: In recent years, the Supreme Court has developed the “major questions doctrine,” an interpretive presumption that Congress must speak clearly before delegating to an... The post The Compatibility of Substantive Canons and Originalism appeared first on Harvard Law Review
: Religious freedom claimants have achieved tremendous success before the Supreme Court in recent years. Yet free exercise jurisprudence has bounced between skepticism and embrace... The post Liberty of Conscience, Political Process Theory, and Founding-Era Free Exercise appeared first on Harvard Law Review
: If the Warren Court reflected nearly twenty years of jurisprudence dismantling ugly systems of oppression and institutional injustice that embedded invidious practices and policies into American law and society... The post Medina v. Planned Parenthood: The Supreme Court’s Making of the New Jane Crow appeared first on Harvard Law Review
: Prison law is characterized by judicial deference to penal administrators. Despite the well-documented horrors that occur behind prison walls, federal and state courts often decline to intervene, asserting, among other things, that prisoners’ rights are limited and that the judicial branch lacks the power and expertise to get involved in the inner workings of detention facilities. Moreover, jurists often assume that the nation’s firstcourts largely stayed out of prisons and jails, and contemporary judicial deference is therefore historically rooted. The post The Forgotten History of Prison Law: Judicial Oversight of Detention Facilities in the Nation’s Early Years appeared first on Harvard Law Review