The past few years have witnessed a particular accusation leveled repeatedly and loudly at the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority: that they are using the Court’s emergency (or pejoratively, “shadow”) docket to issue highly consequential decisions in a sneaky, secretive fashion. Using data from the Court’s 2021–22 Term and neutral methods, we analyze the entirety of the emergency docket. The results show that conservative interests fare better on the emergency docket, just as they do on the merits docket—no surprise considering the Court’s political orientation. Unsettling as this may be from a liberal or legal-formalist perspective, there is little evidence that any of this is happening in the shadows.
History and precedent tell us that the just compensation requirement has been implemented by a complex network of remedies providing multiple avenues...
It has been a big moment for court reform. President Biden has proposed a slate of important if vaguely defined reforms, including a new ethics regime...
The United States is undergoing a legal realignment, in that salient legal views recently associated with the right are now being espoused by the left...
After a term in which the conservative Roberts court swept aside the Chevron doctrine, a decision that will clip federal agencies’ authority to enact...
Large language models (LLMs) now perform extremely well on many natural language processing tasks. Their ability to convert legal texts to data may...
On June 27, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a case brought by the federal government regarding whether Idaho’s abortion ban conflicts with a...
We apply a dynamic influence model to the opinions of the U.S. federal courts to examine the role of the U.S. Supreme Court in influencing the...
Countries hit by unexpected crises often look to their overseas diasporas for assistance. Some countries have tapped into this generosity of their...
The Environmental Law and Community Engagement Clinic at the University of Virginia School of Law filed this amicus brief on behalf of San Bernardino...
Who has the legal right to challenge decisions by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration? And should the moral umbrage of a group of anti-abortion...
President Joe Biden promised during his State of the Union address on March 7, 2024, that he would make the right to get an abortion a federal law.
“If...
An upcoming Supreme Court case on Article III standing and disability presents critical questions about the future of litigation that promotes...
Professor Elizabeth Scott, the chief reporter of the American Law Institute’s (ALI) Restatement of Children and the Law, has often observed that the...
The Administrative Procedure Act’s standard-of-review provision instructs reviewing courts to “decide all relevant questions of law, interpret...
Gradualism should have won out in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, exerting gravitational influence on the majority and dissenters alike. In general...
Today, legal culture is shaped by One Big Question: should courts, particularly the US Supreme Court, have a lot of power? This question is affecting...
On December 15, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued its decision in Illumina, Inc. v. FTC. Although the court vacated and...
On January 17, the Supreme Court heard arguments in what are potentially the most significant commercial law cases of the last decade. In the...