Digital Commons Network^™

A Federal Inmate’S Right To Stay Home, Jordan Thorn

Texas A&M Law Review

Since the start of the COVID–19 pandemic, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) has, for the first time in history, placed tens of thousands of inmates onto home confinement. Likely due to the unprecedented nature and rapid release of inmates to contain the virus, the BOP failed to timely update their policies and procedures surrounding the disciplinary system of inmates on home confinement. This failure to update resulted in the BOP removing inmates from home confinement and placing them back in prison for minor violations. Furthermore, when the BOP chose to remove an inmate from home confinement, it did so …

The Perennial Eclipse: Race, Immigration, And How Latinx Count In American Politics, Rachel F. Moran

Faculty Scholarship

In 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Evenwel v. Abbott, a case challenging the use of total population in state legislative apportionment as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The plaintiffs sued Texas, alleging that the State impermissibly diluted their voting power because they lived in areas with a high proportion of voting-age citizens. When total population was used to draw district lines, the plaintiffs had to compete with more voters to get their desired electoral outcomes than was true for voters in districts with low proportions of voting-age citizens. The Court rejected the argument, finding that states enjoy …

The Promise And Perils Of Tech Whistleblowing, Hannah Bloch-Wehba

Faculty Scholarship

Whistleblowers and leakers wield significant influence in technology law and policy. On topics ranging from cybersecurity to free speech, tech whistleblowers spur congressional hearings, motivate the introduction of legislation, and animate critical press coverage of tech firms. But while scholars and policymakers have long called for transparency and accountability in the tech sector, they have overlooked the significance of individual disclosures by industry insiders—workers, employees, and volunteers—who leak information that firms would prefer to keep private.

This Article offers an account of the rise and influence of tech whistleblowing. Radical information asymmetries pervade tech law and policy. Firms exercise near-complete …

Manufactured State Immigration Emergencies As State Vigilantism, Kate Huddleston

Texas A&M Law Review

President Trump shattered norms when he declared a national emergency at the U.S.–Mexico border to build a border wall. State governors have now followed that lead in taking up what Justice Jackson, dissenting in Korematsu v. United States (1944), called the “loaded weapon” of emergency—doing so, like Trump, in the context of the border. Governors of Texas, Arizona, and Florida have all issued state declarations of emergency based on (1) migration, and (2) the Biden administration’s purported failure to engage in immigration enforcement. These state emergency declarations have not been studied or even identified in legal literature as a state …

The Ideology Of Press Freedom, Hannah Bloch-Wehba

Faculty Scholarship

This Article offers a critical account of the law of press freedom. American law and political culture laud the press as an institution that plays a vital role in democracy: guarding against corruption, facilitating self-governance, and advocating for free expression. These democratic functions provide justification for the law of press freedom, which defends the media’s autonomy and shields the press from outside interference.

But the dominant accounts of the press’s democratic role are only partly accurate. The law of press freedom is grounded in large part in journalism’s professional commitments to objectivity, public service, and autonomy. These idealized characterizations, flawed …

Charging Abortion, Milan Markovic

Faculty Scholarship

As long as Roe v. Wade remained good law, prosecutors could largely avoid the question of abortion. The Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization has now placed prosecutors at the forefront of the abortion wars. Some chief prosecutors in antiabortion states have pledged to not enforce antiabortion laws, whereas others are targeting even out-of-state providers. This post-Dobbs reality, wherein the ability to obtain an abortion depends not only on the politics of one’s state but also the policies of one’s local district attorney, has received minimal scrutiny from legal scholars.

Prosecutors have broad charging discretion, …

Four Futures Of Chevron Deference, Daniel E. Walters

Faculty Scholarship

In two upcoming cases, the Supreme Court will consider whether to overturn the Chevron doctrine, which, since 1984, has required courts to defer to reasonable agency interpretations of otherwise ambiguous statutes. In this short essay, I defend the proposition that, even on death’s door, Chevron deference is likely to be resurrected, and I offer a simple positive political theory model that helps explain why. The core insight of this model is that the prevailing approach to judicial review of agency interpretations of law is politically contingent—that is, it is likely to represent an equilibrium that efficiently maximizes the Supreme Court’s …

The Major Questions Doctrine At The Boundaries Of Interpretive Law, Daniel E. Walters

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court’s apparent transformation of the major questions doctrine into a clear statement rule demanding clear congressional authorization for “major” agency actions has already had, and will continue to have, wide-ranging impacts on American public law. Not the least of these is the impact it will have on the enterprise of statutory interpretation. Indeed, while it is easy to focus on the policy repercussions of a newly constrained Congress and newly hamstrung administrative state, this Article argues that equally important is the novel precedent that is set in this particular formulation of a clear statement rule, which stands almost …

