Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
-
- Duke Law (30)
- Maurer School of Law: Indiana University (23)
- University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School (21)
- Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center (20)
- University of Colorado Law School (20)
-
- Pepperdine University (15)
- Selected Works (13)
- University of Georgia School of Law (9)
- University of Pittsburgh School of Law (8)
- Vanderbilt University Law School (7)
- West Virginia University (7)
- Georgetown University Law Center (6)
- Boston University School of Law (5)
- Northwestern Pritzker School of Law (5)
- Notre Dame Law School (5)
- SelectedWorks (5)
- University of Maine School of Law (5)
- Columbia Law School (4)
- Osgoode Hall Law School of York University (4)
- Seattle University School of Law (4)
- St. Mary's University (4)
- Cleveland State University (3)
- Florida State University College of Law (3)
- Roger Williams University (3)
- Texas A&M University School of Law (3)
- University of Arkansas at Little Rock William H. Bowen School of Law (3)
- University of Baltimore Law (3)
- University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law (3)
- Washington and Lee University School of Law (3)
- Florida International University College of Law (2)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- Faculty Scholarship (44)
- All Faculty Scholarship (23)
- Touro Law Review (20)
- Publications (17)
- Pepperdine Law Review (14)
-
- Indiana Law Journal (11)
- Articles by Maurer Faculty (10)
- Articles (8)
- Scholarly Works (8)
- Faculty Publications (6)
- Journal Articles (6)
- West Virginia Law Review (6)
- Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works (5)
- Vanderbilt Law Review (5)
- Faculty Working Papers (4)
- Osgoode Hall Law Journal (4)
- Seattle University Law Review (4)
- Donald J. Kochan (3)
- Faculty Articles (3)
- Faculty Works (3)
- Scholarly Publications (3)
- The Future of Natural Resources Law and Policy (Summer Conference, June 6-8) (3)
- Adam Lamparello (2)
- Cleveland State Law Review (2)
- Erwin Chemerinsky (2)
- Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies (2)
- Law Faculty Scholarship (2)
- Maine Law Review (2)
- The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process (2)
- Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law (2)
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 30 of 265
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
A Neo-Federalist View Of The Supreme Court’S Docket: Analyzing Case Selection And Ideological Alignment, Arthur D. Hellman
A Neo-Federalist View Of The Supreme Court’S Docket: Analyzing Case Selection And Ideological Alignment, Arthur D. Hellman
Articles
For more than 70 years, scholars have engaged in an intense debate over a core constitutional question: what restraints does the Constitution place on Congress’s power to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts? Far less attention has been given to an equally important real-life question: how does the operation of the jurisdiction, as defined by Congress and the Supreme Court, comport with the assigned role of the federal courts in the system of government established by the Constitution? This Article takes a novel approach: it draws on constitutional theory to devise a set of tools for addressing the operational …
Slaughtering Slaughter-House: An Assessment Of 14th Amendment Privileges Or Immunities Jurisprudence, Caleb Webb
Slaughtering Slaughter-House: An Assessment Of 14th Amendment Privileges Or Immunities Jurisprudence, Caleb Webb
Senior Honors Theses
In 1872, the Supreme Court decided the Slaughter-House Cases, which applied a narrow interpretation of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment that effectually eroded the clause from the Constitution. Following Slaughter-House, the Supreme Court compensated by utilizing elastic interpretations of the Due Process Clause in its substantive due process jurisprudence to cover the rights that would have otherwise been protected by the Privileges or Immunities Clause. In more recent years, the Court has heard arguments favoring alternative interpretations of the Privileges or Immunities Clause but has yet to evaluate them thoroughly. By applying the …
The Federal Question Jurisdiction Under Article Iii: “First In The Minds Of The Framers,” But Today, Perhaps, Falling Short Of The Framers’ Expectations, Arthur D. Hellman
The Federal Question Jurisdiction Under Article Iii: “First In The Minds Of The Framers,” But Today, Perhaps, Falling Short Of The Framers’ Expectations, Arthur D. Hellman
Articles
As Chief Justice Marshall explained, “the primary motive” for creating a “judicial department” for the new national government was “the desire of having a [national] tribunal for the decision of all national questions.” Thus, although Article III of the Constitution lists nine kinds of “Cases” and “Controversies” to which the “judicial Power” of the United States “shall extend,” “the objects which stood first in the minds of the framers” were the cases “arising under” the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States. Today we refer to this as the federal question jurisdiction.
