Search

The article focuses on the nonviolent nature of human rights adjudication, arguing that courts can succeed without coercion by inspiring voluntary compliance through moral conviction. It examines the limitations of human rights courts in enforcing their judgments, explores different scholarly perspectives on international law's effectiveness, and proposes the concept of adjudication as world building.

The article discusses the court case Burnett v. Smith in which the Iowa Supreme Court declined to recognize an independent clause of action for money damages under its constitution and overruled a related case. It describes the details of the case filed by garbage truck driver Cory Burnett against Iowa Department of Transportation officer Philip Smith. It examines the court's observation that the Iowa judiciary of the mid-19th century did not recognize direct constitutional claims for damages.

The article discusses the court case Alpine Securities Corp. v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) wherein the D.C. Circuit granted an injunction order stating that the broker-dealer could succeed in applying the private nondelegation doctrine on the merits of its constitutional challenge to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority's structure. It describes the injunction filed by Alpine in response to an expedited enforcement proceeding scheduled by FINRA to expel Alpine.

The article discusses the court case Range v. Attorney General in which the Third Circuit held that there were no historical analogues to stripping a nonviolent offender of his Second Amendment rights. It describes the case filed by Brian Range alleging that his Second Amendment rights were violated when he was banned from owning firearms after his conviction for making a false statement to obtain food stamp assistance. It examines the application of the history-and-tradition test in the case.

The article discusses the court case Hopkins v. Hosemann in which the Fifth Circuit held that permanent disenfranchisement of people convicted of a felony, who are often incarcerated, violates the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eight Amendment. It explains two provisions of the Mississippi Constitution at issue in the case that were crafted in 1890 to subjugate the enfranchised Black population. It describes the consolidated class actions filed to challenge such provisions.

In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Justice Alito justified the decision to overrule Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey with an appeal to democracy. He insisted that it was “time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.” This invocation of democracy had undeniable rhetorical power: it allowed the Dobbs majority to lay waste to decades’ worth of precedent, while rebutting charges of judicial imperialism and purporting to restore the people’s voices. This Article interrogates Dobbs’s claim to vindicate principles of democracy, examining both the intellectual pedigree of this claim and its substantive vision of democracy. In grounding its decision in democracy, the Dobbs majority relied on a well-worn but dubious narrative: that Roe, and later Casey, disrupted ongoing democratic deliberation on the abortion issue, wresting this contested question from the people and imposing the Court’s own will. The majority insisted that this critique had always attended Roe. However, in tracing the provenance of the democratic deliberation argument, this Article finds more complicated intellectual origins. In fact, the argument did not surface in Roe’s immediate aftermath, but rather emerged years later. And it did so not organically, but through a series of interconnected legal, movement, and political efforts designed to undermine and ultimately topple Roe and Casey. The product of these efforts, the Dobbs majority’s claim that democracy demanded overruling Roe and Casey, was deployed to overcome the force of stare decisis in Dobbs — and may ultimately reshape the scope and substance of the Court’s stare decisis analysis in future cases. Having identified the intellectual origins of the democratic deliberation argument and its contemporary consequences, this Article examines the contours of the Dobbs majority’s vision of democratic deliberation. We show that although Dobbs trafficked in the rhetoric of democracy, its conception of democracy was both internally inconsistent and extraordinarily limited, even myopic. The opinion misapprehended the processes and institutions that are constitutive of democracy, focusing on state legislatures while overlooking a range of other federal, state, and local constitutional actors. As troublingly, it reflected a distorted understanding of political power and representation — one that makes political power reducible to voting, entirely overlooking metrics like representation in electoral office and in the ecosystem of campaign finance. The opinion was also willfully blind to the antidemocratic implications of its “history and tradition” interpretive method, which binds the recognition of constitutional rights to a past in which very few Americans were meaningful participants in the production of law and legal meaning. The deficits of the Dobbs majority’s conception of democracy appear even more pronounced when considered alongside the Court’s recent and active interventions to distort and disrupt the functioning of the electoral process. Indeed, Dobbs purported to “return” the abortion question to the people and to democratic deliberation at the precise moment when the Court’s own actions have ensured that the extant system is unlikely either to produce genuine deliberation or to yield widely desired outcomes. Ultimately, a close examination of the Dobbs majority’s invocation of democracy suggests that the majority may have employed the values and vernacular of democracy as a means to a different end. As we explain, the majority’s embrace of democracy and democratic deliberation allowed it to shield its actions from claims of judicial activism and overreach. More profoundly, and perhaps paradoxically, the opinion may lay the groundwork for the eventual vindication and protection of particular minority interests — those of the fetus. With this in mind, the Dobbs majority’s settlement of the abortion question is unlikely to be a lasting one. Indeed, aspects of the opinion suggest that this settlement is merely a way station en route to a more permanent resolution — the recognition of fetal personhood and the total abolition of legal abortion in the United States. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a jury unanimity requirement as established in Ramos v. Louisiana is not applied retroactively. In the case Edwards v. Vannoy, teenager filed for federal habeas relief after being sentenced by a Louisiana jury for the crimes of armed robbery, rape and kidnapping to life imprisonment without parole.

