Commentaries

May the Best Canon Win: Lockhart v. United States and the Battle of Statutory Interpretation

Posted on March 24th, 2017

By: Hassan Shaikh In Lockhart v. United States, the Supreme Court resolved a long-standing circuit split regarding 18 U.S.C. § 2252(b)(2), which triggered a mandatory minimum sentence for recidivists who had previously been convicted under federal or state crimes relating to “aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual conduct involving a minor or ward.” Continue Reading »

Birchfield v. North Dakota: Warrantless Breath Tests and the Fourth Amendment

Posted on March 24th, 2017

By: Sara Jane Schlafstein In Birchfield v. North Dakota, the Supreme Court explored warrantless breath tests during DUI stops and their validity under the Fourth Amendment. To determine their constitutionality, the Court adopted a balancing test, weighing the government’s interest in preventing instances of drunk driving with the intrusion on an individual’s privacy. The Court Continue Reading »

Drawing Lines: Racial Gerrymandering in Bethune-Hill v. Virginia Board of Elections

Posted on March 24th, 2017

By: Scott Reed In Bethune-Hill v. Virginia Board of Elections, the Supreme Court had to decide whether twelve Virginia challenged legislative districts, in which a one-size-fits-all 55% black voting age population floor was imposed, withstood constitutional scrutiny. The Court, though stating that the lower court misapplied precedent, declined to hold that race predominated in the Continue Reading »

Commodity Supply and Extraterritorial Patent Infringement in Life Technologies v. Promega

Posted on March 21st, 2017

By: G. Edward Powell American patent law grants inventors the exclusive right, within U.S. territory, to make, sell, use, and import their patented inventions. In response to attempts to circumvent the right by making the components of an invention within the U.S. and exporting them for assembly abroad, Congress passed 35 U.S.C. § 271(f), prohibiting Continue Reading »

Without More, There Is No More: Standing and Racial Gerrymandering in Wittman v. Personhuballah

Posted on March 7th, 2017

By: Jessica Edmundson In drawing election maps, racial gerrymandering separates minority groups, packing them into specific districts to weaken the power of their votes. In Wittman v. Personhuballah, the Supreme Court held that a group of Virginia congressmen that neither lived in, nor represented a district did not have standing to defend gerrymandering in that Continue Reading »

McCrory v. Harris: Constitutional Prohibitions on Racial Classifications and the Requirements of the Voting Rights Act in Redistricting

Posted on March 1st, 2017

By: Alex Dietz In McCrory v. Harris, the Supreme Court is faced with yet another redistricting case: Are the first and twelfth Congressional Districts in North Carolina the result of impermissible racial gerrymandering? The parties’ dispute centers around two questions: In what circumstances is race the predominant factor in a state legislature’s redistricting plan? And in Continue Reading »

Moore v. Texas: Balancing Medical Advancements With Judicial Stability

Posted on February 20th, 2017

By: Emily Taft In Moore v. Texas, the Supreme Court will consider whether the Eighth Amendment requires States to adhere to a particular organization’s most recent clinical definition of intellectual disability in determining whether a person is exempt from the death penalty under Atkins v. Virginia and Hall v. Florida. Generally, the Supreme Court has Continue Reading »

Flight Risk or Danger to the Community? Rodriguez and the Protection of Civil Liberties in the U.S. Immigration System

Posted on February 20th, 2017

By: Charlie Kazemzadeh Upon arrival to the United States, foreign nationals are required to prove beyond a doubt that they comply with the various requirements for admission into the country. For those who fail to meet this standard, there are only two options: accept immediate removal to their country of origin, or fight removal. For Continue Reading »

A House Built on Shifting Sands: Standing Under the Fair Housing Act After Thompson v. North American Stainless

Posted on February 10th, 2017

By: Eric Vanderhoef For decades, the Supreme Court construed standing under the Fair Housing Act broadly; any party could bring suit as long as it met Constitutional Standing requirements. In January 2011, in Thompson v. North American Stainless, the Court restricted standing under Title VII—a statute with similar empowering language to the Fair Housing Act. Continue Reading »

Violating Equal Protection: Lynch v. Morales-Santana and the INA’s Sex Discriminatory Physical Presence Requirement

Posted on January 30th, 2017

By: Courtney Magnus In Lynch v. Morales-Santana, the Supreme Court will consider whether the Immigration and Nationality Act’s physical presence requirement scheme violates the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee. Under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1401(a)(7) and 1409(c) (1952), an unwed U.S. citizen father wishing to convey citizenship at-birth to his child born abroad cannot do so Continue Reading »

