Digital Commons Network^™

Niagara County Justice Court: People V. Harvey, Gregory E. Wenz

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

City Court Of New York, City Of Watertown: People V. Carreira, Michael J. Puma

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Appellate Division, First Department: People V. Montes, Lauren L. Morales

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Court Of Appeals Of New York: People V. Wrotten, Katharine E. O'Dette

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

County Court Of New York, Westchester County: People V. Days, Kashima A. Loney

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court Of New York, Kings County: People V. Garcia, Adam Hyman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court Of New York, New York County: People V. Diggins, Laura R. Bugdin

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Court Of Appeals Of New York: Hurrell-Harring V. State, Andrew W. Koster

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

City Court Of New York, City Of Watertown: People V. Saldana, Ara K. Ayvazian

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Appellate Division, Second Department: People V. Rodriguez, Michael J. Puma

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court Of New York, New York County: People V. Crespo, Bradley Shelowitz

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

City Court Of New York, City Of Watertown: People V. Saldana, Ara K. Ayvazian

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court Of New York, New York County: People V. Derrell, Maurice M. Labrie

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Court Of Appeals Of New York: People V. Mcbride, Joseph Leocata

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court Of New York, Kings County: People V. Adbul-Akim, Laura R. Bugdin

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Court Of Appeals Of New York: People V. Devone, Michael S. Newman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Appellate Division, Third Department: People V. Hardy, Whitney Montgomery

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Court Of Appeals Of New York: People V. Mothersell, Lauren L. Morales

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Court Of New York, City Of New York: People V. Larsen, Benjamin Fox Tracy

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Presidential Authority And The 2001 Constitution Of Senegal, Judy Scales-Trent

North Carolina Central Law Review

No abstract provided.

Equal Citizenship And The Individual Right To Vote, Jospeh Fishkin

Indiana Law Journal

An emerging consensus among election law scholars urges courts to break out of “the stagnant discourse of individual rights and competing state interests” and instead adopt a jurisprudence of “structural” democratic values that sidelines individual rights. This structuralist approach won out in the great “rightsstructure” debate in election law, and came to dominate the field, during a period in which the main controversies—vote dilution, gerrymandering, ballot access, campaign finance—were all ones in which the structuralist move was illuminating. However, structuralism is now causing both scholars and courts to evaluate the new wave of vote denial controversies, over such issues as …

The Auto-Authentication Of The Page: Purely Written Speech And The Doctrine Of Obscenity, Ryen Rasmus

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The Religious Liberty Of Judges, Daniel R. Suhr

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article begins by reviewing the government employee line of cases, starting with United Public Workers v. Mitchell in 1947.29 The first section concludes that the modified Pickering balancing test set forth in United States v. National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) is the appropriate level of scrutiny for judicial conduct rules. The body of this Article reviews ways in which the four canons of the ABA Model Code of Judicial Ethics and official interpretations of and rulings regarding them limit the religious activities of judges. I conclude that numerous applications of the Model Code are unconstitutional infringements on judges’ First …

Citizens, United And Citizens United: The Future Of Labor Speech Rights?, Charlotte Garden

William & Mary Law Review

Within hours of its announcement, the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC came under attack from progressive groups. Among these groups were some of America’s largest laborunions—even though the decision applies equally to unions and for profit corporations. The reason is clear: there exist both practical andstructural impediments that will prevent unions from benefittingfrom Citizens United to the same extent as corporations. Therefore,Citizens United stands to unleash a torrent of corporate electioneering that could drown out the countervailing voice of organized labor.

This Article, however, takes a broader view of Citizens United to explore a possible silver lining …

Legislating Preemption, Jamelle C. Sharpe

William & Mary Law Review

Federal preemption is perhaps the most important public law issueof the day. The stakes in preemption cases are enormous, as preemption determines whether the federal government or the statescontrol regulatory policy in a host of politically controversial contexts. Congress clearly has primary constitutional authority insetting federal preemption policy, but, for numerous political and practical reasons, cannot be solely responsible for its implementation.Determining which organ of the federal government is best at implementing preemption policy has therefore become the central preoccupation of the academic literature. While this comparative institutional analysis is certainly important in allocating preemptionpolicy-making business, it has elided a …

Iqbal, Al-Kidd And Pleading Past Qualified Immunity: What The Cases Mean And How They Demonstrate A Need To Eliminate The Immunity Doctrines From Constitutional Tort Law, John M. Greabe

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The Supreme Court’s decisions in Ashcroft v. Iqbal and Ashcroft v. al-Kidd contain issue-framing statements indicating that a constitutional tort plaintiff is required to plead facts sufficient to establish the inapplicability of the qualified immunity defense. Yet, framing the issue in this way ignores the Court’s earlier decisions in Gomez v. Toledo and Crawford-El v. Britton and is at odds with the established law of pleading; a plaintiff is not required to anticipate an affirmative defense and negate its applicabilityin the complaint. These cases thus raise a number of questions—Does the Court really mean what its issue-framing statements suggest? If …

The Limits Of Global Judicial Dialogue, David S. Law, Wen-Chen Chang

Washington Law Review

The notion that “global judicial dialogue” is contributing to the globalization of constitutional law has attracted considerable attention. Various scholars have characterized the citation of foreign law by constitutional courts as a form of “dialogue” that both reflects and fosters the emergence of a common global enterprise of constitutional adjudication. It has also been claimed that increasing direct interaction between judges, face-to-face or otherwise, fuels the growth of a global constitutional jurisprudence. This Article challenges these claims on empirical grounds and offers an alternative account of the actual reasons for which constitutional courts engage in comparative analysis. First, it is …

The Fourth Amendment Rights Of Children At Home: When Parental Authority Goes Too Far, Kristin Henning

William & Mary Law Review

Although it is virtually undisputed that children have some Fourth Amendment rights independent of their parents, it is equally clear that youth generally receive less constitutional protection than adults. In a search for continuity and coherence in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence involving minors, Professor Henning identifies three guiding principles—context, parental authority, and the minor’s capacity—that weave together children’s rights cases. She argues that parental authority too often prevails over children’srights, even when context and demonstrated capacity would supportaffirmation of those rights. Context involves both the physical settingin which Fourth Amendment protections are sought and the nature of the privacy interest at …

Stare Decisis And Constitutional Text, Jonathan F. Mitchell

Michigan Law Review

Almost everyone acknowledges that stare decisis should play a significant role when the Supreme Court of the United States resolves constitutional cases. Yet the academic and judicial rationales for this practice tend to rely on naked consequentialist considerations, and make only passing efforts to square the Court's stare decisis doctrines with the language of the Constitution. This Article offers a qualified defense of constitutional stare decisis that rests exclusively on constitutional text. It aims to broaden the overlapping consensus of interpretive theories that can support a role for constitutional stare decisis, but to do this it must narrow the circumstances …

Constitutional Law—It Wasn’T Me! Zinger V. State And Arkansas’S Unconstitutional Approach To Third-Party Exculpatory Evidence. Zinger V. State, 313 Ark. 70, 852 S.W.2d 320 (1993)., Bourgon B. Reynolds

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.