The article presents a court case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that litigants could sue federal officials for monetary damages in their individual capacities under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA). In the case Tanzin v. Tanvir, Pakistani permanent resident Muhammad Tanvir and three others filed a lawsuit when they were forced to serve as informants within their American Muslim communities in violation of their Muslim faith.

The article presents a court case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) would prohibit a case filed against Germany for taking Jewish art dealers' property if the dealers were German nations. In the case Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp, the heirs of a consortium of Jewish art dealers filed a lawsuit against Germany over the 1935 sale of a collection of medieval art and artifacts called the Welfenschatz.

The article presents a court case in which the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed a district court ruling stating that the rules of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) limiting education-related compensation violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act. In the case NCAA v. Alston, the NCAA's restrictions on compensation unrelated to education. Also cited is the ruling in the case NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma.

The article presents a court case in which the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the rulings of a district court and the Fifth Circuit, claiming that warrantless searches and seizures of homes exceed the authority of the police in community caretaking duties. In the case Caniglia v. Strom, police officers searched the home of plaintiff Edward Caniglia without a warrant and seized two of his firearms.

The article presents a court case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the use of physical force to the body of a person with intent to restrain is considered seizure under the Fourth Amendment. In the case Torres v. Madrid, Roxanne Torres filed excessive force against two police officers who shot her at the back twice. In his majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts held that the use of force constituted a seizure.

The article presents a court case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiffs lacked the standing to challenge the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) or Obamacare. In the case California v. Texas, the plaintiffs questioned the constitutionality of the ACA's individual mandate and the shared responsibility provision (SRP). Also cited is the case National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) v. Sebelius.

The article presents a court case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an award of nominal damages can redress a completed injury, thus, reversing the ruling of a district court and the Eleventh Circuit. In the case Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, students Chicke Uzuegbubam and Joseph Bradford filed a case against officials of Georgia Gwinnett College enforcing speech policies to seek monetary damages and declaratory and injunctive relief.

The article discusses the court cases De Pena-Paniagua v. Barr on asylum law and particular social group (PSG) and Williams v. Medley Opportunity Fund II, LP on contract law and forced arbitration. Topics discussed include the background of the cases, the implication of the limited scope of the First Circuit opinion in De Pena-Paniagua for the application of PSG standards to domestic violence survivors seeking asylum protection, and significance of the Williams decision to consumer protection.

The article presents a court case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that private commercial arbitration is a foreign or international tribunal. In the case In re: Application to Obtain Discovery for Use in Foreign Proceedings, a Tennessee district court ruled that a foreign commercial arbitration is not a tribunal due to lack of basis for substantive judicial review. The Sixth Circuit reversed the ruling.

The article presents a court case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that evidence obtained via unlawful search could be admissible under the independent source doctrine. In the case U.S. v. Huskisson, alleged drug dealer Paul Huskisson appealed his conviction for methamphetamine possession due to warrantless entry by the police. Also cited is the provisions of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The article presents a court case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that a student-victim of sexual harassment should prove that a school's insufficient response caused further actionable harassment. In the case Kollaritsch v. Michigan State University Board of Trustees, student Emily Kollaritsch filed a Title IX case against the school's board due to alleged inadequate response to protect her against sexual harassment.

