Introduction to the Symposium on Judicial Takings
|
|
- Myrtle Lawrence
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 From the SelectedWorks of Benjamin Barros July, 2012 Introduction to the Symposium on Judicial Takings Benjamin Barros, Widener University - Harrisburg Campus Available at:
2 WIDENER LAW JOURNAL Copyright by the Widener University School of Law VOLUME NUMBER 3 SYMPosIUM INTRODUCTION TO THE SYMPOSIUM ON JUDICIAL TAKINGS D. Benjamin Barros The judicial takings issue is this: Can a judicial action ever be an unconstitutional taking of private property and, if so, when?' Until recently, the issue had a very low profile. A few law review articles discussed the possibility of judicial takings, 2 as had a few judicial opinions. 3 Compared to other takings issues, however, the topic of judicial takings was obscure. The Supreme Court of the United States' recent decision in Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection 4 suddenly brought the judicial takings * Associate Dean and Associate Professor of Law, Widener University School of Law, Harrisburg Campus. 1 See Ilya Somin, Stop the Beach Renourishment and the Problem of Judicial Takings, 6 DUKE J. CONST. L. & PUB. POL'Y 91, 91 (2011). 2 See, e.g., David J. Bederman, The Curious Resurrection of Custom: Beach Access and Judicial Takings, 96 COLUM. L. REV (1996); W. David Sarratt, Judicial Takings and the Course Pursued, 90 VA. L. REv (2004); Barton H. Thompson, Jr., Judicial Takings, 76 VA. L. REv (1990); Roderick E. Walston, The Constitution and Property: Due Process, Regulatory Takings, and Judicial Takings, 2001 UTAH L. REv. 379 (2001). 3 See, e.g., Stevens v. City of Cannon Beach, 510 U.S. 1207, (1994) (Scalia, J., dissenting); Hughes v. Washington, 389 U.S. 290, (1967) (Stewart, J., concurring); Robinson v. Ariyoshi, 753 F.2d 1468, (9th Cir. 1985), vacated, 477 U.S. 902 (1986); Sotomura v. County of Hawaii, 460 F. Supp. 473, (D. Haw. 1978). 4 Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Fla. Dep't of Envtl. Prot., 130 S. Ct (2010). 621
3 622 WIDENER LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 21 issue to the fore. Stop the Beach was the first case in which the Court had granted certiorari to consider a judicial takings claim. 5 The Court unanimously rejected the judicial takings claim made by the petitioner, 6 but divided on all of the substantive issues presented by the claim. 7 The crucial portions of Justice Scalia's opinion of the Court were joined only by Chief Justice Roberts and 8 Justices Alito and Thomas. Justice Kennedy, joined by Justice Sotomayor, wrote one concurring o inion; 9 Justice Breyer, joined by Justice Ginsburg, wrote another. The result is a case that is perfect for legal academics, but a potential nightmare for everyone else. The Court simultaneously catapulted the judicial takings issue into prominence and left all of the important issues undecided. It could be that at some point in the future, the Court will answer the fundamental question of whether there can ever be a valid judicial takings claim with a "no," and the entire judicial takings issue will disappear. Even if this occurs, however, the effort of wrestling with the issues raised in Stop the Beach will have been worthwhile for the conceptual light it sheds on broader issues of constitutional property. This symposium issue presents eight papers that explore the Stop the Beach case and the problem of judicial takings. Along the way, the papers also explore broader constitutional issues raised by the possibility of a judicial takings doctrine. The result is a collection of papers that illuminates the current controversy on judicial takings while simultaneously providing contributions to the wider literature. In the first paper, Property Rights, the "Gang of Four" & the Fifth Vote: Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection (U.S. Supreme Court Somin, supra note 1. 6 Stop the Beach, 130 S. Ct. at See id. at (plurality opinion) (illustrating the divergent views of the Justices). 8See id. 9 Id. at (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment). 1o Id. at (Breyer, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment).
