Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

The Million-Dollar Diversity Docket, Steven Gensler, Roger Michalski

BYU Law Review

Congress has always imposed an amount in controversy requirement for general diversity jurisdiction. Congress initially set the jurisdictional amount at $500 in 1789 and has raised it six times, most recently in 1996 to its current $75,000 threshold. That requirement has been described as ensuring that the federal courts not become bogged down by “petty” or “insubstantial” state-law cases. Given that it has been twenty-five years since the last increase, we are probably overdue for another one. But to what amount? For what purpose? And with what effects on the size and composition of the diversity docket? What would happen …

Upaya Pemerintah Terhadap Perlindungan Ekspresi Budaya Tradisional Batik Motif Parang Sebagai Warisan Budaya Dunia, Raden Zulfikar Supinarko Putra

"Dharmasisya” Jurnal Program Magister Hukum FHUI

Abstract

Batik is not just a design on a piece of cloth, more than that, batik is a soul that blends in the procession of Indonesian society. Since the baby has been carried with a batik cloth, weddings wear batik cloth until when they die they will be covered with batik cloth too usually. This fact become a consideration for UNESCO to establish Indonesian Batik as a Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity in the Fourth Session of The Intergovernmental Committee. This research uses a normative legal research method that is descriptive and analytical using a statutory …

Perbedaan Akad Wakalah Bil Ujrah Dan Akad Qard Terhadap Permasalahan Akad Pembelian Barang Dalam Kehidupan Sehari-Hari, Zendy Sellyfio Ardiana

"Dharmasisya” Jurnal Program Magister Hukum FHUI

Abstract

The wakalah bil ujrah and qard contract are contracts that often cause difficulties in implementing the purchase of goods in everyday life, both in safekeeping for purchasing goods and for buying and selling in general. Where if it is wrong in its application, it can cause income in a sale and purchase to be haraam due to an error in understanding the contract used and not describing benefit as the core of maqashid al-sharia which has an important role in determining Islamic law. The purpose of this paper is to find out how the solution to the application of …

Tinjauan Yuridis Dalam Penyelesaian Pelanggaran Ham Berat Melalui Komisi Kebenaran Dan Rekonsiliasi Di Afrika Selatan Dan Indonesia, Tshana Erfandi

"Dharmasisya” Jurnal Program Magister Hukum FHUI

Abstract

Several countries are currently developing a solution to the problem by establishing a particular commission. The commission works outside the courts, parliament and executive. In Indonesia, In Indonesia. The People's Consultative Assembly set a stipulation regarding the establishment of the National Center for Truth and Reconciliation: (NCTR) in 2000. This stipulation has the intent and purpose for national unity to identify existing problems, determine the conditions that must be made in order to achieve national reconciliation and establish policy direction as a guide to carry out the consolidation of unity of a nation. Whereas in South Africa, the National …

The Suspension Clause After Department Of Homeland Security V. Thuraissigiam, Jonathan Hafetz

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

In June 2020, in Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, the Supreme Court of the United States rejected a constitutional challenge to Congress’s decision to eliminate habeas corpus jurisdiction over legal challenges to expedited removal orders by noncitizens in federal detention.

In Thuraissigiam, U.S. border patrol stopped the petitioner, Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam, a Sri Lankan national of Tamil ethnicity, shortly after he crossed the U.S.-Mexico border without inspection or an entry document. The petitioner asserted that he was fleeing persecution in his home country and sought asylum in the United States. The asylum officer concluded that Thuraissigiam had …

A New Supreme Court Case Threatens Another Body Blow To Our Democracy, Katherine A. Shaw, Leah Litman, Carolyn Shapiro

Online Publications

When the Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade, the justices in the majority insisted they were merely returning the issue of abortion to the democratic process. But a case the court has announced it will hear in its October term could make that democratic process a lot less democratic.

