Digital Commons Network^™

The Conservative-Libertarian Turn In First Amendment Jurisprudence, Steven J. Heyman

All Faculty Scholarship

Conservative constitutional jurisprudence in the United States has an important libertarian dimension. In recent years, a conservative majority of the Supreme Court has strengthened the constitutional protections for property rights, recognized an individual right to own firearms, imposed limits on the welfare state and the powers of the federal government, cut back on affirmative action, and held that closely held corporations have a right to religious liberty that permits them to deny contraceptive coverage to their female employees. This libertarian streak also can be seen in decisions on freedom of speech and association. In several leading cases, conservative judges have …

The Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Divide, Christopher W. Schmidt

All Faculty Scholarship

Contemporary legal discourse differentiates “civil rights” from “civil liberties.” The former are generally understood as protections against discriminatory treatment, the latter as freedom from oppressive government authority. This Essay explains how this differentiation arose and considers its consequences.

Although there is a certain inherent logic to the civil rights-civil liberties divide, it in fact is the product of the unique circumstances of a particular moment in history. In the early years of the Cold War, liberal anticommunists sought to distinguish their incipient interest in the cause of racial equality from their belief that national security required limitations on the speech …

Religious Institutions, Liberal States, And The Political Architecture Of Overlapping Spheres, Mark D. Rosen

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Protecting From Endless Harm: A Roadmap For Coercion Challenges After N.F.I.B. V. Sebelius, Eric Turner

Chicago-Kent Law Review

In N.F.I.B. v. Sebelius, a plurality of the Supreme Court struck down the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid (PPACA) expansion. The Court did so by holding that the doctrine “coerced” States into implementing federal policy by threatening to withhold Medicaid funding to states that did not reform their Medicaid programs. This marks the first time a program properly enacted under Congress’ Spending Power has been found to coerce the states. The Court’s coercion analysis, however, has raised more questions than it answered. The plurality’s language is vague, and commentators have struggled to analyze the holding. But what …