepfakes On The Film Industry, Neki Shero

DePaul Business & Commercial Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Front Matter

DePaul Business & Commercial Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Supreme Court Vs. Federal Prosecutors, Scott Ingram

Et Cetera

For the past forty years, the United States Supreme Court and federal prosecutors have waged an ongoing battle over statutory interpretation. As federal prosecutors have applied broad statutory interpretations to a variety of offenses, the Supreme Court, in a rare show of unanimity, have pushed back by interpreting the statutes narrowly. Throughout this process, the Supreme Court has employed a variety of rationales to support the narrow interpretations. Beginning with federalism concerns, the Court has more recently turned to fears about arbitrary and politically-motivated prosecutions. This article traces the evolution of this battle and concludes with insights about its future …

Hbcus And Disparate Law School Rankings, Michael Conklin

Cleveland State Law Review

This Article measures the difference between perceptions of HBCU (Historically Black Colleges and Universities) law schools and their objective performance. This is conducted by comparing the disparities between each law school’s U.S. News & World Report subjective peer ranking and objective overall ranking. This novel methodology provides valuable insight into the role race plays in legal education and the practice of law. This comes at a critical juncture where issues such as the Supreme Court’s banning of race-conscious admissions, new findings regarding law school mismatch, the racially motivated rankings boycott, and the Trump administration’s aggressive targeting of colleges are all …

A Conversation On Ethics & The Law With The Honorable Ruth Pickholz, Benjamin N. Cardozo School Of Law, Cardozo Criminal Law Society, Ruth Pickholz

2025–2026 Flyers

Retired Justice of the Supreme Court, New York City County.

Species Of State Constitutional Lockstepping, Michael L. Smith

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Hester's Dubious Roots And Legacy: Open Fields Doctrine Under Scrutiny, Laura K. Donohue

Texas A&M Law Review

For over a century, open fields doctrine has shaped Fourth Amendment law, denying people the right to be secure on their own property. Its impact has steadily expanded, with the result that, by some estimates, the government can now engage in warrantless surveillance of some 96% of private land and buildings regardless of fences, postings, the distance from public roads or byways, or the use to which the property is put. An originalist approach throws the doctrine into disarray: at the time of the Founding, common law protected the curtilage, which extended to the fields, barns, storehouses, and other buildings …

In Defense Of The Ten Commandments In Public Spaces: An Analysis Based On The Supreme Court’S New Judicial Standard, Songfeng Li

Arkansas Law Review

On June 19, 2024, Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry signed legislation mandating the display of the Ten Commandments in all public K-12 schools and colleges in the state. On June 21, 2024, Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick announced his intention to introduce a similar bill in the next legislative session that would require the display of the Ten Commandments in schools. Immediately after the Louisiana law’s enactment, a group of local parents with the help of multiple organizations filed a federal lawsuit seeking to block its implementation. As of today, the district court and appellate court have issued differing rulings. The …

Should Judicial Opinions Be Read Like Statutes?, Margaret H. Lemos

Northwestern University Law Review

Should judicial opinions be interpreted with an eye to their purpose, context, or the intent of their authors, or should interpreters focus on the ordinary meaning of the text? Opinions present the same sorts of interpretive puzzles as other legal texts, and yet they have been omitted from the debates over interpretive methodology that dominate the fields of constitutional and statutory interpretation. The omission is no accident: the Supreme Court has stated repeatedly—and with increasing frequency in recent years—that judicial opinions are not to be read like statutes. Yet neither courts nor commentators have explained why the principles that ground …

The Ex Parte Young Cause Of Action: A Riddle, Wrapped In A Mystery, Inside An Enigma, Andrew S. Oldham, Adam I. Steene, John W. Tienken

Northwestern University Law Review

Ex parte Young ushered in a new era of the American judicial system. Most famously, the decision allowed plaintiffs, in certain circumstances, to sue state officials without having to worry about sovereign immunity. Young’s other holding, though perhaps lesser known, is no less important: individuals, the Supreme Court held, have an equitable cause of action to sue government officials for injunctive relief.

Even today, that second holding remains something of a riddle. Did this cause of action always exist in American law? Or was it an invention of the Young Court? And, at any rate, does the Ex parte …