United States Supreme Court Research Articles

(359) Vasectomy Trends in Western NY Following Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

Abstract Introduction On June 24, 2022, the United States Supreme Court ruled on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (Dobbs) that the Constitution of the United States does not confer a right to abortion. The court’s decision overruled both Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), giving individual states the full power to regulate any aspect of abortion not protected by federal law. Objective Our study aims to identify the difference, if any, in the number of vasectomies performed in Western NY before and after the ruling on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Methods We performed a retrospective chart review of 2428 patients who had vasectomies in Western New York from August 2021 – March 2023. Leveraging a dataset containing de-identified patient information, we compared the rates of all men undergoing vasectomies in the six-month period before and after the ruling. Vasectomy case information collected by urologists in Buffalo dating back to 1996 was collected and tabulated using Excel. Statistical analyses were performed to compare differences in both the overall change in frequency of vasectomies among all men in the six-month period before and after the court decision, as well as by specific demographic groups. Statistical analyses were performed in R and SAS. Results Men with no children had a statistically significant increase (p=0.009) in the number of vasectomies in the six-month period after the Dobbs decision (n=138) compared to before (n=98). Rates of vasectomies pre- and post- Dobbs were organized by age quartiles (<33.20, 33.20-36.65, 36.66-40.59, ≥40.60). In the “No Child” group, men with ages <33.2 (p=0.0137) and ages 33.2-36.65 (p=0.0394) had significant increases in frequency of vasectomy after the court decision. Conclusions Our data demonstrates that in the wake of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), the number of vasectomies among men with no children significantly increased after the court decision. There were significant increases in the number of vasectomies within different age groups of men without children following the decision. Future aims of this study will seek to create statistical models to determine the underlying reasons that influenced the observed change in frequency of vasectomies following the court decision in men without children. Disclosure No.

‘This happened once before’: sexual violence and US Supreme Court nominees

Supreme Court Justices Thomas, in 1991, and Kavanaugh, in 2018, were accused of sexual violence by Anita Hill and Christine Ford, respectively, and were both later confirmed in their positions. To better understand these outcomes and the political context in which they occurred, we analysed headlines from US newspapers using a directed content analysis. We drew on Schneider and Ingram’s established social construction of target populations theory to examine how newspaper headlines characterised the relative power and valence of political figures in each year. Results identified both consistencies and shifts in social constructions across time. In 2018, there were more negative characterisations of the nominee, accuser and the President, and more negative and less powerful characterisations of the public. In both years, the Senate and political parties were characterised negatively and powerfully. These findings provide evidence that intransience in political institutions, increased negative partisanship, and weakened public power may illuminate the parallel outcomes despite changed social mores, such as the advent of the #MeToo and #TimesUp movements.

Borderlines of Home Privacy Against Warrantless Home Entries under the United States Criminal Procedure

The protection of privacy interest can be extended to the curtilage including a garage, driveways, a front porch, and back yards surrounding the home for a single family home and locked common spaces for multi-unit dwellings. The United State Supreme Court in 2021 decided on whether a warrantless entry into a home is in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United State Constitution which requires warrants before entering into private premises to search and seizure. The Court in Caniglia v. Strom held that the police need to obtain a warrant before entering into a home even if they perform community caretaking duties. The Court reasoned that community caretaking duties alone do not justify a warrantless home entry without exigent circumstances. In addition, the Court in Lange v. California ruled that the exigency-circumstances exception to the warrant requirement does not apply to a warrantless home entry during a hot pursuit in case of a fleeing misdemeanor. The Court relied on a case-by-case or case-specific approach, by rejecting a categorical approach in determining exigencies in hot pursuit of a fleeing misdemeanor suspect.
 The two cases emphasized the importance to protect an individual’s privacy interest in a home against the government’s unreasonable intrusions and warned a flat or categorical approach or application of previously-established case laws.
 This paper reviews the warrant requirement and its exceptions in relation to a warrantless home entry of the police. It analyzes two decisions together to observe how a community caretaking exception and an exigency-circumstances exception are applied to warrantless home entries. In addition, the paper attempts to review some provisions of Korean law addressing exceptions to the warrant requirement in case of exigencies related to home entries.

Majority jury verdicts in England and Wales: a vestige of white supremacy?