4 2012] INTRODUCTION )," Garrett Power provides a careful analysis of the Stop the Beach opinions and explores what might happen if Justice Scalia is able to obtain a fifth vote to recognize a judicial takings doctrine. Professor Power argues that Justice Scalia's view of judicial takings reflects an absolutist view of property rights that, if it were able to secure a majority of the Court, would dramatically curtail government action. Williamson Chang's paper, Judicial Takings: Robinson v. Ariyoshi Revisited,1 2 provides context for understanding important, if often overlooked, judicial takings cases. Litigated in the 1970s and 1980s, these cases involved judicial takings claims challenging decisions by the Supreme Court of Hawai'i that arguably fundamentally changed Hawai'i property law. Professor Chang examines these Hawai'i cases in the light of the Stop the Beach plurality's view of judicial takings, and he discusses the impact that even the threat of judicial takings review might have on state court decision making. In Black Robes and Grabby Hands: Judicial Takings and the Due Process Clause, 13 Trevor Burrus argues that judges can take property, but that the relevant constitutional provision is the Due Process Clause, 14 not the Just Compensation Clause."s This argument gains particular importance from the due processoriented theory of judicial takings articulated in Justice Kennedy's Stop the Beach concurrence.16 Mr. Burrus argues for a view of prepolitical property rights based on customary law, and then he links this view into the Court's due process jurisprudence to argue for a judicial takings doctrine rooted in due process. " Garrett Power, Property Rights, the "Gang of Four" & the Fifth Vote: Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection (U.S. Supreme Court 2010), 21 WIDENER L.J. 627 (2012). 12 Williamson B.C. Chang, Judicial Takings: Robinson v. Ariyoshi Revisited, 21 WIDENER L.J. 655 (2012). 13 Trevor Burrus, Black Robes and Grabby Hands: Judicial Takings and the Due Process Clause, 21 WIDENER L.J. 719 (2012). 14 U.S. CONST. amend. V, cl. 4; id amend. XIV, 1, cl Id amend. V, cl See Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Fla. Dep't of Envtl. Prot., 130 S. Ct. 2592, (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment).
5 624 WIDENER LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 21 Tensions about beach erosion and property rights led to the dispute underlying Stop the Beach, 17 and any legal doctrine that renders beachfront property lines immutable will be problematic as sea levels rise. In Regulatory Takings and Property Rights Confront Sea Level Rise: How Do They Roll?,' 8 John Nolon discusses the intersection of sea level rise, beachfront property rights, and takings issues. Professor Nolon argues that a flexible approach to coastal management is preferable to a judicial takings doctrine that would place unprecedented limits on state courts. In Transition Relieffrom Judge-Made Law: The Incentives of Judicial Takings,1 9 Christopher Serkin links judicial takings to the larger issue of the impact of legal changes on property owners' investment incentives. This issue plays an important role in the literature on traditional regulatory takings, and the judicial takings context offers a useful lens through which to consider the larger picture. Professor Serkin ultimately argues that the consequences of recognizing a judicial takings doctrine suggest that concerns about investment incentives should play at most a minor role in structuring a takings doctrine. In Easements, Necessity, and the Role of Legal Change in Judicial Takings Claims, I explore judicial takings in the context of easements by necessity and related state private road acts. I argue that any takings claim, judicial or otherwise, requires a change in the law and that judicial awards of easements by necessity consistent with existing state law cannot be judicial takings. I also argue that not all changes in the law can support takings claims and that legal change is therefore necessary, but not sufficient, for a valid takings claim. In Judicial Takings and State Takings,21 Steven Eagle explores a tension between the Court's broader regulatory takings " See id. at (majority opinion). 18 John R. Nolon, Regulatory Takings and Property Rights Confront Sea Level Rise: How Do They Roll?, 21 WIDENER L.J. 735 (2012). 19 Christopher Serkin, Transition Relief from Judge-Made Law: The Incentives ofjudicial Takings, 21 WIDENER L.J. 777 (2012). 20 D. Benjamin Barros, Easements, Necessity, and the Role of Legal Change in Judicial Takings Claims, 21 WIDENER L.J. 797 (2012). 21 Steven J. Eagle, Judicial Takings and State Takings, 21 WIDENER L.J. 811 (2012).
6 2012] INTRODUCTION 625 jurisprudence, which distinguishes between types of government actors, and Justice Scalia's argument in his Stop the Beach plurality, which appears to reject such distinctions. 22 Professor Eagle argues that focusing on the government actors, judicial or otherwise, helps resolve some of the complexities of regulatory takings doctrine. Finally, in Judicial State Action: Shelley v. Kraemer, State Action, and Judicial Takings,23 Shelley Ross Saxer considers the impact of judicial takings on the larger issue of whether judicial action is state action for constitutional purposes. For judicial takings to fall within the protections of the Just Compensation Clause, the underlying judicial action would need to be state action. Shelley v. Kraemer24 recognized judicial action as state action. 25 Shelley left lingering concerns, however, about the legitimacy of treating a judicial adjudication of a dispute between two private parties as state action for constitutional purposes. Professor Saxer argues that these concerns counsel against recognizing a judicial takings doctrine. Together, these papers help us understand the judicial takings problem and the larger constitutional issues that this problem implicates. I extend my thanks to the symposium participants for their thoughtful contributions, and to the editors and staff of the Widener Law Journal for their efforts in making this symposium issue a success. 22 See id. at 813 & nn Shelley Ross Saxer, Judicial State Action: Shelley v. Kraemer, State Action, and Judicial Takings, 21 WIDENER L.J. 847 (2012). 24 Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948). 2 Id. at 20.
