Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

On Lenity: What Justice Gorsuch Didn’T Say, Brandon Hasbrouck

Scholarly Articles

This Essay was first published online at 108 Va. L. Rev. Online 239 (2022).

Facially neutral doctrines create racially disparate outcomes. Increasingly, legal academia and mainstream commentators recognize that this is by design. The rise of this colorblind racism in Supreme Court jurisprudence parallels the rise of the War on Drugs as a political response to the Civil Rights Movement. But, to date, no member of the Supreme Court has acknowledged the reality of this majestic inequality of the law. Instead, the Court itself has been complicit in upholding facially neutral doctrines when confronted with the racial disparities they create. …

Ruth Bader Ginsburg’S Copyright Jurisprudence, Ann Bartow, Ryan G. Vacca

Law Faculty Scholarship

[Excerpt} "When Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died on September 18, 2020, the world lost a trailblazer for gender equality, a pop culture icon, a feisty liberal luminary who fought on behalf of the disenfranchised in the areas of civil rights and social justice, and an inspiration to millions of people. She will long be remembered for the social changes she helped effectuate as an advocate, scholar, and jurist.

Her amazing civil rights legacy overshadows other areas where Justice Ginsburg’s contributions have been substantial. This Article discusses one of the most interesting: copyright law. During her time as a jurist on …

Justice Breyer And Patent Eligibility, 21 Uic Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 71 (2022), David Taylor

UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law

No abstract provided.

Symposium On The Retirement Of Justice Stephen Breyer, 21 Uic Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 35 (2022), William Ford

UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law

No abstract provided.

Justice Breyer: No Friend To Ip Law, 21 Uic Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 58 (2022), Kevin Noonan

UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law

No abstract provided.

Roberts, Rules, And Rucho, Chad M. Oldfather, Sydney Star

Connecticut Law Review

This Article arises out of a symposium exploring the connection between the political question doctrine and judicial legitimacy in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Rucho v. Common Cause, and more specifically a panel devoted to the implications of Rucho for theories of judgment and judging. Chief Justice Roberts’s majority opinion in Rucho emphasizes the need for judicial action to “be governed by standard, by rule” and to be “principled, rational, and based on reasoned distinctions.” Yet our analysis—which compares and contrasts the arguments, reasoning, and rhetoric in Rucho with their counterparts in the Chief Justice’s other opinions—suggests …

Major Problems With Major Questions, Chad Squitieri

Scholarly Articles

This July in West Virginia v. EPA, the Supreme Court formally recognized the “major questions doctrine.” That doctrine, which can be traced to a 1986 law review article published by then-Judge Stephen Breyer, calls on courts to consider a legal question’s “political importance” when interpreting statutes.

The major questions doctrine is a product of legal pragmatism—a theory of statutory interpretation advanced by Justice Breyer which often elevates statutory purpose and consequences over text. The doctrine is inconsistent with textualism—an interpretive theory that emphasizes statutory text, structure, and history to understand a statute as the public originally understood it. The takeaway …

Evolving Standards Of Irrelevancy?, Joanmarie Davoli

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Litigating The Separation Of Powers, Elizabeth Earle Beske

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

No abstract provided.

The Use And Abuse Of Domestic National Security Detention, Nicole Hallett

Seattle University Law Review

Are people convicted of terrorism-related offenses so dangerous that we must bend the Constitution to keep the public safe? Or should we treat them like people who commit other crimes—by prosecuting, convicting, sentencing, and then releasing them after they have served their criminal sentences? Can we trust the government to use the power to detain people without criminal charge without abusing it? The case of Adham Amin Hassoun raises these questions. Prosecuted after 9/11 for providing support to Muslims abroad in the 1990s, and sentenced under the United States’ expansive material support laws, Hassoun avoided a life sentence only to …

Less Restrictive Alternatives And The Ancillary Restraints Doctrine, Thomas B. Nachbar

Seattle University Law Review

In Ohio v. American Express, both the majority and dissent introduced into Supreme Court antitrust jurisprudence a new test for evaluating restraints under the rule of reason: a less restrictive alternatives test. Occasionally appearing in circuit court cases, less restrictive alternatives tests have not been part of Supreme Court’s approach to the rule of reason, which generally evaluates restraints of trade by balancing their anticompetitive and procompetitive effects.