Social Costs Of Dobbs' Pro-Adoption Agenda, Malinda L. Seymore

Faculty Scholarship

Abortion opponents have long claimed that women denied access to abortion can simply give their children up for adoption. Justice Alito repeated this argument in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health. Of course, this claim assumes away the burdens of the pregnancy itself, which can result in economic strife, domestic violence, health risks, and potentially death in childbirth. But even on its own terms, the argument that adoption is an adequate substitute for abortion access makes normative assumptions about adoption as a social good in and of itself, ignoring the social costs of adoption for birth parents and adoptees. Idealizing adoption …

Texas's "Operation Lone Star": The Supremacy Clause And Dual Federalism In Light Of Arizona V. United States, Reynaldo Ramirez, Jr

Texas A&M Law Review

The Supremacy Clause of Article Six of the United States Constitution was enacted to remedy the failures of the Articles of Confederation. Initially, the states enjoyed near-boundless state sovereignty in nearly all aspects of the first federalist government. However, in practice, the necessity of federal supremacy for conducting the business of governing obligated the states to prioritize national interests above the states’ sovereignty. To do so required revision of the Articles of Confederation. This drafting culminated in the contentious ratification of the Constitution in 1788, including the Supremacy Clause and the Tenth Amendment. That said, ratifying the Supremacy Clause and …

Personhood, Property, And Public Education: The Case Of Plyler V. Doe, Rachel F. Moran

Faculty Scholarship

Property law is having a moment, one that is getting education scholars’ attention. Progressive scholars are retooling the concepts of ownership and entitlement to incorporate norms of equality and inclusion. Some argue that property law can even secure access to public education despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s longstanding refusal to recog- nize a right to basic schooling. Others worry that property doctrine is inherently exclusionary. In their view, property-based concepts like resi- dency have produced opportunity hoarding in schools that serve affluent, predominantly white neighborhoods. Many advocates therefore believe that equity will be achieved only by moving beyond property-based claims, …

Pro-Choice Plans, Brendan S. Maher

Faculty Scholarship

After Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the United States Constitution may no longer protect abortion, but a surprising federal statute does. That statute is called the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), and it has long been one of the most powerful preemptive statutes in the entire United States Code. ERISA regulates “employee benefit plans,” which are the vehicle by which approximately 155 million people receive their health insurance. Plans are thus a major private payer for health benefits—and therefore abortions. While many post-Dobbs anti-abortion laws directly bar abortion by making either the receipt or provision of …

What The Heller Is Going On With The Second Amendment: Are Licensing Requirements Living Up To The Heller Standard?, Josue Barron

Texas A&M Journal of Property Law

The full extent and guarantees of the Second Amendment have yet to be understood in light of modern advances in weaponry. Further, there is little Supreme Court precedent to aid in defining the scope of the Second Amendment. With challenges to restrictions on concealed carrying of firearms in public, the Second Amendment requires much clarification. Federal circuit courts are divided on how to apply the Second Amendment to firearm licensing schemes and differ on the interpretation of the Heller decision. This Note provides guidance on understanding the core protection of the Second Amendment and the presumptions left by the Supreme …

The "Independent" State Legislature In Republican Theory, Franita Tolson

Texas A&M Law Review

The independent state legislature theory provides that state legislatures are not constrained by their respective state constitutions in exercising the authority that the U.S. Constitution delegates to states over federal elections. In its most extreme form, the doctrine permits state legislatures, in overseeing the mechanics of federal elections, to disregard state court interpretations of state constitutions. Scholars have offered a number of criticisms of this doctrine, noting that it runs counter to the Founding Generation’s concerns about the lawlessness of state legislatures; is contrary to historical practice at the Founding; and undermines the constitutional structure in which the more democratically …

Racial Equality, Religious Liberty, And The Complications Of Pluralism, Rachel F. Moran

Faculty Scholarship

Constitutional law scholar Laurence Tribe once described due process and equal protection as “a legal double helix.” By this, he meant that protections for substantive liberties coupled with principles of equal treatment created “a single, unfolding tale of equal liberty and increasingly universal dignity.” In his view, equality and liberty were mutually constitutive and “center[ed] on a quest for genuine self-government of groups small and large.” Although this optimistic account of the nation’s constitutional DNA is reassuring, Professor Sahar Aziz’s new book on “The Racial Muslim: When Racism Quashes Religious Freedom” reminds us that the double helix can unravel, so …

Discretionary Disfunction And Shivers V. United States: Consequences Of Assuming The Intent Of Congress, Emily B. Garza

Texas A&M Law Review

The discretionary function exception is a powerful departure from the Federal Tort Claims Act’s general waiver of sovereign immunity. This exception applies where government employees commit a tort while acting within the discretion of their position. While there has been a lengthy and varying jurisprudential history surrounding the application of the discretionary function exception, neither the Supreme Court nor Congress has addressed whether violations of constitutional rights fall within the scope of a discretionary act.

