Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

Wasting Water: Why The Supreme Court Should Consider Climate Change When Appointing Water Rights Between States, Matthew Hayes

Kentucky Journal of Equine, Agriculture, & Natural Resources Law

No abstract provided.

Nfib V. Osha: A Unified Separation Of Powers Doctrine And Chevron's No Show, Randolph J. May, Andrew K. Magloughlin

South Carolina Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Impact Of Uncertainty Regarding Patent Eligible Subject Matter For Investment In U.S. Medical Diagnostic Technologies, A. Sasha Hoyt

Washington and Lee Law Review

Historically, 35 U.S.C. § 101, the statute governing patent eligible subject matter, has been construed broadly—with its legislative history indicating that it should cover “anything under the sun that is made by man.” The Supreme Court crafted three exceptions to § 101: (1) abstract ideas, (2) laws of nature, and (3) natural phenomena. In recent years, the Supreme Court’s eligibility jurisprudence has further narrowed § 101 to effectively exclude meritorious medical diagnostic methods. Indeed, since the Court’s decision in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., the Federal Circuit has held every single diagnostic method claim brought before it …

A La Recherche De Breyer Perdu, 21 Uic Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 38 (2022), Shubha Ghosh

UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law

No abstract provided.

Coloring Inside The Lines: A Look At Qualitex V. Jacobson, 21 Uic Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 49 (2022), Willajeanne Mclean

UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law

No abstract provided.

The Stubborn Survival Of The Central Hudson Test For Commercial Speech, Nat Stern

Seattle University Law Review

This Article examines the persistence of the Central Hudson standard in the face of multiple challenges as well as larger implications of its survival. Part I provides a brief overview of the Court’s commercial speech doctrine and the spectrum of criticism of Central Hudson for its allegedly excessive or inadequate protection of expression. Part II surveys a series of developments, especially in the last decade, that threaten to supersede Central Hudson’s “intermediate” standard of scrutiny for commercial speech restrictions. In response, Part III explains how none of these phenomena have resulted in the abandonment of the Central Hudson regime. …

Solving The Procedural Puzzles Of The Texas Heartbeat Act And Its Imitators: The Limits And Opportunities Of Offensive Litigation, Howard M. Wasserman, Charles W. Rhodes

American University Law Review

The Texas Heartbeat Act, enacted in 2021 as Senate Bill 8 (S.B. 8), prohibits abortions following detection of a fetal heartbeat, a constitutionally invalid ban under current Supreme Court precedent. But the method of enforcement in the Texas law is unique—it prohibits enforcement by government officials in favor of private civil actions brought by “any person,” regardless of injury. Texas sought to burden reproductive-health providers and rights advocates with costly litigation and potentially crippling liability.

In a series of articles, we explore how S.B. 8's reliance on exclusive private enforcement at the expense of public enforcement creates procedural and jurisdictional …

The Insidious Effect Of Soundbites: Why Fences Aren't Punishment, Theresa Gabaldon

American University Law Review

This Article was inspired by two recent Supreme Court decisions dealing with the ability of the Securities and Exchange Commission to seek disgorgement of unlawfully obtained profits. The topic, however, is not disgorgement. That is a different article, published by the author in the Cornell Lazu Reviezu in 2020, on which this one builds. This Article focuses instead on jurisprudential methodology. The Court has begun to exhibit an unfortunate penchant for jurisprudence by soundbite—the functional equivalent of Googling its ozun precedents for pithy quotes taken out of context from inapt cases. The results are, to put it politely, mischievous.

This …

Using Bruen To Overturn New York Times V. Sullivan, Michael L. Smith, Alexander S. Hiland

Faculty Articles

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan is a foundational, well regarded First Amendment case, Justice Clarence Thomas has repeatedly called on the Court to revisit it. Sullivan, Thomas claims, is policy masquerading as constitutional law, and it makes almost no effort to ground itself in the original meaning of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Thomas argues that at the time of the founding, libelous statements were routinely subject to criminal prosecution including libel of public figures and public officials.

This Essay connects Justice Thomas's calls to revisit Sullivan to his recent opinion for the Court in New York State Rifle …

When Police Volunteer To Kill, Alexandra L. Klein

Faculty Articles

The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of lethal injection, yet states continue to struggle with drug shortages and botched executions. Some states have authorized alternative methods of execution, including the firing squad. Utah, which has consistently carried out firing squad executions throughout its history, relies on police officers from the jurisdiction where the crime took place to volunteer to carry out these executions. This represents a plausible-and probable method for other states in conducting firing squad executions.

Public and academic discussion of the firing squad has centered on questions of pain and suffering. It has not engaged with the …

Rethinking Juvenile Rehabilitation: Presumptive Waiver And Alternative Sentencing In Indiana, S. Reese Sobol Ii

Indiana Law Journal

Indiana’s juvenile justice system, like all systems of juvenile justice, is premised on rehabilitation. And while Indiana is far from an outdated, overly punitive system, there are several tangible opportunities for improvement. Indiana enacted an alternative sentencing scheme for juvenile offenders waived into adult court in 2013, but alternative sentencing has not been implemented in an effective manner yet. Furthermore, Indiana’s statutory system of waiver contains several aspects that are inconsistent with, or simply fail to account for, modern social science understandings.

