Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Digital Commons Network

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 30 of 552

Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network

Kansas V. Glover And The Issue Of Reasonable Suspicion, Zach Kumar Jan 2020

Kansas V. Glover And The Issue Of Reasonable Suspicion, Zach Kumar

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

It is settled law that an officer may initiate a traffic stop when there is articulable and reasonable suspicion that the person stopped has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. In Kansas v. Glover, the Supreme Court has an opportunity to clarify what constitutes “reasonable suspicion.” The Court will determine whether it is reasonable for an officer to seize a vehicle if the registered owner has a revoked license and there is no information to suggest that the person driving is not the owner of the car. This Commentary argues that the Court should uphold the ...


Let History Repeat Itself: Solving Originalism's History Problem In Interpreting The Establishment Clause, Neil Joseph Nov 2019

Let History Repeat Itself: Solving Originalism's History Problem In Interpreting The Establishment Clause, Neil Joseph

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

The Supreme Court's Establishment Clause jurisprudence is all over the place. The current justices have widely divergent views on the Establishment Clause's meaning, and the Lemon test has been widely panned by several justices. Originalist judges, however, have had a fairly consistent approach to interpreting the Establishment Clause. This largely stems from their reliance on history. This Note argues that their use of history in analyzing the Establishment Clause is flawed. Originalist Establishment Clause jurisprudence has been and is criticized for being unprincipled. And those criticisms are correct. Originalists encounter such criticism because the justices struggle to reconcile ...


Gamble V. United States: A Commentary, Kayla Mullen May 2019

Gamble V. United States: A Commentary, Kayla Mullen

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Under the judicially created dual-sovereignty exception, a defendant may be prosecuted by state and federal governments for the same conduct, due to the fact that the state and federal government constitute two separate sovereignties. The doctrine is grounded in the idea that each sovereign derives its power from independent sources—the federal government from the Constitution and the states from their inherent police power, preserved to them by the Tenth Amendment—and thus, each sovereign may determine what constitutes an offense against its peace and dignity in an exercise of its own sovereignty. Under this exception, defendants, by a single ...


Litigating War: The Justiciability Of Executive War Power, Chris Smith May 2019

Litigating War: The Justiciability Of Executive War Power, Chris Smith

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Courts frequently dismiss claims against the Executive’s use of the war power as being non-justiciable political questions. This lack of a judicial check has created a situation in which meaningful checks and balances on the war power are found only in the Executive Branch itself. But the Constitution places the bulk of war powers in the hands of Congress. Executive usurpation of Congress’s constitutional prerogative to initiate hostilities has significantly weakened the separation of powers. In the aftermath of the Vietnam War, Congress sought to reassert its constitutional authority over war-making decisions by passing the War Powers Resolution ...


The Race Horse That Wouldn't Die: On Herrera V. Wyoming, Benjamin Cantor May 2019

The Race Horse That Wouldn't Die: On Herrera V. Wyoming, Benjamin Cantor

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

In Herrera v. Wyoming, the Supreme Court is considering how to reconcile the Crow Tribe’s hunting right with Wyoming’s sovereignty. This endeavor requires examining nineteenth-century treaties and precedents to decipher the intents of the Crow Tribe and the United States government. If the Court’s decision includes a clear articulation of whether Native American treaty rights may be truncated by mere implication, tribes nationwide may be at risk of losing treaty rights they have enjoyed for centuries. In making its decision, the Supreme Court will also have to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of overturning precedent and of ...


A Test Of Sovereignty: Franchise Tax Board Of The State Of California V. Gilbert P. Hyatt, Timothy Dill Apr 2019

A Test Of Sovereignty: Franchise Tax Board Of The State Of California V. Gilbert P. Hyatt, Timothy Dill

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

In Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, the Supreme Court considers whether to overrule Nevada v. Hall, a 1979 Supreme Court decision. Hall permitted a State to be haled into the court of another State without its consent. In 2016, an evenly divided Supreme Court affirmed Hall 4-4 when faced with the same question, and following a remand to the Nevada Supreme Court, the Court has granted certiorari on this question once again. This Commentary contends that Hall was wrongly decided and should be overruled. The Constitution’s ratification did not alter the status of common-law State sovereign immunity ...


