The legal commentariat seems to have settled on the view that newly confirmed Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch will fill the seat left by the late Justice Antonin Scalia both literally and as a like-minded successor in jurisprudential spirit.1
While Justice Scalia is commonly considered an arch-conservative legal scholar, his commitment to originalism often led him to places one would not expect to find him based on a simple liberal-conservative dichotomy. In particular, Justice Scalia often wound up in unusual majority lineups regarding the rights of criminal defendants.2 For example, he wrote for the court in United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 (1993), a 5-4 opinion holding that double jeopardy bars prosecution of conduct for which the defendant has previously been held in contempt of court; Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), which voided the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act as unconstitutionally vague; and United States v. Santos, 553 U.S. 507 (2008), another 5-4 opinion that interpreted the term “proceeds” under the money-laundering statute as referring only to net income/profits, and not to gross income.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
