A nationally recognized scholar in federal courts and constitutional law, Professor Tara Leigh Grove joined Texas Law in 2022 after distinguished tenures at William & Mary, the University of Alabama, and Florida State University. Her scholarship focuses on judicial legitimacy, the structure of the federal judiciary, and the evolving nature of legal interpretation. Grove has been widely cited in legal academia and the courts, and she previously served on President Joe Biden’s Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States.
“I am fascinated by the ways law and history interact in shaping our legal system,” says Grove.
A Kentucky and Virginia native, Grove discovered her passion for constitutional law as an undergraduate at Duke University. After earning her law degree from Harvard Law School, she clerked for Judge Emilio Garza of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and then worked at the U.S. Department of Justice, where she litigated constitutional and administrative law cases. Her experiences there reinforced her interest in federal courts and the role of the judiciary.
I am fascinated by the ways law and history interact in shaping our legal system.
Now the Vinson & Elkins Chair at Texas Law, Grove’s research tackles the Supreme Court’s legitimacy, the evolution of legal doctrine, and the tension between legal and political forces. Among her scholarship accolades, Grove was recently identified as one of Texas Law’s most-cited researchers. Additionally, at the national level, she was recognized as the No. 17 most-cited author and the No. 10 most-cited co-author among the top 100 legal scholars of 2024. That year, her paper, “Is Textualism at War with Statutory Precedent?” appeared in the Texas Law Review. Her co-authored forthcoming paper “Disfavored Supreme Court Precedent in the Lower Federal Courts” will be published in the Virginia Law Review.
Meanwhile, Grove has become the go-to constitutional law expert for national newspapers and radio programs, and she recently spoke on a separation of powers panel at the 2025 Judicial Conference of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in Miramar Beach, Florida.
We spoke with Grove about her research, what drew her to Texas Law, and why she still reads Marbury v. Madison every year.
How do you describe your academic focus?
My research explores the role of courts in our constitutional system, particularly how the judiciary navigates questions of legal interpretation, legitimacy, and institutional authority. I’m interested in how courts operate within broader political structures and how doctrine evolves over time.
What inspired you to become a legal scholar?
I knew I wanted to be a lawyer from a young age—since sixth grade, in fact! My early interest deepened when I took a constitutional law course in college. That class made me realize that I didn’t just want to practice law—I wanted to teach and write about it. I’ve been fascinated by the subject ever since.
How does your background in litigation inform your teaching and scholarship?
Before becoming a professor, I litigated constitutional and administrative law cases at the U.S. Department of Justice. That experience gave me insight into how legal principles are applied in real-world disputes. It also shapes my research—I’m particularly interested in how courts balance legal doctrine with practical realities.
Your work often examines the Supreme Court’s legitimacy. Why is that such a pressing issue today?
The Supreme Court has long faced tensions between its legal authority and public acceptance. My research highlights how the Court has sometimes made decisions based on concerns about public reaction rather than strict legal principles. For example, in Naim v. Naim, a 1955 case challenging Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage, the justices avoided ruling, despite clear precedent from Brown v. Board of Education. They feared public backlash. This raises important questions: When should the Court stand firm, and when should it consider political realities? These debates are highly relevant today, particularly after Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
You’ve mentioned that you reread Marbury v. Madison every year. Why is that?
Yes! I tell my students that no matter how many times they’ve read Marbury, they need to read it again. Every year, I find something new in the case. As the legal and political landscape changes, so does the meaning of foundational cases. Teaching constitutional law reminds me how much historical context shapes legal interpretation.
For the second-straight year, you’ve won Professor of the Year from the Student Bar Association, and you’ve emphasized teaching is as important to you as scholarship. What do you enjoy most about teaching?
I love engaging with students and seeing them wrestle with complex legal questions. Law school isn’t just about memorizing doctrine—it’s about learning how to think critically, challenge assumptions, and develop nuanced arguments. Helping students navigate that process is incredibly rewarding.
What drew you to Texas Law?
Texas Law has a fantastic faculty, an intellectually curious student body, and an exciting energy. I was especially drawn by the leadership of Dean Bobby Chesney and the strong community of scholars working on constitutional law, federal courts, and administrative law. It’s a great place to continue my research and engage in meaningful discussions about the law’s role in our democracy.
You’ve written about the relationship between the Supreme Court and lower courts. How does that dynamic work?
There can be a disconnect between what happens in the Supreme Court and what happens in the lower courts. In areas like Bivens claims—lawsuits against federal officials for constitutional violations—the Supreme Court has significantly narrowed the doctrine, but the doctrine still lives on in the lower courts. This creates fascinating questions about judicial hierarchy and interpretation, which I explore in my forthcoming paper.
What do you hope your work contributes to the legal field?
I want my scholarship to provide a clearer understanding of how courts operate in practice, beyond just theoretical legal analysis. My goal is to help scholars, lawyers, and policymakers think critically about judicial decision-making and its implications for democracy.
You served on President Biden’s Supreme Court Commission. What was that experience like?
It was an intense but fascinating experience. The Commission brought together scholars with diverse perspectives to analyze proposals for Supreme Court reform. It was a reminder that debates about the Court’s role are not new—they’ve been part of American history for centuries.
Outside of law, what are your interests?
I love music and singing. I also have a deep appreciation for theme parks. My husband works in the industry and loves Disney. So, I tell him that constitutional law is my Disneyland!