In England and Wales, the requirement for a unanimous jury verdict in criminal cases was abolished in 1967, marking a significant departure from a centuries-old legal tradition. Majority verdicts are now common practice, yet no research to date explores the origins of this sudden change to the jury system. In contrast, recent research in the US uncovered a connection between the conception of majority verdicts in Louisiana and Jim Crow era law-making, finding that majority verdicts were strategically introduced to suppress the black juror vote and facilitate quicker convictions to fuel free prison labour. The US Supreme Court later outlawed majority verdicts in a case known as Ramos v. Louisiana, amid recognition of their racist origins . Adopting the critical epistemological position guiding the US research, we consider how race and class underpinned the decision to introduce majority verdicts in England and Wales. Drawing on Home Office files and other archival materials, we find that an increase in eligible jurors from different racial and class backgrounds led to a perceived decline in the ‘calibre’ of jurors – reflective of wider public anxieties about Commonwealth immigration, Black Power and white disenfranchisement. We conclude that a desire to dilute the influence of ‘coloured’ migrants on juries contributed to the introduction of majority verdicts in England and Wales.

Anxiety and Depression Symptoms After the Dobbs Abortion Decision

ImportanceIn 2022, the US Supreme Court abolished the federal right to abortion in the Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision. In 13 states, abortions were immediately banned via previously passed legislation, known as trigger laws.ObjectiveTo estimate changes in anxiety and depression symptoms following the Dobbs decision among people residing in states with trigger laws compared with those without them.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsUsing the nationally representative repeated cross-sectional Household Pulse Survey (December 2021-January 2023), difference-in-differences models were estimated to examine the change in symptoms of depression and anxiety after Dobbs (either the June 24, 2022, Dobbs decision, or its May 2, 2022, leaked draft benchmarked to the baseline period, prior to May 2, 2022) by comparing the 13 trigger states with the 37 nontrigger states. Models were estimated for the full population (N = 718 753), and separately for 153 108 females and 102 581 males aged 18 through 45 years.ExposureResiding in states with trigger laws following the Dobbs decision or its leaked draft.Main Outcomes and MeasuresAnxiety and depression symptoms were measured via the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 ([PHQ-4]; range, 0-12; scores of more than 5 indicate elevated depression or anxiety symptoms; minimal important difference unknown).ResultsThe survey response rate was 6.04% overall, and 87% of respondents completed the PHQ-4. The population-weighted mean age was 48 years (SD, 17 years), and 51% were female. In trigger states, the mean PHQ-4 scores in the baseline period and after the Dobbs decision were 3.51 (95% CI, 3.44 to 3.59) and 3.81 (95% CI, 3.75 to 3.87), respectively, and in nontrigger states were 3.31 (95% CI, 3.27 to 3.34) and 3.49 (95% CI, 3.45 to 3.53), respectively. There was a significantly greater increase in the mean PHQ-4 score by 0.11 (95% CI, 0.06 to 0.16; P < .001) in trigger states vs nontrigger states. From baseline to after the draft was leaked, the change in PHQ-4 was not significantly different for those in trigger states vs nontrigger states (difference-in-differences estimate, 0.09; 95% CI, −0.03 to 0.21; P = .15). From baseline to after the Dobbs opinion, there was a significantly greater increase in mean PHQ-4 scores for those in trigger states vs nontrigger states among females aged 18 through 45 years (difference-in-differences estimate, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.37; P = .002). Among males aged 18 through 45 years, the difference-in-differences estimate was not statistically significant (0.14; 95% CI, −0.08 to 0.36; P = .23). Differences in estimates for males and females aged 18 through 45 were statistically significant (P = .02).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this study of US survey data from December 2021 to January 2023, residence in states with abortion trigger laws compared with residence in states without such laws was associated with a small but significantly greater increase in anxiety and depression symptoms after the Dobbs decision.

Helping High-Achieving, Low-Income, Black Students Gain Admission Into America’s Elite Colleges: Considerations for School Counselors

The recent decision by the United States Supreme Court to limit affirmative action in college admissions could make it even more challenging for academically talented students of color to gain access to competitive schools. The importance of school counselors in guiding and supporting these students is now more crucial than ever. This qualitative study aimed to determine what school counselors need to know, do, and believe to help academically talented, Black students from low-income households gain admission into highly selective colleges and universities. Three broad themes and 10 subthemes emerged from the data analysis. The themes were (a) knowledge and awareness, (b) mindsets and beliefs, and (c) habits and practices. Implications for school counselor practice, training, and research are discussed.

