Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

Asarco Delenda Est, John Greabe

West Virginia Law Review

ASARCO Inc. v. Kadish is the most important Supreme Court decision addressing the adjudication in state courts of federal claims that Article III’s case-or-controversy requirements would bar lower federal courts from hearing. But there are two serious problems with the reasoning of ASARCO: one involving an error of omission and the other an error of commission. ASARCO’s error of omission is its apparent assumption that a party barred from asserting a federal claim in federal court because of a lack of redressable Article III injury caused by the conduct complained of should face no barriers to obtaining relief on the …

How Many Supreme Court Justices Can Stand On The Point Of A Needle? Originalist Scholarship, Political Neutrality, And Other Constitutional Nonsense, Stephen M. Feldman

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

In the 1935 article, "Transcendental Nonsense and the Functional Approach," Felix Cohen compared formalist legal reasoning, as practiced by traditional legal scholars and Lochner-era Supreme Court justices, to the philosophical musings of scholastic theologians. Unconnected to empirical reality, formalist legal reasoning was as nonsensical as a disquisition on “‘[h]ow many angels can stand on the point of a needle?’” Nowadays, originalist scholars are similarly engaged in nonsense. These scholars defend, refine, and practice originalist methods of constitutional interpretation as if the Supreme Court justices truly decided cases in accordance with the theory. Regardless, the justices—even the avowed originalists—do not consistently …

Reel It In: Untangling The Circuit Split On The Constitutionality Of Geofence Warrants Under The Fourth Amendment, Kate P. Risser

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

This Note examines geofence warrants and their ongoing threat to constitutionally protected rights such as privacy, speech, and assembly. Part I will provide background information on geofence warrants and examine the prominent justifications for the use of the warrants. Part II will examine how law enforcement’s use of geofence warrants threatens citizens’ constitutionally protected fundamental rights like privacy and reproductive rights. Specifically, Part II addresses how geofence warrants disproportionately target and affect women, people of color, and low-income individuals. Part III will detail the history of the Fourth Amendment tracing its roots to before the Founding Era then exploring applicable …

Rethinking Objectivity: The Problem Of Pretext In The Fourth Amendment, Monu S. Bedi

Indiana Law Journal

Pretextual encounters continue to erode the legitimacy of the Supreme Court’s Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Simply put, a police officer can act on personal bias or animus as long as the search or seizure is deemed “objectively reasonable.” Numerous scholars (e.g., Bennett Capers, Gabriel Chin, and David Harris) have critiqued this objective standard, contending it perpetuates discriminatory practices, particularly against communities of color. The late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg herself suggested that the Court might need to reconsider the legal precedent she helped establish. More recently, Orin Kerr has also argued that the Court’s reliance on objective determinations is inconsistent with …

Agenda Control And Precedent, Thomas P. Schmidt

Faculty Scholarship

The U.S. Supreme Court now has vast control over its agenda: It has the power to pick and choose not only what cases it will hear through writs of certiorari, but also what specific legal questions within those cases it will consider. As a result, the Court never revisits a precedent unless it has made a prior, discretionary choice to put the viability of a precedent on its agenda. For that reason, the Court’s powers of agenda control play a significant and underappreciated role in maintaining the continuity of the legal order. Indeed, it is no surprise that the formal …

Students' Rights In School, Gator Team Child Clinic

Gator Team Child Juvenile Law Clinic

An informational flyer that gives an overview of important students' rights cases in your pocket. The three cases in the flyer that are summarized are, New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985), Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) and In Re Gault (1967).

Against A Medical Exception To Equal Protection, Govind Persad

Washington and Lee Law Review

Government regulations of medicine sometimes treat patients differently based on their race or sex. Does heightened scrutiny apply to such regulations—as is usual when law treats someone differently based on a protected characteristic? Or is there a medical exception to equal protection?

Recently, in United States v. Skrmetti, the Supreme Court upheld a law that restricted access to medical treatments for transgender minors. Though its holding did not rely on medical exceptionalism, its discussion reinvigorated interest in a “medical exception” to equal protection: that medical decisions are exempt from the searching review applied when governmental decisions consider protected characteristics.

For …

American Public Law Revolution, Victoria Frances Nourse

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Supreme Court has birthed a public law revolution. This revolution should not be known as a constitutional revolution because it is bigger than constitutional law—it covers statutory and administrative law as well. This revolution has been powered not by social movements, but by an interpretive philosophy known as originalism. Originalism has been deeply misunderstood by its critics. This Article examines three myths about originalism—that it is primarily about history, that it is a traditional theory of adjudication, and that it is democratic. Originalism is a semantic theory, not a theory of history, and it is a theory that privileges …

The Revival Of Section 5: A Return To The Ftc’S Roots In A Time Of Democratic Crisis, Shaoul Sussman

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Evolution Of The Supreme Court's Second Amendment Jurisprudence, Kermit V. Lipez

Maine Law Review

We live in the shadow of an epidemic of gun violence. We dread the next report of an inevitable mass shooting. We no longer feel secure in public places. We fear for the safety of our children and our grandchildren at their schools. We shake our heads in disbelief at the empty ritual of "thoughts and prayers" for victims and their families. As one commentator put it, we suffer from the "[u]nbearable [m]onotony of [g]rief." Why must we live like this? Why are there no solutions? In conversations posing these questions, there are often references to the Supreme Court's Second …

