Digital Commons Network^™

The Legal Origins Of Catholic Conscientious Objection, Jeremy Kessler

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article traces the origins of Catholic conscientious objection as a theory and practice of American constitutionalism. It argues that Catholic conscientious objection emerged during the 1960s from a confluence of left-wing and right-wing Catholic efforts to participate in American democratic culture more fully. The refusal of the American government to allow legitimate Catholic conscientious objection to the Vietnam War became a cause célèbre for clerical and lay leaders and provided a blueprint for Catholic legal critiques of other forms of federal regulation in the late 1960s and early 1970s—most especially regulations concerning the provision of contraception and abortion.

Over …

A New Takings Clause? The Implications Of Cedar Point Nursery V. Hassid For Property Rights And Moratoria, Benjamin Alexander Mogren

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In part, the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution holds that “no person . . . shall [have their] private property . . . taken for public use, without just compensation.” In Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that “a California regulation that permits union organizers to enter the property of agricultural business to talk with employees about supporting a union is unconstitutional.” The purpose of this Note is to discuss what Cedar Point Nursery means generally for the future of Takings Clause analysis and will argue that Cedar Point Nursery should be seen as a …

The Collective Right Endures: Pre-Heller Precedent And Our Understanding Of The Modern Second Amendment, William Reach

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Prior to 2008, legal scholars who examined the Second Amendment fell roughly into two camps: those who believed “the right of the people to . . . bear arms” only covered state militias, and those who believed it extended to individual citizens.

After District of Columbia v. Heller conclusively established that the “Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms," discussion of the collective right to bear arms largely receded from public discussion and most litigation surrounding the Second Amendment shifted to define the outer edges of the individual right. But the pre-Heller showdown between these …

Indoctrination By Elimination: Why Banning Critical Race Theory In Public Schools Is Unconstitutional, Emma Postel

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Note argues that Texas public school students’ First Amendment Rights have been violated by the passage of Senate Bill 3 (SB 3), which bans the teaching of Critical Race Theory (CRT) in K–12 public schools. The First Amendment is violated here because (1) students have a First Amendment right to speech, and this law bans protected speech; (2) students have a right to receive information, and this ban prevents them from receiving information; and (3) schools are meant to be the marketplace of ideas for students and banning CRT amounts to unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. This Note does not suggest …

Constitutional Memories, Jack M. Balkin

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Many arguments in constitutional law invoke collective memory. Collective memory is what a group—for example, a religion, a profession, a people, or a nation—remembers and forgets about its past. This combination of remembering and forgetting helps constitute the group’s identity and structures its values and its commitments. Precisely because memory is selective, it may or may not correspond to the best account of historical facts.

The use of collective memory in constitutional argument is constitutional memory. It shapes people’s views about what the law means and why people have authority. Lawyers and judges continually invoke and construct memory; judicial decisions …

The Dobbs Effect: Abortion Rights In The Rear-View Mirror And The Civil Rights Crisis That Lies Ahead, Terri Day, Danielle Weatherby

William & Mary Law Review Online

On June 24, 2022, seven weeks after the first-ever leak of a draft opinion, the United States Supreme Court circulated its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, defying stare decisis, overruling fifty years of precedent, and shattering the hopes of millions of Americans, who wished the leaked opinion was a fiction that would never come to be.

As the leaked draft forewarned, Roe v. Wadeis no longer the law of the land. No longer is a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy—to exercise bodily autonomy and be free to control the trajectory of her life—protected as a fundamental …

Another Bite At The Apple Or The Same Bite? Characterizing Habeas Petitions On Appeal As Pending Instead Of Fully Adjudicated, Gregory Winder

William & Mary Law Review

[...] One of the Act's [Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act] most significant aspects is its restriction on the filing of successive habeas corpus petitions. Responding to this restriction, prisoners have attempted to circumvent the AEDPA through a number of different procedural routes with varying degrees of success.

