Interrogation and the Roberts Court

Rashomon and the Roberts Court

As the opening quip of Pam Karlan’s article suggests,1 it is difficult to make sensible predictions about the future of the Roberts Court’s election law jurisprudence based upon the two cases decided during its first year. Even law professors are cautious about drawing inferences from two data points. And given the many opinions rendered in Randall v. Sorrell2 and League of United Latin America...

Withdrawal: The Roberts Court and the Retreat from Election Law

The Roberts Court and the Limits of Antitrust

Numerous commentators have characterized the Roberts Court’s antitrust decisions as radical departures that betray a pro-business, anticonsumer bias. That characterization is inaccurate. Although some of the decisions do represent significant changes from past practice, the “probusiness/anti-consumer” characterization fails to appreciate the fundamental limits of antitrust, a body of law that r...

The Least Activist Supreme Court in History? the Roberts Court and the Exercise of Judicial Review

Not too many years ago, scholars could reasonably speak of the U.S. Supreme Court as being among the most activist in American history. Both empirical and normative scholarship was driven by the sense of a Court that was aggressive in the assertion of its own supremacy and active in the exercise of the power of judicial review. The Court under Chief Justice John Roberts cannot be viewed in the ...

Facial and As-Applied Challenges Under the Roberts Court

Resistance to facial challenges is a recurring theme of the Roberts Court’s early years. Yet close analysis of the Court’s decisions suggests that its approach to facial and as-applied challenges is largely consistent with prior practice. Despite occasional description of as-applied challenges in narrow terms, it has expressly preserved the possibility that as-applied challenges could be brough...