We have decided to start a new feature at SCOTUSblog called the Academic Round-Up, which I hope will be a weekly or semi-weekly feature highlighting scholarship, conferences and symposia relating to the Supreme Court. In the first installment, I would like to draw your attention to several items of interest:
In Northwestern Law Review‘s Colloquy, the online companion to the journal, Amy Wildermuth and Kathryn Watts have written the first part of a two-part installment on the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, see here. I have been told that the second part of the series will appear next week. In this first part, Professors Wildermuth and Watts argue that an important impact of the decision is the genesis of a framework for evaluating state standing based on the interest of the state at stake in the litigation.
Professor Michael Solimine of the University of Cincinnati College of Law has posted “Institutional Process, Agenda Setting, and the Development of Election Law on the Supreme Court,” see here. The Article looks at the unique procedural posture of election law cases, such as the use of three-judge district court panels, and the impact of these procedural mechanisms on the Supreme Court’s eventual grant of plenary review and decision on the merits. I am a long-time fan of Professor Solimine’s work.
Professor Orin Kerr of George Washington University Law School has recently posted his forthcoming Stanford Law Review piece on SSRN, see here, which is entitled the “Four Models of Fourth Amendment Protection.” The Article argues, among other things, that there are four tests to explain what makes an expectation of privacy reasonable, and that the Supreme Court cannot provide a consistent answer because it hears too few cases to do so. The Article closely examines the roles of both the Supreme Court and the lower courts in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY