Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

Recalibrating Deference In Sentencing, Meghana Nemali

Fordham Law Review

The U.S. Sentencing Commission (the “Commission”) is responsible for promoting consistency, transparency, and fairness in federal sentencing. In pursuit of this mandate, the Commission publishes the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines (the “Guidelines”), which are accompanied by official commentary. In Stinson v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court endowed the commentary with controlling authority. However, nearly three decades later, the Court in Kisor v. Wilkie granted courts greater discretion in deciding whether to defer to the commentary. Moreover, in 2024, the Court eliminated the absolute deference regime for administrative agency determinations in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. As a result, …

Revisiting “Of Arms And The Militia: Gun Regulation By Legislatively Defining ‘Ordinary Military Equipment’”, Edward J. Curtis ,Jr.

Touro Law Review

In 2021, I published an article arguing that semi-automatic rifles and semi-automatic handguns, among other weapons, could be most effectively regulated by defining the “ordinary military equipment” that the states’ militia members were expected to produce in the event they were called to service. I based my argument on the rationale employed by the United States Supreme Court in its 1939 decision in United States v. Miller, which upheld the National Firearms Act of 1934.

The People, The Branches, And The Pearl Of Independence, Brian C. Murchison

Scholarly Articles

What will be the fate of the independent agencies?  Since 1887, Congress has seen fit to address an array of contemporary issues by creating expert federal agencies, such as the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, and others.  The principal officers of these agencies are appointed by the President on advice and consent of the Senate, serve limited staggered terms, are bipartisan in the sense that only a bare majority of the agency’s officers can be members of the same political party, and are “independent” in the sense that the officers are removable only …

The Forgotten Income-Attribution Power, Alex Zhang

Faculty Articles

Economic inequality stands at record levels, and constitutional law haunts egalitarian reform. In 2024, the Supreme Court decided the latest contest. Moore v. United States rebuffed an attempt to sharply limit the federal taxing power, as a razor-thin majority upheld Congress’s attribution of foreign corporations’ income to domestic shareholders. But four Justices criticized the reasoning of the majority, faulting its use of a fabricated doctrine.

This Feature provides a systematic account of Congress’s income-attribution power. It excavates overlooked litigation materials and case law from the infancy of the current federal income tax. In the 1920s and 1930s, litigants attacked, on …

Do We Really Want Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justices Practicing Law? A Public Policy Critique To U.S. Supreme Court Term Limits, Michael J. Broyde, Hayden H. Hall

Faculty Articles

In its 2021 final report, the Presidential Commission on Judicial Reform discussed the merits of implementing term limits for Supreme Court justices. The Commission began by acknowledging that eighteen-year, non-renewable terms have considerable bipartisan support, including the support of both Conservative and Progressive scholars at the National Constitution Center, whose proposals for improving the Constitution included term limits for justices. They continued by weighing the pros and cons of implementing term limits via constitutional amendment or statute, addressing, in turn, the specifics of what these limits might look like—whether a twelve or eighteen-year term is preferable, how a transition from …

Popular Constitutionalism In A Populist Age, Thomas G. Donnelly

Law Faculty Publications

Popular constitutionalism burst onto the scene as a challenge to the constitutional authority of the Supreme Court. Decades later, popular constitutionalists remain susceptible to one of the earliest (and most potent) critiques of their project—the charge that they have done far too little to explain how their theory might work in practice. With the rise of modern populism, it’s also fair to ask whether popular constitutionalism is an approach that’s capable of meeting the challenges of the current constitutional moment. In this Article, I offer a new vision for popular constitutionalism—one that shows how the theory might work in practice, …

Amicus Incorporated, Adam N. Eckart

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

Attorneys have long advanced change through the court system—including through high-stakes, high-profile litigation in front of the Supreme Court of the United States. Attorneys appearing before the Court often represent individuals, nonprofit organizations, or the gov-ernment, and often seek to drive social reform through the platforms of their organizations. But attorneys representing big businesses also advo-cate for change through action at the Supreme Court. While businesses are not new to speaking out in front of the Court, they have become in-creasingly active in cases focused on social issues, including by submit-ting amicus briefs to the Court in support of a …

Hester’S Dubious Roots And Legacy: Open Fields Doctrine Under Scrutiny, Laura K. Donohue

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

For over a century, open fields doctrine has shaped Fourth Amendment law, denying people the right to be secure on their own property. Its application has steadily expanded, with the result that, by some estimates, the Government can now engage in warrantless surveillance of some ninety-six percent of private land and buildings regardless of fences, postings, the distance from public roads or byways, or the use to which the property is put. An originalist approach throws the doctrine into disarray: at the time of the Founding, common law protected the curtilage, which extended to the fields, barns, storehouses, and other …

A Theory Of Major Questions, Nicholas Almendares

Cardozo Law Review

The major questions doctrine has been fiercely criticized as an example of the Supreme Court’s “imperial” turn where it concentrates ever more power in its own hands. The doctrine is sweeping, vague, and lacks a clear justification. Not only does the Court get to decide when the doctrine applies and when the heightened standard is satisfied, but it has also not offered good reasons behind this rule. A well-defined theory would give the doctrine structure, clarity, and consistency. While majority opinions have been conspicuously quiet on the theory behind the major questions doctrine, concurrences, namely by Justice Gorsuch, have argued …