U.S. Trade Law And Policy At A Crossroads, John K. Veroneau

Maine Law Review

The past decade has witnessed significant changes in U.S. international trade policy. In his first presidential term, Donald J. Trump moved the United States away from long-standing policies of lowering trade barriers to facilitate global commerce and replaced them with a more restrictive version not seen since the early twentieth century. President Trump's more trade-restrictive policies were largely extended by his successor, President Joseph R. Biden. The first year of President Trump's second term has indicated a strong desire to restrict imports further in an attempt to create U.S. manufacturing jobs and reduce reliance on Chinese imports. This Article seeks …

Access To Justice After Medina V Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, Daniel G. Aaron, Nicole Huberfeld

Faculty Scholarship

Access to justice is “the ability of all people to seek and obtain effective remedies through accessible, affordable, … and culturally competent institutions of justice.”¹ Historically, patients and physicians have worked together to protect the integrity of medical care as well as patients’ rights by challenging unlawful government actions in court. Yet the US Supreme Court recently issued decisions that may impede access to justice, potentially empowering federal, state, and local governments to interfere with evidence-based care. We explore constraints on access to justice that may arise after Medina v Planned Parenthood South Atlantic (PPSA) (606 US 357, 2025), …

The Supreme Court's Goldilocks: Why The Major Questions Doctrine Is The Ideal Compromise Between Two Unattractive Extremes, Bradley P. Simpson

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Does Textualism Constrain Supreme Court Justices?, James J. Brudney, Lawrence Baum

Northwestern University Law Review

A principal justification for textualism is the constraint hypothesis. Conservative Justices and leading textualist scholars contend that—in stark contrast to reliance on legislative history—focus on the ordinary meaning of enacted text leaves little room for the Justices to be policy-oriented or ideological in their interpretations. This Article represents the first systematic study probing the validity of the constraint hypothesis, one that employs both quantitative and qualitative analysis.

The Article examines the Justices’ reliance on interpretive resources in over 660 statutory decisions in the field of labor and employment, decided by the Burger Court, the Rehnquist Court, and the Roberts Court—during …

The Vanishing Enforcer: Consumer Protection In An Era Of Dual Retrenchment, Alisher Juzgenbayev

Northwestern University Law Review

Recent developments, including reductions in the federal workforce, effective suspension of certain enforcement activities, and attempted centralization of independent agency rulemaking in the White House, have significantly weakened administrative agencies. This administrative retrenchment is concerning as private enforcement of a number of consumer protection statutes has been simultaneously curtailed through the Supreme Court’s decisions in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins and TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, which dramatically narrowed plaintiffs’ standing. These decisions rely in part on a vision of strong executive authority, positing that broad private standing conflicts with an Article II framework where a politically accountable President faithfully implements laws …

To Vacate Or Not To Vacate: Partial Remedies And Mootness In Federal Habeas Of State Convictions, Jeffrey Greenbaum

University of Cincinnati Law Review

This Article addresses two related issues in the federal habeas of state convictions. First, it analyzes a circuit split that recently emerged over whether a state’s appeal would be moot after a federal district court grants habeas and a state vacates its own judgment. One view is that the state vacatur would render the appeal moot because the prisoner is no longer in custody. A second view is that the appeal would not necessarily be moot because a partial remedy could be available. Second, this Article identifies some courts conflating the language of a state’s vacatur in habeas and evaluates …

Checkmate Or Stalemate: The Epa, California, And The Future Of Waivers Under The Clean Air Act, William B. Gale

Villanova Environmental Law Journal (1991 - )

No abstract provided.

Zivotofsky V. Kerry Commentary From The Counsel Behind The Case, Jewish Law Student Association (Jlsa), Jewish Graduate Student Initiative, Alyza Lewin, Akiva Shapiro

2025–2026 Flyers

Join Alyza Lewin, President of Us Affairs for Combat Antisemitism Movement, and Akiva Shapiro, partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, as they share their experience litigating the landmark Supreme Court case Zivotofsky v. Kerry before the Supreme Court. In Zivotofsky, the court ruled that only thе president has the exclusive power to formally recognize a foreign sovereign and its territorial boundaries. This case paved the way for president Donald J. Trump to declare Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

Brief Of First Amendment Scholars As Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioner, Joseph M. Terry, Stephen J. Fuzesi, James N. Sasso, Langston E. Ward, Richard W. Garnett

Court Briefs

No. 25-927
Richard Lowery v. Lillian Mills

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

From the Summary of Argument

The suppression of constitutionally protected speech violates the First Amendment. A speaker need not be punished to be able to state a cause of action if the government has suppressed or threatens to suppress his or her speech through other means. This Court, across decades, and in a range of contexts, repeatedly has reaffirmed that principle. It has done so in cases affirming that a party may challenge a criminal statute …

2026 Ruth Bader Ginsburg Contest Winners Announced At Rwu Law Women In Law Leadership Lecture 3-4-2026, Roger Williams University School Of Law

School of Law Conferences, Lectures & Events

No abstract provided.