Supreme Court

Supreme Court

CRT Bans Disallow Discussion of AZ Election Law Case


Nicholas B. Creel | Georgia College and State University, Assistant Professor of Business Law and Ethics

July 21, 2021

As a law professor, it’s my job to read these decisions so that I may teach the points of law that come from them.  I take pride in doing just that regardless of my personal views as to whether any case was decided “correctly” or not.  It’s on me as an instructor to teach students the points of law from Supreme Court cases, not to impart any political biases I carry.  Setting one’s emotions aside in this process can be difficult, but after years of practice, I’d like to think I’ve become adept at just that.

However, in reading this latest case, I’ve found myself falling increasingly into despondency the more that I think about it.  I am, in all honesty, disappointed in the Court’s decision, but that isn’t what has been eating away at me.  My melancholy is instead fed by the realization that I may be legally barred from even discussing the case should the spate of recent bans on critical race theory (CRT) make their way to Georgia’s universities.

Read the full post here.

Case Commentary: McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020)


Andrew Cliburn | Vermont Law School, JD Candidate  

November 20, 2020

When the Supreme Court issued McGirt v. Oklahoma last summer holding that Congress never disestablished the Muscogee (Creek) reservation—a reservation that encompassed most of modern-day Tulsa, Oklahoma—the reaction was profound. Indigenous leaders, lawyers, journalists, and others celebrated the Court’s full-throated affirmance of Muscogee (Creek) sovereignty. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Gorsuch, was the latest in an emerging line of Supreme Court cases upholding treaties the North American tribes made with the United States.

Read the full post here.

Case Summary: Kansas v. Glover (2020)


Theophilus Agbi | Vermont Law School, JD Candidate & Université de Cergy-Pontoise, DJCE Candidate 

August 28, 2020

Kansas v. Glover is a 2020 decision that deals with how much evidence law enforcement needs to support a traffic stop under the Fourth Amendment. In this case, a Kansas Deputy Sheriff ran a license plate check of a passing pickup truck. This check revealed that the registered owner was Charles Glover, and that Mr. Glover’s license was revoked. At the time of the license plate check, the Deputy Sheriff did not know who was driving the vehicle. He assumed that Mr. Glover was driving. Relying solely on the information gleaned from the license check, the Deputy Sherriff pulled the truck over. Upon pulling the vehicle over, the Deputy Sheriff confirmed that the current driver was Mr. Glover and issued him a ticket.

Read the full post here.


Submissions The Vermont Law Review continually seeks articles, commentaries, essays, and book reviews on any subject concerning recent developments in state, federal, Native American, or international law.

Learn more about the submissions process >