This lack of clarity proved harmful for individuals like Mackie Shivers in Shivers v. United States because the discretionary function exception swallowed his claim for …

An Imperfect Solution: The Due Process Case For Providing Court-Appointed Interpreters For Pro Se Plaintiffs, Abdullah Z. Khalil

Texas A&M Law Review

A federal law, the Court Interpreters Act, provides litigants with complimentary access to a qualified or professionally certified interpreter in actions instituted by the United States. The majority of pro se civil litigation in federal courts is initiated by the United States, and thus, those pro se litigants who speak little-to-no English need not pay for access to an exceptional interpreter. Indeed, federal courts offer interpreters proficient in a multitude of languages, and the courts work hard to ensure adequate interpretation in proceedings brought by the United States.

However, those limited-English-proficient pro se plaintiffs initiating their own lawsuits face a …

The Disembodied First Amendment, Nathan Cortez, William M. Sage

Faculty Scholarship

First Amendment doctrine is becoming disembodied—increasingly detached from human speakers and listeners. Corporations claim that their speech rights limit government regulation of everything from product labeling to marketing to ordinary business licensing. Courts extend protections to commercial speech that ordinarily extended only to core political and religious speech. And now, we are told, automated information generated for cryptocurrencies, robocalling, and social media bots are also protected speech under the Constitution. Where does it end? It begins, no doubt, with corporate and commercial speech. We show, however, that heightened protection for corporate and commercial speech is built on several “artifices” - …

Running On Empty: Ford V. Montana And The Folly Of Minimum Contacts, James P. George

Faculty Scholarship

Jurisdictional contests are in disarray. Criticisms date back to the issuance of International Shoe Co. v. Washington but the breakdown may be best illustrated in two recent Supreme Court opinions, the first rejecting California’s “sliding scale” that mixes general and specific contacts, the second using the discredited sliding scale to hold Ford amenable in states where accidents occurred.

California’s sliding scale is one variety of the contacts-relatedness tests, used in lower courts to have general contacts bolster weaker specific contacts. Some states—Montana and Minnesota for example—use the opposite extreme requiring a causal connection in defendant’s forum contacts, often using foreseeability …

Content Moderation As Surveillance, Hannah Bloch-Wehba

Faculty Scholarship

Technology platforms are the new governments, and content moderation is the new law, or so goes a common refrain. As platforms increasingly turn toward new, automated mechanisms of enforcing their rules, the apparent power of the private sector seems only to grow. Yet beneath the surface lies a web of complex relationships between public and private authorities that call into question whether platforms truly possess such unilateral power. Law enforcement and police are exerting influence over platform content rules, giving governments a louder voice in supposedly “private” decisions. At the same time, law enforcement avails itself of the affordances of …

Beyond Bristol-Myers : Personal Jurisdiction Over Class Actions, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court's 2017 decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court threatens a sea change in the relationship between personal jurisdiction and aggregate litigation. The most crucial concern has been what the decision means for class actions. Must a court subject the claims of every unnamed class member to separate jurisdictional scrutiny? If so, it could be impossible for a plaintiff who sues in her home state to represent class members outside that state; instead, the Constitution would permit multi-state or nationwide class actions only in states where the defendant is subject to general jurisdiction. For claims against a …

Why The U.S. Founders’ Conceptions Of Human Agency Matter Today: The Example Of Senate Malapportionment, Susan D. Carle

Texas A&M Law Review

This Article links the U.S. founders’ ideas about “human agency”—i.e., their understandings of the link between the individual and the social and political structure—with how they designed the Constitution and, in particular, how they designed the U.S. Senate as a non-majoritarian institution. I mine primary sources to show that although the founders struggled with many disagreements in drafting the Constitution, they shared an amalgam of historically received ideas about human agency derived from both liberal and civic republican traditions. I identify five such ideas and then parse which of them continue to pertain today. I argue that although contemporary and …

Are People In Federal Territories Part Of “We The People Of The United States”?, Gary Lawson, Guy Seidman

Texas A&M Law Review

In 1820, a unanimous Supreme Court proclaimed: “The United States is the name given to our great republic, which is composed of states and territories.” While that key point is simple, and perhaps even obvious, the constitutional implications of interpreting “the United States” to include federal territories are potentially far reaching. In particular, the Constitution’s Preamble announces that the Constitution is authored by “We the People of the United States” and that the document is designed to “secure the Blessings of Liberty” to the author and its “Posterity.” If inhabitants of federal territory are among “We the People of the …