Apple V. Pepper: Applying The Indirect Purchaser Rule To Online Platforms, Jason Wasserman Apr 2019

Apple V. Pepper: Applying The Indirect Purchaser Rule To Online Platforms, Jason Wasserman

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Long-established antitrust precedent bars customers who buy a firm’s product through intermediaries from suing that firm for antitrust damages. In Apple Inc. v. Pepper, this “indirect purchaser rule” is brought into the smartphone age in a price-fixing dispute between technology giant Apple and iPhone users. This case will determine whether iPhone users buy smartphone applications directly from Apple through the App Store, or if Apple is merely an intermediary seller-agent of app developers. The indirect purchase rule is generally considered settled precedent. How the rule should apply to online platforms, however, differs between circuit courts, which have split on ...


Legislator-Led Legislative Prayer And The Search For Religious Neutrality, Aishwarya Masrani Apr 2019

Legislator-Led Legislative Prayer And The Search For Religious Neutrality, Aishwarya Masrani

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Leading a group in prayer in a public setting blurs the line between public and private. Such blurring implicates a constitutional tension between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. This tension is magnified when the constitutionality of prayer is questioned in the context of democratic participation. Current Supreme Court precedent holds legislative prayer to be constitutional, but the relevant cases, Marsh v. Chambers and Town of Greece, NY v. Galloway, do not address the specific constitutionality of legislator-led prayer. There is currently a circuit split on the subject: in Bormuth v. County of Jackson, the United States ...


Timbs V. Indiana: The Constitutionality Of Civil Forfeiture When Used By States, Kris Fernandez Mar 2019

Timbs V. Indiana: The Constitutionality Of Civil Forfeiture When Used By States, Kris Fernandez

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

In Timbs v. Indiana, Petitioner Tyson Timbs asks the Supreme Court to incorporate the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment against the states, providing extra protection for individuals against fines and forfeiture that are “grossly disproportionate” to the harm caused. The decision to incorporate the Excessive Fines Clause and the guidelines for applying that incorporation would have a substantial effect on governments, which often rely on the revenue gained from forfeiture. This commentary argues that the Supreme Court of the United States should incorporate the Excessive Fines Clause based on historical support of an individual’s right to be ...


Stepping Into The Breach: State Constitutions As A Vehicle For Advancing Rights-Based Climate Litigation, Benjamin T. Sharp Mar 2019

Stepping Into The Breach: State Constitutions As A Vehicle For Advancing Rights-Based Climate Litigation, Benjamin T. Sharp

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

The perceived failures of the political branches to mitigate climate change have led climate change activists to seek alternative means to achieve reductions in greenhouse gas emissions; many are turning to litigation. The claims in these cases rely on a variety of legal bases, but this Note will focus on those cases claiming that governments’ failures to prevent climate change amount to violations of the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Rights-based climate change litigation is likely to increase in the future. Among the most prominent of the surviving rights-based cases is Juliana v ...


Bucklew V. Precythe: The Power Of Assumptions And Lethal Injection, Renata Gomez Mar 2019

Bucklew V. Precythe: The Power Of Assumptions And Lethal Injection, Renata Gomez

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Once again, the Supreme Court of the United States has an opportunity to determine the extent to which death-row inmates can bring as-applied challenges to the states’ method of execution and prevent possible botched executions. In Bucklew v. Precythe, the Court will confront the assumptions that the execution team is equipped to handle any execution and that the procedure will go as planned. Additionally, the Court will determine whether the standard articulated in Glossip v. Gross, which requires inmates asserting facial challenges to the states’ method of execution to plead a readily available alternative method of execution, further extends to ...


Swords Into Plowshares: Nuclear Power And The Atomic Energy Act’S Preemptive Scope In Virginia Uranium, Inc. V. Warren, Francis X. Liesman Mar 2019

Swords Into Plowshares: Nuclear Power And The Atomic Energy Act’S Preemptive Scope In Virginia Uranium, Inc. V. Warren, Francis X. Liesman

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

This commentary highlights the considerations the Supreme Court should attend to in its decision in Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. Warren, both in construing § 2021(k) and in reviewing the Fourth Circuit’s reading of precedent from other circuits and from the Court’s prior opinions. Specifically, the Court must clarify how to interpret § 2021(k)’s activities component in concert with its “for purposes” language and determine the importance of the particular underlying activity the state seeks to regulate in a preemption analysis under the Atomic Energy Act. Clarification is necessary to ensure that courts properly effectuate Congress’s intent ...


Grounding Originalism, William Baude, Stephen E. Sachs Jan 2019

Grounding Originalism, William Baude, Stephen E. Sachs

Faculty Scholarship

How should we interpret the Constitution? The “positive turn” in legal scholarship treats constitutional interpretation, like the interpretation of statutes or contracts, as governed by legal rules grounded in actual practice. In our legal system, that practice requires a certain form of originalism: our system’s official story is that we follow the law of the Founding, plus all lawful changes made since.

Or so we’ve argued. Yet this answer produces its own set of questions. How can practice solve our problems, when there are so many theories of law, each giving practice a different role? Why look to ...


Historical Gloss, Madisonian Liquidation, And The Originalism Debate, Curtis A. Bradley, Neil S. Siegel Jan 2019

Historical Gloss, Madisonian Liquidation, And The Originalism Debate, Curtis A. Bradley, Neil S. Siegel

Faculty Scholarship

The U.S. Constitution is old, relatively brief, and very difficult to amend. In its original form, the Constitution was primarily a framework for a new national government, and for 230 years the national government has operated under that framework even as conditions have changed in ways beyond the Founders’ conceivable imaginations. The framework has survived in no small part because government institutions have themselves played an important role in helping to fill in and clarify the framework through their practices and interactions, informed by the realities of governance. Courts, the political branches, and academic commentators commonly give weight to ...


Dying Constitutionalism And The Fourteenth Amendment, Ernest A. Young Jan 2019

Dying Constitutionalism And The Fourteenth Amendment, Ernest A. Young

Faculty Scholarship

The notion of a “living Constitution” often rests on an implicit assumption that important constitutional values will “grow” in such a way as to make the Constitution more attractive over time. But there are no guarantees: What can grow can also wither and die. This essay, presented as the 2018 Robert F. Boden Lecture at Marquette University Law School, marks the sesquicentennial of the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification as a powerful charter of liberty and equality for black Americans. But for much of its early history, the Fourteenth Amendment’s meaning moved in reverse, overwhelmed by the end of Reconstruction ...


Response: Rights As Trumps Of What?, Joseph Blocher Jan 2019

Response: Rights As Trumps Of What?, Joseph Blocher

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.


Bans, Joseph Blocher Jan 2019

Bans, Joseph Blocher

Faculty Scholarship

In the universe of legal restrictions subject to judicial review, those characterized as fully denying some aspect of a constitutional right—bans—are often subject to per se rules of invalidity. Whether the subject of the restriction is a medium of expression, the valuable use of property, or a class of weapons, courts in such cases will often short-circuit the standard doctrinal machinery and strike down the law, even if it might have survived heightened scrutiny. Identifying laws as bans can thus provide an end run around the tiers of scrutiny and other familiar forms of means-ends analysis.

And yet ...


Originalism And The Law Of The Past, William Baude, Stephen E. Sachs Jan 2019

Originalism And The Law Of The Past, William Baude, Stephen E. Sachs

Faculty Scholarship

Originalism has long been criticized for its “law office history” and other historical sins. But a recent “positive turn” in originalist thought may help make peace between history and law. On this theory, originalism is best understood as a claim about our modern law — which borrows many of its rules, constitutional or otherwise, from the law of the past. Our law happens to be the Founders’ law, unless lawfully changed.

This theory has three important implications for the role of history in law. First, whether and how past law matters today is a question of current law, not of history ...


Immigration Detainers, Local Discretion, And State Law's Historical Constraints, Kate Evans Jan 2019

Immigration Detainers, Local Discretion, And State Law's Historical Constraints, Kate Evans

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.


