The Supreme Court has recently offered strikingly similar answers to two seemingly disparate questions. The first concerns Article III standing to bring a case in federal court: What does it mean to show a “concrete and particularized injury in fact”…
Latest Post
More Posts
Miranda Warnings Are A Right Without A Remedy
Will Dobbs (and Janus) Overrule Stare Decisis?
Appealing TROs: Some “Practical” Advice
Why Standards of Review Matter
Preempting Appellate Issues in Palin v. New York Times
Chief Justice Roberts and what it means to be an “institutionalist” Supreme Court Justice.
A Limited Time For Term Limits
If the public’s opinion of the Supreme Court falls in the woods, does anyone hear it?
In COVID-Era Law School, the New Boss Is the Same As the Old Boss
Waiting for Warrants? Chief Justice Roberts’s conflicting opinions on the speed of warrant applications in Lange and McNeely.
The Problem with the Invited Future Appeal in Justice Alito’s Fulton v. Philadelphia Concurrence
Zombie Precedents? Stare Decisis and the New Footnote Fourt in Jones v. Mississippi
Reducing Exigencies and Rebuilding Trust
Certainty vs. Exigency: The Role of Modern Police Officers in Lange v. California
Subscribe: Subscribe via RSS
Blogs
Firm/Org