scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Topic

Roberts Court

About: Roberts Court is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 397 publications have been published within this topic receiving 1468 citations.


Papers
More filters
Posted Content
TL;DR: The authors examined the Supreme Court from the perspective of a growing body of research that explains judicial behavior over time by focusing on its relationship to electoral politics and the broader political regime, particularly interested in the conflict between the Court and the Obama presidency and the cross-cutting divisions within the Court, and whether these can be understood as reflections of the broader partisan landscape of the New Right regime.
Abstract: Our paper examines the Supreme Court from the perspective of a growing body of research that explains judicial behavior over time by focusing on its relationship to electoral politics and the broader political regime. We are particularly interested in the conflict between the Court and the Obama presidency and the cross-cutting divisions within the Court, and whether these can be understood as reflections of the broader partisan landscape of the New Right regime. We use empirical data and historical arguments to make sense of the relationship between the Court and the New Right political regime at the macro-level. The first part of the paper briefly discusses the regimes approach and summarizes the partisan contours of the New Right regime. In contrast to previous regimes, especially the New Deal regime which it replaced, the New Right regime is far more divided and ideologically polarized. Part two examines how the divided and polarized nature of the New Right regime is reflected in an increasingly divided and polarized Court. Part three then turns to consider whether cleavages within the New Right Republican Party may be reflected in divisions within the conservative bloc of justices on the Court.

2 citations

Posted Content
TL;DR: In the case of Morse v. Frederick, a student was disciplined by school authorities for unfurling the now-infamous "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner across the street from a public high school.
Abstract: Will the Roberts Court Turn its Back on Tinker? In June of 2007, the Roberts Court released Morse v. Frederick, the closely-watched student speech case from Juneau, Alaska. In that case, a student was disciplined by school authorities for unfurling the now-infamous "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner across the street from a public high school. Chief Justice Roberts' majority opinion held that the school principal acted constitutionally in limiting student speech that reasonably could be interpreted as promoting illegal drug use. The Tinker standard of "substantial disruption" was found not to be applicable to the situation and Justice Thomas opined in a concurring opinion that "the better approach is to dispense with Tinker altogether ...." This Article describes the Supreme Court's earlier cut-backs of Tinker as well as its constitutional endorsement of searches of students by public school official. Both of these trends converged in the 2007 Morse case to allow student speech suppression by school authorities seeking to allegedly promote student safety. The first section of the Article discusses several studies concerning the statistics on school violence and whether it was increasing in the late 1990's. The next section reviews various federal laws relating to school safety. The major Supreme Court student speech and search cases preceding Morse are next discussed, notably New Jersey v. T.L.O., Vernonia, Bethel v. Fraser, and Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, all of which are discussed in Morse. The Article concludes: "Students are now attending public school with the expectation and experience of a constitutionally constrained setting. This may make them in turn more receptive, as adults, to similar rights limitations, or at least complacent should adult rights infringements occur." Morse v. Frederick increases the likelihood of this outcome and seems to indicate that the over-ruling of the Tinker standard presaged in the Article is just a case or two away.

2 citations

01 Jan 2008
TL;DR: The first two terms of the Roberts Court signal a willingness to revisit precedent, even decisions that have been considered long-settled, and the United States Supreme Court may be ready to reinterpret another area of jurisprudence: the private enforcement of conditions on federal spending against states through actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: The first two terms of the Roberts Court signal a willingness to revisit precedent, even decisions that have been considered long-settled, and the United States Supreme Court may be ready to reinterpret another area of jurisprudence: the private enforcement of conditions on federal spending against states through actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The most recent pre-Roberts Court precedent is Gonzaga University v. Doe, a 2002 decision that made it more difficult for individuals harmed by violations of federal laws to enforce rights through § 1983 actions. Federal courts have inconsistently and confusingly applied the Gonzaga framework, but the Rehnquist Court would not revisit the rule. Last term, however, the Roberts Court granted a petition for writ of certiorari that would have required reconsidering Gonzaga. Before it could be heard on the merits, the respondents mooted the case, but petitions for certiorari regularly arise in similar Medicaid enforcement cases. Thus, Gonzaga could be revisited in the context of enforcement of Medicaid statutory entitlements. Medicaid does not contain an enforcement mechanism, but the Supreme Court has facilitated enforcement of federal statutory rights against state officers through § 1983. However, this paper highlights recent events that increase the fragility of Medicaid. The first part of this paper explores the structure of Medicaid and key provisions of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 that could change Medicaid from a program of promised care and benefits into one of no enforceable