The article presents a court case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the border search exception allowed warrantless cell phone searches only when finding digital contraband. In the case U.S. v. Cano, suspected drug trafficker Miguel Cano claimed that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated when his phone was searched without a warrant. The circuit reversed Cano's conviction by a district court.

The article presents a court case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the First Amendment does not protect actions encouraging secondary boycotts. In the case NLRB v. International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental & Reinforcing Iron Worker, Local 229, the circuit issued a cease-and-desist order against the union due to unfair labor practices under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

The article presents a court case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied a rehearing en banc of a lawsuit allowing domestic corporate liability claim. In the case Doe I v. Nestle, S.A., six former enslaved children on a cocoa plantation in Cote d'Ivoire filed a case due to forced labor without pay, intimidation, and torture. The circuit ruled that a domestic corporation can be sued under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS).

The article presents a court case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that arbitration-bound workers are not entitled to notice of collective action proceeding under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). In the case Bigger v. Facebook, Inc., Facebook staff Susie Bigger filed a lawsuit when her employer refused to pay her overtime as her position is allegedly overtime-exempt. The circuit reversed a district court's ruling favoring Bigger.

The article discusses various aspects of the relationship between the Solicitor General of the U.S. and America's Supreme Court (Supreme Court), and it mentions the Supreme Court's shadow docket which consists of the judicial orders and summary decisions that are issued without full briefing and oral argument procedures. The statutes, case law, and rules involving the most common forms of emergency and extraordinary relief in the Supreme Court are assessed, along with appellate litigation.

The article discusses the issue of rights in U.S. Supreme Court cases during its 2017 term, including in the U.S. Supreme Court case "Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission." The impact that constitutional law has on the Supreme Court's framework in determining case judgments is discussed.

What is a musical work? Philosophers debate it, but for judges the answer has long been simple: music means melody. Though few recognize it today, that answer goes all the way back to the birth of music copyright litigation in the nineteenth century. Courts adopted the era's dominant aesthetic view identifying melody as the site of originality and, consequently, the litmus test for similarity. Surprisingly, music's single-element test has persisted as an anomaly within the modern copyright system, where multiple features of eligible subject matter typically are eligible for protection. Yet things are now changing. Recent judicial decisions are beginning to break down the old definitional wall around melody, looking elsewhere within the work to find protected expression. Many have called this increasing scope problematic. This Article agrees - but not for the reason that most people think. The problem is not, as is commonly alleged, that these decisions are unfaithful to bedrock copyright doctrine. A closer inspection reveals that, if anything, they are in fact more faithful than their predecessors. The problem is instead that the bedrock doctrine itself is flawed. Copyright law, unlike patent law, has never shown any interest in trying to increase the predictability of its infringement test, leaving second comers to speculate as to what might or might not be allowed. But the history of music copyright offers a valuable look at a path not taken, an accidental experiment where predictability was unwittingly achieved by consistently emphasizing a single element out of a multi-element work. As a factual matter, the notion that melody is the primary locus of music's value is a fiction. As a policy matter, however, that fiction has turned out to be useful. While its original, culturally myopic rationale should be discarded, music's unidimensional test still offers underappreciated advantages over the "everything counts" analysis that the rest of the copyright system long ago chose. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the challenges to democratic integrity arising from U.S. Supreme Court judgments on voting rights and campaign financing. It mentions government actions to interfere in these actions, the lack of protection of political participation in constitutional law, and suggests possible approaches for achieving more consistent decisions.

The article discusses the virtues of heterogeneity in relation to the U.S. Constitution and various judgments by America's Supreme Court (Court), and it mentions how the Court has explained the purposes behind race-conscious integration in lower- and higher-education litigation matters. A racial diversity rationale is examined, along with the U.S. Constitution's First and Sixth Amendments. School desegregation lawsuits such as Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka are assessed.

