Digital Commons Network^™

Self-Conscious Dicta: The Origins Of Roe V. Wade’S Trimester Framework, Randy Beck

Scholarly Works

One of the controversies arising from Roe v. Wade (1973), has concerned whether the conclusions undergirding the opinion's “trimester framework” should be considered part of the holding of the case, or instead classified as dicta. Different Supreme Court opinions have spoken to this question in different ways. This article reviews materials from the files of Justices who participated in Roe, seeking insight as to what the Court thought about the issue at the time. The article concludes that Justices in the Roe majority understood the opinion’s trimester framework to consist largely of dicta, unnecessary to a ruling on the constitutionality …

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's Appointment With Trouble, Kent H. Barnett

Scholarly Works

This article considers whether the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Director’s appointment of the Bureau’s Deputy Director comports with the Appointments Clause. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act established the Bureau in July 2010, as well as the offices of the Bureau’s Director and Deputy Director, to coordinate the regulation and enforcement of federal consumer-financial-protection laws. Under that act, the Director appoints the Deputy Director. The Appointments Clause permits “Heads of Departments” to appoint inferior officers like the Deputy Director. But it is unclear if the Bureau is a “department” and thus if the Director is a department …

Awakening The Press Clause, Sonja R. West

Scholarly Works

The Free Press Clause enjoys less practical significance than almost any other constitutional provision. While recognizing the structural and expressive importance of a free press, the Supreme Court has never recognized explicitly any right or protection as emanating solely from the Press Clause. Recently in the Court’s Citizens United decision, Justices Stevens and Scalia reignited the 30-year-old debate over whether the Press Clause has any function separate from the Speech Clause.

The primary roadblock to recognizing independent meaning in the Press Clause is the definitional problem - who or what is the “press”? Others have attempted to define the press, …

The Last Common Law Justice: The Personal Jurisdiction Jurisprudence Of Justice John Paul Stevens, Rodger D. Citron

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

May It Please The Senate: An Empirical Analysis Of The Senate Judiciary Committee Hearings Of Supreme Court Nominees, 1939-2009, Lori A. Ringhand, Paul M. Collins Jr.

Scholarly Works

This paper examines the questions asked and answers given by every Supreme Court nominee who has appeared to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee since 1939. In doing so, it uses a new dataset developed by the authors. This database, which provides a much-needed empirical foundation for scholarship in emerging areas of constitutional law and political science, captures all of the statements made at the hearings and codes these comments by issue area, subissue area, party of the appointing president, and party of the questioning senator. The dataset allows us to quantify for the fist time such things as which …

Hosanna-Tabor And Supreme Court Precedent: An Analysis Of The Ministerial Exception In The Context Of The Supreme Court’S Hands-Off Approach To Religious Doctrine, Samuel J. Levine

Scholarly Works

The United States Supreme Court‘s review of the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in the case of Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. EEOC could lead to a major development in the Court‘s Religion Clause jurisprudence. On one level, Hosanna-Tabor presents important questions regarding the interrelationship between employment discrimination laws and the constitutional rights of religious organizations. The narrow issue at the center of the case is the ministerial exception, a doctrine that precludes courts from adjudicating discrimination claims arising out of disputes between religious institutions and their ministerial employees. This Essay …

Rethinking Self-Incrimination, Voluntariness, And Coercion, Through A Perspective Of Jewish Law And Legal Theory, Samuel J. Levine

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Fueling Controversy, Randy Beck

Scholarly Works

In a recent Yale Law Journal article, Linda Greenhouse and Reva Siegel question the received wisdom that the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade generated a political backlash, inflaming conflict over abortion and damaging the political process. The evidence they highlight shows that political conflict over abortion predated the Roe opinion, spurred by the Catholic Church and by Republican Party strategists seeking to foster party realignment. This enriched picture of the political and social landscape at the time of the decision undermines any simplistic suggestion that Roe served as “the sole cause of backlash” or “single-handedly caused societal polarization …

Supreme Court Criminal Law Jurisprudence: Fair Trials, Cruel Punishment, And Ethical Lawyering—October 2009 Term, Richard Klein

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Sacrifice And Sacred Honor: Why The Constitution Is A "Suicide Pact", Peter Brandon Bayer

Scholarly Works

Most legal scholars and elected officials embrace the popular clich6 that "the Constitution is not a suicide pact." Typically, those commentators extol the "Constitution of necessity," the supposition that Government, essentially the Executive, may take any action-may abridge or deny any fundamental right-to alleviate a sufficiently serious national security threat. The "Constitution of necessity" is wrong. This Article explains that strict devotion to the "fundamental fairness" principles of the Constitution's Due Process Clauses is America's utmost legal and moral duty, surpassing all other considerations, even safety, security and survival.

