Digital Commons Network^™

Comparing Judicial Selection Systems, Lee Epstein, Jack Knight, Olga Shvetsova

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Personal Rights And Rule Dependence: Can The Two Co-Exist?, Matthew D. Adler

Faculty Scholarship

Constitutional doctrine is typically "rule-dependent." Typically, a constitutional litigant will not prevail unless she can show that a particular kind of legal rule is in force, e.g., a rule that discriminates against "suspect classes" in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, or that targets speech in violation of the First Amendment, or that is motivated by a religious purpose in violation of the Establishment Clause. Further, the litigant must typically establish a violation of her "personal rights." The Supreme Court has consistently stated that a reviewing court should not invalidate an unconstitutional governmental action at the instance of a claimant …

Alden V. Maine’ And The Jurisprudence Of Structure, Ernest A. Young

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Section 5 Mystique, Morrison, And The Future Of Federal Antidiscrimination Law, Margaret H. Lemos, Samuel Estreicher

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Rights And Rules: An Overview, Matthew D. Adler, Michael C. Dorf

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Design: An Oxymoron?, Donald L. Horowitz

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Avoidance, Resistance Norms, And The Preservation Of Judicial Review, Ernest A. Young

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Rights, Rules And The Structure Of Constitutional Adjudication: A Response To Professor Fallon, Matthew D. Adler

Faculty Scholarship

Constitutional doctrine is typically rule-dependent. A viable constitutional challenge typically hinges upon the existence of a discriminatory, overbroad, improperly motivated, or otherwise invalid rule, to which the claimant has some nexus. In a prior article, Prof. Adler proposed one model of constitutional adjudication that tries to make sense of rule-dependence. He argued that reviewing courts are not vindicating the personal rights of claimants, but rather are repealing or amending invalid rules. IN a Commentary in this issue, Professor Fallon now puts forward a different model of constitutional adjudication, equally consistent with rule-dependence. Fallon proposes that a reviewing court should overturn …

Marshall’S Questions, Walter E. Dellinger Iii, H. Jefferson Powell

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Virtues Of Presidential Weakness: A Comment On Fitts, Ernest A. Young

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Abiding Relevance Of Federalism To U.S. Foreign Relations, Curtis A. Bradley

Faculty Scholarship

In, Agora: Breard (collection of articles re: Breard v. Virgina, 513 U.S. 971 (1994).

Quo Vadis, Posadas?, William W. Van Alstyne

Faculty Scholarship

This examination looks at Virginia's ban on speech advertising motorcycles and revisits the question raised in the Posadas decision - may a state ban speech about a legal product the state could ban if it so desired. This article uses comparisons to the government employee speech cases to further illuminate the issue.

Can Constitutional Borrowing Be Justified? A Comment On Tushnet, Matthew D. Adler

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Rights Against Rules: The Moral Structure Of American Constitutional Law, Matthew D. Adler

Faculty Scholarship

Constitutional rights are conventionally thought to be "personal" rights. The successful constitutional litigant is thought to have a valid claim that some constitutional wrong has or would be been done "to her"; the case of "overbreadth," where a litigant prevails even though her own conduct is permissibly regulated, is thought to be unique to the First Amendment. This "personal" or "as-applied" view of constitutional adjudication has been consistently and pervasively endorsed by the Supreme Court, and is standardly adopted by legal scholars.

In this Article, I argue that the conventional view is incorrect. Constitutional rights, I claim, are rights against …

The New Etiquette Of Federalism: New York, Printz And Yeskey, Matthew D. Adler, Seth F. Kreimer

Faculty Scholarship

In New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), the Court revived "state sovereignty" as a justiciable constitutional constraint on federal mandates, and struck down portions of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act on the grounds that the statute impermissibly "commandeered" state governments. Printz v. United States, 117 S.Ct. 2365 (1997), confirmed the anti-commandeering principle and relied upon it to invalidate elements of another federal statute, the Brady Act. This Article analyzes and criticizes the anti-commandeering jurisprudence, as it has emerged in New York, Printz, and a case decided by the Court last Term, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections …

Fourth Amendment Accommodations: (Un)Compelling Public Needs, Balancing Acts, And The Fiction Of Consent, Guy-Uriel Charles