Supreme Court of the United States Ë
No. 08-1151 In the Supreme Court of the United States Ë STOP THE BEACH RENOURISHMENT, INC., v. Petitioner, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, et al., Respondents. Ë On Writ of Certiorari to
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 560 U. S. (2010) 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 08 1151 STOP THE BEACH RENOURISHMENT, INC., PETITIONER v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 10-331 In the Supreme Court of the United States Ë MAUNALUA BAY BEACH OHANA 28, a Hawaii Nonprofit Corporation; MAUNALUA BAY BEACH OHANA 29, a Hawaii Nonprofit Corporation; and MAUNALUA BAY BEACH OHANA
More informationNOTE BRINGING A JUDICIAL TAKINGS CLAIM
NOTE BRINGING A JUDICIAL TAKINGS CLAIM Josh Patashnik* This Note seeks to answer a set of questions prompted by the Supreme Court s 2010 decision in Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Department
More informationIf You Build It, He Will Come: Judicial Takings and a Search for Common Ground
Liberty University Law Review Volume 6 Issue 1 Article 5 August 2011 If You Build It, He Will Come: Judicial Takings and a Search for Common Ground Ian M. Frame Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/lu_law_review
More informationMore Questions Than Answers: Situating Judicial Takings Within Existing Regulatory Takings Doctrine
Campbell University School of Law Scholarly Repository @ Campbell University School of Law Scholarly Works Faculty Scholarship 2011 More Questions Than Answers: Situating Judicial Takings Within Existing
More informationWhy Judicial Takings are Unripe
Ecology Law Quarterly Volume 38 Issue 3 Article 6 June 2011 Why Judicial Takings are Unripe Ian Fein Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/elq Recommended Citation Ian
More informationA STRUCTURAL APPROACH TO JUDICIAL TAKINGS
A STRUCTURAL APPROACH TO JUDICIAL TAKINGS by Michael R. Salvas The Supreme Court has never extended the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to apply to state court actions, but it came close in Stop
More informationJames E. Holloway* Donald C. Guy** ABSTRACT
\\jciprod01\productn\f\flc\14-2\flc201.txt unknown Seq: 1 23-JUL-13 12:14 THE USE OF THEORY MAKING AND DOCTRINE MAKING OF REGULATORY TAKINGS THEORY TO EXAMINE THE NEEDS, REASONS, AND ARGUMENTS TO ESTABLISH
More informationTaxpayer Standing From Flast to Hein
University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository Faculty Publications 2010 Taxpayer Standing From Flast to Hein Carl H. Esbeck University of Missouri School of Law, esbeckc@missouri.edu Follow
More informationThe Federal Courts. Chapter 16
The Federal Courts Chapter 16 3 HISTORICAL ERAS OF INFLUENCE 1787-1865 Political Nation building (legitimacy of govt.) Slavery 1865-1937 Economic Govt. roll in economy Great Depression 1937-Present Ideological
More informationDistrict Attorney's Office v. Osborne, 129 S.Ct (2009). Dorothea Thompson' I. Summary
Thompson: Post-Conviction Access to a State's Forensic DNA Evidence 6:2 Tennessee Journal of Law and Policy 307 STUDENT CASE COMMENTARY POST-CONVICTION ACCESS TO A STATE'S FORENSIC DNA EVIDENCE FOR PROBATIVE
More informationCONSTITUTIONAL LAW: LOWERING THE STANDARD OF STRICT SCRUTINY. Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) Marisa Lopez *
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: LOWERING THE STANDARD OF STRICT SCRUTINY Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) Marisa Lopez * Respondents 1 adopted a law school admissions policy that considered, among other factors,
More informationONE WAY OR ANOTHER THE DEATH PENALTY WILL BE ABOLISHED, BUT ONLY AFTER THE PUBLIC NO LONGER HAS CONFIDENCE IN ITS USE
ONE WAY OR ANOTHER THE DEATH PENALTY WILL BE ABOLISHED, BUT ONLY AFTER THE PUBLIC NO LONGER HAS CONFIDENCE IN ITS USE JAMES E. COLEMAN* There are current indicators that the death penalty is losing much
More informationDEFENDING EQUILIBRIUM-ADJUSTMENT
DEFENDING EQUILIBRIUM-ADJUSTMENT Orin S. Kerr I thank Professor Christopher Slobogin for responding to my recent Article, An Equilibrium-Adjustment Theory of the Fourth Amendment. 1 My Article contended
More informationMcDonald v. City of Chicago (2010)
Street Law Case Summary Argued: March 2, 2010 Decided: June 28, 2010 Background The Second Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, but there has been an ongoing national debate
More informationCh.9: The Judicial Branch
Ch.9: The Judicial Branch Learning Goal Students will be able to analyze the structure, function, and processes of the judicial branch as established in Article III of the Constitution; the judicial branches
More informationAEP v. Connecticut and the Future of the Political Question Doctrine
JAMES R. MAY AEP v. Connecticut and the Future of the Political Question Doctrine Whether and how to apply the political question doctrine were among the issues for which the Supreme Court granted certiorari
More informationRESPONSE. Hein and the Goldilocks Principle. Maya Manian
RESPONSE Hein and the Goldilocks Principle Maya Manian Two weeks into his presidency, George W. Bush issued an executive order establishing the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives
More informationJAMES E. HOLLOWAY ** & DONALD C. GUY ***
EXTENDING REGULATORY TAKINGS THEORY BY APPLYING CONSTITUTIONAL DOCTRINE AND ELEVATING TAKINGS PRECEDENTS TO JUSTIFY HIGHER STANDARDS OF REVIEW IN KOONTZ * JAMES E. HOLLOWAY ** & DONALD C. GUY *** The Roberts
More informationSupreme Court Limits Enhanced Attorneys Fees Under Federal Fee-Shifting Laws to
Supreme Court Limits Enhanced Attorneys Fees Under Federal Fee-Shifting Laws to Extraordinary Circumstances A partially divided U.S. Supreme Court agreed that lower courts in federal civil rights and related
More informationCOMMENTS DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER: THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS
COMMENTS DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER: THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 15-1054 In the Supreme Court of the United States CURTIS SCOTT, PETITIONER v. ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
More informationJudicial Takings: Musings on Stop the Beach
University of Michigan Law School University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository Law & Economics Working Papers 1-1-2014 Judicial Takings: Musings on Stop the Beach James E. Krier University
More informationJudicial Takings: Musings on Stop the Beach
University of Michigan Law School University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository Articles Faculty Scholarship 2014 Judicial Takings: Musings on Stop the Beach James E. Krier University of Michigan
More informationSTOP THE BEACH RENOURISHMENT: WHY THE JUDICIARY IS DIFFERENT
STOP THE BEACH RENOURISHMENT: WHY THE JUDICIARY IS DIFFERENT John D. Echeverria INTRODUCTION On June 17, 2010, after six months of undoubtedly contentious internal debate, the U.S. Supreme Court (minus
More informationSentencing May Change With 2 Kennedy Clerks On High Court
Sentencing May Change With 2 Kennedy Clerks On High Court By Alan Ellis and Mark Allenbaugh Published by Law360 (July 26, 2018) Shortly before his confirmation just over a year ago, we wrote about what
More informationThe Intersection of the Takings Clause and Rising Sea Levels: Justice O Connor s Concurrence in Palazzolo Could Prevent Climate Change Chaos
Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review Volume 43 Issue 2 Article 11 5-31-2016 The Intersection of the Takings Clause and Rising Sea Levels: Justice O Connor s Concurrence in Palazzolo Could Prevent
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CLARENCE DENNIS, ) ) Appellant, ) ) vs. ) CASE NO. SC09-941 ) L.T. CASE NO. 4D07-3945 STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) PETITIONER S AMENDED REPLY BRIEF ON THE MERITS
More informationLAWRENCE v. FLORIDA: APPLICATIONS FOR POST- CONVICTION RELIEF ARE PENDING UNDER THE AEDPA ONLY UNTIL FINAL JUDGMENT IN STATE COURT
LAWRENCE v. FLORIDA: APPLICATIONS FOR POST- CONVICTION RELIEF ARE PENDING UNDER THE AEDPA ONLY UNTIL FINAL JUDGMENT IN STATE COURT ELIZABETH RICHARDSON-ROYER* I. INTRODUCTION On February 20, 2007, the
More information320 HARVARD LAW REVIEW [Vol. 124:179
320 HARVARD LAW REVIEW [Vol. 124:179 tremendous, but still only partial, victory for clarity in federal diversity jurisdiction. B. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Preemption of State Procedural Rules.
