Commentaries

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 »

Friends with Benefits: Redefining Personal Gain in Insider Trading Under Salman v. United States

Posted on December 8th, 2016

By: Wendy R. Becker Since Congress has not enacted a statute outlawing insider trading, or the trading of securities based on non-public information, outright, courts have struggled to define what constitutes insider trading. The Supreme Court held that a fiduciary duty was breached when the insider privy to the information receives a “personal benefit.” This Continue Reading »

The Choice Between Right and Easy: Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado and the Necessity of a Racial Bias Exception to Rule 606(b)

Posted on November 29th, 2016

By: Kevin Zhao Traditionally, under Rule 606(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, jurors are barred from testifying towards matters within juror deliberations. However, many jurisdictions in the United States have adopted an exception to this rule for racial prejudice. That is, if a juror comes forward post-verdict to testify that another juror made racially Continue Reading »

Further Punishing the Wrongfully Accused: Manuel v. City of Joliet, the Fourth Amendment, and Malicious Prosecution

Posted on November 20th, 2016

By: James R. Holley Manuel v. City of Joliet is before the Supreme Court to determine whether detention before trial without probable cause is a violation of the Fourth Amendment, or whether it is merely a violation of the Due Process Clause. Every circuit except the Seventh Circuit treats this type of detention as being Continue Reading »

Mississippi v. Tennessee: Resolving an Interstate Groundwater Dispute

Posted on October 28th, 2016

By: Peter G. Berris This commentary explores the legal background and potential ramifications of Mississippi v. Tennessee: an original jurisdiction case involving a dispute over aquifer groundwater. Although the Supreme Court has addressed water disputes between states in the past, Mississippi v. Tennessee is the first such case to center exclusively on groundwater. As a Continue Reading »

Asking the Right Federal Question: Merrill Lynch v. Manning and the Exclusive Jurisdiction Provision of the Securities Exchange Act

Posted on May 17th, 2016

By: Seth Taylor Suppose you run a small corporation in the business of auctioneering stamps, coins, and other collectibles. Sensing that your corporation’s financial prospects are on the decline, large financial institutions drive the price of the company’s stock down. Your shareholders sue in state court alleging a breach of state law in manipulating stock Continue Reading »

Commentaries

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 »

Friends with Benefits: Redefining Personal Gain in Insider Trading Under Salman v. United States

Posted on December 8th, 2016

By: Wendy R. Becker Since Congress has not enacted a statute outlawing insider trading, or the trading of securities based on non-public information, outright, courts have struggled to define what constitutes insider trading. The Supreme Court held that a fiduciary duty was breached when the insider privy to the information receives a “personal benefit.” This Continue Reading »

The Choice Between Right and Easy: Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado and the Necessity of a Racial Bias Exception to Rule 606(b)

Posted on November 29th, 2016

By: Kevin Zhao Traditionally, under Rule 606(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, jurors are barred from testifying towards matters within juror deliberations. However, many jurisdictions in the United States have adopted an exception to this rule for racial prejudice. That is, if a juror comes forward post-verdict to testify that another juror made racially Continue Reading »

Further Punishing the Wrongfully Accused: Manuel v. City of Joliet, the Fourth Amendment, and Malicious Prosecution

Posted on November 20th, 2016

By: James R. Holley Manuel v. City of Joliet is before the Supreme Court to determine whether detention before trial without probable cause is a violation of the Fourth Amendment, or whether it is merely a violation of the Due Process Clause. Every circuit except the Seventh Circuit treats this type of detention as being Continue Reading »

Mississippi v. Tennessee: Resolving an Interstate Groundwater Dispute

Posted on October 28th, 2016

By: Peter G. Berris This commentary explores the legal background and potential ramifications of Mississippi v. Tennessee: an original jurisdiction case involving a dispute over aquifer groundwater. Although the Supreme Court has addressed water disputes between states in the past, Mississippi v. Tennessee is the first such case to center exclusively on groundwater. As a Continue Reading »

Asking the Right Federal Question: Merrill Lynch v. Manning and the Exclusive Jurisdiction Provision of the Securities Exchange Act

Posted on May 17th, 2016

By: Seth Taylor Suppose you run a small corporation in the business of auctioneering stamps, coins, and other collectibles. Sensing that your corporation’s financial prospects are on the decline, large financial institutions drive the price of the company’s stock down. Your shareholders sue in state court alleging a breach of state law in manipulating stock Continue Reading »