Showing papers on "Supreme Court Decisions published in 2019"

A Decade of Change Roper v. Simmons, Defending Childhood, and Juvenile Justice Policy

Abstract: In the last decade, juvenile justice has emerged with more compassion and child-focused policies. During this time, crime decreased, successful strategies for prevention and intervention were ident...

State Abortion Restrictions and the New Supreme Court: Women's Access to Reproductive Health Services

Abstract: The US Supreme Court’s landmark 1973 ruling in Roe v Wade established a privacy right to choose abortion. In 1992, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey reaffirmed Roe with the Supreme Court calling reproductive decisions “the most intimate and personal choices a person may make…central to personal dignity.” Casey allows abortion regulations, but states cannot impose an “undue burden,” where the law’s “purpose or effect” places a substantial obstacle in a woman’s path in accessing an abortion previability. State abortion restrictions — meaning laws that restrict whether, when, and under what circumstances a woman may obtain an abortion — increased in the aftermath of Roe and Casey. The Supreme Court is unlikely to review bans on abortion under all or most circumstances but appears poised to incrementally uphold multiple restrictions, including those that affect the medical procedures, health professionals and institutions, decision-making, and funding involved in the provision of abortion services. This article explores how these restrictions would limit the affordability of or access to abortions, undermine trust in the patient-physician relationship, and jeopardize women’s health, emotional well-being, and dignity. It also examines how they would disproportionately affect already disadvantaged and under-served women, raising concerns about equity and justice.

The Supreme Court in a Polarized Era: Is Legitimacy at Risk?

Abstract: We examine the role that mass perceptions of the Supreme Court’s institutional nature—particularly how “political” it is—plays in assessments of its legitimacy. In a series of original studies, we find that policy disagreement with Supreme Court decisions leads individuals to view that decision, and the Court itself, as being political in nature. We then show that the more political people think the Court is, the less legitimate they consider it to be. In this way, we show that policy disagreement with decisions strongly and directly reduces Court legitimacy.

Texas v United States: The Affordable Care Act Is Constitutional and Will Remain So.

Abstract: On December 14, 2018, in a widely reported decision, a federal judge in Texas ruled that the entire Affordable Care Act (ACA) is unconstitutional. The judge reasoned that since the ACA’s “individual mandate” is unconstitutional, the rest of the law cannot stand without it. However, the ACA will remain in place pending appeal, and it is highly unlikely that this ruling will stand.

Mayo’s impact on patent applications related to biotechnology, diagnostics and personalized medicine

Abstract: On the sixth anniversary of Mayo v. Prometheus, what impact has the US Supreme Court decision had on patent subject-matter eligibility and the prosecution of biotech-related patent applications before the US Patent and Trademark Office?

Linguistic Complexity, Information Processing, and Public Acceptance of Supreme Court Decisions

Abstract: August 28-31. We are grateful for the comments provided by Lisa Holmes. Scholars suggest that judges have an incentive to use complex language to increase support for their decisions. Research on the effects of processing fluency, however, points towards a different set of expectations. Using a survey experiment, we manipulate the complexity of the language conveying two recent Court decisions, the institutional source of these decisions, and the presence of party cues. For the less polarizing of the two decisions, we find support for the predictions drawn from the literature on processing fluency and the dual processing theory of the mind. By decreasing processing fluency, complex decision language can both decrease acceptance of the decision and diminish the importance of basic cues in arriving at this judgment. The presence of legalistic terminology, however, can increase acceptance of a decision, perhaps due to the persuasiveness of references to legal authority and the importance of legal terms as a type of positive legal symbol. 1 One of the hallmarks of law is its complexity. The decisions and legal opinions rendered by courts are no exception. While studies of judicial behavior typically conceptualize the complexity of a court case as a function of the number of legal issues or legal provisions at stake 2010), the most obvious and proximate source of complexity is the very language used by judges in their opinions.

Fourth Amendment Protections of Health Information After Carpenter v. United States: The Devil's In The Database.

Abstract: Every day, companies collect health information from customers and analyze it for commercial purposes. This poses a significant threat to privacy, particularly as the Fourth Amendment protection of this deeply personal information is limited. Generally, law enforcement officers do not need probable cause and a warrant to access these private health information databases; only a subpoena is required, and sometimes nothing at all. The Fourth Amendment protections for health information may, however, have changed after the Supreme Court's 2018 decision in Carpenter v. United States, which held that the Fourth Amendment protects people from warrantless searches of historical cell-site location information possessed by their cell phone providers. The Court explained that, because of the nature of historical cell-site location information, individuals retain a reasonable expectation of privacy despite the information being in the possession of a third party. In reaching its holding, the Supreme Court considered the type of data, the uniqueness of cell-site location information, the impact of technological advancement on privacy, the voluntariness of the disclosure, and the property rights associated with the records. Many of these factors could support heightened Fourth Amendment protection for health information. This Article argues that Carpenter v. United States provides additional protections for future searches of health information in private databases.