This Comment seeks to expound upon relevant social science principles within the context of juvenile justice in order …

Love Is Love: The Fundamental Right To Love, Marriage, And Obergefell V. Hodges, Reginald Oh

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process fundamental rights doctrine is about love. It is, at least, based on a close reading of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, the case in which the Supreme Court held that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right of individual autonomy and dignity.

Part I of this Article discusses the concept of love. Part II examines Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in Obergefell and argues that it expresses unconditional love for LGBT people in tone, language, and substance. Part III argues that, in Obergefell, Kennedy’s key reasons for concluding that marriage is …

Pretext After Bostock—Disproving One Of The Employer’S Reasons Is Enough, Robert S. Mantell

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

When an employer gives a pretextual reason for an employee’s termination, that falsehood can help prove that the true reason was discrimination. The dishonesty constitutes “affirmative evidence of guilt.” The trier of fact may “infer the ultimate fact of discrimination from the falsity of the employer’s explanation.” However, when an employer provides multiple reasons for firing an employee, there has been a split of opinion whether the plaintiff must disprove one or all of those reasons.

The Supreme Court’s recent discussion of multiple motives in Bostock v. Clayton County provides the tools to resolve this split and compels rejection of …

Senseless Sentencing: The Uneven Application Of The Career Offender Guidelines, Christopher Ethan Watts

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

Federal appellate courts are currently split on the definition of “controlled substance” in the career offender guideline, with one side using federal law to define the phrase, and the other side allowing standalone state law offenses to trigger the guideline. Allowing state law to define the phrase allows countless substances Congress never intended to penalize to be able to trigger one of the most severe penalties in the Sentencing Guidelines. This Note assesses the landscape of the circuit split and analyzes the arguments for and against federally defining “controlled substance offense.” This Note then proposes a novel way to resolve …

The Immigrant Struggle For Effective Counsel: An Empirical Assessment, Jayanth K. Krishnan

Articles by Maurer Faculty

Recently, in Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, the Supreme Court upheld 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(2), a statutory provision placing restrictions on certain noncitizens from seeking habeas review in the federal judiciary. The Court focused on the Constitution’s Suspension Clause, but it also discussed the Due Process Clause, declaring that there was no violation there either.

One question which flows from this decision is whether the federal courts will soon be precluded from hearing other types of claims brought by noncitizens. Consider ineffective assistance of counsel petitions, which in the immigration law context are rooted in the Due Process Clause. …

Patent Inconsistency, Saurabh Vishnubhakat

Indiana Law Journal

Despite the promise of efficiency through the use of expert agency adjudication in U.S. patent law, administrative substitution continues to fall short. In a variety of ways, the decade-old system of Patent Office adjudication is simply an additional place to litigate rather than the robust technocratic alternative it was meant to be. These problems have arisen from important defects in the statutory design, but also from the enormous expansion and ascendancy of the Patent Office itself. Moreover, while duplicative litigation over patent validity is recognized and criticized, its scale and scope has eluded detailed empirical analysis until now. This Article …

"On The Eve Of Destruction": Courts Confronting The Climate Emergency, Mary Christina Wood

Indiana Law Journal

In the dim and smokey twilight, with only bare necessities in tow, a family rushes to escape the wildfire racing toward them. Elsewhere, a household evacuates just ahead of a category five hurricane, perhaps not for the first time. Along the coastlines, countless others are resigned to looking on as their homesites erode into the inexorably rising surf. At this moment, millions of Americans are forced to reckon with the horrors of the climate catastrophe, and the number of such people who now viscerally grasp our grim climate reality grows every day. Even the judges of this nation prove no …

Creativity For The Common Good: The Case For Fair Use Of Prosthetics Patents, Roxanneh Mousavi

Seattle University Law Review

This Note examines how patent law inhibits accessibility to prosthetics, and how a fair use defense for patent infringement will make them more widely accessible. Part I will explain the basics of patent law, including its history, scope, and process of infringement. Part II will discuss the fair use defense against copyright and trademark infringement and explain why this defense should also be enforceable for patent infringement. Part III will provide an overview of 3D printing. Part IV will focus on 3D prosthetics, specifically on the story of two young prosthetic recipients, Griffin Matuszek and Evie Lambert. Finally, Part V …

Public Safety Concerns And Meeting The Dudenhoeffer Pleading Standard, Douglass G. Brown

Journal of Air Law and Commerce

This Comment analyzes the recent Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) stock drop cases against The Boeing Company (Boeing) and reviews the underlying pleading standard in these cases that the Supreme Court set forth in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer. With the tremendous amount of assets in retirement plans—and specifically in employee stock ownership plans—litigation under ERISA can be extremely costly to employers, especially those in the airline industry that offer these plans. The current pleading standard for stock drop cases has become a practically insurmountable barrier to plaintiffs, even when their employers know they are negligently creating products …

Monasky’S Totality Of Circumstances Is Vague – The Child’S Perspective Should Be The Main Test, Sabrina Salvi

Touro Law Review

After decades of confusion, the Supreme Court ruled on child custody in an international setting in Monasky v. Taglieri, by attempting to establish the definition of a child’s “habitual residence.” The Court held that a child’s “residence in a particular country can be deemed ‘habitual, however, only when her residence there is more than transitory.’” Further, the Court stated that, ‘“[h]abitual’ implies customary, usual, of the nature of a habit.”’ However, the Supreme Court’s ruling remains unclear. The 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“HCCAICA” or “The Hague Convention”), which is adopted in ninety-eight …