Roberts Court

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

Trumping Politics: The Roberts Court and "Judicial Review"

Abstract: This Supreme Court Review Symposia Articles is brought to you for free and open access by TU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Tulsa Law Review by an authorized editor of TU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact daniel-bell@utulsa.edu. Recommended Citation Gene Nichol, Trumping Politics: The Roberts Court and Judicial Review, 46 Tulsa L. Rev. 421 (2013).

The Chicago School, Transaction Cost Economics and the Roberts Court's Antitrust Jurisprudence

Abstract: The Roberts Court's reign at the United States Supreme Court is only in its nascent stages. Already, however, its antitrust activity level has far exceeded the Court's single case average prior to the 2003-04 Term by a significant margin. The recent flurry of antitrust activity and the likely significance the Roberts Court will have on the development of antitrust jurisprudence warrants some reflection and analysis. I argue that the Roberts Court decisions embrace the Chicago School of antitrust analysis, Transaction Cost Economics, and insights from comparative institutional analysis gleaned from New Institutional Economics. Despite the rise of Post-Chicago Economics in economics departments and elite journals, the substance of the Roberts Court's antitrust jurisprudence suggests a significant amount of skepticism is appropriate concerning any prediction of the demise of the Chicago School or Transaction Cost Economics in antitrust in the coming years.

Hobby Lobby and the Pathology of Citizens United

Abstract: This Essay explores a distinct way Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission promises to influence pending challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), and a host of cases to come. Specifically, the way Citizens United approached precedent will likely affect, and radiate well beyond, the current ACA challenges. Citizens United read a number of prior decisions to adopt rules those decisions deliberately chose not to espouse. While this is not an entirely new move for the Court, the contribution of Citizens United was to normalize this disconcerting stance. The Roberts Court seems increasingly comfortable approaching precedent just as it did in that case. This Essay identifies this move as a consistent practice across a number of decisions, and explains why it is cause for deep concern.

Preemption in the Rehnquist and Roberts Courts: An Empirical Analysis

Abstract: This article presents an empirical analysis of the Rehnquist Court’s and the Roberts Court’s decisions on the federal (statutory) preemption of state law. In addition to raw outcomes for or against preemption, we examine cases by subject- matter, level of judicial consensus, tort versus regulatory preemption, party constellation, and origin in state or federal court. We present additional data and analysis on the role of state amici and of the U.S. Solicitor General in preemption cases, and we examine individual justices’ voting records. Among our findings, one stands out: over time and especially under the Roberts Court, lawyerly preemption questions have assumed a distinctly ideological flavor. Preemption cases are much more likely to be contested than they were in earlier decades; and in those cases, once-rare judicial bloc voting has become common.