In recent years, justices on the US Supreme Court have made explicit historical arguments about US schools in order to promote a broader role for religion in US public schools. For example, in Espinoza v. Montana (2020), Chief Justice Roberts cited the late historian Carl F. Kaestle to buttress his arguments, but did so in a way that misrepresented Kaestle’s nuanced account. This article compares the justices’ historical arguments to the best evidence from the historical record. The essay argues that historians of education—whatever their political beliefs—can and should guide policy by providing reliable, accurate historical information.

On June 17, 2021, the United States Supreme Court reversed and remanded a suit filed against Nestlé USA and Cargill under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) for lack of jurisdiction. This case has already garnered attention over the nature of the dispute (child slaves in Africa), the Supreme Court's treatment of jurisdiction under the ATS, and the finding shared by five of the nine Supreme Court justices that domestic corporations can potentially be sued under the ATS. This analysis focuses on the child slavery and global supply chain aspects of the decision.

In Jam v. International Finance Corp., the U.S. Supreme Court held that the International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945 (IOIA) affords international organizations (IOs) the same immunity from suit in U.S. courts that foreign governments currently enjoy under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA), which codifies the restrictive theory of foreign sovereign immunity. The International Finance Corporation (IFC) had argued that the IOIA, which grants international organizations the “‘same immunity’ from suit … ‘as is enjoyed by foreign governments’” (p. 15), should be understood to provide international organizations with absolute immunity, which it argued foreign governments enjoyed prior to the United States’ explicit adoption of the restrictive theory in 1952. Under the restrictive theory, a foreign state is immune from suit for its sovereign acts (acta jure imperii), but not for its commercial acts (acta jure gestionis). By interpreting language in the IOIA as granting the “same immunity” to international organizations as foreign governments enjoy at the time the suit is filed, the Supreme Court aligned the regime for IO immunity with that of foreign state immunity, except in cases where the IO's founding charter provides a different rule or where the executive branch has explicitly limited immunity. It remains to be seen what IO activities are deemed “commercial” under this regime and what types of transactions are found to have a sufficient nexus to the United States to fall within the FSIA's commercial-activity exception.

The exclusion of transnational human rights litigation from U.S. federal courts is, for most practical purposes, now complete. On April 24, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a 5–4 ruling in Jesner v. Arab Bank, deciding that foreign corporations cannot be sued under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS).

Allegro – Trademark protection – Freedom of speech vs. intellectual property – Polish Constitution – European Convention on Human Rights – Balancing of competing values – Constitutionally permissible limits on freedom of expression – Comparison with case-law of United States Supreme Court – ‘Categorical’ approach vs. ‘balancing’ approach

On 29 June 2006 the United States Supreme Court issued a landmark opinion in the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. The Court's essential holding, joined by five justices, found that the President lacked the authority to establish the military commissions which he had created by special order on 13 November 2001. The holding dealt the administration of George W. Bush a stunning defeat, and the very fact of the Court's striking down the military commissions confirmed an assertive, if slim, majority on the court in a time of national emergency and armed conflict. Most striking, the Court found that the so-called war on terror is governed by common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, a legal conclusion that, because of the legitimacy and prestige of the Court, neither Congress nor the President may easily avoid. The lasting jurisprudential impact of the decision, however, remains to be seen. For, on the one hand, Hamdan suggests that the military commissions simply lacked the authority conferred by a statute of Congress – and Congress has since remedied that gap. But, on the other hand, what impact will the Court's analysis of the laws of war have on the Commissions and future judicial assessments of their lawfulness?

This essay examines the international legal contours of Hamdan. It does so as follows: First, it gives the background to the key legal decisions made in 2001 and 2002 to establish the military commissions and interpret the Geneva Conventions so as not to apply to Taliban and Al Qaeda detainees. Second, we explore the principal international legal elements of Hamdan. Third, we conclude with an epilogue of sorts, noting the aftermath of Hamdan in the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and reflecting on a few key points raised – and left unanswered – by Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.