Of all federal question cases, the Framers …
Converse-Osborn: State Sovereign Immunity, Standing, And The Dog-Wagging Effect Of Article Iii, Carlos Manuel Vázquez
Converse-Osborn: State Sovereign Immunity, Standing, And The Dog-Wagging Effect Of Article Iii, Carlos Manuel Vázquez
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
“[T]he legislative, executive, and judicial powers, of every well-constructed government, are co-extensive with each other . . . [T]he judicial department may receive from the Legislature the power of construing any . . . law [which the Legislature may constitutionally make].” Chief Justice Marshall relied on this axiom in Osborn v. Bank of the United States to stress the breadth of the federal judicial power: The federal courts must have the potential power to adjudicate any claim based on any law Congress has the power to enact. In recent years, however, the axiom has sometimes operated in the opposite direction: …
"Trans Talk" And The First Amendment, William M. Carter Jr.
"Trans Talk" And The First Amendment, William M. Carter Jr.
Articles
The rights of transgender youth and their families have increasingly come under attack. In addition to barring transgender youth from participation in sports teams, from accessing bathrooms that match their gender identity, and from receiving gender-affirming healthcare, states are increasingly restricting speech and expression related to transgender issues. Courts and scholars have begun addressing the First Amendment implications of some of these restrictions, including the removal of books related to transgender issues; restrictions upon teachers' classroom speech regarding such issues; school discipline imposed upon students whose social transition includes forms of gender expression that differ from their assigned sex at …
The Wages Of Hitching Wagons, Thomas B. Bennett
The Wages Of Hitching Wagons, Thomas B. Bennett
Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters
This article examines the challenges faced by states that align their constitutions with federal doctrine through the practice of "lockstepping"—adopting federal legal standards into state law. Lockstepping binds states to federal law, regardless of its trajectory. Part I traces the evolution of standing doctrine in both federal courts under Article III and Kentucky courts under its constitution. Part II presents an originalist critique of the federal injury-in-fact requirement, highlighting emerging efforts to abandon this requirement in federal courts. Part III discusses the dilemma states like Kentucky face, balancing constitutional interpretation, federalism, and legal stability.
The Constitution As A Source Of Remedial Law, Carlos Manuel Vázquez
The Constitution As A Source Of Remedial Law, Carlos Manuel Vázquez
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
In Equity’s Constitutional Source, Owen W. Gallogly argues that Article III is the source of a constitutional default rule for equitable remedies—specifically, that Article III’s vesting of the “judicial Power” “in Equity” empowers federal courts to afford the remedies traditionally afforded by the English Court of Chancery at the time of the Founding, and to develop such remedies in an incremental fashion. This Response questions the current plausibility of locating such a default rule in Article III, since remedies having their source in Article III would be available in federal but not state courts and would apply to state-law …
Situating Structural Challenges To Agency Authority Within The Framework Of The Finality Principle, Harold J. Krent
Situating Structural Challenges To Agency Authority Within The Framework Of The Finality Principle, Harold J. Krent
Indiana Law Journal
No abstract provided.
The Fourth Amendment's Constitutional Home, Gerald S. Dickinson
The Fourth Amendment's Constitutional Home, Gerald S. Dickinson
Articles
The home enjoys omnipresent status in American constitutional law. The Bill of Rights, peculiarly, has served as the central refuge for special protections to the home. This constitutional sanctuary has elicited an intriguing textual and doctrinal puzzle. A distinct thread has emerged that runs through the first five amendments delineating the home as a zone where rights emanating from speech, smut, gods, guns, soldiers, searches, sex, and self-incrimination enjoy special protections. However, the thread inexplicably unravels upon arriving at takings. There, the constitutional text omits and the Supreme Court’s doctrine excludes a special zone of safeguards to the home. This …
Vested Patents And Equal Justice,, Adam J. Macleod
Vested Patents And Equal Justice,, Adam J. Macleod
Faculty Articles
In a time of renewed interest in equal justice, the vested patent right may be timely again. Vested patent rights helped marginalized Americans to secure equal justice earlier in American history. And they helped to make sense of the law. Vested patent rights can perform those tasks again today.
