Michigan Law
The 2024 Supreme Court term saw the Court rule in a number of high-profile cases, several of which cited Michigan Law scholars.
These included a dispute over a trademark using the name of former President Donald Trump, a decision that derailed an EPA plan to limit air pollution, and the overturning of the longstanding “Chevron deference” doctrine.
Below are cases where Michigan Law faculty have been cited and details about each case.
—————
Vidal v. Elster
Date of opinion: June 13, 2024
Case summary
The case was a constitutional challenge to a provision of the trademark statute that bars registration of a mark that consists of the name of a living individual—in this case, “Trump too small”—without their consent.
The Court held that this provision survived the First Amendment challenge, in a 9-0 opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas.
A concurrence by Justice Amy Coney Barrett cited a published speech by Jessica Litman, John F. Nickoll Professor of Law, delivered at a symposium celebrating the 75th anniversary of the Lanham Trademark Protection Act.
The citation appears on page 12 of Justice Barrett’s concurrence.
—————
Smith v. Arizona
Date of opinion: June 21, 2024
Case summary
The Court ruled that the Constitution’s confrontation clause was violated when an expert witness testified about laboratory analysis that had been conducted by someone else.
The 9-0 majority opinion, written by Justice Elena Kagan, cited an amicus brief filed by Richard Friedman, Alene and Allan F. Smith Professor of Law. A concurrence by Justice Samuel Alito cited a 1991 article by Samuel Gross, Thomas and Mabel Long Professor Emeritus of Law, entitled, “Expert Evidence.”
The citations appear on page 13 of the majority opinion (Friedman) and page 5 of Justice Alito’s concurrence (Gross).
—————
Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency
Date of opinion: June 27, 2024
Case summary
In a 5-4 vote, the Court temporarily stayed the EPA’s “Good Neighbor” plan, which was designed to minimize the amount of air pollution that drifts from one state to another.
The dissent, by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, cites a 2017 article by Nicholas Bagley, Thomas G. Long Professor of Law, “Remedial Restraint in Administrative Law.”
The citation appears on page 20 of Justice Barrett’s dissent.
—————
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo
Date of opinion: June 28, 2024
Case summary
In a 6-2 decision, the Court overruled Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, ruling that the Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise their own judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority.
Justice Kagan filed a dissent, which cites a 2018 paper—written by Professor of Law Christopher Walker with Kent Barnett of the University of Georgia and Christina Boyd of Washington University—“Administrative Law’s Political Dynamics,” as well as Walker’s 2024 paper with Barnett, “Chevron and Stare Decisis.” The majority opinion, by Chief Justice John Roberts, also refers back to Kagan’s citation of the 2018 paper.
The citations appear on page 32 of the majority opinion and pages 26 and 28 of Kagan’s dissent.
—————
McCrory v. Alabama
Date of opinion: July 2, 2024
Case summary
In a 9-0 vote, the Court denied certiorari in this case. Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a concurring opinion arguing that courts and legislatures need to find ways to allow post-conviction claims from prisoners whose convictions rested on forensic “science” that has since been discredited.
She cited a 2016 article by Imran Syed, clinical assistant professor of law and co-director of the Michigan Innocence Clinic, and former Michigan Innocence Clinic Fellow Caitlin Plummer, “Criminal Procedure v. Scientific Progress: The Challenging Path to Post-Conviction Relief in Cases That Arise During Periods of Shifts in Science.”
The citation appears on page 9 of Sotomayor’s concurrence.
—————
McElrath v. Georgia
Date of opinion: Feb. 21, 2024
Case summary
In a murder trial, the Court ruled 9-0 that a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity means that the defendant cannot be retried as a matter of double jeopardy, despite any inconsistency with the jury’s other verdicts.
The majority opinion, written by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, cites Criminal Procedure, the cornerstone treatise coauthored by Jerold H. Israel, the Alene and Allan F. Smith Professor Emeritus of Law. The citation appears on page 7 of the majority opinion.
This is the 128th time the treatise has been cited in a SCOTUS opinion.
