Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

Covid-19, Free Exercise, And Most Favored Nation Status, Mark Strasser

Lewis & Clark Law Review

Commentators and some Justices suggest that religious activity is accorded a kind of Most Favored Nation status under free exercise guarantees—if a statutory exception is made for a relevantly similar secular activity, then an exception must also be made for religious activity. Such an approach would require a careful consideration of which secular activities were relevantly similar to religious activities to warrant protecting the latter. But the Most Favored Nation approach involves a mischaracterization of the past jurisprudence. Further, as is evidenced in the COVID cases, the U.S. Supreme Court does not engage in a nuanced consideration of which activities …

Court Reform And The Promise Of Justice: Lessons From Reconstruction, David H. Gans

Lewis & Clark Law Review

The Supreme Court is broken. How should we fix it? This Article argues that Reconstruction, a period in American history when the role of the Supreme Court in American life was hotly debated and Congress repeatedly took steps to reform the courts, provides important and underappreciated lessons.

Reconstruction’s model makes clear that when the Supreme Court runs roughshod over constitutional rights, Congress need not sit on the sidelines. Rather, the Constitution gives it powerful tools of reform. Congress can (1) change the composition of the Court, (2) alter its jurisdiction and regulate its proceedings, and (3) use its express enforcement …

Virtually Inaccessible: Resolving Ada Title Iii Standing In Click-And-Mortar Cases, Saxon S. Kagume

Emory Law Journal

As the electronic age has taken hold of the global community, and digital devices have become the mainstay of human interaction, new accessibility barriers have emerged for people with disabilities. Although most courts now conclude virtual inaccessibility is an injury cognizable under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, great ambiguity surrounds the injury-in-fact requirement of Article III standing in online accessibility cases. Despite pleading for elucidation and clarifying principles, federal district courts have been left to navigate the uncharted territory of the digital injury-in-fact inquiry with exiguous guidance from higher courts. The resultant confusion in the federal courts …

Awakening The Law: Unmasking Free Exercise Exceptionalism, Berta Esperanza Hernández-Truyol

Emory Law Journal

The U.S. Constitution protects myriad, often intertwined, individual rights. Sometimes, protected fundamental rights collide, yet the Constitution lacks a methodology to resolve such clashes. Indeed, an internal tension exists even within the rights included in the First Amendment, as whenever the government acts to protect Free Exercise it advances religion. Rather than adopt a methodology that respects and considers all constitutional rights at issue in instances when constitutional rights are in collision, the Court has embraced Free Exercise Exceptionalism (“FEE”), a doctrine pursuant to which the Court elevates Free Exercise above all rights, including the prohibition expressed in the Establishment …

The ‘Weaponized’ First Amendment At The Marble Palace And The Firing Line: Reaction And Progressive Advocacy Before The Roberts Court And Lower Federal Courts, Seth F. Kreimer

Emory Law Journal

It once seemed that the First Amendment doctrine developed by the Supreme Court stood as a bulwark protecting grassroots struggles for social change. In the twenty-first century, however, particularly since the appointments of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito in 2005, a number of observers have begun to view the Supreme Court’s First Amendment work as a “weaponized” redoubt of reaction.

This sense of the rightward tilt of Supreme Court decisions is rooted in reality. Examining 104 Supreme Court First Amendment cases decided during the 2005–2020 Terms, it turns out that successful litigants are four times as likely to come …

Crimes Of Suspicion, Lauryn P. Gouldin

Emory Law Journal

Requiring that officers have suspicion of specific crimes before they seize people during stops or arrests is a fundamental rule-of-law limitation on government power. Until very recently, the Supreme Court studiously avoided saying whether reasonable suspicion for street and traffic stops must be crime specific, and lower courts are sharply divided as a result. Statements made in Kansas v. Glover that the Fourth Amendment requires reasonable suspicion of a “particular crime” or of “specific criminal activity” may reflect an effort to rehabilitate this foundational principle, but crime specificity was not the Court’s focus in Glover. Meanwhile, Fourth Amendment scholars, even …

The New Insular Cases, Willie Santana

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

The Insular Cases is a name given to a series of cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court dealing with the status of the territories the United States acquired at the turn of the twentieth century. The Insular Cases rely on outmoded assumptions about the peoples who live in those islands, ninety-eight percent of whom belong to racial and ethnic minorities, and extend the extraconstitutional doctrine of territorial incorporation, a Plessy-style doctrine of separate governance for these territories that is different than the territories that preceded them. These cases, and the doctrine they announced, have been universally decried as …

What Is The Territorial Scope Of The Lanham Act?, Marketa Trimble

Scholarly Works

Since Steele v. Bulova Watch Co., 344 U.S. 280 (1952), the Supreme Court has not addressed the territorial scope of the Lanham Act. Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc. is an opportunity for the Court to clarify how its RJR Nabisco extraterritoriality framework applies to the Lanham Act, whether and how current circuit court tests fit into the framework, and whether any of the tests should apply in the second step of the framework.

Gag With Malice, Shaakirrah R. Sanders

Washington and Lee Law Review

This Article brings agriculture privacy and other commercial gagging laws into the ongoing debate on the First Amendment actual malice rule announced in New York Times v. Sullivan. Despite a resurgence in contemporary jurisprudence, Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch have recently questioned the wisdom and viability of Sullivan, which originally applied actual malice to state law defamation claims brought by public officials. The Court later extended the actual malice rule to public figures, to claims for infliction of emotional distress, and—as discussed in this Article—to claims for invasion of privacy and to issues of public importance or concern.

United …

The American Tradition Of Self-Made Arms, Joseph G.S. Greenlee

St. Mary's Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Lessons From United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence For Resolving Australian Interstate Groundwater Disputes, Jack Dewinter

Emory International Law Review

No abstract provided.

Nestlé V. Doe: A Death Knell To Corporate Human Rights Accountability?, Phillip Ayers

Seattle University Law Review

The Supreme Court in Nestlé v. Doe held that foreign plaintiffs who claimed to be victims of overseas tortious conduct by corporate defendants had no jurisdiction to sue in federal courts using the Alien Tort Statute. This Comment looks at the history of the Alien Tort Statute, from its inspiration, long dormancy, and recent reinvigoration beginning in the 1980s. The Comment then explores the background of Nestlé and its issues with child slavery in its cocoa supply chain. From there, the Comment analyzes the Nestlé v. Doe decision, and posits an alternative outcome. Finally, this Comment looks for a new …

The Purcell Principle And The Antiblackness Of Constitutional Fundamentalism, Brittany Carter

American University Law Review

In Milligan v. Merrill, a district court in Alabama found that the state legislature designed Alabama’s new congressional district map in a way that diminished Black political power, and ordered the legislature to redraw its map to remedy the violation. Two weeks later, the Supreme Court stayed the district court’s order, allowing Alabama’s congressional elections to proceed under the discriminatory maps. The only stated rationale, offered by Justices Kavanaugh and Alito in a concurring opinion, was the so-called Purcell principle – the notion that federal courts should not enjoin a state’s election laws in the period close to an election. …

The Judicial Activism Of Justice Anthony Kennedy, Carlos A. Ball

American University Law Review

Few recent Supreme Court justices have had a greater impact on constitutional law than Anthony Kennedy. Although commentators have explored the substance of Justice Kennedy’s jurisprudence in some detail, legal scholars have not systematically analyzed the extent of his judicial activism. This Article uses the term “judicial activism” descriptively rather than normatively to help account for a judge’s willingness to strike down federal, state, and local laws on constitutional grounds. It finds that, under a descriptive definition, when compared to the justices with whom he served, Justice Kennedy was a singularly judicial activist judge.

This conclusion rests on three findings. …

When Amicus Curiae Briefs Are Inimicus Curiae Briefs: Amicus Curiae Briefs And The Bypassing Of Admissibility Standards, David Dematteo, Kellie Wiltsie

American University Law Review

Amicus curiae briefs are being submitted at historically high levels by a range of individuals and entities, and there is compelling evidence that these briefs are highly influential in judicial decision-making, including in the Supreme Court of the United States. Although amicus curiae briefs have been an ingrained aspect of the U.S. legal system for hundred-plus years, various legal scholars, researchers, commentators, and judges, including Supreme Court Justices, have raised concerns about their use, including that amicus curiae briefs contain redundant information and often function as advocacy tools. This Article addresses an aspect of amicus curiae briefs that has received …

The State Citizenship Clause, Kurt T. Lash

Law Faculty Publications

The first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment declares: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” This opening sentence contains not one, but two citizenship clauses. The first defines national citizenship. The second defines state citizenship. Although significant historical scholarship exists regarding the other provisions in Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment, the State Citizenship Clause has been unstudied, unapplied and, quite often, unrecognized.

Functional Federal Equity, Riley T. Keenan

Law Faculty Publications

Throughout history, English and American courts have adapted traditional equitable doctrines and remedies to new social, economic, and technological circumstances. This traditional approach to equity traces to England’s High Court of Chancery in the seventeenth century, and federal courts in the United States have applied it since the founding, fashioning new forms of equitable relief to break labor strikes, desegregate schools, redraw electoral maps, and prevent the enforcement of unconstitutional laws.

Yet despite its pedigree, the Supreme Court has abandoned this traditional approach to equity over the past two decades. Today, the Court limits federal courts to the doctrines and …

“Fundamental Fairness”: Finding A Civil Right To Counsel In International Human Rights Law, Meredith Elliot Hollman

Law Student Publications

Every other Western democracy now recognizes a right to counsel in at least some kinds of civil cases, typically those involving basic human rights. The World Justice Project’s 2021 Rule of Law Index ranked the United States 126th of 139 countries for “People Can Access and Afford Civil Justice.” Within its regional and income categories, the United States was dead last. The United Nations and other international treaty bodies have urged the United States to improve access to justice by providing civil legal aid. How did we fall behind, and what can we learn from the rest of the world? …

Duped By Dope: The Sackler Family’S Attempt To Escape Opioid Liability And The Need To Close The Non-Debtor Release Loophole, Bryson T. Strachan

Law Student Publications

The opioid epidemic continues to rage on in the United States, ravaging its rural populations. One of its main causes? OxyContin. Purdue Pharma (“Purdue”), the maker of OxyContin, aggressively marketed opioids to the American public while racking up a fortune of over $13 billion dollars for its owners,3 the Sackler family. As a result, roughly 3,000 lawsuits were filed against Purdue and members of the Sackler family. Generally, the lawsuits alleged that Purdue and members of the Sackler family knew OxyContin was highly addictive yet aggressively marketed high dosages of the drug and misrepresented the drug as nonaddictive and without …

Cftc & Sec: The Wild West Of Cryptocurrency Regulation, Taylor Anne Moffett

Law Student Publications

Over the past few years, a turf war has been brewing between the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) over which agency should regulate cryptocurrencies. Both agencies have pursued numerous enforcement actions over the cryptocurrencies they believe to be within their jurisdiction. This turf war has many moving components, but the focus always comes back to one question: which cryptocurrencies are commodities, and which cryptocurrencies are securities? The distinction is important because the CFTC has statutory authority to regulate commodities, whereas the SEC has statutory authority to regulate securities. This Comment rejects the pursuit …