Commentaries

May the Best Canon Win: Lockhart v. United States and the Battle of Statutory Interpretation

Posted on March 24th, 2017

By: Hassan Shaikh In Lockhart v. United States, the Supreme Court resolved a long-standing circuit split regarding 18 U.S.C. § 2252(b)(2), which triggered a mandatory minimum sentence for recidivists who had previously been convicted under federal or state crimes relating to “aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual conduct involving a minor or ward.” Continue Reading »

Birchfield v. North Dakota: Warrantless Breath Tests and the Fourth Amendment

Posted on March 24th, 2017

By: Sara Jane Schlafstein In Birchfield v. North Dakota, the Supreme Court explored warrantless breath tests during DUI stops and their validity under the Fourth Amendment. To determine their constitutionality, the Court adopted a balancing test, weighing the government’s interest in preventing instances of drunk driving with the intrusion on an individual’s privacy. The Court Continue Reading »

Drawing Lines: Racial Gerrymandering in Bethune-Hill v. Virginia Board of Elections

Posted on March 24th, 2017

By: Scott Reed In Bethune-Hill v. Virginia Board of Elections, the Supreme Court had to decide whether twelve Virginia challenged legislative districts, in which a one-size-fits-all 55% black voting age population floor was imposed, withstood constitutional scrutiny. The Court, though stating that the lower court misapplied precedent, declined to hold that race predominated in the Continue Reading »

Commodity Supply and Extraterritorial Patent Infringement in Life Technologies v. Promega

Posted on March 21st, 2017

By: G. Edward Powell American patent law grants inventors the exclusive right, within U.S. territory, to make, sell, use, and import their patented inventions. In response to attempts to circumvent the right by making the components of an invention within the U.S. and exporting them for assembly abroad, Congress passed 35 U.S.C. § 271(f), prohibiting Continue Reading »

Without More, There Is No More: Standing and Racial Gerrymandering in Wittman v. Personhuballah

Posted on March 7th, 2017

By: Jessica Edmundson In drawing election maps, racial gerrymandering separates minority groups, packing them into specific districts to weaken the power of their votes. In Wittman v. Personhuballah, the Supreme Court held that a group of Virginia congressmen that neither lived in, nor represented a district did not have standing to defend gerrymandering in that Continue Reading »

McCrory v. Harris: Constitutional Prohibitions on Racial Classifications and the Requirements of the Voting Rights Act in Redistricting

Posted on March 1st, 2017

By: Alex Dietz In McCrory v. Harris, the Supreme Court is faced with yet another redistricting case: Are the first and twelfth Congressional Districts in North Carolina the result of impermissible racial gerrymandering? The parties’ dispute centers around two questions: In what circumstances is race the predominant factor in a state legislature’s redistricting plan? And in Continue Reading »

Moore v. Texas: Balancing Medical Advancements With Judicial Stability

Posted on February 20th, 2017

By: Emily Taft In Moore v. Texas, the Supreme Court will consider whether the Eighth Amendment requires States to adhere to a particular organization’s most recent clinical definition of intellectual disability in determining whether a person is exempt from the death penalty under Atkins v. Virginia and Hall v. Florida. Generally, the Supreme Court has Continue Reading »

Flight Risk or Danger to the Community? Rodriguez and the Protection of Civil Liberties in the U.S. Immigration System

Posted on February 20th, 2017

By: Charlie Kazemzadeh Upon arrival to the United States, foreign nationals are required to prove beyond a doubt that they comply with the various requirements for admission into the country. For those who fail to meet this standard, there are only two options: accept immediate removal to their country of origin, or fight removal. For Continue Reading »

A House Built on Shifting Sands: Standing Under the Fair Housing Act After Thompson v. North American Stainless

Posted on February 10th, 2017

By: Eric Vanderhoef For decades, the Supreme Court construed standing under the Fair Housing Act broadly; any party could bring suit as long as it met Constitutional Standing requirements. In January 2011, in Thompson v. North American Stainless, the Court restricted standing under Title VII—a statute with similar empowering language to the Fair Housing Act. Continue Reading »

Violating Equal Protection: Lynch v. Morales-Santana and the INA’s Sex Discriminatory Physical Presence Requirement

Posted on January 30th, 2017

By: Courtney Magnus In Lynch v. Morales-Santana, the Supreme Court will consider whether the Immigration and Nationality Act’s physical presence requirement scheme violates the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee. Under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1401(a)(7) and 1409(c) (1952), an unwed U.S. citizen father wishing to convey citizenship at-birth to his child born abroad cannot do so Continue Reading »