The concept of vested rights render patent law coherent. And it explains patent law 's interactions with other areas of law, such as property, administrative, and constitutional law. The vested rights doctrine also can serve the requirements of equal justice, as it has several times in American history. Vested rights secure …
Presumptively Awful: How The Federal Government Is Failing To Protect The Constitutional Rights Of Those Adjudicated As Mentally Ill, As Illustrated By The 18 U.S.C. § 922(G)(4) Circuit Split, Kaitlyn M. Rubcich
Pepperdine Law Review
The Third, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits are split as to whether the 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4) federal firearms ban violates the Second Amendment rights of those who were once adjudicated as mentally ill but have since returned to good mental health. In Beers v. Attorney General, the Third Circuit applied its own unique framework and held that § 922(g)(4) is constitutional. Meanwhile, the Sixth Circuit applied intermediate scrutiny in Tyler v. Hillsdale County Sheriff’s Department and deemed the statute unconstitutional, while in Mai v. United States, the Ninth Circuit also applied intermediate scrutiny but held that § 922(g)(4) is constitutional. …
Qualified Immunity, Sovereign Immunity, And Systemic Reform, Katherine Mims Crocker
Qualified Immunity, Sovereign Immunity, And Systemic Reform, Katherine Mims Crocker
Faculty Scholarship
Qualified immunity has become a central target of the movement for police reform and racial justice since George Floyd’s murder. And rightly so. Qualified immunity, which shields government officials from damages for constitutional violations even in many egregious cases, should have no place in federal law. But in critical respects, qualified immunity has become too much a focus of the conversation about constitutional-enforcement reform. The recent reappraisal offers unique opportunities to explore deeper problems and seek deeper solutions.
This Article argues that the public and policymakers should reconsider other aspects of the constitutional-tort system—especially sovereign immunity and related protections for …
Answering The Call: A History Of The Emergency Power Doctrine In Texas And The United States, P. Elise Mclaren
Answering The Call: A History Of The Emergency Power Doctrine In Texas And The United States, P. Elise Mclaren
St. Mary's Law Journal
During times of emergency, national and local government may be allowed to take otherwise impermissible action in the interest of health, safety, or national security. The prerequisites and limits to this power, however, are altogether unknown. Like the crises they aim to deflect, courts’ modern emergency power doctrines range from outright denial of any power of constitutional circumvention to their flagrant use. Concededly, courts’ approval of emergency powers has provided national and local government opportunities to quickly respond to emergency without pause for constituency approval, but how can one be sure the availability of autocratic power will not be abused? …
State Rejection Of Federal Law, Thomas B. Bennett
State Rejection Of Federal Law, Thomas B. Bennett
Faculty Publications
Sometimes the United States Supreme Court speaks, and states do not follow. For example, in 2003, the Arizona Supreme Court agreed to "reject" a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, because no "sound reasons justif[ied] following" it. Similarly, in 2006, Michigan voters approved a ballot initiative that, according to the legislature that drafted it, sought "at the very least to freeze' the state's ... law to prevent" state courts from following a ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court. Surprising though this language may be, there is nothing nefarious about these cases. Cooper v. Aaron this is not. Unlike more notorious …
Reconsidering Section 1983'S Nonabrogation Of Sovereign Immunity, Katherine Mims Crocker
Reconsidering Section 1983'S Nonabrogation Of Sovereign Immunity, Katherine Mims Crocker
Faculty Scholarship
Motivated by civil unrest and the police conduct that prompted it, Americans have embarked on a major reexamination of how constitutional enforcement works. One important component is 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows civil suits against any “person” who violates federal rights. The U.S. Supreme Court has long held that “person” excludes states because Section 1983 flunks a condition of crystal clarity.
