-
Can Our Democracy Survive This Supreme Court? The Supreme Court Review (IF 2.0) Pub Date : 2024-06-14 Armand Derfner
The Supreme Court Review, Volume 2023, Issue, Page 345-395, 2023.
-
State Standing After Biden v. Nebraska The Supreme Court Review (IF 2.0) Pub Date : 2024-06-14 Ann Woolhandler, Julia D. Mahoney
The Supreme Court Review, Volume 2023, Issue, Page 303-344, 2023.
-
Public Accommodations and the First Amendment: 303 Creative and “Pure Speech” The Supreme Court Review (IF 2.0) Pub Date : 2024-06-14 Robert Post
The Supreme Court Review, Volume 2023, Issue, Page 251-301, 2023.
-
Dormant Commerce and Corporate Jurisdiction The Supreme Court Review (IF 2.0) Pub Date : 2024-06-14 Stephen E. Sachs
The Supreme Court Review, Volume 2023, Issue, Page 213-250, 2023.
-
From Bad to Worse: Stalking, Threats, and Chilling Effects The Supreme Court Review (IF 2.0) Pub Date : 2024-06-14 Danielle Keats Citron
The Supreme Court Review, Volume 2023, Issue, Page 175-212, 2023.
-
The California Effect, Process-Based Regulation, and the Future of Pike Balancing The Supreme Court Review (IF 2.0) Pub Date : 2024-06-14 Jack Goldsmith, Alan Sykes
The Supreme Court Review, Volume 2023, Issue, Page 125-173, 2023.
-
First Amendment Neglect in Supreme Court Intellectual Property Cases The Supreme Court Review (IF 2.0) Pub Date : 2024-06-14 Mark A. Lemley, Rebecca Tushnet
The Supreme Court Review, Volume 2023, Issue, Page 85-123, 2023.
-
The Invention of Colorblindness The Supreme Court Review (IF 2.0) Pub Date : 2024-06-14 Cass R. Sunstein
The Supreme Court Review, Volume 2023, Issue, Page 67-83, 2023.
-
The Cure as Disease: The Conservative Case against SFFA v. Harvard The Supreme Court Review (IF 2.0) Pub Date : 2024-06-14 Justin Driver
The Supreme Court Review, Volume 2023, Issue, Page 1-65, 2023.
-
Front Matter The Supreme Court Review (IF 2.0) Pub Date : 2024-06-14
The Supreme Court Review, Volume 2023, Issue, Page i-vii, 2023.
-
The Neglected Origins of the Hearsay Rule in American Slavery: Recovering Queen v. Hepburn The Supreme Court Review (IF 2.0) Pub Date : 2023-06-01 David A. Sklansky
The Supreme Court Review, Volume 2022, Issue, Page 413-448, 2022.
-
Surveillance, State Secrets, and the Future of Constitutional Rights The Supreme Court Review (IF 2.0) Pub Date : 2023-06-01 Laura K. Donohue
The Supreme Court Review, Volume 2022, Issue, Page 351-411, 2022.
-
Too Much History: Castro-Huerta and the Problem of Change In Indian Law The Supreme Court Review (IF 2.0) Pub Date : 2023-06-01 Gregory Ablavsky
The Supreme Court Review, Volume 2022, Issue, Page 293-350, 2022.
-
The Hidden Judicial Springs of U.S. Foreign Policy The Supreme Court Review (IF 2.0) Pub Date : 2023-06-01 Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar, Aziz Z. Huq
The Supreme Court Review, Volume 2022, Issue, Page 243-291, 2022.
-
Disestablishing the Establishment Clause The Supreme Court Review (IF 2.0) Pub Date : 2023-06-01 Frederick Schauer
The Supreme Court Review, Volume 2022, Issue, Page 219-242, 2022.
-
What Should Be National and What Should Be Local in American Judicial Review The Supreme Court Review (IF 2.0) Pub Date : 2023-06-01 Jeffrey S. Sutton
The Supreme Court Review, Volume 2022, Issue, Page 191-218, 2022.
-
Opportunistic Originalism: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization The Supreme Court Review (IF 2.0) Pub Date : 2023-06-01 Michele Goodwin
The Supreme Court Review, Volume 2022, Issue, Page 111-190, 2022.
-
Rights, Remedies, and Texas’s S.B. 8 The Supreme Court Review (IF 2.0) Pub Date : 2023-06-01 David A. Strauss
The Supreme Court Review, Volume 2022, Issue, Page 81-110, 2022.