This Note examines the circuit split that has emerged for one of those procedural attempts—motions to amend habeas petitions following adjudication on the merits and while on appeal in a circuit court. This Note argues that allowing amendment of habeas petitions on appeal is both consistent with the history of habeas corpus …

A World Without Roe: The Constitutional Future Of Unwanted Pregnancy, Julie C. Suk

William & Mary Law Review

With the demise of Roe v. Wade, the survival of abortion access in America will depend on new legal paths. In the same moment that Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization has constrained access to abortion in the United States, other constitutional democracies have moved in the opposite direction, expanding access to safe, legal, and free abortions. They have done so without reasoning from Roe’s vision of the private zone of unwanted pregnancy. The development of abortion law outside the United States provides critical insights that can inform future efforts to vindicate the constitutional rights of women facing …

Equal Dignity, Colorblindness, And The Future Of Affirmative Action Beyond Grutter V. Bollinger, Thomas P. Crocker

William & Mary Law Review

In Grutter v. Bollinger the Supreme Court held that diversity was a compelling interest for equal protection purposes that justifies limited consideration of race through affirmative action programs. But there was a catch. The Court predicted that diversity would cease to be a compelling interest within twenty-five years. This Article examines the surprising doctrinal and conceptual implications that would follow if, having both the motive and means, the Court were to overturn Grutter before its predicted 2028 sunset. Exploring internal tensions within existing doctrine, this Article argues that even if the Court were to overturn Grutter, a form of …

Ducking The System: Examining The Efficacy Of Bounty Hunting Statutes That Stifle The Free Exercise Of Constitutional Rights, Allie Zunski

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

[...] This Note examines the legal hurdles surrounding the novel “citizen deputy” statute—including its structure, the attendant legal doctrines, and its broader implications—using SB 8 as a test case for the analysis. While SB 8’s prohibition is no longer unconstitutional, the divisive history of the abortion debate that gave rise to the structure sheds light on the reasons why states may be motivated to infringe on constitutional rights and whether such efforts can succeed in practice. SB 8 is thus a useful test case to examine the structure and its potential for reuse. For purposes of this analysis, this Note …

Preempting The States And Protecting The Charities: A Case For Nonprofit-Exempting Federal Action In Consumer Data Privacy, Sarah Fisher

William & Mary Law Review

This Note argues that Congress should use its Commerce Clause power to pass a consumer data privacy measure that (1) preempts state law and (2) explicitly exempts 501(c)(3) organizations from compliance. Such preemptive action with a narrow 501(c)(3) carve-out would avoid the potential harm of exempting too broad a group of nonprofit entities while ensuring charitable organizations’ continued existence, would be more protective of both the individual privacy right and 501(c)(3) existence than merely adjusting the revenue dollar threshold at which entities must comply, and would properly balance the individual right to control personal data with the societal good served …

Balancing Liberty And Security: A Proposal For Amplified Procedural Due Process Protections In The U.S. Sanctions Regime, Allison Lofgren

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Note will concentrate on procedural due process concerns stemming from the imposition of terrorist financing sanctions, and it will primarily discuss designated U.S. persons. This is a narrow focus, but it can be viewed as a microcosm for due process issues present throughout the broader IEEPA [International Emergency Economic Powers Act] regime. Ultimately, this Note will conclude that OFAC [Office of Foreign Assets Control]'s terrorist financing designation process inadequately protects the procedural due process rights of targets, and it will advocate for the implementation of additional procedural protections that balance undeniable constitutional requirements with the critical concern of national …

Preimplantation Genetic Testing: A Fundamental Right, Julianna S. Swann

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

Unlike many European countries of similar economic, social, scientific, and political advancement, there is virtually no regulation of preimplantation genetic testing in the United States. This Note will explore preimplantation genetic testing and demonstrate that potential parents in the United States have a right to conduct said testing under the umbrella of the fundamental right to privacy. This Note will demonstrate the need for the regulation for preimplantation genetic testing that will comply with the Undue Burden Test set out in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, while acknowledging and supporting the fundamental right of potential parents to conduct testing. This …

The First Amendment Weaponized: When Guns Become Public Discourse, Danny Li

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article discusses First Amendment challenges asserted against gun control measures—inside and outside our courts. It explains at length why existing doctrinal approaches to resolving these challenges fail, providing an alternative account of why the First Amendment should not be construed liberally to protect the open carry of firearms. As guns in public spaces and protests become commonplace, we can expect not only continual First Amendment challenges to gun control measures, but also the growing prevalence of First Amendment claims asserted in the public by advocates and gun owners to justify open carry—and the forging of new constitutional meanings and …

Forgetting Marbury's Lesson: Qualified Immunity's Original Purpose, Tobias Kuehne

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Substantial parts of the history of qualified immunity remain unwritten. While qualified immunity is hotly debated among scholars and practitioners, we know little about qualified immunity’s origins, and the institutional pressures that shaped its historical path. This Article provides that missing history. It begins by observing the striking parallels between Pierson v. Ray—qualified immunity’s origin case—and Marbury v. Madison. Both were suits against government officials to vindicate individual rights granted by a congressional statute, and both cases arose while the Court was under intense political pressure. In each case, the Supreme Court struck a surprising middle ground: It …