This Article reconsiders that conclusion—in legalese, Section 1983’s nonabrogation of sovereign immunity—along multiple dimensions. Beginning with a negative critique, this Article argues that because the Court invented the crystal-clarity standard so long after Section 1983’s enactment, the caselaw …
The Jury Trial Reinvented, Christopher Robertson, Michael Shammas
The Jury Trial Reinvented, Christopher Robertson, Michael Shammas
Faculty Scholarship
The Framers of the Sixth and Seventh Amendments to the United States Constitution recognized that jury trials were essential for maintaining democratic legitimacy and avoiding epistemic crises. As an institution, the jury trial is purpose-built to engage citizens in the process of deliberative, participatory democracy with ground rules. The jury trial provides a carefully constructed setting aimed at sorting truth from falsehood.
Despite its value, the jury trial has been under assault for decades. Concededly, jury trials can sometimes be inefficient, unreliable, unpredictable, and impractical. The COVID–19 pandemic rendered most physical jury trials unworkable but spurred some courts to begin …
The Supreme Court's Reticent Qualified Immunity Retreat, Katherine Mims Crocker
The Supreme Court's Reticent Qualified Immunity Retreat, Katherine Mims Crocker
Faculty Scholarship
The recent outcry against qualified immunity, a doctrine that disallows damages actions against government officials for a wide swath of constitutional claims, has been deafening. But when the Supreme Court in November 2020 and February 2021 invalidated grants of qualified immunity based on reasoning at the heart of the doctrine for the first time since John Roberts became Chief Justice, the response was muted. With initial evaluations and competing understandings coming from legal commentators in the months since, this Essay explores what these cases appear to say about qualified immunity for today and tomorrow.
The Essay traces idealistic, pessimistic, and …
Federalism Limits On Non-Article Iii Adjudication, F. Andrew Hessick
Federalism Limits On Non-Article Iii Adjudication, F. Andrew Hessick
Pepperdine Law Review
Although Article III of the Constitution vests the federal judicial power in the Article III courts, the Supreme Court has created a patchwork of exceptions permitting non-Article III tribunals to adjudicate various disputes. In doing so, the Court has focused on the separation of powers, concluding that these non-Article III adjudications do not unduly infringe on the judicial power of the Article III courts. But separation of powers is not the only consideration relevant to the lawfulness of non-Article III adjudication. Article I adjudications also implicate federalism. Permitting Article I tribunals threatens the role of state courts by expanding federal …
The Nature Of Standing, Matthew Hall, Christian Turner
The Nature Of Standing, Matthew Hall, Christian Turner
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
Most academic studies of standing have focused on restrictions on federal court jurisdiction drawn from Article III of U.S. Constitution and related doctrinal schemes developed by state courts. These rules are constructed atop a few words of the Constitution: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity," arising under various circumstances. The Supreme Court has interpreted these words to require federal courts to assess whether a plaintiff has suffered an injury in fact that is both fairly traceable to the actions of the defendant and redressable by a favorable ruling before proceeding to the merits of …
Against Congressional Case Snatching, Ronald J. Krotoszynski, Atticus Deprospro
Against Congressional Case Snatching, Ronald J. Krotoszynski, Atticus Deprospro
William & Mary Law Review
Congress has developed a deeply problematic habit of aggrandizing itself by snatching cases from the Article III courts. One form of contemporary case snatching involves directly legislating the outcome of pending litigation by statute. These laws do not involve generic amendments to existing statutes but rather dictate specific rulings by the Article III courts in particular cases. Another form of congressional case snatching involves rendering ongoing judicial proceedings essentially advisory by unilaterally permitting a disgruntled litigant to transfer a pending case from an Article III court to an executive agency for resolution. Both practices involve Congress reallocating the business of …
Testa, Crain, And The Constitutional Right To Collateral Relief, Carlos Manuel Vázquez, Stephen I. Vladeck
Testa, Crain, And The Constitutional Right To Collateral Relief, Carlos Manuel Vázquez, Stephen I. Vladeck
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
In Montgomery v. Louisiana, the U.S. Supreme Court held that state prisoners have a constitutional right to relief from continued imprisonment if the prisoner’s conviction or sentence contravenes a new substantive rule of constitutional law. Specifically, the Court held that prisoners with such claims are constitutionally entitled to collateral relief in state court—at least if the state courts are open to other claims for collateral relief on the ground that their continued imprisonment is unlawful. In our article, The Constitutional Right to Collateral Post-Conviction Relief, we argued that, under two lines of Supreme Court decisions interpreting the Supremacy …
Judges As Superheroes: The Danger Of Confusing Constitutional Decisions With Cosmic Battles, H. Jefferson Powell
Judges As Superheroes: The Danger Of Confusing Constitutional Decisions With Cosmic Battles, H. Jefferson Powell
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Seattle University Law Review
Table of Contents and Special Thanks.