The Costs of Supreme Court Decisions

Abstract: Supreme Court decisions have costs, and seldom are they higher than in constitutional cases. Consider how Dred Scott relegated free people to slavery, and how a civil war soon followed. Or how Black Americans suffered under Jim Crow for decades after Plessy. Or how in the wake of Korematsu, thousands of innocent Japanese-Americans were detained in incarceration camps until the end of World War II. Sometimes, however, groups that lose at the Court have something more to say about their fates. The Article V amendment process is usually only a trifling part of this story; these groups are far more likely to engage in sub-constitutional efforts to avoid their harms. For example, after the Supreme Court overruled Lochner, industries protected their bottom lines by raising prices and reducing employment. After Brown, some white families sent their children to private schools or moved to the suburbs. And after the Court invalidated fair share fees in Janus v. AFSCME, Council 31, public sector unions successfully persuaded workers to pay dues voluntarily. Not all Supreme Court defeats, it seems, inflict equally inescapable harms. Or in the language of law and economics, some groups are better able to avoid the costs of an adverse Supreme Court ruling than others. Constitutional law should take account of this fact. If virtually everyone agrees that neither the Court nor elected lawmakers will get every close constitutional question right, we may as well ask whether there is a way to minimize the costs created when either one is at risk of getting the Constitution wrong. This is a best cost-avoider theory of constitutional law: in hard constitutional cases, the Supreme Court should rule against the group that can best avoid the costs of an adverse decision.

Effects of the America Invents Act and Recent Supreme Court Decisions on Patent Law

Abstract: Due to an interest in pursuing a career in patent law with an electrical engineering background, this thesis describes the 2012 America Invents Act (AIA), which made major changes to patent law in the United States including the switch from “first-to-invent” to “first-to-file” and the creation of the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB), as well as several relevant key Supreme Court decisions, and explains the impact that these events have caused. Through interviews with attorneys and others in the patent law community, personal research and investigation, and data from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), it has been determined from the research presented that the way that attorneys and companies proceed with patent prosecution and litigation has changed and the value of a patent has lessened some, but contrary to popular belief these events have not drastically hurt the amount of patent applications that get granted every year, nor have they hurt or helped small time inventors.

Where We are on the Twentieth Anniversary of Olmstead v. L.C.

Abstract: Our nation has a dark history of treatment of individuals with disabilities. Not long ago, states prevented people with disabilities from marrying, working in competitive jobs, and attending public schools. Individuals with disabilities were forced to live in isolated, long-term institutions away

Killing Me Sovereignly: The Quiet Demise of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Abstract: PURPOSE The aim of the study was to make rehabilitation nurses aware that the Supreme Court has limited some of the protections afforded by the Americans With Disabilities Act (1990) on the basis of "sovereign immunity." METHODS The authors use the case review method to analyze Supreme Court cases and alternatives for people with disabilities discriminated against because of the state in which they live. FINDINGS Sovereign immunity makes it more difficult for a disabled person to bring a lawsuit against a state government (as an employer or provider of a public service) under the Americans With Disabilities Act. CONCLUSION The extent to which disabled Americans can fully participate in their communities should not depend on where in the country they live. CLINICAL RELEVANCE As patient advocates, rehabilitation nurses are in an ideal position to educate patients and families and have a duty to make their voices heard to persuade lawmakers to strengthen legal protections for disabled Americans.

A Broad View of Automation in Legal Prediction Technology

Abstract: With advancements in machine learning and automation many industries are finding ways to manage laborious tasks for better performance. Many researchers have already started to develop techniques and algorithms considering legal profession to help potential clients in reducing legal costs by predicting the outcome. Computation, automation and artificial intelligence displaced number of basic tasks in law firm. This paper discusses the empirical methods for legal profession that are used to predict the supreme court decisions based on decisions considering the past, merits and demerits, and its performance.

Are these friends also “friends of the court”?: examining minority legal advocacy organization coalitions in amicus brief filings

Abstract: Increased social diversity generally, and in the minority legal advocacy group environment specifically, the significance of Supreme Court decisions, and the ability to analyze inter-minori...

