Testimony Before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary on the Nomination of Brett Kavanaugh for Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court

We have investigated the differences in support for the U.S. Supreme Court among black, Hispanic, and white Americans, catalogued the variation in African Americans’ group attachments and experiences with legal authorities, and examined how those latter two factors shape individuals’ support for the U.S. Supreme Court, that Court’s decisions, and for their local legal system. We take this opportunity to weave our findings together, taking stock of what we have learned from our analyses and what seem like fruitful paths for future research. In the process, we revisit Positivity Theory. We present a modified version of the theory that we hope will guide future inquiry on public support for courts, both in the United States and abroad.

Download Full-text

Immunizing the Flock: How the Pandemic Court Rewrote Religious Freedom

Laws ◽

10.3390/laws10010012 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 10 (1) ◽

pp. 12

Author(s):

Paul Baumgardner

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Supreme Court ◽

Legal System ◽

Religious Freedom ◽

The United States ◽

Religious Practices ◽

The Past ◽

The U.S

When coronavirus began to descend upon the United States, religious freedom advocates across the country sounded the alarm that citizens’ religious practices and institutions were under threat. Although some of the most extreme arguments championed by these advocates were not validated by our legal system, many were. This article explores the underappreciated gains made by religious freedom advocates before the U.S. Supreme Court over the past year. As a result of the “Pandemic Court”, religious freedom in the United States has been rewritten. This promises to radically change the educational, employment, and health prospects of millions of Americans for the rest of the pandemic and long afterwards.

Download Full-text

U.S. Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in Habeas Case Brought by Guantánamo Bay Detainee Challenging His Continuing Detention

The American Journal of International Law ◽

10.1017/ajil.2019.64 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 113 (4) ◽

pp. 849-855

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Supreme Court ◽

The United States ◽

September 11 ◽

Habeas Corpus ◽

Past Time ◽

Guantanamo Bay ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

September 11 Attacks ◽

The U.S

On June 10, 2019, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in a case in which the D.C. Circuit held that the United States could continue to detain an individual at Guantánamo Bay until the cessation of the hostilities that justified his initial detention, notwithstanding the extraordinary length of the hostilities to date. The case, Al-Alwi v. Trump, arises from petitioner Moath Hamza Ahmed Al-Alwi's petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the legality of his continued detention at the United States Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay. The Supreme Court's denial of certiorari was accompanied by a statement by Justice Breyer observing that “it is past time to confront the difficult question” of how long a detention grounded in the U.S. response to the September 11 attacks can be justified.

Download Full-text

Jam v. International Finance Corp. (U.S. Sup. Ct.)

International Legal Materials ◽

10.1017/ilm.2019.21 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 58 (3) ◽

pp. 646-663 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Nancy Perkins ◽

Sally Pei

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Supreme Court ◽

International Finance ◽

International Organizations ◽

The United States ◽

Critical Importance ◽

The U.S

On February 27, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion in Jam v. International Finance Corp., a case of critical importance for international organizations. The question presented in Jam was whether U.S. law affords international organizations absolute immunity from suit in the United States, or whether international organizations instead are entitled to only the more limited or “restrictive” immunity that applies to foreign sovereigns under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

Download Full-text

APPLICATION THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES PRINCIPLE OF SOCIAL STATE

Encyclopedia Of Law ◽

10.12737/903 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 1 (1) ◽

pp. 77-81

Author(s):

Владимир Сафонов ◽

Vladimir Safonov

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Supreme Court ◽

The United States ◽

Social State ◽

The Social ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

The U.S

The article reveals the problem of applying the principle of the social state in the practice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Download Full-text

Organized Interests and Agenda Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court

American Political Science Review ◽

10.2307/1961752 ◽

1988 ◽

Vol 82 (4) ◽

pp. 1109-1127 ◽

Cited By ~ 249

Author(s):

Gregory A. Caldeira ◽

John R. Wright

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Supreme Court ◽

United States Supreme Court ◽

The United States ◽

United States Supreme ◽

Amicus Curiae ◽

Organized Interests ◽

Using Data ◽

The U.S ◽

Selection Of

Participation as amicus curiae has long been an important tactic of organized interests in litigation before the U.S. Supreme Court. We analyze amicus curiae briefs filed before the decision on certiorari and assess their impact on the Court's selection of a plenary docket. We hypothesize that one or more briefs advocating or opposing certiorari increase the likelihood of its being granted. We test this hypothesis using data from the United States Reports and Briefs and Records of the United States Supreme Court for the 1982 term. The statistical analysis demonstrates that the presence of amicus curiae briefs filed prior to the decision on certiorari significantly and positively increases the chances of the justices' binding of a case over for full treatment—even after we take into account the full array of variables other scholars have hypothesized or shown to be substantial influences on the decision to grant or deny.

Download Full-text