Vol. 136 No. 5 “It is a settled and invariable principle,” Chief Justice Marshall once wrote, “that every right, when withheld, must have a remedy.” Not quite. Although some view the idea of a substantive constitutional right without a remedy as oxymoronic, rights to remedies have always had a precarious constitutional status, which the Supreme Court has lately subjected to multifaceted subversion. . . .
Vol. 136 No. 2 This Article provides the first empirical and doctrinal analysis of how the modern Supreme Court uses the common law to determine statutory meaning, based on a study of 602 statutory cases decided during the Roberts Court’s first fourteen and a half Terms.