Originalism's Implementation Problem, Michael L. Smith, Alexander S. Hiland

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Despite the vast body of theoretical work produced by originalist scholars, this literature fails to address how practicing judges and attorneys should apply originalist theories. All too often, academic originalists appear to write for an audience of other originalist scholars. This results in lengthy, technical, and heavily theoretical discussions. The question of how courts and judges are to apply these increasingly technical and theoretical originalist methods is left by the wayside. All too often, judges and attorneys cherry-pick from this body of scholarship to create a veneer of academic legitimacy for their own goal-oriented arguments.

We do not seek to …

From Negative To Positive Algorithm Rights, Cary Coglianese, Kat Hefter

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

We consider this issue here and suggest that the current calls for a negative right to be free from AI could very well transform over time into positive claims that demand the use of algorithmic tools by government officials. In Part I, we begin by sketching the current landscape surrounding the adoption of AI by government. That landscape is characterized by strong activist and scholarly voices expressing a pronounced aversion to the use of digital algorithms—and taking a decidedly negative rights tone. In Part II, we show that, although aversion to complex technology might be understandable, that aversion is neither …

Limited Protection: The Impact Of Illegal Entry On Due Process Rights In Expedited Removal Proceedings, Sun Shen

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

[...] This Note argues that illegal entry often limits the scope of asylum seekers’ due process rights in court and negatively impacts the asylum process in a way that runs afoul with the spirit of due process and fairness. Asylum eligibility should not hinge on whether entry is legal, but whether applicants are able to meet the evidentiary burden. Conditioning asylum seekers’ procedural due process rights on the legality of entry creates arbitrary asylum results and carries high risks of sending back asylum seekers to danger, simply because they were not able to obtain valid travel documents from the governments …

The Price Of Democracy: Evaluating The Excessing Fines Clause In Light Of Florida Felon Disenfranchisement, Raven Peters

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Note aims to show how the current test of proportionality is insufficient in combatting excessive fines, especially considering the racist and discriminatory practices of felon disenfranchisement. In Part I, this Note evaluates the background of the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause and its recent incorporation against the states. Part II will provide insight into the history of felon disenfranchisement in Florida and the fight for voter restoration through the passage of Florida Amendment 4. This section will then tell of the subsequent implementation of Florida Statutes section 98.0751 requiring ex-felons to pay all fines and fees associated with their …

No Child Left Behind Bars: Applying The Principles Of Strict Scrutiny When Sentencing Juveniles Tried As Adults, Max Chu

William & Mary Law Review

The Commonwealth of Virginia was the first in the nation to pass legislation that provides judges with the discretion to veer away from the mandatory minimum sentence and to impose trauma-informed and age-appropriate sentences for juvenile offenders convicted of felonies and tried as adults. Although Virginia’s new law, House Bill 744 (HB 744), is a pioneering step in the right direction, this Note argues that the law may now provide judges with too much discretion. In other words, HB 744 alone, without more guidance, does not go far enough to protect the rights of juvenile offenders.

Therefore, this Note proposes …

Fourth Amendment Infringement Is Afoot: Revitalizing Particularized Reasonable Suspicion For Terry Stops Based On Vague Or Discrepant Suspect Descriptions, Caroline E. Lewis

William & Mary Law Review

In Terry v. Ohio, the Supreme Court granted law enforcement broad power to perform a limited stop and search of someone when an officer has reasonable suspicion that the person is engaged in criminal activity. The resulting “Terry stop” created a way for police officers to investigate a suspicious person without requiring full probable cause for an arrest. The officer need only have “reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts” based on the circumstances and the officer’s policing “experience that criminal activity may be afoot.” Reasonable suspicion is—by design—a broad standard, deferential to police officers’ judgment. Law enforcement officers …

Hope Dies Last: The Progressive Potential And Regressive Reality Of The Antibalkanization Approach To Racial Equality, David Simson

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article relies on Critical Race Theory concepts and social science research to make an important and timely contribution to a debate in law and public policy that is both long-standing and of immense current importance: What is the relationship between social cohesion on the one hand, and racial equality progress on the other?

[...]