-
Manufacturing Outliers The Supreme Court Review (IF 2.0) Pub Date : 2023-06-01 Darrell A. H. Miller, Joseph Blocher
The Supreme Court Review, Volume 2022, Issue, Page 49-79, 2022.
-
The Anti-Democratic Major Questions Doctrine The Supreme Court Review (IF 2.0) Pub Date : 2023-06-01 Jody Freeman, Matthew C. Stephenson
The Supreme Court Review, Volume 2022, Issue, Page 1-48, 2022.
-
Front Matter The Supreme Court Review (IF 2.0) Pub Date : 2023-06-01
The Supreme Court Review, Volume 2022, Issue, 2022.
-
The Institutionalist Turn In Copyright The Supreme Court Review (IF 2.0) Pub Date : 2022-07-01 Shyamkrishna Balganesh
The Supreme Court Review, Volume 2021, Issue, Page 417-472, 2021.
-
Scalia’s Slip The Supreme Court Review (IF 2.0) Pub Date : 2022-07-01 Owen Fiss
The Supreme Court Review, Volume 2021, Issue, Page 375-416, 2021.
-
Injury In Fact, Transformed The Supreme Court Review (IF 2.0) Pub Date : 2022-07-01 Cass R. Sunstein
The Supreme Court Review, Volume 2021, Issue, Page 349-374, 2021.
-
The Roberts Court and the Transformation of Constitutional Protections for Religion: A Statistical Portrait The Supreme Court Review (IF 2.0) Pub Date : 2022-07-01 Lee Epstein, Eric A. Posner
The Supreme Court Review, Volume 2021, Issue, Page 315-347, 2021.
-
Late-Stage Textualism The Supreme Court Review (IF 2.0) Pub Date : 2022-07-01 Ryan D. Doerfler
The Supreme Court Review, Volume 2021, Issue, Page 267-313, 2021.
-
Executive Decisions After Arthrex The Supreme Court Review (IF 2.0) Pub Date : 2022-07-01 Jennifer Mascott, John F. Duffy
The Supreme Court Review, Volume 2021, Issue, Page 225-265, 2021.
-
What Christianity Loses When Conservative Christians Win at The Supreme Court The Supreme Court Review (IF 2.0) Pub Date : 2022-07-01 Russell K. Robinson
The Supreme Court Review, Volume 2021, Issue, Page 185-224, 2021.
-
Focusing the CFAA in Van Buren The Supreme Court Review (IF 2.0) Pub Date : 2022-07-01 Orin S. Kerr
The Supreme Court Review, Volume 2021, Issue, Page 155-184, 2021.
-
Showdown at Cedar Point: “Sole and Despotic Dominion” Gains Ground The Supreme Court Review (IF 2.0) Pub Date : 2022-07-01 Cynthia Estlund
The Supreme Court Review, Volume 2021, Issue, Page 125-154, 2021.
-
Safety, Health, and Union Access in Cedar Point Nursery The Supreme Court Review (IF 2.0) Pub Date : 2022-07-01 Benjamin I. Sachs
The Supreme Court Review, Volume 2021, Issue, Page 99-123, 2021.
-
Mahanoy v. B.L. & First Amendment “Leeway” The Supreme Court Review (IF 2.0) Pub Date : 2022-07-01 Mary-Rose Papandrea
The Supreme Court Review, Volume 2021, Issue, Page 53-97, 2021.
-
Eradicating Bush-League Arguments Root and Branch: The Article II Independent-State-Legislature Notion and Related Rubbish The Supreme Court Review (IF 2.0) Pub Date : 2022-07-01 Vikram David Amar, Akhil Reed Amar
The Supreme Court Review, Volume 2021, Issue, Page 1-51, 2021.
-
Front Matter The Supreme Court Review (IF 2.0) Pub Date : 2022-07-01
The Supreme Court Review, Volume 2021, Issue, 2021.