Government Falsehoods, Democratic Harm, And The Constitution, Helen Norton
Government Falsehoods, Democratic Harm, And The Constitution, Helen Norton
Publications
No abstract provided.
Comparative Judicialism, Popular Sovereignty, And The Rule Of Law: The Us And Uk Supreme Courts, Lissa Griffin, Thomas Kidney
Comparative Judicialism, Popular Sovereignty, And The Rule Of Law: The Us And Uk Supreme Courts, Lissa Griffin, Thomas Kidney
Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications
What does the future hold for the US and UK Supreme Courts? Both courts face an uncertain future in which their roles in their constitutional systems will come under intense scrutiny and pressure. The tension between the rule of law, often seen as the preserve of the judicial branches of government, and the sovereignty of the elected branches is palpable. In a time of the “strong man,” allegedly “populist leaders” who seemingly are pushing the limits of the rule of law, the breakdown of collaboration and debate, and the ever-present influence of social media, this tension will only become more …
An Unfair Cross Section: Federal Jurisdiction For Indian Country Crimes Dismantles Jury Community Conscience, Alana Paris
An Unfair Cross Section: Federal Jurisdiction For Indian Country Crimes Dismantles Jury Community Conscience, Alana Paris
Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy
Under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, federal jury pools must reflect a fair cross section of the community in which a crime is prosecuted and from which no distinct group in the community is excluded. The community in which a crime is prosecuted varies widely in Indian country based on legislative reforms enacted by Congress to strip indigenous populations of their inherent sovereignty. Under the Major Crimes Act, the federal government has the right to adjudicate all serious crimes committed by one American Indian against another American Indian or non-Indian within Indian country. American Indian defendants under …
Judicial Precedent In Emerging Constitutional Jurisdictions: Formulating A Doctrine Of Constitutional Stare Decisis For Singapore, Kenny Chng
Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law
Judicial precedents in constitutional law raiseunique stare decisis considerations. While they are authoritative pronouncementson the proper interpretation of the Constitution and are thus an essentialcomponent of constitutional law, they are also merely judicial precedents – andthus susceptible to being overturned. These considerations have been thesubject of a well-developed body of literature, especially in the context of USSupreme Court constitutional precedents.Yet, despite being a constitutional supremacy, little attention has beenpaid in Singapore to the question of the proper judicial approach towardsconstitutional precedents. This paper aims to address this issue. It will discernthe de facto principles that Singapore judges have thus far …
Justice Diseased Is Justice Denied: Coronavirus, Court Closures, And Criminal Trials, Ryan Shymansky
Justice Diseased Is Justice Denied: Coronavirus, Court Closures, And Criminal Trials, Ryan Shymansky
West Virginia Law Review Online
This Article aims to consider the immediate impacts of the novel coronavirus on criminal defendants’ access to speedy trials by jury. In particular, it aims to examine whether court closures and delays could affect the substantive rights of criminal defendants—and particularly pretrial detainees—to a speedy and public trial by jury. To date, very little scholarship has considered this question. Yet the ideal of a speedy trial by jury is deeply embedded in our Constitution and our judicial system, and the potential for a pandemic to limit or negate that right should ring scholastic and judicial alarm bells.
This analysis proceeds …
The Opioid Litigation: The Fda Is Mia, Catherine M. Sharkey
The Opioid Litigation: The Fda Is Mia, Catherine M. Sharkey
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
It is readily agreed that federal preemption of state tort law alters the balance between federal and state power. Federal preemption is a high-profile defense in almost all modern products liability cases. It is thus surprising to see how little attention has been given to federal preemption by courts and commentators in the opioid litigation. Opioid litigation provides a lens through which I explore the role of state and federal courts and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in striking the right balance of power. My purpose here is not to resolve the divide among the few courts that have …
The Failure Of The Criminal Procedure Revolution, William T. Pizzi
The Failure Of The Criminal Procedure Revolution, William T. Pizzi
Publications
No abstract provided.