The Curious Case of the James Brown Estate

Great musicians are larger than life, and the most iconic of them become members of an elite musical monarchy: Michael Jackson was the King of Pop, Aretha Franklin was the Queen of Soul, and Prince Rogers Nelson was Prince. Similarly, James Brown, the inventor of funk music, landed a seat at this table of legendary musicians. Although lacking a royal honorific, James Brown was “the Godfather of Soul.” The Godfather of Soul, though, shared more than musical prowess with these other iconic musicians. The estates of James Brown, Michael Jackson, Aretha Franklin, and Prince all continue to face legal obstacles—years after their deaths—many of which revolve around the artists’ copyright interests . . . .

United States v. Rahimi: Resisting the “Suicide Pact” For Now

August 13, 2024 United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. ___, No. 22-915 (June 21, 2024) Response by Professors Mary Anne Franks and Joan Meier Geo. Wash. L. Rev. On the Docket (Oct. Term 2023) Slip Opinion | SCOTUSblog United States v. Rahimi: Resisting the “Suicide Pact” for Now In 1949 and again in 1963, Supreme Court Justices cautioned against treating the Constitution as a “suicide pact.” The Fifth Circuit tossed this warning aside last year when it ruled that the Constitution forbids the federal government from disarming dangerous domestic abusers subject to civil protection orders. Fortunately, the Supreme Court reversed this decision in United States v. Rahimi, rejecting the view that firearms laws that did not exist in some form at the time the Second Amendment was ratified are necessarily prohibited by the Constitution. Had the Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit, it would have meant the end of virtually all modern firearms regulation—a deadly conclusion in a country where guns kill approximately 40,000 people each year and where gun violence has become the leading cause of death of children and teenagers. But while firearm fundamentalists may have lost this particular...
Read More

SEC v. Jarkesy: Agencies Cannot Adjudicate Most Civil Penalty Disputes

July 10, 2024 SEC v. Jarkesy, 603 U.S. ___, No. 22-859 (June 27, 2024) Response by Professor Richard Pierce Geo. Wash. L. Rev. On the Docket (Oct. Term 2023) Slip Opinion | SCOTUSblog SEC v. Jarkesy: Agencies Cannot Adjudicate Most Civil Penalty Disputes The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has long had the power to bring an enforcement action in court to obtain a civil penalty against someone who commits securities fraud. In the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 Congress gave the SEC the option of either bringing a civil fraud penalty action in court or assigning one of its administrative law judges (ALJ) to adjudicate a civil fraud dispute, subject to review by the SEC and a circuit court. The SEC assigned an ALJ to adjudicate its claim that Jarkesy had committed securities fraud and to decide whether to impose a civil penalty on him. The ALJ found that Jarkesy had committed securities fraud and imposed a large civil penalty on him. The SEC upheld the ALJ’s decision, and Jarkesy sought review of the SEC decision in the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit held that the SEC adjudication violated the...
Read More

Fischer v. United States: A Supposedly Textualist Court Ignores the Text

On January 6, 2021, Trump supporters attacked the U.S. Capitol to disrupt the certification of Joe Biden's election victory. In Fischer v. United States, the Supreme Court controversially ruled that these actions did not violate the law against obstructing official proceedings. Professor Eliason argues this decision contradicts both the statute's plain language and common sense.

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo: Chevron is Dead; Long Live Skidmore

Professor Pierce discusses the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overturns the Chevron deference doctrine. The ruling shifts the emphasis to independent judicial interpretation of statutes, moving away from automatic deference to agency interpretations. This change aligns with the principles of Skidmore v. Swift & Co., promoting a more nuanced approach to judicial review while still respecting agency expertise.

Previews for the 2023 October Term of the Supreme Court

After a consequential two years in which the law of gun rights, substantive due process, religious liberty, and affirmative action, among others, was made anew, the Supreme Court's October 2023 Term features a wide array of cases that will refine the scope of its "history and tradition" approach in the Second Amendment context, contemplate the intersection of social media and the First Amendment, reconsider the foundations of the modern administrative state, and much more.