American Express was the first Supreme Court case to mention a less restrictive alternatives test, potentially representing a major shift in antitrust law, but it was not the last. In 2021’s …

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Table of Contents

Foreword, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Foreward

Keynote Address, Justin Hansford

Seattle University Law Review

Keynote Address by Justin Hansford

Putting The Bar Exam On Constitutional Notice: Cut Scores, Race & Ethnicity, And The Public Good, Scott Johns

Seattle University Law Review

Nothing to see here. Season in and season out, bar examiners, experts, supreme courts, and bar associations seem nonplussed, trapped by what they see as the facts, namely, that the bar exam has no possible weaknesses, at least when it comes to alternative licensure mechanisms, that the bar exam is not to blame for disparate racial impacts that spring from administration of this ritualistic process, and that there are no viable alternatives in the harsh cold world of determining minimal competency for the noble purpose of protecting the public from legal harms. All a lie, of course.

But rather than …

It Was Never About A Cake: Masterpiece Cakeshop And The Crusade To Weaponize Religious Freedom, Andrew L. Seidel

Loyola University Chicago Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Textualism, Dynamism, And The Meaning Of "Sex", Bill Watson

Cardozo Law Review de•novo

A recent Article by Professors William N. Eskridge, Brian G. Slocum, and Stefan Th. Gries critically examines textualism, both in general and as applied in Bostock v. Clayton County. This Essay makes three points in reply. First, the authors criticize strawman versions of textualism that no mainstream legal interpreter claims to hold. Second, the authors’ examples of “societal dynamism” do not put any pressure on textualism properly understood. And third, the authors’ corpus-linguistics analysis of the word “sex” is, from a textualist perspective, irrelevant to the issue in Bostock.

Brief Of Black Women Law Scholars As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondents, Students For Fair Admissions, Inc. V. President And Fellows Of Harvard College And Univ. Of N.C., Suzette Malveaux

Scholarly Articles

Amici are Black women law scholars who, based on their professional and personal experiences, share a deeply rooted commitment to defending the legality of race-conscious admissions policies in educational institutions across the country. They submit this brief to present their unique and vital perspective on the history, constitutionality, and importance of race-conscious programs like those adopted by Harvard University and the University of North Carolina (“UNC”).

In Celebration Of Dissents (And Lengthy Textbooks): How Digital Became Different For The Fourth Amendment And Why It Is Time For A Real Warrant Default, Stephen E. Henderson

Faculty Articles

The last decade has brought tremendous change to the Fourth Amendment, finally resulting in a ‘digital is different’ norm. We stand at an inflection point between a monolithic, analog past and a murky future of yet-unarticulated constitutional digital policing rules. It is a good time, then, to reflect upon how we came to be here and where we ought to go. This Essay first looks back to a monumental, majestic dissent: that of Justice Louis Brandeis in the 1928 decision of Olmstead v. United States. Every American, and especially every law student, ought to know that opinion, and judges …

No [Concrete] Harm, No Foul? Article Iii Standing In The Context Of Consumer Financial Protection, Annefloor J. De Groot

Georgia Law Review

In the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2016 decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, the Court held that a bare procedural violation of a federal consumer protection statute is not enough to satisfy Article III’s standing requirement because the alleged injury is not sufficiently concrete. This decision resulted in a sizeable circuit split regarding standing under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, with some circuit courts interpreting the holding as narrowing the scope of standing for consumer protection claims, and others maintaining a broader interpretation, allowing plaintiffs to obtain redress for violations of consumer financial protections laws.

In its 2021 ruling in …