-
On Power and the Law: McGirt v. Oklahoma The Supreme Court Review (IF 2.0) Pub Date : 2021-11-01 Maggie Blackhawk
-
The Unitary Executive: Past, Present, Future The Supreme Court Review (IF 2.0) Pub Date : 2021-11-01 Cass R. Sunstein,Adrian Vermeule
It is a bracingly simple idea. Article II, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution vests the executive power in “a president of theUnited States.”Those words do not seem ambiguous. Under the Constitution, the President, and no one else, has executive power. The executive is therefore “unitary.” It follows, as the night follows the day, that Congress lacks the power to carve up the executive—to say, for
-
Not in the Room Where It Happens: Adversariness, Politicization, and Little Sisters of the Poor The Supreme Court Review (IF 2.0) Pub Date : 2021-11-01 Martha Minow
-
Reading Regents and the Political Significance of Law The Supreme Court Review (IF 2.0) Pub Date : 2021-11-01 Cristina M. Rodríguez
-
Why Restrict Abortion? Expanding the Frame on June Medical The Supreme Court Review (IF 2.0) Pub Date : 2021-11-01 Reva B. Siegel
-
Advocacy History in the Supreme Court The Supreme Court Review (IF 2.0) Pub Date : 2021-11-01 Richard J. Lazarus
-
Sexual Orientation and the Dynamics of Discrimination The Supreme Court Review (IF 2.0) Pub Date : 2021-11-01 David A. Strauss
-
“Not a Single Privilege Is Annexed to His Character”: Necessary and Proper Executive Privileges and Immunities The Supreme Court Review (IF 2.0) Pub Date : 2021-11-01 Saikrishna Bangalore Prakash
By design, the presidency is exceptional. Other branches are plural. Congress, a bicameral legislature, was always meant to have scores of members and now has over 500. Due to Congress exercising the option of creating lower federal courts, the federal judiciary is larger still, with judicial power fractured amongmore than a hundred federal courts and hundreds of judges. In contrast, one personmay
-
To Promote the General Welfare: Why Madison Matters The Supreme Court Review (IF 2.0) Pub Date : 2020-05-01 James T. Kloppenberg
-
The Supreme Court’s Challenge to Civil Society The Supreme Court Review (IF 2.0) Pub Date : 2020-05-01 Linda Greenhouse
-
Establishment Clause Appeasement The Supreme Court Review (IF 2.0) Pub Date : 2020-05-01 Micah Schwartzman, Nelson Tebbe
In this Article, we ask whether some liberal justices have followed a strategy of judicial appeasement in recent cases involving religious freedom, especially under the Establishment Clause. We begin by specifying a conception of appeasement, which we define as a sustained strategy of offering asymmetric concessions for the purpose of avoiding further conflict, but with the self-defeating effect of
-
The Inside-Out Constitution: Department of Commerce v New York The Supreme Court Review (IF 2.0) Pub Date : 2020-05-01 Jennifer M. Chacón
The Court’s decisions in Trump v. Hawaii and Department of Commerce v. New York suggest an inside-out Constitution, with the Court treating the Constitution’s insiders in ways typically reserved for those outside of the scope of its full protection. The Census 2020 Case, in particular, highlights two important ways that the Court has constructed this inside-out Constitution. First, as discussed in
-
Trademarks, Hate Speech, and Solving a Puzzle of Viewpoint Bias The Supreme Court Review (IF 2.0) Pub Date : 2020-05-01 Kent Greenfield
In this article, I argue that in the seemingly straightforward ruling in Iancu v Brunetti, striking down a provision of the law governing trademarks, the Court revealed a significant clarification of the limits of the doctrine of viewpoint discrimination. In free speech doctrine, the Court is unanimous in condemning viewpoint discrimination, but its contours remain “slippery” because viewpoint bias
-
Precedent and Discretion The Supreme Court Review (IF 2.0) Pub Date : 2020-05-01 William Baude
Supreme Court precedent is a topic of perennial prominence. The Court overruled or severely limitedmultiple precedents last year, just as it did the year before that. Because of our widely repeated norm of stare decisis, every overruling is criticized. Scholars have then debated whether the Court needs a stronger norm of stare decisis, so that it overrules fewer cases. This focus is misguided. Rather
-
The Roberts Court and Administrative Law The Supreme Court Review (IF 2.0) Pub Date : 2020-05-01 Gillian E. Metzger
This article assesses where the Supreme Court stands on administrative law after the 2018 term, focusing on Kisor v. Wilkie and Department of Commerce v. New York. Over the last decade, the Roberts Court had demonstrated increasing concerns about an out-of-control federal bureaucracy at odds with the constitutional order, but hadn’t pulled back significantly on administrative governance in practice
-
The Anti-Carolene Court The Supreme Court Review (IF 2.0) Pub Date : 2020-05-01 Nicholas O. Stephanopoulos
Once upon a time, Carolene Products provided an inspiring charter for the exercise of the power of judicial review. Intervene to correct flaws in the political process, Carolene instructed courts, but otherwise allow American democracy to operate unimpeded. In this Article, I use the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Rucho v Common Cause to argue that the current Court flips Carolene on its head.
