“I Am Free but Without a Cent”: Economic Justice as Equal Citizenship

The Fourteenth Amendment is one of the most-studied parts of the Constitution, but one of its central concerns has been long ignored by courts and scholars: economic justice. The rights of the poor and powerless to enjoy fundamental freedoms and meaningful equality lie at the very core of the Fourteenth Amendment’s text and history. The Supreme Court has failed to give these fundamental promises their due, producing a jurisprudence that turns a blind eye to the rights of poor people and reads the constitutional promise of economic justice out of our national charter. Recovering the true meaning of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, as reflected in their text and history, would open the door to meaningful doctrinal changes that would help protect the rights of poor people and advance the effort to redress economic inequality.

Supreme Court Affirms Lawlessness of the Removal of Kilmar Abrego Garcia

April 18, 2025 Kristi Noem, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, et al. v. Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, et al., 601 U.S. ____ (2025) (Roberts, C.J., remanding for clarification of the District Court order) Response by Cori Alonso-Yoder & Tania N. Valdez Geo. Wash. L. Rev. On the Docket (Emergency Docket 2024-25) Slip Opinion | SCOTUSblog Supreme Court Affirms Lawlessness of the Removal of Kilmar Abrego Garcia The constitutional crisis has...
Read More

Previews for the 2024 October Term of the Supreme Court

As the 2024 Supreme Court term gets underway, several pivotal cases are set to challenge and refine existing legal precedents across a wide range of issues. From questions about federal authority and constitutional rights to crucial interpretations of criminal law, the following case previews provide a glimpse into the issues the Court will tackle and their broader implications for the legal system. Delligatti v. United States No. 22-448, 2d Cir....
Read More

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...
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...
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.

Recent Citations

Tennessee v. Becerra, 131 F.4th 350, 365 (6th Cir. 2025).

Bondi v. VanDerStok, 145 S. Ct. 857, 894 n.5 (2025) (Thomas, J., dissenting).

Energy Michigan, Inc. v. Michigan Public Service Commission, 126 F.4th 476, 488 (6th Cir. 2025).

Carter v. United States, 145 S. Ct. 519, 542 (2025) (Thomas, J., dissenting from the denial of certiorari).

Alliance for Fair Board Recruitment v. SEC, 125 F.4th 159, 169 n.3 (5th Cir. 2024) (en banc).

Kentucky v. EPA, 123 F.4th 447, 478 (6th Cir. 2024) (Murphy, J., concurring).

United States v. Green, 114 F.4th 163, 173 (3d Cir. 2024).

Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Inc. v. Garland, 112 F.4th 507, 526 (8th Cir. 2024) (Shepherd, J., dissenting).

Consumers’ Research v. FCC, 109 F.4th 743, 765 (5th Cir. 2024) (en banc).

United States v. Chatrie, 107 F.4th 319, 365 (4th Cir. 2024) (Wynn, J., dissenting), reh’g granted, No. 22-4489, 2024 WL 4648102 (4th Cir. Nov. 1, 2024).

Abu v. Dickson, 107 F.4th 508, 515 (6th Cir. 2024).

Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 603 U.S. 799, 830, 837 n.6, 838 (2024) (Kavanaugh, J., concurring).

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369, 405 n.7, 408 (2024).

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369, 433, 437 (2024) (Gorsuch, J., concurring).

Career Colleges and Schools of Texas v. Department of Education, 98 F.4th 220, 225 (5th Cir. 2024).