The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the 2017 case Bank of America Corp. v. City of Miami which deals with America's Fair Housing Act (FHA), legal standing to file a lawsuit, and a proximate cause legal doctrine. According to the article, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that cities can be aggrieved persons under the FHA. Foreclosures in Miami, Florida are examined, along with an unjust enrichment claim and minority neighborhoods in Florida.

The article discusses the historical aspects of the boundaries of law in places such as America as of 2017, and it mentions the history of legal theory, the influence of English judicial decisions on U.S. law, and information about the changes involving the boundary between law and non-law. The case method of teaching that was used by the late Harvard Law School professor Christopher Columbus Langdell is examined, along with legal judgments, judicial opinions, and primary sources of law.

The article discusses the views of various legal scholars regarding a rise in purposivism in legal interpretations in America in relation to a shift away from judicial deference to the 1984 U.S. Supreme Court's (USSC's) ruling in the administrative law case Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council Inc. The textualism form of legal interpretation is examined, along with statutory interpretation by the USSC under Chief Justice John Roberts. Several USSC judgments are assessed.

The article discusses the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit's ruling in the 2016 case United States v. Fokker Services B.V. which deals with American criminal law, the nation's separation of powers doctrine, and the determination that courts may not reject deferred prosecution agreements based on the inadequacy of charging decisions or agreement conditions. The collateral consequences of a corporate criminal conviction are examined, along with U.S. judicial review.

The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the 1985 commercial speech case Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, and it mentions the evolution of America's commercial speech doctrine, litigation involving the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and the efforts to minimize confusion regarding American courts' analyses of compelled commercial disclosures. Solitude for commercial speakers and the rights of U.S. consumers are assessed

The article discusses the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit's ruling in the 2016 case Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran which deals with American foreign relations law and the court's determination that the U.S. Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FISA) does not provide a freestanding basis for litigants to satisfy their judgments against state sponsors of terrorism. The legal rights of U.S. victims of terrorism are examined, along with exceptions and asset seizure law.

The article reports the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York in the court case 'Doe v. United States,' in which the court granted a request to expunge a criminal conviction. Topics discussed include laws related to ways in which ancillary jurisdiction limits of the inherent powers of a federal court; the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in 'Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America;' and lawful arrests and convictions.

The Supreme Court has rendered two lines of decisions about the remedies available for a violation of the Takings Clause. One line holds that courts have no authority to enter anticipatory decrees in takings cases if the claimant can obtain compensation elsewhere. The other line, which includes three of the Court's most recent takings cases, results in the entry of an anticipatory decree about takings liability. This Essay argues that the second line is the correct one. Courts should be allowed to enter declaratory or other anticipatory judgments about takings liability, as long as they respect the limited nature of the right created by the Takings Clause and do not usurp the limited waivers of sovereign immunity for actions to recover compensation from the government. Anticipatory litigation should not be routine. In ordinary condemnation cases and in most regulatory takings cases that turn on the particular facts presented, the action seeking compensation should provide complete and adequate relief. But where remitting property owners to an action for compensation will result in an incomplete, impractical, or inefficient outcome, anticipatory relief about whether a taking has occurred is appropriate and should be permissible. The Essay argues that recognizing the appropriate role for anticipatory remedies under the Takings Clause would help reduce the many pitfalls of litigating takings claims, and provide more consistent and effective enforcement of this constitutional right. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit's ruling in the 2014 case American Meat Institute v. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) which deals with America's commercial speech laws, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and the court's test for compelled disclosures. Efforts to prevent consumer deception are mentioned in relation to misleading advertisements and graphic warning labels on cigarette packages. Meat labeling laws are examined.

The article discusses the procedural and historical aspects of the practice of revising U.S. Supreme Court (USSC) opinions, focusing on the concept of (non)finality in regards to judgments issued by the USSC in cases such as Lawrence v. Texas which deals with the constitutionality of a Texas state law which criminalized sodomy. Other topics include concurring opinions, formal errors in court opinions, and the "United States Reports" legal case digests. America's federal laws are assessed.

The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court's (USSC's) ruling in the 2014 case American Broadcasting Companies Inc. (ABC Inc.) v. Aereo Inc. which deals with the nation's Copyright Act of 1976, the U.S. Congress' enactment of a copyright law Transmit Clause, and the legal aspects of transmitted broadcast television to users via the Internet. Several other U.S. copyright law-related legal cases are examined, along with community antenna television and a copyright holders' exclusive rights.