For The Right Reasons: The Rules Of The Game For Institutionalists, Rick Joslyn

Connecticut Law Review

The United States judiciary demonstrates better than any other constitutional institution the inherent fragility of American democracy. There is a reasonable debate to be had over when and exactly how the Supreme Court squandered the precious legitimacy on which its very existence rests. Yet, today, observers must confront with renewed urgency the impact crater of discontent that has been driven into the institution. The Court has been weaponized, politicized, and villainized; it has been lionized for its institutional heft. But increasingly loud voices have called for foundational reforms. There is a scramble for solutions to check the Court’s newly-emboldened right-wing …

The Political Urgency Of Black Manhood: Frederick Douglass On Constitutional Theory, John M. Kang

New Mexico Law Review

How did Frederick Douglass—one who was born a slave, one who had been denied all formal education, one who had been sundered from his family, one who had been starved, tortured, and, on occasion, nearly killed—manage to muster the courage to do something as bold as challenge the United States Supreme Court? This Article suggests that Douglass, in order to assert his right as an American citizen, first had to assert his right as a man in an explicitly gendered sense. That is, Douglass had to muster a powerful sense of manliness that could elevate him psychologically to assert his …

Compelled Speech And Doctrinal Fluidity, David Han

Indiana Law Journal

Even within the messy and complicated confines of First Amendment jurisprudence, compelled speech doctrine stands out in its complexity and conceptual murkiness— a state of affairs that has only been exacerbated by the Supreme Court’s decisions in NIFLA v. Becerra and Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees. This Essay observes that as the Court’s compelled speech jurisprudence has grown increasingly complex, it has also manifested a troubling degree of fluidity, where the doctrinal framework has grown so incoherent, imprecise, and unstable that it can be readily shaped by courts to plausibly justify a wide range of …

Look Who's Talking: Conscience, Complicity, And Compelled Speech, B. Jessie Hill

Indiana Law Journal

Compelled speech claims, which arise under the Free Speech Clause, and complicity claims, which usually arise under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), are structurally similar. In each case, an individual claims that the government is forcing her to participate in a particular act that violates her religious or moral beliefs and imperatives, sending a false and undesired message to others and causing a form of spiritual or dignitary harm. It is therefore no surprise that compelled speech claims are often raised together with complicity claims in cases where religious individuals challenge the application of generally applicable laws to themselves. …

Ministerial Employees And Discrimination Without Remedy, Charlotte Garden

Indiana Law Journal

The Supreme Court first addressed the ministerial exemption in a 2012 case, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC. The ministerial exemption is a defense that religious employers can invoke in discrimination cases brought by employees who qualify as “ministerial,” and it is rooted in the First Amendment principle that government cannot interfere in a church’s choice of minister. However, Hosanna-Tabor did not set out a test to determine which employees are covered by this exemption, and the decision was susceptible to a reading that the category was narrow. In 2020, the Court again took up the ministerial exemption, …

The Pledge Of Allegiance And Compelled Speech Revisited: Requiring Parental Consent, Caroline Mala Corbin

Indiana Law Journal

Since the Supreme Court decided West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette in 1943, free speech law has been clear: public schools may not force students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Nevertheless, in two states—Texas and Florida— students may decline to participate only with parental permission. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law on the grounds that the parental requirement furthered parents’ substantive due process right to control the upbringing of their children.

The Eleventh Circuit decision is flawed both in its understanding of the First Amendment right to be free of compelled speech and the …

Compelled Speech And The Regulatory State, Alan K. Chen

Indiana Law Journal

Since the Supreme Court’s 1943 decision in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, it has been axiomatic that the First Amendment prohibits the government not only from censoring speech, but also from compelling it. The central holding of Barnette itself is largely uncontroversial—it seems obvious that the First Amendment’s free speech clause means that no government may require people to espouse or reproduce an ideological statement against their will. But the Court has extended the compelled speech doctrine to stop the government from forcing people to make even truthful, factual statements. These claims have resulted in some of the …

Tort Law Implications Of Compelled Physician Speech, Nadia N. Sawicki

Indiana Law Journal

Abortion-specific informed consent laws in many states compel physicians to communicate state-mandated information that is arguably inaccurate, immaterial, and inconsistent with their professional obligations. These laws face ongoing First Amendment challenges as violations of the constitutional right against compelled speech. This Article argues that laws compelling physician speech also pose significant problems that should concern scholars of tort law.

