Digital Commons Network^™

The Due Process Of Bail, Jenny E. Carroll

Faculty Scholarship

The Due Process Clause is a central tenet of criminal law’s constitutional canon. Yet defining precisely what process is due a defendant is a deceptively complex proposition. Nowhere is this more true than in the context of pretrial detention, where the Court has relied on due process safeguards to preserve the constitutionality of bail provisions. This Essay considers the lay of the bail due process landscape through the lens of the district court’s opinion in O’Donnell v. Harris County and the often convoluted historical description of pretrial due process. Even as the O’Donnell court failed to characterize pretrial process as …

United States V. Lozoya: The Turbulence Of Establishing Venue For In-Flight Offenses, Daeja Pemberton

Texas A&M Law Review

The U.S. Constitution protects one’s right to a fair trial in a proper venue. Typically, venue is proper in whatever territorial jurisdiction a defendant commits an offense. But this rule is not as clear-cut when the offense takes place in a special jurisdiction, such as American airspace. A court must then determine whether the offense continued into the venue of arrival, making it proper under the Constitution. This issue was reexamined when Monique Lozoya assaulted another passenger on an airplane during a domestic flight. In United States v. Lozoya, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals failed to correctly identify …

Peffer V. Stephens: Probable Cause, Searches And Seizures Within The Home, And Why Using Technology Should Not Open Your Front Door, Shane Landers

Texas A&M Law Review

The Fourth Amendment provides for the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Search warrants may only be issued upon a finding of probable cause. This core tenet of our constitutional republic becomes progressively flexible with every development in Fourth Amendment interpretation. In Peffer v. Stephens, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit delivered the latest blow to constitutional rights that restrict the State from engaging in unprincipled searches. In an issue of first impression, the Sixth Circuit held that a criminal defendant’s alleged use …

“We Can’T Just Throw Our Children Away”: A Discussion Of The Term-Of-Years Sentencing Of Juveniles And What Can Be Done In Texas, Anjelica Harris

Texas A&M Law Review

In the words of Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, children are different. The issue of how to sentence juvenile offenders has long been controversial. Although psychology acknowledges the connection between incomplete juvenile brain development and increased criminality, the justice system lags behind in how it handles juvenile offenders. A prime example is the case of Bobby Bostic, who at the age of sixteen was charged with eighteen offenses and sentenced to 241 years in prison. This sentence, known as a term-of-years or virtual life sentence, essentially guarantees that no matter what Bobby does or who he proves himself to be …

Shooting America Straight: Why The Time Is Now For The Supreme Court To Fortify Gun Rights In America Post-Heller, Garrett Cleveland

Texas A&M Law Review

Since the landmark cases of District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008 and McDonald v. City of Chicago in 2010, the Supreme Court has declined to hear any of the many current cases that present an opportunity to address the Second Amendment. As a result, the lower courts have largely eroded firearm rights in many regions of the United States. It is thus imperative that the Supreme Court grant certiorari to a Second Amendment-related case to clarify certain aspects of Heller, or the lower courts will continue to treat the Second Amendment as a disfavored right. Essentially, the lower courts …

Dreamers Interrupted: The Case Of The Rescission Of The Program Of Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals, Rachel F. Moran

Faculty Scholarship

In 1994, California voters went to the polls to pass Proposition 187, a measure designed to deter unauthorized immigration by denying a range of public benefits to the undocumented. Twenty-five years later, undocumented immigration remains a deeply polarizing issue in our country. But if the political discourse seems similar, the civil rights toolkit is not. In an earlier era, equal protection arguments had pride of place, but today, advocates rely heavily on structural and institutional arguments to constrain official discretion.

In 1982, the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Plyler v. Doe declared unconstitutional a Texas statute that denied undocumented …

Extraterritorial Rights In Border Enforcement, Fatma Marouf

Faculty Scholarship

Recent shifts in border enforcement policies raise pressing new questions about the extraterritorial reach of constitutional rights. Policies that keep asylum seekers in Mexico, expand the use of expedited removal, and encourage the cross-border use of force require courts to determine whether noncitizens who are physically outside the United States, or who are treated for legal purposes as being outside even if they have entered the country, can claim constitutional protections. This Article examines a small but growing body of cases addressing these extraterritoriality issues in the border enforcement context, focusing on disparities in judicial analyses that have resulted in …

The Press, National Security, And Civil Discourse: How A Federal Shield Law Could Reaffirm Media Credibility In An Era Of “Fake News”, Jenna Johnson

Texas A&M Law Review

The Constitution expressly provides protection for the freedom of the press. Yet there is one area in which the press is not so free: the freedom to refuse disclosing confidential sources when subpoenaed by the federal government. Currently, there is no federal reporter’s privilege. The Supreme Court has held the First Amendment provides no such protection, and repeated congressional attempts to codify a reporter’s privilege in a federal shield law have failed.

Arguments against a shield law include national security concerns and the struggle to precisely define “journalist.” Such concerns were evident in the most recently proposed shield law, the …

Notice Pleading In Exile, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

According to the conventional wisdom, the Supreme Court's 2009 decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal discarded notice pleading in favor of plausibility pleading. This Article — part of a symposium commemorating the Iqbal decision's tenth anniversary — highlights decisions during those ten years that have continued to endorse notice pleading despite Iqbal. It also argues that those decisions reflect the best way to read the Iqbal decision. Although Iqbal is a troubling decision in many respects, it can be implemented consistently with the notice-pleading framework that the original drafters of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure had in mind.

Justice At The Border: Should Courts Provide Relief For Constitutional Violations At The Border?, Elizabeth Cook

Texas A&M Journal of Property Law

In two recent cases, children were shot by Border Patrol agents across the United States and Mexico border. In one case, the Ninth Circuit found the Border Patrol agent was not entitled to qualified immunity and should pay damages to the teen’s family. However, the Fifth Circuit refused to allow damages in the other case because of concerns over national security. The circuit split raises questions over separation of powers and how far the power of the courts should go when deciding damages in cases involving transnational issues. This Article discusses officials’ qualified immunity and its limits when constitutional violations …

The Lost Promise Of Lambert V. California, Cynthia Alkon

Faculty Scholarship

This Article will start with a brief overview of the Lambert case. It will then discuss the differing views on how to interpret this relatively short case. Next, it will review the cases citing to Lambert that illustrate the narrow approach that courts have taken when applying this case. Finally, it will offer some thoughts on how Lambert could have played a role in preventing some of the excesses of mass incarceration, but failed.