The 2024 Supreme Court term saw the Court rule in a number of high-profile cases, several of which cited Michigan Law scholars.
These included a dispute over a trademark using the name of former President Donald Trump, a decision that derailed an EPA plan to limit air pollution, and the overturning of the longstanding “Chevron deference” doctrine.
Below are cases where Michigan Law faculty have been cited and details about each case.
—————
Vidal v. Elster
Date of opinion: June 13, 2024
Case summary
The case was a constitutional challenge to a provision of the trademark statute that bars registration of a mark that consists of the name of a living individual—in this case, “Trump too small”—without their consent.
The Court held that this provision survived the First Amendment challenge, in a 9-0 opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas.
A concurrence by Justice Amy Coney Barrett cited a published speech by Jessica Litman, John F. Nickoll Professor of Law, delivered at a symposium celebrating the 75th anniversary of the Lanham Trademark Protection Act.
The citation appears on page 12 of Justice Barrett’s concurrence.
—————
Smith v. Arizona
Date of opinion: June 21, 2024
Case summary
The Court ruled that the Constitution’s confrontation clause was violated when an expert witness testified about laboratory analysis that had been conducted by someone else.
The 9-0 majority opinion, written by Justice Elena Kagan, cited an amicus brief filed by Richard Friedman, Alene and Allan F. Smith Professor of Law. A concurrence by Justice Samuel Alito cited a 1991 article by Samuel Gross, Thomas and Mabel Long Professor Emeritus of Law, entitled, “Expert Evidence.”
The citations appear on page 13 of the majority opinion (Friedman) and page 5 of Justice Alito’s concurrence (Gross).
—————
Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency
Date of opinion: June 27, 2024
Case summary
In a 5-4 vote, the Court temporarily stayed the EPA’s “Good Neighbor” plan, which was designed to minimize the amount of air pollution that drifts from one state to another.
The dissent, by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, cites a 2017 article by Nicholas Bagley, Thomas G. Long Professor of Law, “Remedial Restraint in Administrative Law.”
The citation appears on page 20 of Justice Barrett’s dissent.
—————
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo
Date of opinion: June 28, 2024
Case summary
In a 6-2 decision, the Court overruled Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, ruling that the Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise their own judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority.
Justice Kagan filed a dissent, which cites a 2018 paper—written by Professor of Law Christopher Walker with Kent Barnett of the University of Georgia and Christina Boyd of Washington University—“Administrative Law’s Political Dynamics,” as well as Walker’s 2024 paper with Barnett, “Chevron and Stare Decisis.” The majority opinion, by Chief Justice John Roberts, also refers back to Kagan’s citation of the 2018 paper.
The citations appear on page 32 of the majority opinion and pages 26 and 28 of Kagan’s dissent.
—————
McCrory v. Alabama
Date of opinion: July 2, 2024
Case summary
In a 9-0 vote, the Court denied certiorari in this case. Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a concurring opinion arguing that courts and legislatures need to find ways to allow post-conviction claims from prisoners whose convictions rested on forensic “science” that has since been discredited.
She cited a 2016 article by Imran Syed, clinical assistant professor of law and co-director of the Michigan Innocence Clinic, and former Michigan Innocence Clinic Fellow Caitlin Plummer, “Criminal Procedure v. Scientific Progress: The Challenging Path to Post-Conviction Relief in Cases That Arise During Periods of Shifts in Science.”
The citation appears on page 9 of Sotomayor’s concurrence.
—————
McElrath v. Georgia
Date of opinion: Feb. 21, 2024
Case summary
In a murder trial, the Court ruled 9-0 that a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity means that the defendant cannot be retried as a matter of double jeopardy, despite any inconsistency with the jury’s other verdicts.
The majority opinion, written by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, cites Criminal Procedure, the cornerstone treatise coauthored by Jerold H. Israel, the Alene and Allan F. Smith Professor Emeritus of Law. The citation appears on page 7 of the majority opinion.
This is the 128th time the treatise has been cited in a SCOTUS opinion.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