Uncertainty in Employee Status Across Federal Law

Abstract: Numerous federal statutes rely on a distinction between employees and independent contractors. Based on a series of Supreme Court decisions from 1968 through 2003, courts and administrative agencies have used a common law multifactor test to draw this distinction. In an effort to enhance predictability and certainty within and across legislation, these cases have rejected a purposive approach in applying the test. But the Supreme Court has never said which, if any, of the factors are the most important in the analysis, nor has anyone determined whether the underlying purpose—enhancing predictability and certainty—has been attained. This empirical Study uses content analysis to answer these questions. First, based on a variety of statistics, it determines which factors are the most and least important under several federal statutory schemes. Next, it calculates the factors’ accuracies and compares the results to determine if there is consistency within and across the legislation and whether predictability and certainty have been achieved. Concluding that predictability and certainty have not been achieved using the common law multifactor test, this Article proposes and evaluates reform efforts to solve, or at least reduce, the inconsistency problem while still achieving the goals of the legislation.

Draft bill reignites U.S. debate over patenting human genes

Abstract: A congressional proposal to expand the range of inventions eligible for a U.S. patent is drawing protest from scientific societies and patient advocates. The draft bill, released last month by a bipartisan group of lawmakers, would reverse Supreme Court decisions that restricted patents on natural processes and products, including human genes. In two hearings held last week by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, some representatives of the biotechnology industry and research universities applauded the proposal, saying it would boost innovation. But others were alarmed. The American Civil Liberties Union in Washington, D.C., and more than 100 other signatories released a letter warning that the proposed changes would stifle medical research and hinder patients9 access to diagnostic tests.

The (Surprisingly) Prevalent Role of States in an Era of Federalized Class Actions

Abstract: In enacting the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, Congress intended to expand access to federal courts for interstate class actions by creating minimal diversity and removal jurisdiction. Congress stated that a purpose of CAFA was to “restore the intent of the framers of the United States Constitution by providing for Federal court consideration of interstate cases of national importance under diversity jurisdiction.” Despite CAFA, states have retained a role in addressing complex litigation aided by Supreme Court decisions recognizing the independent role of state courts in enforcing local legal norms. An historical examination of dual system complex litigation illustrates the extent to which federal courts have successfully (or unsuccessfully) intervened in pending parallel state court proceedings through application of abstention, the Anti-Injunction Act, preclusion, and Erie doctrines. Thus, the Court has upheld the right of state courts to maintain state class litigation notwithstanding federal court repudiation of certification of the same litigation. In so doing, the Court has recognized principles of federalism and comity, signaled a “non-interference” stance with state class proceedings, and strengthened the independent role of state courts in complex litigation. Moreover, several federal courts have rejected the primacy of federal courts in applying Rule 23 class certification standards in derogation of countervailing state statutes that would prohibit prosecution of the same class litigation in state court. CAFA additionally recognized a role for state court adjudication of complex litigation by carving out local controversy exceptions to its removal provisions. The Court also has recognized the role of state attorneys general in their parens patriae capacity under CAFA to pursue complex litigation on behalf of state citizenry, in spite of defense attempts to evade state court jurisdiction. In addition, state attorneys generals have the right to receive notice of federal class action settlements and to lodge comments or objections to pending settlements that might affect state constituents. Thus, CAFA and the Court have given state attorneys general a relatively robust role in addressing complex litigation and afforded significant protection to state enforcement efforts. The Court also has held that the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 did not strip state courts of their longstanding jurisdiction to adjudicate class actions alleging only § 1933 Securities Act violations. In enacting SLUSA, Congress did nothing to deprive state courts of jurisdiction over class actions based on federal law. In sum, although the received understanding of CAFA was to federalize class litigation, state courts nonetheless have continued to perform a role in addressing complex cases. To a significant extent, state courts have been insulated from federal judicial encroachment on states’ ability to handle complex litigation in its own courts, and state attorneys generals have in various ways been empowered to pursue aggregate relief on behalf of state citizenry.

Evaluating Intellectual Disability after the Moore v. Texas Redux.

