Digital Commons Network^™

Outsourcing, Data Insourcing, And The Irrelevant Constitution, Kimberly N. Brown

Georgia Law Review

Long before revelations of the National Security Agency's data collection programs grabbed headlines, scholars and the press decried the burgeoning harms to privacy that metadata mining and new surveillance technologies present. Through publicly accessible social media sites, web-tracking technologies, private data mining consolidators, and its own databases, the government is just a mouse click away from a wealth of intimate personal information that was virtually inaccessible only a decade ago. At the heart of the conundrum is the government's ability to source an unprecedented amount of personal data from private third parties. This trail of digital information is being insourced …

At Long Last Marriage, Jack B. Harrison

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

Over time, the Supreme Court has made clear its belief that marriage is one of the most significant and fundamental rights provided protection under the Constitution. In his opinion in Griswold v. Connecticut, Justice Douglas characterized marriage as a “coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the [point] of being sacred[,]” describing it as “an association that promotes a way of life . . . a harmony in living . . . [and] a bilateral loyalty.” The Court in Griswold clearly found that marriage was deserving of protection not solely because it was the locus …

Fixing Hollingsworth: Standing In Initiative Cases, Karl Manheim, John S. Caragozian, Donald Warner

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

In Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal filed by the “Official Proponents” of California’s Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California. Chief Justice Roberts’ majority opinion held that initiative sponsors lack Article III standing to defend their ballot measures even when state officials refuse to defend against constitutional challenges. As a result, Hollingsworth provides state officers with the ability to overrule laws that were intended to bypass the government establishment—in effect, an “executive veto” of popularly-enacted initiatives.

The Article examines this new “executive veto” in depth. It places Hollingsworth in context, discussing the initiative process …