The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court's (USSC's) ruling in the 2014 case Lexmark International Inc. v. Static Control Components Inc. which deals with a legal standing doctrine in America and the nation's civil procedure rules. According to the article, constitutional standing requirements in America derive from a limitation of the judicial power to resolve cases and controversies under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. A "legal interest" standing test is also examined.

The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court's (USSC's) ruling in the 2014 case Daimler AG v. Bauman which deals with the differences between the laws of personal jurisdiction (PJ) and general jurisdiction (GJ) in America. USSC Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's decision in the 2011 GJ-related case Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations S.A. v. Brown is examined. California contracts, motions to dismiss, and various other USSC cases are also mentioned.

The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court's (USSC's) ruling in the 2014 case Harris v. Quinn which deals with a prohibition against the assessment of a fair-share fee against in-home caregivers under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. American freedom of speech rights and the legal aspects of compelled subsidization are mentioned. The 1977 USSC case Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, which deals with public-sector union dues and collective bargaining units, is also examined.

An essay is presented on U.S. Supreme Court (USSC) Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's twenty-year tenure on the nation's highest court as of November 2013, focusing on Ginsburg's judicial opinion in the 2003 case Norfolk & Western Railway v. Ayers which deals with the U.S. Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA) and six plaintiffs who were reportedly suffering from asbestosis. According to the article, Ginsburg knows that the USSC's cases are about people, their lives, and their livelihoods.

The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court's (USSC's) ruling in the 2013 case FTC v. Actavis Inc. which deals with reverse-payment settlements, the nation's Hatch-Waxman Act, and U.S. antitrust laws. According to the article, the USSC determined that the American pharmaceutical industry's settlement system has created troubling incentives that may encourage anticompetitive cooperation. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's drug approval process is also examined.

The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the 2013 case Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin which deals with the Fourteenth Amendment to the nation's Constitution, public-university affirmative action, and high school student Abigail Fisher's equal protection challenge to the defendant's admissions system. According to the article, the defendant rejected Fisher's application for admission. The role of race in a university's admission policy is examined.

The article contrasts the U.S. Supreme Court's (USSC's) rulings in marriage equality-related cases such as U.S. v. Windsor with the court's judgment in the racial equality case Brown v. Board of Education, focusing on America's same-sex marriage laws as of 2013. The nation's Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), and Social Security survivors' benefits are addressed in the Windsor case. The author argues that the USSC has frequently used constitutional law to suppress outlier practices in the states.

The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court's (USSC's) ruling in the 2013 case McBurney v. Young which deals with state freedom of information laws in America, the legal concept of comity, and the Privileges and Immunities (P&I) Clause which is contained in Article IV of the U.S. Constitution. According to the article, Rhode Island resident Mark McBurney submitted a Virginia Freedom of Information Act request seeking documents about his family and his application for child support.

The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the 2013 case Maryland v. King which deals with the Fourth Amendment to the nation's Constitution, DNA collections laws, and judicial responses to forensic DNA typing. According to the article, criminal suspect Alonzo King's DNA was analyzed in conjunction with a state law in Maryland. The author argues that the court's ruling in the King case will impact the legal aspects of the testing of an arrestee's DNA.

The article discusses the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California's ruling in the 2012 case Morvant v. P.F. Chang's China Bistro Inc. which deals with arbitration, class action laws, and the U.S. National Labor Relations Act. The court in Morvant considers dispute resolution policies and the enforceability of class action waivers under the nation's Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) in relation to former P.F. Chang's employees Zachary Morvant and Jean Andrews.

The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the 2012 case National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius which deals with the constitutionality of the nation's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). The author argues that the court's decision to uphold the PPACA did not end the controversy associated with the health care reform law or the apparent expansion of federal power in the U.S.

The article discusses the roles of democracy and disdain in the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court during its 2011 term, including an analysis of the court's rulings in cases such as Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. One v. Holder, Arizona v. United States, and National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius. The nation's Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act is addressed, along with a historical overview of the court under Chief Justice Earl Warren.