Abstract: This article reviews the history of the U.S. Supreme Court's rulings on intellectual disability in capital cases, highlighting the difficulty states have had in devising a workable definition that meets constitutional standards. The Court's decisions in Penry v. Lynaugh (1989), Atkins v. Virginia (2002), and Hall v. Florida (2014) are briefly summarized. Next, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals' ruling in Ex parte Briseno (2004) is discussed as a prelude to the Supreme Court's decision in Moore v. Texas I (2017). On remand, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals interpreted the Supreme Court's Moore I ruling in a manner that resulted in finding Mr. Moore intellectually able, and therefore eligible for the death penalty, in Ex parte Moore II (2018). Finally, the importance of the Supreme Court's most recent ruling on intellectual disability in capital cases, Moore v. Texas II (2019), is explored in depth. The article concludes with recommendations for best practices among forensic evaluators who assess capital defendants for intellectual disability.

An Analysis of Three Legal Citation Networks Derived from Austrian Supreme Court Decisions

Abstract: In this paper, we present a case study on the structural properties of three citations networks derived from Austrian Supreme Court decisions. In particular, we analyzed 250.984 Supreme Court decisions ranging from 1922 to 2017. As part of our case study, we analyzed the degree distributions, the structural properties of prominent court decisions, as well as changes in the frequency of legal citations over time.

The Impact of Epic Systems in the Labor and Employment Context

Abstract: In Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018), the Supreme Court ruled that an employer did not violate the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) when it required employees to agree to arbitrate all claims against the employer and also waive their rights to bring a class or collective action against the employer. The Court reasoned that class or collective actions were not the type of “concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection” that Section 7 of the NLRA protects. This comment, part of a three-part discussion on the impact of Epic Systems, discusses the impact of the decision on federal labor and employment policy. The Epic Systems case, like many of the Supreme Court’s recent arbitration decisions, highlights the sometimes dissonant interplay between two previously separate bodies of law that have converged in the last 27 years: 1) the legal doctrine developed under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), which Congress passed in 1925 to allow for federal court enforcement of arbitration agreements; and 2) legal doctrines arising from federal labor, employment discrimination, and worker protection laws that include the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Fair Labor Standards Act. The comment concludes that the most immediate and direct impact of the Epic Systems ruling falls largely on non-unionized non-transportation workers who have been required to waive their right to bring a class or collective action against their employers. It is now clear that those workers cannot rely on NLRA § 7 to void their waivers. The ruling also narrowed the breadth of the rights protected by the NLRA. In addition, because it is based on the FAA, Epic Systems carries forward the differing treatment of transportation workers and all other workers under the FAA that the Supreme Court announced in the Circuit City case. Since Circuit City established that contracts of employment of transportation workers were exempt from the FAA, Epic Systems and all the other Supreme Court decisions concerning the enforceability of arbitration agreements and class action waivers under the FAA do not apply to them. However, all other workers are subject to the FAA jurisprudence that allows for enforcement of almost any agreement having to do with arbitration. This is not consistent with federal labor and employment policy embodied in anti-discrimination, worker protection, and collective bargaining laws, which do not treat transportation workers differently from non-transportation workers. The Epic Systems case only heightens that inconsistency.

National Personal Jurisdiction

Abstract: Personal jurisdiction has always constrained plaintiffs’ access to courts; recent Supreme Court decisions impose even more severe limits, especially in suits against nonresident foreign corporations. These limitations are magnified by the standard understanding that the relevant forum for purposes of the personal jurisdiction calculus is the state. The Court’s Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence relies on the state as the relevant forum, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in the typical case direct a federal court to apply the same test as would a court of the state in which it sits. This Article takes on the challenge of exploring the possibility of expanding the use of national personal jurisdiction, and thus revitalizing plaintiffs’ access to courts. In so doing, it undertakes three distinct tasks. First, it argues first that there is no Fifth Amendment Due Process barrier to national personal jurisdiction. Second, it considers the viability of national personal jurisdiction as to various categories of claims, brought in federal court and state court. It argues that Congress has the power to introduce national personal jurisdiction as to all claims brought in the federal courts, but that Congress lacks authority to introduce national personal jurisdiction as to any claims brought in the state courts. However, Congress could open the federal courthouse doors wider to claims where national personal jurisdiction is deemed appropriate. Third, the Article considers what steps Congress is free to utilize in order to implement national personal jurisdiction. While two steps are obvious—Congress can enact statutory authority and can convey authority on a delegate—the Article focuses on a more controversial path to national personal jurisdiction: the common law. It argues that, while federal courts may enjoy interstitial common-law powers in this area, they likely do not have broad powers to generate new instances of national personal jurisdiction.