2 citations

Journal Article
TL;DR: In this article, Slobogin et al. argue that the "clear and convincing standard" of proof inadequately protects patients' due process rights because civil commitment hearings can result in severe deprivations of liberty.
Abstract: In one of its most controversial decisions to date, United States v. Comstock, the Roberts Court upheld a federal civil commitment statute requiring only an intermediate burden of proof. The statute provided for the postsentencing confinement of anyone proven by "clear and convincing evidence" to be mentally ill and dangerous. The law relied on a judicial standard established more than thirty years before. The majority in Comstock missed the opportunity to reassess the precedent in light of recent psychiatric studies indicating that the ambiguity of available diagnostic tools can lead to erroneous insanity assessments and mistaken evaluations about patients’ likelihood to engage in dangerous activities. I contend that the "clear and convincing standard" of proof inadequately protects patients’ due process rights because civil commitment hearings can result in severe deprivations of liberty. Commitments of felons whose continued dangerousness remains in doubt raises significant due process concerns. Even more troubling is the civil commitment of individuals with no criminal records of violence to whom the clear and convincing standard also applies. In this Article, I argue that the beyond a reasonable doubt standard of proof is needed to closely scrutinize evidence of mental disease and dangerousness. The multidisciplinary approach I pursue offers a unique framework for resolving a social problem that has been inadequately described in extant legal writings. I reflect on Supreme Court precedents in light of psychiatric studies about the limited reliability of emergency commitments and set out a standard adopted from criminal proceedings to better prevent unnecessary mental hospitalization. ∗ Assistant Professor, Loyola University, School of Law-Chicago. Thanks to Christopher Slobogin, William Fisher, Thomas Szasz, Allan V. Horwitz, Eugene Roginsky, Stuart Kirk, Alexandra Roginsky, Nadia Sawicki, Anat Geva, Harold Krent, Richard Delgado, Patrick Murphy, Thomas Scheff, Nancy Wolff, Melesa Freerks, Joshua Rubin, and Amber Battin for helpful comments and suggestions. 254 68 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 253 (2011)

2 citations

Journal Article
TL;DR: The authors examines the extent to which the business community is involved in, and is perhaps even playing a role in perpetuating, this paradox and examines how, if at all, this will affect the Court going forward.
Abstract: Two indicia of the Roberts Court’s alleged pro-business leanings are, first, its readiness to find state tort law preempted by federal law and, second, its skepticism toward Auer deference to federal agencies But it is difficult to reconcile individual Justices’ — particularly those identified as part of the “conservative core” — pro-preemption positions and anti-Auer positions, and this tension suggests that the oft-advanced pro-business narrative warrants a closer look The tension is on clearest display in drug preemption cases, where even the most anti-agency deference Justices readily defer to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), particularly when the agency’s interpretation of its own regulations under Auer is at issue This Article examines the extent to which the business community is involved in, and is perhaps even playing a role in perpetuating, this paradox It also remains to be seen how, if at all, this will affect the Court going forward

2 citations


Network Information
Related Topics (5)
Constitutional law
11.5K papers, 86.3K citations
85% related
Supreme court
41.8K papers, 306.7K citations
82% related
Common law
30.1K papers, 280.7K citations
77% related
Federalism
10.8K papers, 159.8K citations
75% related
Statute
19K papers, 146.6K citations
75% related
Performance
Metrics
No. of papers in the topic in previous years
YearPapers
20231
20229
20212
20209
20196
201812