Where Kennedy voted with the three conservative justices – Roberts, Thomas and Alito – the result was a 4-4 tie. This meant that the lower court decision was affirmed, without opinion from the Supreme Court, by an evenly divided court. This occurred most notably in United States v. Texas, which was a challenge to President Obama’s immigration action, Deferred Action of Parents of Americans, and in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, which was about whether non-union members can continue to be required to pay agency fees that support collective bargaining activities. In the former, it meant that a nationwide preliminary injunction against the Obama immigration action remains in effect. In the latter, it means that there is no change in the law, and non-union members must continue to pay their “fair share” of fees.
{"title":"The Kennedy Court","authors":"Erwin Chemerinsky","doi":"10.2307/j.ctv27qzrdn.15","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv27qzrdn.15","url":null,"abstract":"Where Kennedy voted with the three conservative justices – Roberts, Thomas and Alito – the result was a 4-4 tie. This meant that the lower court decision was affirmed, without opinion from the Supreme Court, by an evenly divided court. This occurred most notably in United States v. Texas, which was a challenge to President Obama’s immigration action, Deferred Action of Parents of Americans, and in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, which was about whether non-union members can continue to be required to pay agency fees that support collective bargaining activities. In the former, it meant that a nationwide preliminary injunction against the Obama immigration action remains in effect. In the latter, it means that there is no change in the law, and non-union members must continue to pay their “fair share” of fees.","PeriodicalId":46006,"journal":{"name":"Supreme Court Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89603251","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Indigenous Peoples’ Transboundary Claims, Access to Justice, and the Canadian Constitutional Structure: The Uashaunnuat Case","authors":"Sophie Thériault","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1424","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.60082/2563-8505.1424","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46006,"journal":{"name":"Supreme Court Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72437764","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Imagine you are focusing a lens. At first, everything is blurry. As you adjust the lens, however, the picture starts to become clearer. Shapes and colors emerge. Ideally you can reach complete focus and make everything sharp. But maybe you can only go part way. The partiallyadjusted image is more revealing than when you started. But the picture is not yet sharp. Van Buren v. United States is the Supreme Court’s first decision interpreting the federal computer-crime statute known as the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). Enacted in the 1980s, the CFAA sat unexamined by the Supreme Court during an astonishing societal transformation. Computers and the Internet went from the domain of a few computer geeks to a routine part of daily life formost Americans. During that time, the CFAA’s text became a source of extraordinary uncertainty. The statute might be narrow and apply rarely, the thinking went, or it might be incredibly broad and criminalize a great deal of routine computer use. Before Van Buren, no one knew.
{"title":"Focusing the CFAA in Van Buren","authors":"Orin S. Kerr","doi":"10.1086/720376","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/720376","url":null,"abstract":"Imagine you are focusing a lens. At first, everything is blurry. As you adjust the lens, however, the picture starts to become clearer. Shapes and colors emerge. Ideally you can reach complete focus and make everything sharp. But maybe you can only go part way. The partiallyadjusted image is more revealing than when you started. But the picture is not yet sharp. Van Buren v. United States is the Supreme Court’s first decision interpreting the federal computer-crime statute known as the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). Enacted in the 1980s, the CFAA sat unexamined by the Supreme Court during an astonishing societal transformation. Computers and the Internet went from the domain of a few computer geeks to a routine part of daily life formost Americans. During that time, the CFAA’s text became a source of extraordinary uncertainty. The statute might be narrow and apply rarely, the thinking went, or it might be incredibly broad and criminalize a great deal of routine computer use. Before Van Buren, no one knew.","PeriodicalId":46006,"journal":{"name":"Supreme Court Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49042617","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Executive Decisions After Arthrex","authors":"Jennifer L. Mascott, John Fitzgerald Duffy","doi":"10.1086/720295","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/720295","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46006,"journal":{"name":"Supreme Court Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46417033","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：