Is the US Supreme Court a Driver of Social Change or Driven by it? A Literature Review

Abstract: Whether the Supreme Court of the United States drives or is driven by social change is an important strategic question for social movements that seek to implement systemic change in the United States. However, a thorough summary of empirical research on this question is lacking. This report summarizes the results of the most important empirical contributions to this debate. The results of aggregating 121 research items based on the strength of evidence suggest that Supreme Court decision-making is influenced by public opinion and by the activities of interest groups. Supreme Court rulings that are favorable to social movements’ goals can encourage positive changes in public attitudes, behavior, and policy, though these effects are sometimes negligible and the evidence is slightly weaker than that for the influence of public opinion on Supreme Court decisions. Additionally, Supreme Court rulings may encourage substantial backlash, so it may be counterproductive for social movements to actively pursue radical legal change if they are not prepared to respond to these threats.

Public Health Law and Policy Implications: Justice Kavanaugh.

Abstract: Following the confirmation of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh in one of the most sensational jurisprudence events of the modern era, we examine potential repercussions across multiple themes in public health, law, and policy stemming from his ideology and the confirmation process.

Public order intervention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judicial sentences

Abstract: The issue of recognition and enforcement of foreign court decisions in Turkish Law is regulated between the 50th and 60th articles of the Law on the Private international law and Procedural Law dated 27.11.2007 and numbered 5718 (MOHUK). In accordance with these regulations, one of the conditions required for achieving recognition or enforcement of a judgement of a foreign court in Turkey is; “These judgemets shall not manifestly contrary to the Turkish public order.” In our study, firstly the concept of public order in private international law and the scope of this concept will be mentioned, and then a brief information will be given about the criteria which are sought in the recognition and enforcement of foreign court decisions in Turkish private international law. Subsequently, will be focused on the “public order” intervention, which is the subject of our study, and detailed and comparative information will be given on the subject. At this point, the theory of extenuated effect explaining public order intervention and the purpose of this intervention will be included. Within the framework of the prohibition of revision, the boundaries of public order intervention and the limits of discretion of the judge shall be examined in the context of basic and procedural criteria. In the course of these examinations, in addition to the Turkish doctrine, the views of the German doctrine on the subject will be discussed and the theoretical knowledge will be tried to be concretized in the light of Turkish Supreme Court decisions

The World Bank must clean up its act.

Abstract: A court ruling on environmental damages is a wake-up call: agencies are slipping in their mission to help the global poor, says Vijaya Ramachandran. A court ruling on environmental damages is a wake-up call: agencies are slipping in their mission to help the global poor, says Vijaya Ramachandran.

Bundesgerichtliche Urteile zum Arztrecht (2000–2017) – Überblick, ausgewählte Kasuistik und Würdigung

Abstract: Federal Supreme Court Decisions in Medical Law (2000-2017) - Overview and Selected Case Reports Abstract. Within the framework of an empirical and casuistic analysis of Federal Court decisions in medical law between 2000 and 2017, the goal was to describe tendencies and patterns of Federal Court decisions in medical law. Among other things, our results show that specialists in internal medicine, psychiatry, gynecology, obstetrics and surgery are more frequently involved in federal court proceedings. By contrast, pathologists, forensic specialists or (diagnostic) radiologists are rarely represented. This may be explained by the fact that the first group consists of more physicians than the other specialties. Furthermore, in the first group, either stronger action may be taken against the will of the patient (e.g. in the context of compulsory medication in psychiatry) or a possible breach of the duty of care is more obvious for the patient or his relatives or at least recognizable even without medical knowledge.

National Personal Jurisdiction

Abstract: Personal jurisdiction has always constrained plaintiffs’ access to courts; recent Supreme Court decisions impose even more severe limits, especially in suits against nonresident foreign corporations. These limitations are magnified by the standard understanding that the relevant forum for purposes of the personal jurisdiction calculus is the state. The Court’s Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence relies on the state as the relevant forum, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in the typical case direct a federal court to apply the same test as would a court of the state in which it sits. This Article takes on the challenge of exploring the possibility of expanding the use of national personal jurisdiction, and thus revitalizing plaintiffs’ access to courts. In so doing, it undertakes three distinct tasks. First, it argues first that there is no Fifth Amendment Due Process barrier to national personal jurisdiction. Second, it considers the viability of national personal jurisdiction as to various categories of claims, brought in federal court and state court. It argues that Congress has the power to introduce national personal jurisdiction as to all claims brought in the federal courts, but that Congress lacks authority to introduce national personal jurisdiction as to any claims brought in the state courts. However, Congress could open the federal courthouse doors wider to claims where national personal jurisdiction is deemed appropriate. Third, the Article considers what steps Congress is free to utilize in order to implement national personal jurisdiction. While two steps are obvious—Congress can enact statutory authority and can convey authority on a delegate—the Article focuses on a more controversial path to national personal jurisdiction: the common law. It argues that, while federal courts may enjoy interstitial common-law powers in this area, they likely do not have broad powers to generate new instances of national personal jurisdiction.

