Supreme Court Decisions

About: Supreme Court Decisions is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 1804 publications have been published within this topic receiving 17066 citations.

Os Juízes na Pauta do Supremo: a Atuação da Associação dos Magistrados Brasileiros no Controle Concentrado de Constitucionalidade

Abstract: Brazilian Judges’ Association is a central political actor in the defense of the rights, prerogatives and benefits of the judicial corporation in the Brazilian Supreme Court. So, the research that underlies this paper analyzed 93 Supreme Court decisions in actions filed by the AMB between 1988 and 2017, in order to understand how the AMB has used its legitimacy to provoke concentrated judicial review. The result offers a diagnosis of the use of concentrated control from the identification of conflicts between the judiciary, other spheres of state power and other legal careers. In addition to mapping the main themes of decisions the text presents an evaluation of the standard of decision adopted on issues such as judicial organization, remuneration policy and judicial Independence. The article also raises hypotheses about the STF's judicial behavior when it is in the defense of the corporate interests of other members of the Judiciary.

Redistricting and Minority Representation: Learning from the Past, Preparing for the Future

Abstract: chapter 1 Introduction chapter 2 The future of majority-minority districts and black and Hispanic legislative representation chapter 3 Latino voters and redistricting in the new millennium chapter 4 The realist's guide to redistricting chapter 5 Prospects for black representation after Miller v Johnson. Commentaries: The impact of recent Supreme Court decisions on racial representation chapter 6 An optimists view of minority representation chapter 7 Reflections and projections

The States' Interest in Federal Procedure

Abstract: Recent changes to federal procedure have alarmed state governments. In a handful of cases decided in the past ten years, the Supreme Court has dramatically restructured basic procedural devices like general personal jurisdiction (Daimler AG v. Bauman), class actions (AT&T v. Concepcion), and pleading (Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly). Signaling their concern, dozens of states have written sharp amici in some of these cases, demanding that federal courts refrain from remaking longstanding doctrines. Expressing their distress, some state legislatures have threatened to skirt Supreme Court decisions through tactically worded state legislation: a New York bill seeks to circumvent Daimler, while a California bill promises to avoid the consequences of Concepcion. Even state courts have joined the effort, embracing creative ways to avoid the consequences of these groundbreaking procedural decisions. This type of state intrusion into federal procedure is novel and raises questions about federalism and the development of federal procedure.This Article sheds light on the growing phenomenon of state attempts to influence federal procedure, its causes and consequences. First, it develops a typology of federal procedure’s interaction with state courts. Then, it explores how states have recently responded to federal changes by seeking to shape federal procedure through legislation, court decisions, and amici. In exploring these developments, the Article discusses the passive influence of state law, which is the unseen and unintentional ways through which state law shapes federal procedure, and active state actions, like amici and legislation that advocate a particular view of federal procedure. These interventions have been strident and ubiquitous. Second, the article critically analyzes states’ interests in federal procedure and proposes a dynamic theory as to why states may seek to shape federal procedural devices. In their amici, states claim that federal changes threaten court access for “private attorneys general” and that local businesses should not bear the burden of federal procedural overreach. However, the Article argues that this is an incomplete account of events — deeper motives influence states, including state-federal competition in the litigation market that encourages states to retain important and lucrative cases in state court. This incentive system has also been influenced by the recent marriage between politics and procedure — state Republican Party officials have embraced an anti-litigation narrative that opposes class actions and litigation generally, while Democrats support looser procedure and open courts. These positions translate into surprisingly nuanced views of federal procedure. Finally, the Article focuses normatively on whether states’ actions are salutary for federal procedure. Thereafter, it suggests ways to accommodate state interests in the structure and framework of federal procedure such that important changes can avoid federal-state friction.

Patentability of Stem Cells in the United States.

Abstract: Until recently, the patentability of stem cells was well established within the judicial and statutory framework in the United States. However, the shifting landscape of patent law, particularly with regard to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101, presents new challenges to the patentability of stem cells. In this paper, we discuss the legal precedent that paved the way for stem cell patents, including Diamond v. Chakrabarty and In re Bergy. Additionally, we review recent Supreme Court cases and recent guidance issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that impose new limitations on patent-eligible subject matter and thereby threaten the patentability of stem cells in the United States.