Supreme Court As Superweapon: A Response To Epps & Sitaraman, Stephen E. Sachs Jan 2019

Supreme Court As Superweapon: A Response To Epps & Sitaraman, Stephen E. Sachs

Faculty Scholarship

Is the Supreme Court's legitimacy in crisis? Daniel Epps and Ganesh Sitaraman argue that it is. In their Feature, How to Save the Supreme Court, they suggest legally radical reforms to restore a politically moderate Court. Unfortunately, their proposals might destroy the Court's legitimacy in order to save it. And their case that there is any crisis may fail to persuade a reader with different legal or political priors. If the Supreme Court needs saving, it will be saving from itself, and from too broad a conception of its own legal omnipotence. A Court that seems unbound by ...


Free Speech And Justified True Belief, Joseph Blocher Jan 2019

Free Speech And Justified True Belief, Joseph Blocher

Faculty Scholarship

Law often prioritizes justified true beliefs. Evidence, even if probative and correct, must have a proper foundation. Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. Prosecutors are not permitted to trick juries into convicting a defendant, even if that defendant is truly guilty. Judges’ reasons, and not just the correctness of their holdings, are the engines of precedent. Lawyers are, in short, familiar with the notion that one must be right for the right reasons.

And yet the standard epistemic theory of the First Amendment—that the marketplace of ideas is the “best test of truth ...


The State Of The Death Penalty, Ankur Desai, Brandon L. Garrett Jan 2019

The State Of The Death Penalty, Ankur Desai, Brandon L. Garrett

Faculty Scholarship

The death penalty is in decline in America and most death penalty states do not regularly impose death sentences. In 2016 and 2017, states reached modern lows in imposed death sentences, with just thirty-one defendants sentenced to death in 2016 and thirty-nine in 2017, as compared with over three hundred per year in the 1990s. In 2016, only thirteen states imposed death sentences, and in 2017, fourteen did so, although thirty-one states retain the death penalty. What explains this remarkable and quite unexpected trend? In this Article, we present new analysis of state-level legislative changes that might have been expected ...


The Future Of Freedom Of Expression Online, Evelyn Mary Aswad Dec 2018

The Future Of Freedom Of Expression Online, Evelyn Mary Aswad

Duke Law & Technology Review

Should social media companies ban Holocaust denial from their platforms? What about conspiracy theorists that spew hate? Does good corporate citizenship mean platforms should remove offensive speech or tolerate it? The content moderation rules that companies develop to govern speech on their platforms will have significant implications for the future of freedom of expression. Given that the prospects for compelling platforms to respect users’ free speech rights are bleak within the U.S. system, what can be done to protect this important right? In June 2018, the United Nations’ top expert for freedom of expression called on companies to align ...


Dialing It Back: Why Courts Should Rethink Students’ Privacy And Speech Rights As Cell Phone Communications Erode The ‘Schoolhouse Gate’, Nicholas J. Mcguire Nov 2018

Dialing It Back: Why Courts Should Rethink Students’ Privacy And Speech Rights As Cell Phone Communications Erode The ‘Schoolhouse Gate’, Nicholas J. Mcguire

Duke Law & Technology Review

The ubiquity of cell phones in today’s society has forced courts to change or dismiss established, but inapplicable analytical frameworks. Two such frameworks in the school setting are regulations of student speech and of student searches. This Article traces the constitutional jurisprudence of both First Amendment off-campus speech protection and Fourth Amendment search standards as applied to the school setting. It then analyzes how the Supreme Court’s ruling in Riley v. California complicates both areas. Finally, it proposes a pragmatic solution: by recognizing a categorical First Amendment exception for “substantial threats” against the school community, courts could accommodate ...


