Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

Strictly Speaking, What Needs To Change? A Review Of How Statutory Changes Could Bring Strict Products Liability To Virginia, Ryan C. Fowle

University of Richmond Law Review

Virginia remains one of five states that refuse to adopt strict products liability. To date, the Supreme Court of Virginia has declined to follow the path Justice Traynor set out nearly a century ago, as its recent decisions confirm its resistance to strict liability. However, given the change in control of the General Assembly following the elections of 2017 and 2019, the General Assembly is in new hands and may remain that way for some time. This new legislative majority, among its plans for new policies, may soon consider establishing strict products liability by statute. In doing so, Virginia would …

Disrupting Death: How Specialized Capital Defenders Ground Virginia’S Machinery Of Death To A Halt, Corinna Barrett Lain, Douglas A. Ramseur

University of Richmond Law Review

Virginia’s repeal of capital punishment in 2021 is arguably the most momentous abolitionist event since 1972, when the United States Supreme Court invalidated capital punishment statutes nationwide. In part, Virginia’s repeal is momentous because it marks the first time a Southern state abolished the death penalty. In part, it is momentous because even among Southern states, Virginia was exceptional in its zeal for capital punishment. No state executed faster once a death sentence was handed down. And no state was more successful in defending death sentences, allowing Virginia to convert death sentences into executions at a higher rate than any …

Wills, Trusts, And Estates, Katherine E. Ramsey, Sarah J. Brownlow

University of Richmond Law Review

The 2021 Virginia General Assembly did not pass any major laws governing estates or trusts this year. However, it did pass several legislative efforts related to the field and of which practitioners should be aware. Perhaps the most relevant update given the COVID-19 pandemic was the Legislature’s effort to modernize procedures for electronic notarizations and electronic recording of documents. Another new law was designed to improve retirement savings participation rates in the Commonwealth by requiring certain employers to enroll their employees by default in a new, state-facilitated individual retirement account program. The Legislature also passed several bills designed to make …

Foreword, Joseph Giarratano

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

In Memoriam Clint Andrew Nichols, Frank Talbott V

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Preface, Andy V. O'Connell

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Do Courts Have Jurisdiction To Consider Questions Of Fact To Determine Whether A Noncitizen Is Entitled To Eligibility For Discretionary Relief From Removal?, David L. Hudson Jr.

Law Faculty Scholarship

This article previews Patel v. Garland, a United States Supreme Court case addressing the scope of federal court jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), as amended by the REAL ID Act. The central question is whether federal courts retain jurisdiction to review nondiscretionary factual determinations underlying eligibility for discretionary relief from removal, or whether the statute’s bar on reviewing “any judgment” precludes judicial review of such threshold findings. The case arises from the denial of adjustment of status to Pankajkumar Patel, deemed inadmissible for allegedly falsely representing himself as a U.S. citizen on a driver’s license application. Both petitioner …

Does A State Violate Rluipa By Prohibiting An Inmate's Pastor From Laying Hands On Him And Audibly Praying During The Execution Process?, David L. Hudson Jr.

Law Faculty Scholarship

This article examines Ramirez v. Collier, a United States Supreme Court case addressing the scope of religious liberty protections afforded to death-row inmates under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA). The case centers on whether Texas prison officials violate RLUIPA by prohibiting an inmate’s pastor from laying hands on him and praying audibly during the execution process. The dispute requires the Court to evaluate (1) whether such prohibitions substantially burden sincerely held religious beliefs, (2) whether the state satisfies RLUIPA’s strict scrutiny standard by demonstrating a compelling governmental interest advanced through the least restrictive …

Chief Justice John Roberts: Institutionalist Or Hubris-In-Chief?, Eric J. Segall

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

The conventional wisdom among Supreme Court scholars and commentators is that Chief Justice John Roberts is an institutionalist who cares deeply about both his personal legacy and the Supreme Court’s prestige over time. This essay challenges that belief. While the Chief certainly cares about how the Court is perceived by the public, as do most of the justices, what most defines Roberts is his hubris—not a concern for the Court’s legitimacy or even his own place in history. Across the vast landscape of constitutional law, Roberts has distorted precedent and ignored text and history to further his own policy preferences. …

The Rooker-Feldman Doctrine: The Case For Putting It To Work, Not To Rest, Bradford Higdon

University of Cincinnati Law Review

No abstract provided.

Winston Churchill On The American Constitution, Gerard N. Magliocca

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

Though best known for leading Britain during World War II, Winston Churchill was a keen observer of constitutional law. Most of his insights concerned the unwritten conventions of the British Constitution, but Churchill also commented extensively on the American Constitution. Intellectual curiosity and a desire to forge a closer alliance between Great Britain and the United States were at the root of Churchill’s interest in the institutions of what he called “The Great Republic.” As with all things Churchill, his observations on our Constitution were sometimes inspiring, sometimes illuminating, and sometimes noxious.

