On Supreme Court Commentaries and Developing Constitutional Law

Constitutional Law: Supreme Court Holds Pennsylvania Statute Imposing Costs on an Acquitted Defendant Void for Vagueness

In sustaining the defendant's vagueness challenge, the Supreme Court rejected the State's contention that since the statute was "civil" in character, it did not have to meet the due process standard of certainty required of criminal statutes. The Court's language is susceptible of varying interpretations which, in turn, give rise to possibilities for novel applications of the void-forvagueness ...

Supreme Court Alchemy: Turning Law and Politics into Mayonnaise

How do law and politics intertwine in Supreme Court adjudication? Traditionally, in law schools and political science departments, scholars refused to mix law and politics. Law professors insisted that legal texts and doctrines controlled Supreme Court decision making, while political scientists maintained that political ideologies dictated the justices'votes. In the late twentieth century, som...

Supreme Court

Th ere is no doubt that the U.S. Supreme Court has in-fl uenced the politics of the country. As a public body, the Court is a highly visible part of the federal government. Th is has always been so, even when the justices met briefl y twice a year in the drafty basement of the Capitol. Yet the idea that the Court itself is a political institution is controversial. Th e justices themselves have ...

How Much Has the Supreme Court Changed Patent Law

How Can the Supreme Court Not “Understand” Patent Law?

The Supreme Court does understand patent law. This invited Essay responds to Federal Circuit Judge Dyk’s remarks at the Chicago-Kent Supreme Court IP Review, in particular, his observation that the patent “bar and the academy have expressed skepticism that the Supreme Court understands patent law well enough to make the governing rules” (a view Judge Dyk did not endorse). The idea that the Supr...