Diversity’S Distractions Revisited: The Case Of Latinx In Higher Education, Rachel F. Moran

Faculty Scholarship

As the United States Supreme Court considers the future of affirmative action in higher education, this Article reflects on a 2003 essay by Professor Derrick Bell, which provocatively argued that diversity is a distraction from other pressing problems of access to a bachelor’s degree. The Article evaluates his claims with a focus on Latinx students, a rapidly growing segment of the college-going population. Bell believed that diversity is a less compelling justification for the use of race in admissions than corrective justice is. As a result, he predicted persistent litigation over the constitutionality of affirmative action programs. That prediction certainly …

Immigration Detention And Illusory Alternatives To Habeas, Fatma Marouf

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court has never directly addressed whether, or under what circumstances, a writ of habeas corpus may be used to challenge the conditions of detention, as opposed to the fact or duration of detention. Consequently, a circuit split exists on habeas jurisdiction over conditions claims. The COVID-19 pandemic brought this issue into the spotlight as detained individuals fearing infection, serious illness, and death requested release through habeas petitions around the country. One of the factors that courts considered in deciding whether to exercise habeas jurisdiction was whether alternative remedies exist, through a civil rights or tort-based action. This Article …

The Unbearable Emptiness Of Formalism: Autonomy, Equality, And The Future Of Affirmative Action, Rachel F. Moran

Faculty Scholarship

Debates over affirmative action in higher education generally focus on equality interests under the Fourteenth Amendment but ignore liberty interests under the First Amendment. That tendency persists, even though the academic freedom to enroll a diverse student body has allowed colleges and universities to defend race-conscious admissions programs against legal challenges for decades. Today, the rise of formalism in judicial interpretation poses new perils for these programs. Justice Powell’s seminal decision in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke was a pragmatic compromise that used diversity to temper the polarized debate over equality that sharply divided the Court. In …

The Living Rules Of Evidence, G. Alexander Nunn

Faculty Scholarship

The jurisprudential evolution of evidence law is dead. At least, that’s what we’re expected to believe. Ushered in on the wings of a growing positivist movement, the enactment of the Federal Rules of Evidence purported to quell judicial authority over evidence law. Instead, committees, conferences, and members of Congress would regulate any change to our evidentiary regime, thereby capturing the evolution of evidence law in a single, transparent code.

The codification of evidence law, though, has proven problematic. The arrival of the Federal Rules of Evidence has given rise to a historically anomalous era of relative stagnation in the doctrinal …

The Public Accommodations Dilemma - Whose Right Prevails, Meg Penrose

Faculty Scholarship

This essay gives a brief history of religious liberty-based objections to public accommodations law promoting societal integration and provides a potential solution. It argues there are parallels between LGBTQ discrimination and race discrimination, including the continued resistance to full integration and equality. The essay suggests a potential solution to the public accommodations dilemma between anti-discrimination and religious liberty in redefining the scope of religious liberty. Courts should protect religious services and activities—not secular services and activities. The status (religious or secular) of the person providing services should be irrelevant. The focus of public accommodations laws, and legal challenges to these …

Decoding Nondelegation After Gundy: What The Experience In State Courts Tells Us About What To Expect When We're Expecting, Daniel E. Walters

Faculty Scholarship

The nondelegation doctrine theoretically limits Congress’s ability to delegate legislative powers to the executive agencies that make up the modern administrative state. Yet, in practice, the U.S. Supreme Court has, since the New Deal, shied away from enforcing any limits on congressional delegation. That may change in the near future. In Gundy v. United States, the Court narrowly upheld a delegation, and a dissent signaled deep doubts about the Court’s longstanding “intelligible principle” standard and offered a new framework to replace it. Subsequent events strongly suggest that the Court is poised to move in the direction contemplated by the dissent …

Confrontation’S Multi-Analyst Problem, Paul F. Rothstein, Ronald J. Coleman

Texas A&M Law Review

The Confrontation Clause in the Sixth Amendment affords the “accused” in “criminal prosecutions” the right “to be confronted with the witnesses against” them. A particular challenge for courts over at least the last decade-plus has been the degree to which the Confrontation Clause applies to forensic reports, such as those presenting the results of a DNA, toxicology, or other CSI-type analysis. Should use of forensic reports entitle criminal defendants to confront purportedly “objective” analysts from the lab producing the report? If so, which analyst or analysts? For forensic processes that require multiple analysts, should the prosecution be required to produce …