Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

How Covid-19 Put The Spotlight On The Emtala, Ikra Kafayat

Touro Law Review

There was a time when those that were unable to afford medical care risked being denied treatment in emergency situations. Before Congress passed Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA), patients were being transferred to different hospitals, without being screened, because they did not have insurance and could not afford the treatment. Hospitals are no longer allowed to transport patients without properly screening and stabilizing them. Patients can bring a suit against a hospital if they believe the hospital violated EMTALA, however, in certain circuits the patient will need to prove that hospital had an “improper motive” for failing to …

This Is Your Captain Speaking, Please Remain Physically Restrained While The Robbery Is In Progress, Conner J. Purcell

Touro Law Review

This note analyzes the current circuit split over the application of the “Physical Restraint” sentence enhancement as applied to the crime of robbery. In the first camp, the circuit courts apply a broad or constructive meaning of physical restraint: allowing words or demands with the use of a firearm to trigger the enhancement. In many cases, the courts focus on the victim’s reaction to the perpetrator rather than the perpetrator’s actual conduct, suggesting psychological restraint rather than physical restraint. In the second camp, the circuit courts apply a plain meaning interpretation of physical restraint. These cases routinely find that the …

The Americans With Disabilities Act Amendments Act: What About Reasonable Accommodation? Where Are We Now?, Teressa Elliott, Kathleen A. Carnes

Touro Law Review

The Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (“ADAAA”) was passed in 2008 and became effective on January 1, 2009. There are issues regarding reasonable accommodation that have arisen in connection with this Act. This article first explains what changes were made to the ADA’s employment-related provisions with the ADAAA and also explains the relevant U.S. Supreme Court cases that led to passage of the ADAAA. Reasonable accommodation under the Act and reasonable accommodation cases are then discussed as well as the U.S. Airways v. Barnett case. We then end with ways to interpret these cases for guidance and the conclusion …

Banning Abortions Based On A Prenatal Diagnosis Of Down Syndrome: The Future Of Abortion Regulation, Alexandra Russo

Touro Law Review

Since the infamous Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade, the United States has remained divided, each side unyielding to the other regarding the legal and moral issues surrounding abortion. The issues surrounding abortion have become progressively more politicized, thus threatening a woman’s right to a safe and healthy termination of her pregnancy. Restrictions on a woman’s ability to terminate a child with a genetic disorder, such as Down syndrome, highlight this concern. State restrictions on abortion that prohibit abortions based on a diagnosis of Down syndrome seek to prevent the stigmatization of the Down syndrome community. Regulations, such as …

An Originalist Victory, J. Joel Alicea

Scholarly Articles

Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey are no more. Like Plessy v. Ferguson before them, Roe and Casey were constitutionally and morally indefensible from the day they were decided, yet they endured for generations, becoming the foundation of a mass political movement that did all it could to prevent their overruling. Thus, like the overruling of Plessy, the overruling of Roe and Casey was by no means inevitable; it was the result of a half-century of disciplined, persistent, and prudent political, legal, and religious effort. The victory in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization was earned by …

Religious Liberty And Judicial Deference, Mark L. Rienzi

Scholarly Articles

Many of the Supreme Court’s most tragic failures to protect constitutional rights—cases like Plessy v. Ferguson, Buck v. Bell, and Korematsu v. United States—share a common approach: an almost insuperable judicial deference to the elected branches of government. In the modern era, this approach is often called “Thayerism,” after James Bradley Thayer, a nineteenth-century proponent of the notion that courts should not invalidate actions of the legislature as unconstitutional unless they were clearly irrational. Versions of Thayerism have been around for centuries, predating Thayer himself.

