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.

The Quiet Evolution Continues

Abstract: Most recent discussions of land-use law have focused on possible damage awards against local governments as a result of two Supreme Court decisions in 1987. However, most of the news for local governments has actually been good. Appellate courts have to date favored damage awards in only a few, generally egregious, cases. A variety of courts have upheld restrictive land-use controls, including some based solely on aesthetic considerations. Courts have also been friendly to tougher enforcement measures. The concept of impact fees has enjoyed more recent play in the literature than in the courts, while the friendly treatment of linkage requirements in the literature has not been supported by the courts.

Unraveling Judicial Restraint: Guns, Abortion, and the Faux Conservatism of J. Harvie Wilkinson, III

Abstract: Writing in the Virginia Law Review, a distinguished federal judge maintains that true conservatives are required to substitute principles of judicial restraint for an inquiry into the original meaning of the Constitution. Accordingly, argues J. Harvie Wilkinson, III, the Supreme Court's Second Amendment decision in District of Columbia v. Heller is an activist decision just like Roe v. Wade: "[B]oth cases found judicially enforceable substantive rights only ambiguously rooted in the Constitution's text." In this response, we challenge his critique.Part I shows that Judge Wilkinson's analogy between Roe and Heller is untenable. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is in the Constitution, and the right to abortion is not. Contrary to Judge Wilkinson, the genuine conservative critique of Roe is based on the Constitution, not on judicial "values." Judge Wilkinson, moreover, does not show that Heller's interpretation of the Second Amendment is refuted, or even called into serious question, by Justice Stevens' dissenting opinion. Part II shows that Judge Wilkinson himself does not adhere to the "neutral principle" that he claims to derive from "judicial values." Under the principle of judicial restraint that he articulates, many now-reviled statutes, including the Jim Crow laws of the twentieth century, should have been upheld by the courts. Judge Wilkinson does not accept the consequences of his own supposedly neutral principle, preferring instead to endorse or condemn Supreme Court decisions solely on the basis of his policy preferences. That is not judicial restraint. It is judicial lawlessness.

Connecting Supreme Court Decisions, Media Coverage, and Public Opinion: The Case of Lawrence v. Texas

Abstract: Many scholars have examined the relationship between public opinion and the U.S. Supreme Court, but most researchers have often failed to take into account the fact that the press mediates this relationship. Due to the public’s lack of independent knowledge about Supreme Court decisions, the media has the potential to play an influential role in the communication and interpretation of Supreme Court decisions. In this article, we examine the relationship between the Supreme Court, the media, and public opinion. First, we examine whether increased public tolerance on gay and lesbian issues has resulted in increased media coverage of gay-related cases before the Supreme Court. Second, we examine how media coverage of the Court’s 2003 decision to strike down state sodomy laws in Lawrence v. Texas may have been associated with decreased public support for gay and lesbian civil rights. Our analysis suggests that increased support for gay and lesbian civil rights may have lead to increased media attention to the Lawrence case and that the tone of this coverage may have subsequently resulted in an observed decrease in support for gay and lesbian civil rights following the Court’s decision. We also suggest that the release of a highly critical dissenting opinion by the Court in the case may have encouraged negative media coverage and the resulting shift in public opinion. Our research has broad implications for media coverage of Supreme Court decisions.

From Pioneer to Punisher: America’s Quest to Find Its Juvenile Justice Identity

Abstract: From its putative founding in 1899, the American juvenile justice system has struggled to find an identity. Initially, the system embraced benevolent ideals, recognizing the special situation of children and calling for a framework specifically crafted to address their needs. But as time progressed, the winds of juvenile justice began to shift in a completely different direction. The structural flaws of the institution became exposed, and the social climate of the times called for reform. This dramatic shift culminated in the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 1967 decision _In re Gault_, which began transforming the juvenile court into an institution noticeably different from the one envisioned by early reformers. In Parts II through IV, this Comment takes an in-depth look at the history of the American juvenile justice system. In doing so, it exposes the United States’ struggle to find its juvenile justice identity. This tension is particularly evident in America’s juvenile sentencing practices, which are discussed in Part V. For years, the United States lagged behind the rest of the world by continuing to sentence juveniles to death or life without parole. But a string of U.S. Supreme Court decisions starting in 2005 has put the United States back on track in terms of juvenile sentencing. Part VI explores those cases. Finally, this Comment concludes by arguing that the United States should harness that judicial momentum, categorically abolish juvenile life without parole, and regain its status as a leader in juvenile justice.