Professors who have made recommendations

Garnett, Rick (Notre Dame)

Shaughnessy, Joan (Washington & Lee)

 

 

 

Pending cases for
which we are posting recommendations

Click on a case for an up-to-date ranking of recommended readings. (Cases with an asterisk* have recommendations.)

Doe v. Roe, 13-1011 (fictional sample)

Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, 12-399

Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, 12-10

Alleyne v. U.S., 11-9335

American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, 12-133

American Trucking Associations v. City of Los Angeles, 11-798

Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, 12-398

Atlantic Marine Construction Co., Inc., v. J-Crew Management, Inc., 12-929

Bond v. U.S., 12-158

Burnside v. Walters, No. 12-7892

Burrage v. U.S., 12-7515

Burt v. Titlow, 12-414

Chadbourne & Parke v. Troice, 12-79, Willis of Colorado v. Troice, 12-86, and Proskauer Rose LLP v. Troice, 12-88

City of Arlington v. FCC, 11-1545 / Cable, Telecommunications & Tech v. FCC, 11-1547

DaimlerChrysler AG v. Bauman, 11-965

Descamps v. U.S., 11-9540

Federal Trade Commission v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 12-416

Fisher v. University of Texas, 11-345

Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life, 12-729

Hillman v. Maretta, 11-1221

Hollingsworth v. Perry, 12-144

Horne v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 12-123

Kaley v. U.S., 12-464

Kansas v. Cheever, 12-609

Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt., 11-1447

Madigan v. Levin, 12-872

Maracich v. Spears, 12-25

Maryland v. King, 12-207

McCutcheon v. FEC, 12-536

McQuiggin v. Perkins, 12-1267

Metrish v. Lancaster, 12-547

Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett, 12-142

Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, 12-135

Peugh v. United States, 12-62

PPL Corp. v. CIR, 12-43

Salinas v. Texas, 12-246

Sandifer v. U.S. Steel Corp., 12-417

Schuette v. Michigan Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, 12-682

Sebelius v. Cloer, 12-236

Sekhar v. U.S., 12-357

Shelby County v. Holder, 12-96

Sprint v. Jacobs, 12-815

Tarrant Regional Water District v. Herrmann, 11-889

Tibbals v. Carter, 11-218

Trevino v. Thaler, 11-10189

U.S. v. Davila, 12-167

U.S. v. Kebodeaux, 12-418

U.S. v. Windsor, 12-307

U.S. v. Woods, 12-562

U.S. Forest Service v. Pacific Rivers Council, 12-623

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, 12-484

Vance v. Ball State Univ., 11-556

Walden v. Fiore, 12-574


Decided cases for
which we posted recommendations

*Clapper v. Amnest Int’l USA, 11-1025

*Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Shell, 10-1491

 

Law Professors,*
Make Your Recommendations

Helpful Legal Scholarship for the
Supreme Court

In the form below you may recommend:

(A) up to five works of legal scholarship (by authors other than yourself) that ought to be read by a Justice deciding the case you specify and

(B) your own best relevant work as well.

Your recommendations will be posted at a link to the appropriate case (at right) and a link to your name (at left), but only after someone from the Green Bag emails/phones you at the address/number we find on your page at your law school’s website to verify that it really is you who completed this form (to minimize fraud on us and spam at you).

Questions? Comments? Ideas? Changed your mind about your recommendations? Please email us.

If you prefer paper to pixels, please click here, print out and complete the form, and mail it to us.

For a long explanation of this form, click here. For commentary about helpful scholarship, click here.

* If you are a scholar in a field other than law (or a legal scholar not yet tenured in a law school), please be patient. We are starting small and hope to cover other fields soon. We also hope to come up with or be shown a marker of scholarliness that is more accurate and reliable than tenure. We welcome your suggestions.