The Supreme Court took a decidedly Thayerian approach to the First Amendment in the first …

The Barton Doctrine's Applicability To Suits Against Bankruptcy Trustees When The Bankruptcy Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over The Matter, Chelsea Frankel

Bankruptcy Research Library

(Excerpt)

In Barton v. Barbour, the Supreme Court established the general rule that a lawsuit cannot be brought against a receiver for acts done within their authority without leave of the court that appointed such receiver. The Court precluded a personal injury suit against a company's receiver without leave of the appointing court, finding that if the plaintiff were permitted to recover on his personal injury claim against the receiver, he would be recovering from the receivership property "without regard to the rights of other creditors or the orders of the court which is administering the trust property." The …

Johnson V. M'Intosh: Christianity, Genocide, And The Dispossession Of Indigenous Peoples, Cynthia J. Boshell

Cal Poly Humboldt theses and projects

Using hermeneutical methodology, this paper examines some of the legal fictions that form the foundation of Federal Indian Law. The text of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1823 Johnson v. M’Intosh opinion is evaluated through the lens of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide to determine the extent to which the Supreme Court incorporated genocidal principles into United States common law. The genealogy of M’Intosh is examined to identify influences that are not fully apparent on the face of the case. International jurisprudential interpretations of the legal definition of genocide are summarized and used as …

Seila Law: Is There A There There?, Jack M. Beermann

Faculty Scholarship

In Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, invalidated the provision of the Dodd-Frank Act restricting the president's removal of the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to cases of "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office." The Court's decision leaves the director subject to removal by the president for any reason or no reason at all.

This Essay on the Seila Law decision makes three points. First, because there is no legal or historical support for the Court's distinction between independent agencies headed …

Justice Breyer And Patent Eligibility, David O. Taylor

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

Justice Breyer leaves the Supreme Court having left a significant mark on patent eligibility law. In Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, he eliminated the ability to obtain patents on many useful applications of new (and even breakthrough) discoveries. The author discusses how Justice Breyer’s test for patent eligibility both contradicts the historical approach and has had pernicious impact on the patent system and investment in development of technology, including, and in particular, medical technologies.

The Supreme Court’S Hands-Off Approach To Religious Questions In The Era Of Covid-19 And Beyond, Samuel J. Levine

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Requiring What’S Not Required: Circuit Courts Are Disregarding Supreme Court Precedent And Revisiting Officer Inadvertence In Cyberlaw Cases, Michelle Zakarin

Scholarly Works

As the age of technology has taken this country by surprise and left us with an inability to formally prepare our legal system to incorporate these advances, many courts are forced to adapt by applying pre-technology rules to new technological scenarios. One illustration is the plain view exception to the Fourth Amendment. Recently, the issue of officer inadvertence at the time of the search, a rule that the United States Supreme Court has specifically stated is not required in plain view inquiries, has been revisited in cyber law cases. It could be said that the courts interested in the existence …

Does U.S. Federal Employment Law Now Cover Caste Discrimination Based On Untouchability?: If All Else Fails There Is The Possible Application Of Bostock V. Clayton County, Kevin D. Brown, Lalit Khandare, Annapurna Waughray, Kenneth G. Dau-Schmidt, Theodore M. Shaw

Articles by Maurer Faculty

This article discusses the issue of whether a victim of caste discrimination based on untouchability can assert a claim of intentional employment discrimination under Title VII or Section 1981. This article contends that there are legitimate arguments that this form of discrimination is a form of religious discrimination under Title VII. The question of whether caste discrimination is a form of race or national origin discrimination under Title VII or Section 1981 depends upon how the courts apply these definitions to caste discrimination based on untouchability. There are legitimate arguments that this form of discrimination is recognized within the concept …

Uzuegbunam V. Preczewski, Nominal Damages, And The Roberts Stratagem, Michael Wells

Georgia Law Review

In Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski the Supreme Court held for the first time that federal-court jurisdiction exists over a § 1983 case that presents only a claim for nominal damages. As a result, such claims remain subject to adjudication even when the plaintiff’s request for prospective relief, targeting an allegedly unlawful practice, has been mooted by the government’s discontinuance of the thus-challenged behavior. In dissent, Chief Justice Roberts maintained that the majority’s ruling clashed with Article III’s “personal stake” requirement and also unwisely permitted plaintiffs to sidestep controlling jurisdictional rules by adding a meaningless claim for nominal damages to a complaint …

