E-mail:
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
One of my current research projects focuses on Supreme Court review of state court decisions on issues of federal law, especially federal constitutional law. The Roberts Court has shown itself to be extremely deferential to state court rulings on issues of federal constitutional law, thus giving the state courts, as a practical matter, a good deal of autonomy. Compared even to the Rehnquist Court, the Roberts Court grants review of state court decisions on issues of federal constitutional law at a very low rate. When it does grant review, however, it reverses at a very high rate and often with a high level of agreement among the Justices that reversal is warranted. In sum, the Court's current approach to state court decisions is to ignore all but the biggest errors.
Consistent with its deference to state courts, the Roberts Court has reversed a good number of decisions by federal courts overturning convictions or vacating sentences on habeas review. In the first opinion of the 2011 Term, in Cavazos v. Smith, the Court does exactly that, with today's 6-3 per curiam summary reversal of a decision by a panel of the Ninth Circuit granting a writ of habeas corpus to a petitioner convicted in California in the death of her 7-week old granddaughter. The petitioner claimed in her habeas petition, as she had in her appeals in state court, that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury verdict. The Ninth Circuit panel agreed. The Supreme Court had vacated the panel's decision twice before, directing, as the Court put it today, "the panel’s attention to this Court’s opinions highlighting the necessity of deference to state courts" on habeas review. The panel failed to take the hint and today it got an earful. Calling the panel's decision "plainly wrong" and its reasoning "simply false," the Court complained that the Ninth Circuit had failed to do what was required of it when the case was previously remanded: "Each time the panel persisted in its course, reinstating its judgment without seriously confronting the significance of the cases called to its attention. Its refusal to do so necessitates this Court’s action today."