Changing Course: Understanding the Legal Landscape of Race-Conscious Admission Practices and Implications to Diversity-Promoting Strategies in Higher Education.

The 2023 US Supreme Court holding in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina, et al. has changed the landscape in higher education admissions processes by declaring affirmative action unlawful. It is imperative that those working in higher education admissions understand the ruling and implement contemporary best practices. Institutions of higher education who wish to promote student diversity are tasked with developing alternative strategies to affirmative action and must steer clear from using race as a determinant factor in admissions decisions. Aiming to identify diversity in individuals' lived experiences, focusing on recruitment efforts that organically lead to diverse applicants, adopting holistic, mission-driven admissions processes, and enhancing robust retention efforts may be effective means of fostering student diversity.

Who Asked You? The (Dis)Use of Questions Presented at the U.S. Supreme Court

Abstract When the United States Supreme Court agrees to hear a case, it also determines what legal questions it will answer in that case. We investigate the variation in the Court's acceptance, alteration, and addition of questions presented (QPs) in petitions for the writ of certiorari. Examining data on granted cases from 2010–2020, we find that the Court is overwhelmingly passive, accepting the petitioners’ QPs without comment in most cases. We also find variation related to ideological alignment and petitioner identity. These findings have important implications for our understanding of the Court’s policymaking efforts and its exercise of agenda-setting power and underscore the important role that litigants play in legal development.

Ambiguity of The Criminal Provision: Methodological Insights from the American Supreme Court and the Kuwaiti Constitutional Court

This research paper examines the inherent ambiguity within criminal provisions, exploring the methodological approaches employed by the American Supreme Court and the Kuwaiti Constitutional Court in interpreting and adjudicating cases involving ambiguous criminal statutes. The study delves into the complexities surrounding legal ambiguities, the challenges they pose to the rule of law, and the divergent approaches taken by these two legal systems. The study showed that this principle restricts legislative authority when formulating criminal laws, which is that they must be understood by those who are addressed according to the standard of a normal person abiding by the law. This study followed the comparative analytical approach for the research to increase its richness and scientific value, as it includes rulings of comparative constitutional courts and then an analysis of those rulings about the criteria for determining ambiguity. Finally, this study suggested the adoption of a clear approach and specific, fixed, measurable, and applicable standards by the Kuwaiti Constitutional Court when imposing its oversight on ambiguous penal texts, to ensure the integrity of the legal structure and to reach clear, consistent results.

Time to Pivot: A Guide to Holistic Admissions.

As an ever-increasing number of physician assistant (PA) programs moves toward holistic admissions, a better understanding of how to achieve their stated admission goals becomes more important. With the June 2023 US Supreme Court decision effectively ending affirmative action in higher education, navigating holistic admissions is now an even greater challenge. In this article, the PA Education Association's Presidents Commission offers a guide for programs to use in implementing holistic admissions at their institutions and key considerations. Is the process mission-driven? Does it follow principles of quality improvement and incorporate ongoing assessment of that process? Using data can be a constructive and insightful way to inform the process. The authors hope that tools, resources, and recommendations offered in this article will serve as valuable resources for any program attempting to institute or improve its holistic admissions process.

Arbitration in the USA: the main trends in legal regulation

The article is devoted to the study of the current state of the legal regulation of arbitration in the USA. The author analyzes the transformation of regulatory sources – regulations, court precedents, regulations of arbitration institutions in 2019–2022. It is noted that in 2022, the chapter 4 was added to the US Federal Arbitration Act. A brief analysis of the latest precedents of the U. S. Supreme Court and the Appellate Courts of the districts in the field of arbitration is given. Objective. To form understanding of the formation and development of arbitration in the United States based on the analysis of regulations, judicial precedents, and scientific sources. Methods. Theoretical methods of formal and dialectical logic; empirical methods of comparison, description, interpretation. Private scientific methods were used: legal-dogmatic and method of interpretation of legal norms. Results. The conducted research showed that the decision of the US Supreme Court in 2022 in the case “ZF Automotive US Inc et al. v. Luxshare Ltd” clearly demonstrates the tendency of increasing court interference in arbitration practice. Conclusions. The main trends in the practice of US arbitration institutions over 2019–2022 include: a) accelerated arbitration; b) emergency arbitration; c) simplified (summary) proceedings; d) virtual hearings and digital tools; e) data protection and cybersecurity. These trends should be regarded as positive and recommended for implementation in the regulations of Russian arbitration institutions (arbitration courts).

U.S. college students' perspectives on contraception and abortion post-Dobbs: the influence of socioeconomic privilege and gender inequity.

This study examined college students' perspectives about contraception and abortion in the context of the United States Supreme Court's decision to eliminate the constitutional right to abortion in June 2022. Individual, semi-structured interviews were conducted between October 2022 and February 2023 with a convenience sample of 20 college students, ages 18-22, attending a public university in the southeastern United States. Qualitative data analysis revealed three main themes. First, most participants conveyed fear, dismay, and anger about the decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization to overturn Roe v. Wade and a few expressed concerns about potential restrictions on contraception. Second, women participants felt heightened pressure to continue or initiate use of a highly effective contraceptive method, with some lamenting inequitable experiences of the gendered contraceptive burden in their relationships with men. Third, when asked what they would do if they or their partner became pregnant while in college, most asserted they would seek abortion. Notably, participants assumed their socioeconomic advantages would ensure their or their partner's access to abortion, regardless of growing restrictions. The findings illustrate that among a group of relatively privileged young adults, the Dobbs decision simultaneously compelled their increased vigilance regarding contraceptive use and conferred the perception that they would not be personally impacted should they need an abortion.

Interaction Between Gender of Judges and Judicial Decisions: Take the US Supreme Court as an Example

With the rise of feminist movements and calls for equal rights around the globe, people have become concerned about the gender ratio in various fields, including distribution of male and female judges in courts, and has thus led to the question of whether the judges gender influences their judgements. To further explore the question, this essay takes the US Supreme Court as the research object. The paper studies the basic professionalism of judges, judges decisions in famous jurisprudence on womens rights in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court (which often lead into the discussion of whether female judges are influenced by their own gender when making judgemental decisions), as well as relevant statistical data like the ratio of judges that incline to different partisanship at the Supreme Court. By studying the above, the paper has come to the conclusion that gender of the judges do not necessarily influence their judgements.

Trademark Protection Versus Parodic Use in Commerce: A Comparative Analysis of the US Approach Post Jack Daniel’s Properties v. VIP Products and the German Likelihood of Confusion Analysis

Abstract In June 2023, the US Supreme Court delivered its highly anticipated verdict in Jack Daniel’s Properties v. VIP Products. The case involves a parodic use of the famous Jack Daniel’s Tennessee whiskey trade dress, name, logo and appearance by VIP Products, which sells dog toys called ‘Silly Squeakers.’ The disputed toy, named ‘Bad Spaniels,’ resembles the whiskey bottle in shape and design but with humorous alterations. Jack Daniel’s argued that this use could confuse consumers and harm the company’s reputation. VIP Products, on the other hand, claimed it was exercising its First Amendment right to free speech through parody. Jack Daniel’s requested VIP Products to stop advertising and selling the toy. The central issue is the balance between brand protection under US Trademark Law and the right to a parodic use in a commercial context when a mark is used as a mark with a source-identifying purpose. Additionally, the impact of consumer surveys for determining the likelihood of confusion in case of an infringement action is emphasized. Overall, the case raises critical questions about trademark protection and freedom of speech, with potential implications for future parodic uses of famous marks in commercial contexts. The distinction between actions for infringement and dilution by tarnishment lies in their respective purposes. Dilution actions aim to safeguard the reputation of a famous mark’s owner, while infringement actions seek to prevent confusion among consumers. These fundamental principles hold true in both US and German trademark law. The forthcoming analysis will delve into the implications and consequences of the US Supreme Court’s ruling, comparing it with pertinent German case law concerning freedom of speech and artistic expression. Particular focus will be given to the potential authorization of parodic use of a mark resembling another’s trademark for commercial purposes. Notably, a relevant case involving canines, referred to as the ‘Leaping Poodle,’ will be central to this contemplation.

Spinning Hate: Mississippi’s Post-Brown PR Offensive and the Secret Campaign Against ‘Agitators,’ 1956-1960

After the US Supreme Court’s Brown vs. Board of Education ruling in 1954, the Mississippi Legislature approved several laws designed to fight integration and federalize civil rights. Among the legislation was the creation of the state Sovereignty Commission, which saw preserving white supremacy as good public policy. This study examines the efforts of the agency’s first public relations director to carry out that mission through both standard public relations practices and far more nefarious methods of coercion and intimidation against those perceived as threats to segregation.

Risk, Resistance and Resilience: Birth Control Policy in the Wake of Dobbs

ABSTRACT The US Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization has potentially profound implications for contraception. Contraceptives came up frequently in oral arguments and constitutional protections for abortion and birth control are fundamentally linked (Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 US 479, 1965). Moreover, in recent decisions (Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. 573 US 682, 2014) the court has endorsed the position of some religious groups that certain forms of contraception are “abortifacients,” essentially a form of abortion. This legal blurring of distinct scientific boundaries between abortion and birth control provides legal pathways for birth control restrictions. That said, in the immediate wake of Dobbs, policy change on birth control has been limited, media coverage on the risks posed to birth control have been scarce, and public support of birth control access has remained robust. We review the current landscape of birth control politics and policy after Dobbs, including state and federal policy responses, elite rhetoric, interest group advocacy, media coverage, and public opinion. Our analysis contributes to an emerging literature on birth control politics and policy.

Deconstructing Dobbs: An Introduction to the Special Issue

ABSTRACT When the US Supreme Court’s conservative majority overturned Roe v. Wade (1973) in late June 2022, it created legal, political, and practical chaos in the US, as abortion – previously a fundamental right under the US Constitution – was now under state jurisdiction. In this special issue, we cover a range of theoretical and practical implications of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision and the stratification of reproductive freedoms across the US. We ask the important questions of: how did we get here, who bears the burdens of the Dobbs decision, and what complications will likely occur in the future because of this decision? Our contributors come from interdisciplinary fields which illustrate the wide ranging the implications of this opinion. We show how these pieces add significantly to the growing scholarly conversations focused on the political, legal, and social significance of the fall of Roe v. Wade.

The Digital Services Act, the First Amendment, and deputised surveillance

ABSTRACT This Article will examine Chapter III Section 5 of the DSA, which requires the VLOPs and VLOSEs to rely on government-selected non-profit groups to engage in surveillance of users. The paper shows similarities between this approach and the ‘whole-of-society’ regime forwarded by certain members of the American intelligence and security apparatus in the aftermath of the 2016 US Presidential election. Several US agencies appear to have adopted this approach and, in fact, worked to limit the accessibility of online content during the 2020 elections and the Covid response. The US Supreme Court in Murthy v Missouri, No 23-411, will determine the constitutionality of these agency actions later this year. But, regardless of how the Court rules, the similarities between the ‘whole-of-society’ regime of information control and the mechanisms outlined Chapter III Section 5 of the DSA raise important questions about the role of government in controlling speech in a liberal society.

In the Supreme Court of the United States, Donald J. Trump v. United States, Brief of Amici Curiae Scholars of the Founding Era In Support of Respondent

In the Supreme Court of the United States, Donald J. Trump v. United States, Brief of Amici Curiae Scholars of the Founding Era In Support of Respondent

Confucian Family Ideal and Same-Sex Marriage: A Feminist Confucian Perspective

AbstractThis article engages the views of PRC Confucian scholars who responded to the United States Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy's citing of Confucius in his majority opinion on same-sex marriage in 2015. It questions their separation of tolerance for homosexuality from legalization of same-sex marriage and argue that tolerance is not enough. The arguments in the mainland Confucian discourse about same-sex marriage highlights the historical and persistent entanglement of Confucianism with patriarchy. Instead of reviving traditional patriarchal society, further entrenching and increasing gender inequality, contemporary Confucianism could shape its own unique modern society that aspires to (and hopefully one day achieving) gender equality together with sexual inclusivity by deconstructing the patriarchal Confucian family and reconstructing a different Confucian family ideal. Accepting same-sex marriage would lend weight to the latter, and there are Confucian reasons for legalizing same-sex marriage and recognizing its ethical value.