More informationUNITED STATES V. MORRISON 529 U.S. 598 (2000)
461 UNITED STATES V. MORRISON 529 U.S. 598 (2000) INTRODUCTION On September 13, 1994, 13981, also known as the Civil Rights Remedy, of the Violence Against Women Act was signed into law by President Clinton.
More informationCitation: John Harrison, The Unitary Executive and the Scope of Executive Power, 126 Yale L.J. F. 374 ( )
Citation: John Harrison, The Unitary Executive and the Scope of Executive Power, 126 Yale L.J. F. 374 (2016-2017) Provided by: University of Virginia Law Library Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline
More informationMedellin's Clear Statement Rule: A Solution for International Delegations
Fordham Law Review Volume 77 Issue 2 Article 9 2008 Medellin's Clear Statement Rule: A Solution for International Delegations Julian G. Ku Recommended Citation Julian G. Ku, Medellin's Clear Statement
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, Petitioner, v. Case No. SC14-1092 COY A. KOONTZ, JR., AS Lower Tribunal Case No. 5D06-1116 PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE
More informationJurisdiction. Appointed by the President with the Advice and Consent of the Senate according to Article II, Section 2
The Judicial Branch Jurisdiction Federal Courts Article III, Section 1 vests judicial power in the Supreme Court and other inferior courts created by Congress Judges serve during good Behavior Appointed
More informationFriday Session: 8:45 10:15 am
The Rocky Mountain Land Use Institute Friday Session: 8:45 10:15 am Takings: Lingle v. Chevron and the Future of Regulatory Takings in Land Use Law 8:45 10:15 a.m. Friday, March 10, 2006 Sturm College
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2006
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2006 JAMES LESCHER, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES, Respondent. No. 4D06-2291 [December 20, 2006]
More informationTakings Law and the Regulatory State: A Response to R.S. Radford
Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 1995 Takings Law and the Regulatory State: A Response to R.S. Radford William Michael Treanor Georgetown University Law Center, wtreanor@law.georgetown.edu
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 535 U. S. (2002) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of
More informationLilly v. Virginia Glimmers of Hope for the Confrontation Clause?
University of Michigan Law School University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository Articles Faculty Scholarship 2000 Lilly v. Virginia Glimmers of Hope for the Confrontation Clause? Richard D.
More informationDouble Jeopardy Implications of the Use of Vicarious Liability in the Successive Prosecutions of Conspiracy and the Related Substantive Charge
Washington University Law Review Volume 69 Issue 2 In Memoriam: F. Hodge O'Neal January 1991 Double Jeopardy Implications of the Use of Vicarious Liability in the Successive Prosecutions of Conspiracy
More informationTRADITIONAL SENTENCING FACTORS V. ELEMENTS OF AN OFFENSE: THE QUESTIONABLE VIABILITY OF ALMENDAREZ-7TORRES V. UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT TRADITIONAL SENTENCING FACTORS V. ELEMENTS OF AN OFFENSE: THE QUESTIONABLE VIABILITY OF ALMENDAREZ-7TORRES V. UNITED STATES In 1998, the United States Supreme Court decided the
More informationFEDERAL PROCEDURAL RULES UNDERMINE IMPORTANT STATE INTERESTS IN SHADY GROVE ORTHOPEDIC ASSOCIATES, P.A. V. ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO.
FEDERAL PROCEDURAL RULES UNDERMINE IMPORTANT STATE INTERESTS IN SHADY GROVE ORTHOPEDIC ASSOCIATES, P.A. V. ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO., 130 S. CT. 1431 (2010) Since the Supreme Court s decision in Erie Railroad
More informationLEGAL MEMORANDUM. On February 25, 2015, in North Carolina State Board of Dental
LEGAL MEMORANDUM No. 150 North Carolina Dental Board and the Reform of State-Sponsored Protectionism Alden F. Abbott and Paul J. Larkin, Jr. Abstract The Supreme Court s February 25, 2015, decision in
More informationStop the Stop the Beach Plurality!
Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 2011 Stop the Stop the Beach Plurality! J. Peter Byrne Georgetown University Law Center, byrne@law.georgetown.edu Georgetown Public Law and
More informationSummary of the Court s Workload, October Term 2009
Summary of the Court s Workload, October Term 2009 Total cases granted or probable jurisdiction noted: 90: Cases decided summarily (without scheduled argument): 10*; Cases dismissed before oral argument:
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. In the Supreme Court of the United States JAMES L. KISOR, v. Petitioner, PETER O ROURKE, Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeals
More information1 See, e.g., Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U.S. 547, 559 (1978) ( The Fourth Amendment has
FOURTH AMENDMENT WARRANTLESS SEARCHES FIFTH CIRCUIT UPHOLDS STORED COMMUNICATIONS ACT S NON- WARRANT REQUIREMENT FOR CELL-SITE DATA AS NOT PER SE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. In re Application of the United States
More informationBankruptcy Jurisdiction and the Supreme Court: Can a State be Sued for Money When It Violates a Federal Statute?
Bankruptcy Jurisdiction and the Supreme Court: Can a State be Sued for Money When It Violates a Federal Statute? Janet Flaccus Professor I was waiting to get a haircut this past January and was reading
More informationMEMORANDUM. June 30, From: Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and SCOTUSblog.com Re: End of Term Statistical Analysis October Term 2008
MEMORANDUM June 30, 2009 From: Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and SCOTUSblog.com Re: End of Term Statistical Analysis October Term 2008 This memo presents the firm s annual summary of relevant statistics
More informationu.s. Department of Justice
u.s. Department of Justice Criminal Division D.C. 20530 February 27, 2012 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: All Federal Prosecutors Patty Merkamp Stemler /s PMS Chief, Criminal Appell.ate Section SUBJECT: Guidance
More informationNo In The Supreme Court of the United States
No. 16-1077 In The Supreme Court of the United States BAY POINT PROPERTIES, INC. f/k/a BP PROPERTIES, INC., v. Petitioner, MISSISSIPPI TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION and MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
More informationForeword: How Far is Too Far? The Constitutional Dimensions of Property
Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School Digital Commons at Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review Law Reviews 6-1-1992 Foreword: How Far is Too Far?
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D.C. Docket No. 4:13-cr HLM-WEJ-1. versus
Case: 15-15246 Date Filed: 02/27/2017 Page: 1 of 15 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 15-15246 D.C. Docket No. 4:13-cr-00043-HLM-WEJ-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
More informationIntroduction to Symposium on Administrative Statutory Interpretation
Michigan State University College of Law Digital Commons at Michigan State University College of Law Faculty Publications 1-1-2009 Introduction to Symposium on Administrative Statutory Interpretation Glen
More informationThe Jurisprudence of Justice John Paul Stevens: Selected Opinions on the Jury s Role in Criminal Sentencing
The Jurisprudence of Justice John Paul Stevens: Selected Opinions on the Jury s Role in Criminal Sentencing Anna C. Henning Legislative Attorney June 7, 2010 Congressional Research Service CRS Report for
More informationORIGINALISM AND PRECEDENT
ORIGINALISM AND PRECEDENT JOHN O. MCGINNIS * & MICHAEL B. RAPPAPORT ** Although originalism has grown in popularity in recent years, the theory continues to face major criticisms. One such criticism is
More informationFourth Circuit Summary
William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review Volume 29 Issue 3 Article 7 Fourth Circuit Summary Samuel R. Brumberg Christopher D. Supino Repository Citation Samuel R. Brumberg and Christopher D.
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
i Nos. 17-74; 17-71 In the Supreme Court of the United States MARKLE INTERESTS, L.L.C., ET AL., Petitioners, v. U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE, ET AL., Respondents. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, v. Petitioner, U.S.