This Article provides the first comprehensive analysis …

Motion For Leave To File And Brief For Amici Curiae Legal Scholars And Academics In Support Of Petitioner, David Rudenstine

Amicus Briefs

Amici Curiae are legal scholars and academics who have dedicated their careers to the study, teaching and practice of United States constitutional law, including the death penalty and methods of execution. Many amici have written scholarly articles on these topics.

Many amici listed below earlier wrote to this Court in 2018 by submitting a brief in Bucklew v. Precythe, 139 S. Ct. 1112 (2019), to apprise the Court of information regarding the availability of alternative methods of execution to be considered in clarifying the applicable Eighth Amendment standard for method-of-execution challenges. Amici agreed with the Court’s clear statement in …

The Supreme Court's Reticent Qualified Immunity Retreat, Katherine Mims Crocker

Duke Law Journal Online

The recent outcry against qualified immunity, a doctrine that disallows damages actions against government officials for a wide swath of constitutional claims, has been deafening. But when the Supreme Court in November 2020 and February 2021 invalidated grants of qualified immunity based on reasoning at the heart of the doctrine for the first time since John Roberts became Chief Justice, the response was muted. With initial evaluations and competing understandings coming from legal commentators in the months since, this Essay explores what these cases appear to say about qualified immunity for today and tomorrow.

The Essay traces idealistic, pessimistic, and …

The Implausibility Standard For Environmental Plaintiffs: The Twiqbal Plausibility Pleading Standard And Affirmative Defenses, Celeste Anquonette Ajayi

Washington Law Review

Environmental plaintiffs often face challenges when pleading their claims. This is due to difficulty in obtaining the particular facts needed to establish causation, and thus liability. In turn, this difficulty inhibits their ability to vindicate their rights. Prior to the shift in pleading standards created by Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, often informally referred to as “Twiqbal,” plaintiffs could assert their claims through the simplified notice pleading standard articulated in Conley v. Gibson. This allowed plaintiffs to gain access to discovery, which aided in proving their claims.

The current heightened pleading standard …

City Of Los Angeles V. Lyons: How Supreme Court Jurisprudence Of The Past Puts A Chokehold On Constitutional Rights In The Present, Peter C. Douglas

Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy

The United States today has refocused its attention on its continuing struggles with civil rights and police violence—struggles that have always been present but which come to the forefront of the collective consciousness at inflection points like the current one. George Floyd—and uncounted others—die at the hands of the police, and there is, justifiably, outrage and a search for answers. Although the reasons why Black and Brown people are disproportionally subject to unconstitutional police violence are manifold, one reason lies in the Supreme Court’s 1983 decision in City of Los Angeles v. Lyons. While many scholars have criticized the Burger …

The Meaning, History, And Importance Of The Elections Clause, Eliza Sweren-Becker, Michael Waldman

Washington Law Review

Historically, the Supreme Court has offered scant attention to or analysis of the Elections Clause, resulting in similarly limited scholarship on the Clause’s original meaning and public understanding over time. The Clause directs states to make regulations for the time, place, and manner of congressional elections, and grants Congress superseding authority to make or alter those rules.

But the 2020 elections forced the Elections Clause into the spotlight, with Republican litigants relying on the Clause to ask the Supreme Court to limit which state actors can regulate federal elections. This new focus comes on the heels of the Clause serving …

Undue Deference To States In The 2020 Election Litigation, Joshua A. Douglas

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

COVID-19 has wreaked havoc on so much of our lives, including how to run our elections. Yet the federal courts have refused to respond appropriately to the dilemma that many voters faced when trying to participate in the 2020 election. Instead, the courts—particularly the U.S. Supreme Court and the federal appellate courts—invoked a narrow test that unduly defers to state election administration and fails to protect adequately the fundamental right to vote.

In constitutional litigation, a law usually must satisfy a two-part test: (1) does the state have an appropriate reason for the law and (2) is the law properly …

Court Packing As An Antidote, Rivka Weill

Cardozo Law Review

Court packing is considered the nuclear weapon that may unleash total chaos on the American constitutional system. Even in the face of a highly controversial appointment process to the U.S. Supreme Court during the 2020 presidential election season, scholars caution against the wisdom and utility of resorting to court packing. This Essay makes three bold arguments: First, a President may nominate a candidate to the Supreme Court at any time, including their last year in office; this is true both empirically and normatively. It is the Senate’s responsibility to ensure the people’s will is not frustrated. Second, never since the …

Court Packing Is A Chimera, Brian L. Frye

Cardozo Law Review

The dream of the 1930s is alive in Washington. Democrats see Republicans hemorrhaging voters as Trump struggles with the economy and the pandemic and are salivating at the prospect of retaking not only the White House, but also the Senate. Of course, you should never sell a bearskin until you’ve caught the bear. But even a blowout victory can’t get Democrats the prize they really want, a Supreme Court majority. So, in back-to-the-future fashion, many progressives are pushing the idea of court packing. After all, in politics, rules are made to be broken.

The Iron Rule, Jacob Bronsther, Guha Krishnamurthi

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.