Rick Rescorla - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Supreme Court Report

Every case the Supreme Court is asked to hear, what it asks, and the odds it is granted — rebuilt three times a day from the Court's own docket.

supremecourt.report

Native Marburys: Judicial Review in Tribal Courts

<div> <p>Not all of America’s courts have judicial review. This Article is the first to discuss a body of judicial review case law in which this extraordinary

papers.ssrn.com

<div> <span> </span><span>Field Notes from the U.S. Law Teaching Market</span> </div>

The U.S. law teaching market is highly competitive and traditionally reliant on specific institutional signals. For non-traditional candidates, accessing the un

ssrn.com

Fact Avoidance

<p><i><span>The legality of the President’s exercise of statutory power depends on questions of both law and fact. Yet courts often focus exclusively on the for

papers.ssrn.com

chicagounbound.uchicago.edu

Tradition and Feminism in Constitutional Rights Adjudication - Virginia Law Review

In recent years, “tradition” has been influentially invoked in constitutional rights adjudication and legal scholarship. The Supreme Court, in contexts ranging from abortion to the Second Amendment to...

virginialawreview.org

The Constitution of the War on Drugs

Abstract. This book recovers a lost history of constitutional challenges to punitive drug laws. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, advocates argued that crimi

academic.oup.com

Ablavsky on State Criminal Jurisdiction in Indian Country

Gregory Ablavsky, Stanford Law School, has posted State Criminal Jurisdiction in Indian Country: A History, which is forthcoming in the Virginia Law Review: In Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta (2022), the Supreme Court dismantled the long-standing black-letter principle that states lack criminal jurisdiction in Indian country absent congressional authorization by embracing a revisionist historical account emphasizing inherent state sovereignty. The consequences have been predictable: intense uncertainty and ongoing litigation. Oklahoma’s highest courts, for instance, have repeatedly endorsed inherent state jurisdiction over Native people within Indian country, employing Castro-Huerta to distinguish considerable contrary federal law and precedent. The challenge, especially given the current history-minded judiciary, is that the claim that states have never asserted inherent criminal jurisdiction over Indian country is too simplistic and easily disproven, making it tempting to toss out the old rules. But the revisionist claim, advanced by some scholars and embraced by Justice Thomas, that states enjoyed expansive criminal jurisdiction, is also wrong. This Article attempts to offer a more rigorous legal history, moving beyond the handful of Supreme Court decisions to survey every identifiable state and federal case on inherent state criminal jurisdiction in Indian country. It depicts four distinct periods: an initial headlong assault on federal authority (1787–1834) ; an era of "great confusion" in which states pressed on the many uncertainties of federal Indian law (1835–1886) ; the jurisdictional chaos of the allotment era (1880s–1930s); and a period of relative statutory stability (1948–2022) that Castro-Huerta has now abruptly terminated. What this history shows above all is contestation—a cat-and-mouse game in which states seized on ambiguities to claim authority, only to be periodically rebuffed by the federal courts. But the mere existence of past conflict does not support broader state jurisdiction in Indian country. Rather, every conventional method of legal and constitutional interpretation undercuts the argument that such jurisdiction was ever meaningfully positive law. There are also strong normative reasons for skepticism, since state claims of authority were rarely motivated by public safety but were instead tools to facilitate Native dispossession and erode tribal self-governance. By recounting these complexities, the Article challenges the current legal instability that threatens the foundations of modern tribal sovereignty. --Dan Ernst 

dlvr.it

How Supreme Court precedents die before they are overruled

scotusblog.com

scholarship.law.umn.edu

Enforcing the First Amendment in an Era of Jawboning | The University of Chicago Law Review

For decades, it has been black letter law that the informal exercise of government power can violate the First Amendment when it creates an “informal system of censorship.” Lower courts have been deep...

lawreview.uchicago.edu

She Faced a Life-Threatening Miscarriage. Under Arkansas’ Abortion Ban, Even Calls to the Governor’s Office Didn’t Help.

Her case shows how abortion bans have left hospital lawyers, not doctors, deciding who gets care — and how lawmakers and regulators have failed to change that.

propublica.org