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
(Bench Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2007 1 NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes
More informationDunn v. Madison United States Supreme Court. Emma Cummings *
Emma Cummings * Thirty-two years ago, Vernon Madison was charged with the murder of a Mobile, Alabama police officer, Julius Schulte. 1 He was convicted of capital murder by an Alabama jury and sentenced
More informationsus PETITIONER'S MOTION TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE MAR * MAR US TAX COURT gges t US TAX COURT 5:04 PM DENIS KLEINFELD, Petitioner,
US TAX COURT gges t US TAX COURT RECEIVED y % sus efiled MAR 2 2018 * MAR 2 2018 5:04 PM DENIS KLEINFELD, Petitioner, ELECTRONICALLY FILED v- Docket No. 11576-17 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
(Bench Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2006 1 NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes
More informationInformational Standing After Summers
Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review Volume 39 Issue 1 Article 1 1-1-2012 Informational Standing After Summers Bradford C. Mank University of Cincinnati College of Law, brad.mank@uc.edu Follow
More informationThe dealers alleged that Exxon had intentionally overcharged them for fuel. 4
EXXON MOBIL CORP. v. ALLAPATTAH SERVICES, INC.: (5-4) IN DIVERSITY CASES, ONLY ONE PLAINTIFF OR CLASS MEMBER MUST SATISFY THE AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY REQUIREMENT BLAYRE BRITTON* In two cases consolidated
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
(Bench Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 1998 1 NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT. No. C083239
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT No. C083239 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW FOUNDATION, et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD, et al.,
More informationArbitration Agreements and Class Actions
Supreme Court Enforces Arbitration Agreement with Class Action Waiver, Narrowing the Scope of Ability to Avoid Such Agreements SUMMARY The United States Supreme Court yesterday continued its rigorous enforcement
More informationSummary of the Court s Workload, October Term 2009
Summary of the Court s Workload, October Term 2009 Total cases granted or probable jurisdiction noted: 90: Cases decided summarily (without scheduled argument): 10*; Cases dismissed before oral argument:
More informationWhat You Need to Know About the Supreme Court's Clean Water Act Decision in Hawkes
What You Need to Know About the Supreme Court's Clean Water Act Decision in Hawkes Publication 06/14/2016 Co-Authored by Chelsea Davis Ashley Peck Partner 801.799.5913 Salt Lake City aapeck@hollandhart.com
More informationSIGNS, SIGNS EVERYWHERE A SIGN: WHAT THE TOWN OF GILBERT CASE MEANS FOR SCHOOLS. Kristin M. Mackin SIMS MURRAY LTD.
SIGNS, SIGNS EVERYWHERE A SIGN: WHAT THE TOWN OF GILBERT CASE MEANS FOR SCHOOLS Kristin M. Mackin SIMS MURRAY LTD. First Amendment Governments shall make no law [1] respecting an establishment of religion,
More informationWhat s So Special About Treaty Arbitration?: U.S. Supreme Court Confronts Its First International Investment Treaty Arbitration Case
What s So Special About Treaty Arbitration?: U.S. Supreme Court Confronts Its First International Investment Treaty Arbitration Case BY IGOR V. TIMOFEYEV, JOSEPH R. PROFAIZER & DANIEL PRINCE December 2013
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: U. S. (2000) 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Nos. 98 791 and 98 796 J. DANIEL KIMEL, JR., ET AL., PETITIONERS 98 791 v. FLORIDA BOARD OF REGENTS ET AL. UNITED STATES, PETITIONER 98 796 v.
More information2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 1 Supreme Court of the United States STOP THE BEACH RENOURISHMENT, INC. v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMEN- TAL PROTECTION et al. No. 08-1151. Argued Dec. 2, 2009. Decided
More informationA State Sovereignty Limitation on the Commerce Power
Louisiana Law Review Volume 37 Number 4 Spring 1977 A State Sovereignty Limitation on the Commerce Power Richard Curry Repository Citation Richard Curry, A State Sovereignty Limitation on the Commerce
More informationUNITED STATES V. COMSTOCK: JUSTIFYING THE CIVIL COMMITMENT OF SEXUALLY DANGEROUS OFFENDERS
UNITED STATES V. COMSTOCK: JUSTIFYING THE CIVIL COMMITMENT OF SEXUALLY DANGEROUS OFFENDERS HALERIE MAHAN * I. INTRODUCTION The federal government s power to punish crimes has drastically expanded in the
More informationDue Process Clause Federal Sentencing Guidelines Beckles v. United States
Due Process Clause Federal Sentencing Guidelines Beckles v. United States The vagueness doctrine takes at least two forms: one based in the Due Process Clause 1 and one based in the Eighth Amendment. Under
More informationSupreme Court Declines to Overrule or Modify Basic, But Allows Rebuttal of "Price Impact" in Opposing Class Certification
June 24, 2014 Supreme Court Declines to Overrule or Modify Basic, But Allows Rebuttal of "Price Impact" in Opposing Class Certification In Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., No. 13-317, the Supreme
More informationSpinning the Legislative Veto
Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 1984 Spinning the Legislative Veto Girardeau A. Spann Georgetown University Law Center, spann@law.georgetown.edu This paper can be downloaded
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
(Bench Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 1998 1 NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes
More informationWilliams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar: Judicial Elections as the Exception
Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar: Judicial Elections as the Exception ANDREW LESSIG I.) Introduction On April 19, 2015, the United States Supreme Court handed down their decision in Williams-Yulee v.