The analysis begins with the most basic premises: the definition of …

An Illusory Right To Appeal: Substantial Constitutional Questions At The New York Court Of Appeals, Meredith R. Miller

Scholarly Works

The jurisdiction of the New York Court of Appeals has long been shrouded in mystery. When the Court dismisses an appeal, it provides a boilerplate, one-sentence decretal entry, which gives the litigants little, if any, meaningful indication of the Court’s reasons for dismissal. In February 2010, however, the world received a rare glimpse into the Court’s jurisdiction when, in Kachalsky v. Cacace, 925 N.E.2d 80 (N.Y. 2010), Judge Robert Smith dissented from the Court’s sua sponte dismissal of the appeal. Judge Smith voted to retain the appeal, arguing that the Court was using the requirement of “substantiality” to invoke discretion …

Business Interest Cases – October 2009 Term, Leon D. Lazer, Leon Friedman

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Wrongful Conviction Claims Under Section 1983, Martin A. Schwartz, Robert W. Pratt

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Constitutionalizing Immigration Law On Its Own Path, Anne R. Traum

Scholarly Works

Courts should insist on heightened procedural protections in immigration adjudication. They should do so under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause rather than by importing Sixth Amendment protections from the criminal context. Traditional judicial oversight and the Due Process Clause provide a better basis than the Sixth Amendment to interpose heightened procedural protections in immigration proceedings, especially those involving removal for a serious criminal conviction. The Supreme Court’s immigration jurisprudence in recent years lends support for this approach. The Court has guarded the availability of judicial review of immigration decisions. It has affirmed that courts are the arbiters of constitutional …

Constitutional Rights And Judicial Independence: Lessons From Iowa, Ian C. Bartrum

Scholarly Works

Iowa held its 2010 judicial retention elections in the shadow of Varnum v. Brien, the 2009 Supreme Court opinion recognizing same sex marriage. As the result of highly politicized campaign, three talented jurists lost their seats on the Court.

This commentary examines that election and offers a structural solution that might better protect constitutional rights against majoritarian intimidation.

Nonpublic Reasons And Political Paradigm Change, Ian C. Bartrum

Scholarly Works

John Rawls famously argued that citizens in a just democracy have a moral duty to ensure that "the principles and policies they advocate and vote for can be supported by the political values of public reason." This so-called "duty of civility" obligates us to cast our votes on "constitutional questions and matters of basic justice" for reasons that we can explain in terms of the public good and the "ideals and principles expressed by society's conception of political justice." Rawls contrasts these public reasons with "nonpublic reasons" - such as "comprehensive religious and philosophical doctrines" - which he claims cannot …

Salazar V. Buono: Sacred Symbolism And The Secular State, Ian C. Bartrum

Scholarly Works

This Colloquy piece comments on some doctrinal and theoretical implications of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Salazar v. Buono.

Can Congress Make You Buy Broccoli? And Why It Doesn’T Matter, David Orentlicher

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Religion And Race: The Ministerial Exception Reexamined, Ian C. Bartrum

Scholarly Works

This essay is a contribution to the Northwestern University Law Review's colloquy on the ministerial exception, convened following the Supreme Court's decision to hear arguments in Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC.

The author takes the opportunity to consider the (sometimes) competing constitutional values of racial equality and religious freedom. The author offers historical, ethical, and doctrinal arguments for the position that race must trump religion as a constitutional value when the two come into conflict. With this in mind, the author suggests that the ministerial exception should not shield religious employers from anti discrimination suits brought on the basis of race.

Death Is Not So Different After All: Graham V. Florida And The Court's "Kids Are Different" Eighth Amendment Jurisprudence, Mary E. Berkheiser

Scholarly Works

In Graham v. Florida, the United States Supreme Court declared that life sentences without the possibility of parole for non-homicides are off limits for all juveniles. Following its lead in Roper v. Simmons, the landmark decision in which the Court abolished the juvenile death penalty, the Court expanded on its Eighth Amendment juvenile jurisprudence by ruling that locking up juveniles for life based on crimes other than homicides is cruel and unusual and, therefore, prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. With that ruling, the Court erected a categorical bar to incarcerating forever those not yet adults at the time …

The Supreme Court And Judicial Review: Two Views, Thomas A. Schweitzer

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Children, Parents & The State: The Construction Of A New Family Ideology, Deseriee A. Kennedy

Scholarly Works

More than twenty-five states allow courts to consider parental incarceration or conviction of a crime in determining whether to terminate parental rights. This problem is of increasing significance as a result of dramatic growth in incarceration rates, particularly among women who were often the primary and sole caretaker of their children before their imprisonment. Social scientists have recognized that the reality for parents in many communities is one of widespread and repeated incarceration, which has a devastating effect on families and communities. The problem is magnified by a failed drug policy and the Adoption and Safe Families Act, which, in …