To Trust Or Not To Trust: Native American Healthcare Improvement In The Supreme Court’S Hands, Katherine Graham

Georgia Law Review

The United States federal government’s relationship with Native American tribes has long been tenuous. Despite years of unjust and inhumane treatment of Native Americans by the government, Congress has attempted to rectify or limit the government’s harm to Native American people but has fallen short of upholding all agreements intended to improve United States-tribal relations. In particular, the government has not always followed treaties between the government and tribes, and the United States Supreme Court has failed to protect Native American rights in many cases. Central to this issue is the 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie, in which the United …

Executive Discretion And First Amendment Constraints On The Deportation State, Jennifer Lee Koh

Georgia Law Review

Given the federal courts’ reluctance to provide clarity on the degree to which the First Amendment safeguards the free speech and association rights of immigrants, the immigration policy agenda of the President now appears to determine whether noncitizens engaging in speech, activism, and advocacy are protected from retaliation by federal immigration authorities. This Essay examines two themes: first, the discretion exercised by the Executive Branch in the immigration context; and second, the courts’ ambivalence when it comes to enforcing immigrants’ rights to be free from retaliation. To do so, this Essay explores the Supreme Court’s influential 1999 decision in Reno …

Democracy And Disenchantment, Ashraf Ahmed

Faculty Scholarship

During the latter half of the Trump presidency, as it became increasingly clear that the Supreme Court would remain solidly conservative for the foreseeable future, Samuel Moyn and Ryan Doerfler declared war. In popular and scholarly venues, they have steadily built a case for curtailing the power of the nation’s highest court. Their arguments have been both pragmatic and principled. They have underlined, for instance, the risks the Roberts Court poses to progressive goals such as addressing climate change1 and granting student debt relief. More broadly, they object to a “supra-democratic court exercising its current, expansive legislative veto.” For Doerfler …

A Court Of Two Minds, Bert I. Huang

Faculty Scholarship

What do the Justices think they’re doing? They seem to act like appeals judges, who address questions of law as needed to reach a decision — and yet also like curators, who single out only certain questions as worthy of the Supreme Court’s attention. Most of the time, the Court’s “appellate mind” and its “curator mind” are aligned because the Justices choose to hear cases where a curated question of interest is also central to the outcome. But not always. In some cases, the Court discovers that it cannot reach — or no longer wishes to reach — the originally …

The Right To Counsel In A Neoliberal Age, Zohra Ahmed

Scholarly Works

Legal scholarship tends to obscure how changes in criminal process relate to broader changes in society at large. This article offers a modest corrective to this tendency. By studying the Supreme Court’s right to counsel jurisprudence, as it has developed since the mid-70s, I show the pervasive impact of the concurrent rise of neoliberalism on relationships between defendants and their attorneys. Since 1975, the Court has emphasized two concerns in its rulings regarding the right to counsel: choice and autonomy. These, of course, are nominally good things for defendants to have. But by paying close attention to how the Court …

Uzuegbunam V. Preczewski, Nominal Damages, And The Roberts Stratagem, Michael Wells

Scholarly Works

In Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski the Supreme Court held for the first time that federal-court jurisdiction exists over a § 1983 case that presents only a claim for nominal damages. As a result, such claims remain subject to adjudication even when the plaintiff’s request for prospective relief, targeting an allegedly unlawful practice, has been mooted by the government’s discontinuance of the thus-challenged behavior. In dissent, Chief Justice Roberts maintained that the majority’s ruling clashed with Article III’s “personal stake” requirement and also unwisely permitted plaintiffs to sidestep controlling jurisdictional rules by adding a meaningless claim for nominal damages to a complaint …