More informationDISMISSING DETERRENCE
DISMISSING DETERRENCE Ellen D. Katz Last June, in Shelby County v. Holder, 1 the Supreme Court scrapped section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act. 2 That provision subjected jurisdictions that met specified
More informationWikiLeaks Document Release
WikiLeaks Document Release February 2, 2009 Congressional Research Service Report RS20084 RIGHT TO A CLEAN ENVIRONMENT PROVISIONS IN STATE CONSTITUTIONS, AND ARGUMENTS AS TO A FEDERAL COUNTERPART Robert
More informationUnited States v. Jones: The Foolish revival of the "Trespass Doctrine" in Addressing GPS Technology and the Fourth Amendment
Valparaiso University Law Review Volume 47 Number 2 pp.277-288 Winter 2013 United States v. Jones: The Foolish revival of the "Trespass Doctrine" in Addressing GPS Technology and the Fourth Amendment Brittany
More informationThe Property Jurisprudence of Justice Kennedy
University of the Pacific Scholarly Commons McGeorge School of Law Scholarly Articles McGeorge School of Law Faculty Scholarship 2013 The Property Jurisprudence of Justice Kennedy John G. Sprankling Pacific
More informationBy: Mariana Gaxiola-Viss 1. Before the year 2002 corporations were free to sponsor any
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 Violates Free Speech When Applied to Issue-Advocacy Advertisements: Fed. Election Comm n v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 2652 (2007). By: Mariana Gaxiola-Viss
More informationSummary of the Court s Workload, October Term 2009
Summary of the Court s Workload, October Term 2009 Total cases granted or probable jurisdiction noted: 80; Original cases: 2; Cases dismissed before oral argument: 1 (Pollitt); Cases decided before oral
More informationCRS-2 served a secular legislative purpose because the Commandments displays included the following notation: The secular application of the Ten Comma
Order Code RS22223 Updated October 8, 2008 Public Display of the Ten Commandments Summary Cynthia Brougher Legislative Attorney American Law Division In 1980, the Supreme Court held in Stone v. Graham
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 580 U. S. (2017) 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES DAMION ST. PATRICK BASTON v. UNITED STATES ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
More informationNo WILLIAM A. DABBS, JR. Petitioner, v. ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, Respondent.
No. 18-54 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES WILLIAM A. DABBS, JR. Petitioner, v. ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND BRIEF
More informationINTRO TO POLI SCI 11/30/15
INTRO TO POLI SCI 11/30/15 Objective: SWBAT describe the type of court system in the US and how the Supreme Court works. Agenda: Turn in Late Work Judicial Branch Notes When your friend asks to borrow
More informationDISTINGUISHING THE TRULY NATIONAL FROM THE TRULY LOCAL : CUSTOMARY ALLOCATION, COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY, AND COLLECTIVE ACTION
DISTINGUISHING THE TRULY NATIONAL FROM THE TRULY LOCAL : CUSTOMARY ALLOCATION, COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY, AND COLLECTIVE ACTION NEIL S. SIEGEL We accordingly reject the argument that Congress may regulate noneconomic,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
(Bench Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2003 1 NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes
More informationFEDERAL COURTS, PRACTICE & PROCEDURE RE-EXAMINING CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE FEDERAL COURTS: AN INTRODUCTION
FEDERAL COURTS, PRACTICE & PROCEDURE RE-EXAMINING CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE FEDERAL COURTS: AN INTRODUCTION Anthony J. Bellia Jr.* Legal scholars have debated intensely the role of customary
More informationNo IN THE Supreme Court of the United States. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
No. 14-1543 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States RONALD S. HINES, DOCTOR OF VETERINARY MEDICINE, v. Petitioner, BUD E. ALLDREDGE, JR., DOCTOR OF VETERINARY MEDICINE, ET AL., Respondents. On Petition
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 10-553 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States HOSANNA-TABOR EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH AND SCHOOL, Petitioner, v. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION AND CHERYL PERICH, Respondents. On Writ
More informationCase 1:18-cv JMF Document Filed 06/06/18 Page 1 of 15. Plaintiffs,
Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 167-1 Filed 06/06/18 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
1 SCALIA, J., concurring SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 13A452 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF GREATER TEXAS SUR- GICAL HEALTH SERVICES ET AL. v. GREGORY ABBOTT, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS ET AL. ON APPLICATION
More informationPennsylvania Supreme Court Issues Transformative Decision in Environmental Rights Amendment Case
11 July 2017 Practice Groups: Environment, Land and Natural Resources Oil, Gas & Resources Pennsylvania Supreme Court Issues Transformative By Anthony R. Holtzman, Craig P. Wilson, John P. Krill, Jr.,
More information