Two Dogmas Of Free Speech Doctrine, David R. Dow

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

No Shelter: The Criminalization Of Homelessness And The Gaps In Constitutional Protections If Robinson Is Overruled, Shelby Stansbury

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Spending Programs And The New Roberts Court, Nicole Huberfeld

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court is poised to place new limits on Congress’s spending power at the urging of states vying for regulatory dominance, particularly in health care and public health. This article is the first to highlight and catalog the throughlines of argumentation, which sparked after states successfully challenged the ACA but have grown into opposing more than Medicaid’s cooperative federalism. This means federal and state programs that heavily rely on federal spending power are at risk, so studying this pattern is imperative. The article begins with a descriptive account of increasing spending power challenges, which make use of converging factors …

The Unmaking Of Section Two, Maureen Edobor

Scholarly Articles

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act now stands at a paradoxical crossroads. Though it remains the statute’s central protection against racial vote dilution after Shelby County v. Holder, it is increasingly undermined by a constitutional framework that treats race-conscious remedies as suspect rather than necessary under Section 2. This Essay argues that Section 2 is being quietly unmade—not through direct invalidation, but through the convergence of Equal Protection Doctrine, racial-gerrymandering jurisprudence, and an ascendant commitment to colorblind constitutionalism. Tracing the Fifteenth Amendment’s original design and Congress’s expansive enforcement authority, the Essay situates Section 2 within a constitutional tradition …

Style And Substance: A Review Of Jill Barton's The Supreme Guide To Writing, Christina Frohock

Articles

No abstract provided.

Creation And The Republican Revival, William M. Treanor

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Gordon Wood's classic book Creation of the American Republic has long influenced legal thought and originalist scholarship in particular. It played a central role in the Republican Revival movement, an effort by leading scholars such as Cass Sunstein and Frank Michelman to recover a progressive originalism at the same time as conservative originalism was starting to shape constitutional jurisprudence. But, while the Republican Revival nominally relied on Wood, it misread central elements of his book - his concept of virtue and his belief that republicanism had largely been displaced at the time of the drafting of the Constitution.

The time …

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

Faculty Scholarship

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 …

Foreword: The Constitution And Public Finance—Why Now And Why Ever?, Conor Clarke, Eric Kubo

Scholarship@WashULaw

This paper introduces the Washington University Law Review’s 2026 symposium issue on “Taxing, Spending, and the Constitution.” We situate the symposium’s ten papers within three interconnected developments in public finance law: the Supreme Court’s recent decision on the Sixteenth Amendment in Moore v. United States; the Trump Administration’s assertions of executive control over appropriated funds; and the use of emergency and trade statutes to justify sweeping tariff authority.

We also step back to ask why constitutional issues in public finance—long treated as a technical backwater—have become such a central site of doctrinal and political conflict. We offer several explanations beyond …

Beyond Judicial Intent: The Agency Of The Defense Counsel In Ozawa’S And Thind’S Supreme Court Cases, Bret K. Luchs

Master's Theses or Doctor of Nursing Practice

This thesis seeks to examine how specific legal strategies by the defense counsel in Ozawa v. United States, 260 U.S. 178 (1922), and United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind, 261 U.S. 204 (1923), compelled the Supreme Court of the United States into a reactive and contradictory position. A re-examination of Ozawa and Thind delves deeper into the legal briefs and arguments made by Takao Ozawa and Bhagat Singh Thind, alongside their legal teams. These briefs, opinions of the court, past lower court cases, and personal statements by Ozawa and Thind demonstrate how they did not surrender to the confines of …

Taking Legality Seriously: What The Major Questions Doctrine Is — And Isn't, Andrea Scoseria Katz, Ofra Bloch

Scholarship@WashULaw

The Major Questions Doctrine (MQD), a controversial recent innovation of the Roberts Court that applies stricter scrutiny to “major” actions taken by federal agencies, has faced criticism for being atextual, unprincipled, and nakedly ideological. But this critique misses the fact that the doctrine has near-exact analogues in many other legal systems, where it is an established tool for reining in executive overreach. This Article argues that, while the MQD reflects valid rule-of-law concerns, as applied, it lacks theoretical clarity, consistency and limits. More importantly, the Court itself lacks a theory of what the MQD is. We provide an answer grounded …

How The Supreme Court’S Inconsistent Approach To Granting Emergency Relief Will Exacerbate, Rather Than Mitigate The Disruption Its Emergency Stay Policy Is Supposed To Address, Harvey L. Reiter

Cardozo Law Review de•novo

The federal government has used the Supreme Court’s emergency or “shadow” docket to great effect this past year, securing stay after stay of lower court rulings that had blocked many of the President’s executive orders. But the Court’s rulings have come, almost invariably, without any explanation of its reasoning. And its opaque and uneven rulings have also come at a potential cost to the Court’s credibility. This Article illustrates the uneven nature of the Court’s rulings by contrasting two lines of cases: (1) the Court’s stays of lower court rulings restoring to their positions FTC, NLRB, EEOC, and MSPB members …