Racing On Two Different Tracks: Using Substantive Due Process To Challenge Tracking In Schools, Katarina Wong Aug 2018

Racing On Two Different Tracks: Using Substantive Due Process To Challenge Tracking In Schools, Katarina Wong

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Tracking is a widespread educational practice where secondary schools divide students into different classes or “tracks” based on their previous achievements and perceived abilities. Tracking produces different levels of classes, from low ability to high ability, based on the theory that students learn better when grouped with others at their own level. However, tracking often segregates students of color and low socioeconomic status into low-tracked classes and these students do not receive the same educational opportunities as white and/or wealthier students. Students and parents have historically challenged tracking structures in their schools using an Equal Protection Clause framework. However ...


Compelled Speech, Expressive Conduct, And Wedding Cakes: A Commentary On Masterpiece Cakeshop V. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Andrew Jensen Apr 2018

Compelled Speech, Expressive Conduct, And Wedding Cakes: A Commentary On Masterpiece Cakeshop V. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Andrew Jensen

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission is the most important same-sex rights case since Obergefell v. Hodges and will determine if businesses and individuals have a First Amendment right to refuse serving gay weddings against their conscience. In this case, Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, refused to create a custom cake for Charlie Craig and David Mullins to celebrate their wedding because it was against his Christian beliefs. The Supreme Court will decide whether the First Amendment gave Phillips this right of refusal or whether Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws will compel him to serve same-sex weddings. This commentary ...


Compelled Speech, Expressive Conduct, And Wedding Cakes: A Commentary On Masterpiece Cakeshop V. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Andrew Jensen Apr 2018

Compelled Speech, Expressive Conduct, And Wedding Cakes: A Commentary On Masterpiece Cakeshop V. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Andrew Jensen

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission is the most important same-sex rights case since Obergefell v. Hodges and will determine if businesses and individuals have a First Amendment right to refuse serving gay weddings against their conscience. In this case, Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, refused to create a custom cake for Charlie Craig and David Mullins to celebrate their wedding because it was against his Christian beliefs. The Supreme Court will decide whether the First Amendment gave Phillips this right of refusal or whether Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws will compel him to serve same-sex weddings. This commentary ...


Husted V. A. Philip Randolph Institute: How Can States Maintain Their Voter Rolls?, Chris Smith Mar 2018

Husted V. A. Philip Randolph Institute: How Can States Maintain Their Voter Rolls?, Chris Smith

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

In Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, the Supreme Court will decide whether the Ohio’s Supplemental Process for maintaining its voter rolls violates the requirements of the National Voter Registration Act (“NVRA”) and the Help America Vote Act (“HAVA”). The Court’s opinion will shape the landscape of voting rights, as many states are struggling to meet the dual mandates of election sanctity and increased voter access. This commentary argues that the Supreme Court can give states a guideline for what is an acceptable process that complies with the conflicting federal policies in the NVRA and HAVA. The Court ...


Patchak V. Zinke, Separation Of Powers, And The Pitfalls Of Form Over Substance, Michael Fisher Mar 2018

Patchak V. Zinke, Separation Of Powers, And The Pitfalls Of Form Over Substance, Michael Fisher

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Mr. Patchak was a concerned citizen with standing to bring a suit against the federal government. A previous Supreme Court decision, Carcieri v. Salazar, made it clear that Mr. Patchak would win his case. Congress, however, did not want him to do so. Congress passed, and President Obama signed, the Gun Lake Act, which effectively ordered Mr. Patchak’s suit to be dismissed. Mr. Patchak’s suit was subsequently dismissed, and he appealed on the grounds that the Gun Lake Act violated separation of powers principles.


Third Circuit Confusion: Ncaa V. Christie And An Opportunity To Defend Federalism, Zachary Buckheit Mar 2018

Third Circuit Confusion: Ncaa V. Christie And An Opportunity To Defend Federalism, Zachary Buckheit

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

NCAA v. Christie will determine whether a federal statute that prevents a state legislature from repealing a previously enacted state law violates the anti-commandeering doctrine. In 2014, New Jersey passed a state law repealing state prohibitions against sports wagering in Atlantic City. Five sports leagues sued New Jersey in federal court. The leagues asserted that the new state law violated the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (“PASPA”), a federal law. New Jersey claimed PASPA violated the anti-commandeering doctrine and was accordingly unconstitutional. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that PASPA does not violate the anti-commandeering doctrine because it ...