-
Mississippi Goddamn: Flowers v Mississippi’s Cheap Racial Justice The Supreme Court Review (IF 2.0) Pub Date : 2020-05-01 Paul Butler
Flowers v Mississippi is a Supreme Court case about a man who was tried six times for the same crimes. The trials took place over a span of twenty-one years. In four of the trials, there was a conviction, but appellate courts reversed because of prosecutorial misconduct. In the other two trials, the jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict, and the judge declared a mistrial. Curtis Flowers was
-
Just Desserts?: Public Accommodations, Religious Accommodations, Racial Equality, and Gay Rights The Supreme Court Review (IF 2.0) Pub Date : 2019-05-01 Pamela S. Karlan
-
Trump v Hawaii: “This President” and the National Security Constitution The Supreme Court Review (IF 2.0) Pub Date : 2019-05-01 Mark Tushnet
-
Byrd v United States: Unauthorized Drivers of Rental Cars Have Fourth Amendment Rights? Not as Evident as It Seems The Supreme Court Review (IF 2.0) Pub Date : 2019-05-01 Tracey Maclin
No discerning student of the Supreme Court would contend that Justice Anthony Kennedy broadly interpreted the Fourth Amendment during his thirty years on theCourt. For example, inMaryland v King, a 2013 case that Justice Samuel Alito described as “perhaps the most important criminal case that this Court has heard in decades,” Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion rejected a Fourth Amendment challenge
-
Location Tracking and Digital Data: Can Carpenter Build a Stable Privacy Doctrine? The Supreme Court Review (IF 2.0) Pub Date : 2019-05-01 Evan Caminker
In Carpenter v United States, the Supreme Court struggled to modernize twentieth-century search and seizure precedents for the “Cyber Age.” Twice previously this decade the Court had tweaked Fourth Amendment doctrine to keep pace with advancing technology, requiring a search warrant before the government can either peruse the contents of a cell phone seized incident to arrest or use a GPS tracker to
-
Functional Equivalence and Residual Rights Post-Carpenter: Framing a Test Consistent with Precedent and Original Meaning The Supreme Court Review (IF 2.0) Pub Date : 2019-05-01 Laura K. Donohue
The evolution of Fourth Amendment doctrine over the past century bears a striking resemblance to Hamlet’s descent into insanity. Step by step, faced by increasingly sophisticated technologies, the Court has crafted rules, exceptions, and exceptions to the exceptions, until we find ourselves in an incoherent world that bears little relationship to the original rights it encompasses. The Founders introduced
-
The Elephant in the Room: Intentional Voter Suppression The Supreme Court Review (IF 2.0) Pub Date : 2019-05-01 Lisa Marshall Manheim, Elizabeth G. Porter
Since its inception, the Roberts Court has acquiesced in—and at times even abetted—the attempts of many states to make it harder for Americans to vote. Illustrative is a 2018 decision, Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, in which the Court rejected a statutory challenge to a state’s expansive purges of voting lists. In Husted the Court dismissed the threat of voter suppression as simply not “relevant”
-
Inverting Animus: Masterpiece Cakeshop and the New Minorities The Supreme Court Review (IF 2.0) Pub Date : 2019-05-01 Melissa Murray
Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado Human Rights Commission has been discussed in fairly specific terms—the collision of liberty and equality; or, more particularly, religious freedom versus antidiscrimination norms. This frame is certainly accurate, though hardly exhaustive. There are a number of lenses through which we might understand this case. And, indeed, different lenses may cast the Court’s decision
-
“Clarifying” Murphy’s Law: Did Something Go Wrong in Reconciling Commandeering and Conditional Preemption Doctrines? The Supreme Court Review (IF 2.0) Pub Date : 2019-05-01 Vikram David Amar
Murphy v National Collegiate Athletic Association is perplexing. The Court, 7–2, emphatically held that key provisions of the federal Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) did not operate as permissible federal preemption but instead unconstitutionally commandeered state legislative processes in violation of federalism principles, and by a 6–3 margin ruled that no other part of the
-
Stare Decisis—Rhetoric and Reality in the Supreme Court The Supreme Court Review (IF 2.0) Pub Date : 2019-05-01 Frederick Schauer
To an increasing degree, Supreme Court justices have been explicitly invoking the alleged constraints of stare decisis, especially by way of criticizing justices thought to be ignoring those constraints. But this accelerating use of stare decisis as a rhetorical weapon is at odds with what the data show about the frequency with which stare decisis actually operates as a genuine constraint on Supreme