State laws that impose tort liability on physicians who refuse to communicate a state-mandated message often do so by deviating from foundational principles of tort law. Not only do they change the substantive disclosure duties of physicians under informed consent law, …

Compelled Disclosure And The Workplace Rights It Enables, Catherine Fisk

Indiana Law Journal

Worker and consumer protection laws often rely on the regulated entity to notify workers or consumers of their legal rights because it is effective and efficient to provide information at the time and place where it is most likely to be useful. Until the Supreme Court ruled in NIFLA v. Becerra in 2018 that a California law regulating crisis pregnancy centers was an unconstitutional speaker-based, contentdiscriminatory regulation of speech, mandatory disclosure laws were constitutionally uncontroversial economic regulation. Yet, the day after striking down a disclosure law in NIFLA, the Court in Janus v. AFSCME Council 31 expanded the right of …

Platforms: The First Amendment Misfits, Jane R. Bambauer, James Rollins, Vincent Yesue

Indiana Law Journal

This Essay explains why previous First Amendment precedents that allowed government to require a private entity to host the speech of others have limited applicability to online platforms like Twitter and Facebook. Moreover, the backdrop of an open internet makes platforms sufficiently vulnerable to competition and responsive to “listener” preferences that the dominance of some firms like Facebook and Google is not really a chokepoint: aggressive changes to content curation will lead to user dissatisfaction and defection, whether those changes are made by the government or the companies themselves. As a result, there are no close analogies in First Amendment …

Nifla And The Construction Of Compelled Speech Doctrine, Robert Post

Indiana Law Journal

Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. There are good and convincing explanations for the Court’s decision in Barnette, but the Court’s recent expansion of the doctrine, culminating in National Institute of Family & Life Advocates (NIFLA) v. Becerra, holds that compelled speech is in most instances “content-based” regulation requiring heightened judicial scrutiny.

Using examples ranging from professional malpractice to compulsory tax returns, this Article argues that the doctrinal rule of NIFLA is demonstrably incorrect. It suggests that the doctrinal category of “compelled speech” may itself be confused insofar as it imagines that all legal obligations to communicate are equally …

Mass Arbitration 2.0, Andrew B. Nissensohn

Washington and Lee Law Review

Over the past four decades, corporate interests, in concert with the Supreme Court, have surgically dismantled the American civil litigation system. Enacted nearly a century ago, the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) was once a procedural law mandating that federal courts enforce arbitration agreements between sophisticated parties with equal bargaining power. Through death by a thousand cuts, corporate interests shielded themselves from nearly all methods of en masse dispute resolution. These interests weaponized the FAA into a “one size fits all” means to compel potential litigants with unequal bargaining power into arbitration. The so-called “Arbitration Revolution” is the subject of much …

The Link Between Voting Rights And The Abortion Ruling, Katherine A. Shaw, Leah Litman, Melissa Murray

Online Publications

The Supreme Court’s opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization gives states the maximum amount of freedom to restrict abortion. The decision is so sweeping that, under its logic, states could ban abortion even in cases of rape or incest; they may even be able — as the dissent notes — to prohibit abortions in circumstances in which a doctor believes the procedure is necessary to preserve the life or health of the pregnant person.

The Next Fight Over Guns In America, Timothy Zick, Diana Palmer

Popular Media

With Thursday’s Supreme Court decision [in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen], the only real remaining question is not whether Americans can carry firearms, but where.