Constitutional gerrymandering against abortion rights: Nifla V. Becerra

Abstract: Author(s): Chemerinsky, E; Goodwin, M | Abstract: In National Institute of Family Life Advocates v. Becerra, the Supreme Court said that a preliminary injunction should have been issued against a California law that required that reproductive healthcare facilities post notices containing truthful factual information. All that was required by the law was posting a notice that the state of California makes available free and low-cost contraception and abortion for women who economically qualify. Also, unlicensed facilities were required to post a notice that they are not licensed by the state to provide healthcare. In concluding that the California law is unconstitutional, the Court’s decision has enormously important implications. It puts all laws requiring disclosures in jeopardy because all, like the California law, prescribe the required content of speech. All disclosure laws now will need to meet strict scrutiny and thus are constitutionally vulnerable. Moreover, the ruling is inconsistent with prior Supreme Court decisions that allowed the government to require speech of physicians intended to discourage abortions. The Court ignored legal precedent, failed to weigh the interests at stake in its decision, and applied a more demanding standard based on content of speech. But NIFLA v. Becerra is only secondarily about speech. It is impossible to understand the Court’s decision in NIFLA v. Becerra except as a reflection of the conservative Justices’ hostility to abortion rights and their indifference to the rights and interests of women, especially poor women. In this way, it is likely a harbinger of what is to come from a Court with a majority that is very hostile to abortion.

Beyond Compare? A Codefendant's Prison Sentence As a Mitigating Factor in Death Penalty Cases

Abstract: This Article addresses whether the U.S. Constitution requires courts to permit capital defendants to submit, during sentencing, the mitigating factor that a codefendant for the same murder was sentenced to prison instead of to death. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly stressed the importance of mitigating factors in capital cases. For the most part, litigation since the reintroduction of capital punishment in the 1970s has clarified what circumstances are to be weighed as mitigating. But the Court has not addressed the current divide among lower courts regarding whether the Eighth Amendment requires courts to allow juries to consider a codefendant’s sentence as mitigating evidence. This Article begins with the Supreme Court decisions regarding mitigating factors and proportionality, noting how the Court has stressed the importance of fairness in death penalty cases. This Article additionally examines how courts are currently split on the issue of whether a codefendant’s prison sentence should be weighed as a mitigating factor. Several state courts have treated this factor as mitigating while others have not. Although some U.S. courts of appeals have upheld lower court decisions rejecting this mitigating factor, most of those appellate court decisions were applying a deferential habeas corpus standard of review to uphold the lower court decision. Thus, the issue itself remains unresolved. This Article concludes by explaining why logic and Supreme Court precedent dictate that courts should allow capital defendants to present this mitigating factor to juries. Jurors should be able to weigh the evidence and use it to make a decision when they are choosing between a sentence of death and a sentence of life in prison.

Book Review, The US Supreme Court and the Centralization of Federal Authority, by Michael A. Dichio

Abstract: Does the U.S. Supreme Court protect the states from the expansion of federal authority? In this important new book, political scientist Michael Dichio argues that the answer is “no.” To the contrary, he contends that, throughout American history, “the Court …. has persistently acted as an important instrument of the broader central state, expanding federal authority over society.” The theory that the Supreme Court expands federal power at the expense of the states is not a new idea, having been first raised by anti-Federalist critics of the Constitution over 200 years ago. But Dichio provides the most thorough and wide-ranging defense of it to date, drawing on an extensive database of notable Supreme Court decisions from 1789 through 1997. Among other things, he shows that the Court constrained the states in important ways even in historical periods that are often thought of as high points for “states’ rights,” such as the Jacksonian era and the late nineteenth century. Dichio’s analysis is, in many ways, compelling, and is a major contribution to the literature on federalism and judicial review. But some of his methodological choices overstate the centralizing tendencies of the Supreme Court. He also unduly downplays some key ways in which the Court promotes decentralization of power. While the Supreme Court has never been a consistent ally of state governments seeking to limit federal authority, it is also not quite as consistent a centralizing force as Dichio suggests.

New Year Brings New ACA Developments

Abstract: A new year ushers in new Affordable Care Act regulations, court decisions, and hearings in the US House of Representatives.