Faculty Scholarship

The problems of public housing-including crime, drugs, and gun violence- have received an enormous amount of national attention. Much attention has also focused on warrantless searches and consent searches as solutions to these problems. This Note addresses the constitutionality of these proposals and asserts that if the Supreme Court's current Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is taken to its logical extremes, warrantless searches in public housing can be found constitutional. The author argues, however, that such an interpretation fails to strike the proper balance between public need and privacy in the public housing context. The Note concludes by proposing alternative consent-based regimes …

Judicial Restraint In The Administrative State: Beyond The Countermajoritarian Difficulty, Matthew D. Adler

Faculty Scholarship

Arguments for judicial restraint point to some kind of judicial deficit (such as a democratic or an epistemic deficit) as grounds for limiting judicial review. ("Judicial review" is used in this Article to mean, essentially, the judicial invalidation of statutes, rules, orders and actions in virtue of the Bill of Rights, or similar unwritten criteria.). The most influential argument for judicial restraint has been the Countermajoritarian Difficulty. This is a legislature-centered argument: one that points to features of *legislatures*, as grounds for courts to refrain from invalidating *statutes*. This Article seeks to recast scholarly debate about judicial restraint, and to …

Foucault In Cyberspace: Surveillance, Sovereignty, And Hardwired Censors, James Boyle

Faculty Scholarship

This is an essay about law in cyberspace. I focus on three interdependent phenomena: a set of political and legal assumptions that I call the jurisprudence of digital libertarianism, a separate but related set of beliefs about the state's supposed inability to regulate the Internet, and a preference for technological solutions to hard legal issues on-line. I make the familiar criticism that digital libertarianism is inadequate because of its blindness towards the effects of private power, and the less familiar claim that digital libertarianism is also surprisingly blind to the state's own power in cyberspace. In fact, I argue that …

Remembering Melville Nimmer: Some Cautionary Notes On Commercial Speech, William W. Van Alstyne

Faculty Scholarship

This examination concerns itself with two main questions: what qualifies as commercial speech and how much protection does commercial speech enjoy under the First Amendment when compared to other forms of speech. The trend of the Court indicates that commercial speech enjoys protections similar to political speech.

What States Owe Outsiders, Matthew D. Adler

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Rule Of Too Much Law? The New Safety/Soundness Rulemaking Responsibilities Of The Federal Banking Agencies, Lawrence G. Baxter

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Recent Developments: Regulation Of Racist Speech: In Re Welfare Of R.A.V., Ernest A. Young

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

A Judicial Postscript To The Church-State Debates Of 1989: How Porous The Wall, How Civil The State?, William W. Van Alstyne

Faculty Scholarship

This work is a continuation of the debate regarding the Establishment Clause. The focus lies with Justice O’Connor’s concurrence in County of Allegheny v. ACLU and how this opinion harkens back to a concept shared by Jefferson and Madison, that the establishment clause is designed to prevent government favoritism.

Dual Sovereignty, Federalism And National Criminal Law: Modernist Constitutional Doctrine And The Nonrole Of The Supreme Court, William W. Van Alstyne

Faculty Scholarship

This paper examines the growing movement away from the functional nature of federalism contained within the Constitution toward a federalist system that gives extensive discretion to Congress and is only limited by political checks. This political system of federalism has limited the role of the Court in national criminal law because of the deference the Court is expected to give Congress.

The Search For An Author: Shakespeare And The Framers, James Boyle

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

What The Constitution Means By Executive Power, Charles J. Cooper, Orrin Hatch, Eugene V. Rowstow, Michael E. Tigar

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The President’S Powers As Commander-In-Chief Versus Congress’ War Power And Appropriations Power, Charles Bennett, Arthur B. Culvahouse Jr., Geoffrey P. Miller, William Bradford Reynolds, William W. Van Alstyne

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Comments On Standards Of Judicial Review, William W. Van Alstyne

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Apartheid And The South African Judiciary, Lawrence G. Baxter

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Reaching The Limits Of Traditional Constitutional Scholarship (Book Review), H. Jefferson Powell

Faculty Scholarship

Reviewing Laurence H. Tribe, Constitutional Choices (1985)