Over the last four decades, the Supreme Court’s equal protection jurisprudence on governmental race-consciousness has answered with an “antibalkanization approach” which prioritizes social cohesion. Indeed, this approach views social cohesion as a prerequisite for racial equality progress. It considers racial hostility and resentment among White …

From Private Prejudice To Public Policy: How Religious Conservatives Use Liberalism To Control Women's Bodies -- The United States And Israel In Comparative Perspective, Gila Stopler

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The Article uses the feminist critique of the patriarchal nature of religion and liberalism, the feminist critique of flaws in political liberalism, and a socio-political analysis of the power of religious conservative groups in the United States and Israel to claim that religious conservatives use the patriarchal nature of liberalism, its inherent flaws, and conservative political power to turn private religious prejudice into public policy. Analyzing the constitutional and legal status of religion in the United States and the recent dramatic changes it has undergone, the Article shows that contrary to popular belief, and due to the aforementioned factors, the …

The Coddling Of The American Worker's Mind: The Anti-Free Speech Nature Of Popular Labor Law Reforms, Daniel V. Johns

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

As the nation enters an era in which a new presidential administration will likely push such labor law reforms, it is worth considering whether transparently anti-free speech reform measures make sense for the future of labor policy and law. This Article argues that they do not. Because employee free choice is furthered, not diminished, by hearing both sides of an issue, American workers should have the opportunity to hear and evaluate employer speech in the course of union campaigns. Only then can employees make an informed decision about their workplace future. In the end, freedom of speech furthers employee freedom …

All The Sovereign's Agents: The Constitutional Credentials Of Administration, Kate Jackson

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

[...] This Article suggests that agency institutions should be measured against the notion that popular sovereignty demands not consensus and consent, but instead institutions that permit citizens to understand themselves as coequal participants in the collective decision-making process.

Part I situates administrative agencies in an understanding of liberal democratic constitutionalism that eschews outmoded notions of popular sovereignty and natural law. It will then explain how adequately conceived notions of the separation of powers and the rule of law cannot serve as indefeasible objections to administration. Part II makes a positive case for agency authority by drawing from the insights gained …

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. V. Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission: The Supreme Court Misses Its "Shot" At Clarifying State Alcohol Regulations And The Commerce Clause, Josephine Battles

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The Supreme Court erred by denying certiorari in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission. The Texas statute that bans all publicly traded corporations from obtaining a license to sell liquor, but carves an exception for some Texas-run public corporations through an express clause, is in direct violation of the dormant Commerce Clause. The Texas Legislature disguised the public corporation ban as a “facially neutral” alcohol regulation, however, the ban is discriminatory towards out-of-state competitors in both its purpose and effect. Moreover, the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Wal-Mart Stores is firmly inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent. Additionally, the …

Solidifying Supremacy Clause Immunity, Leslie A. Gardner, Justin C. Van Orsdol

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

States have often taken different approaches to polarizing issues such as the legalization of marijuana, voting rights, and gun safety. Generally, the federal government has stayed out of the fray honoring the concept of the “states as laboratories.” That is, until recently. With increasing debate among political leaders and diverging viewpoints among Department of Justice officials, clashes between federal officers and state governments have increased. But what happens to a federal officer caught in the crossfire, charged by a state prosecutor for breaking state criminal law while attempting to enforce federal law? The answer lies in the doctrine of Supremacy …

Not So Objective Indicia: Why Public Polling And Ballot Referenda Could Create A More Concrete Standard For Eighth Amendment Objective Indicia Analysis, Jonathan Marchuk

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The Eighth Amendment states that “[e]xcessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” Through the Fourteenth Amendment, these restrictions on punishment are applicable to the states. Over the years, the interpretation of what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment has changed. Cruel and unusual punishments include those punishments that are greatly disproportionate to the committed offense, but what is considered a disproportionate punishment is not a static judgment. Instead, part of the proportionality analysis of the punishment to the crime looks to “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a …

Adree Edmo, The Eighth Amendment, And Abolition: Evaluating The Fight For Gender-Affirming Care In Prisons, Mike Greene

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

This Comment argues that the Eighth Amendment litigation strategy to secure gender confirmation surgery for incarcerated transgender people is a non-abolitionist “reformist” reform that expands the criminal punishment system that perpetuates state violence against transgender people. This Comment proposes an abolitionist framework as a transformative approach to evaluating criminal punishment system reforms and securing gender-affirming care for transgender people, incarcerated or otherwise. This Comment then proposes two abolitionist steps towards trans justice, health, and liberation.

This Comment will first provide background on gender-affirming medical care, current medical standards for assessing gender-affirming care, and the standards that courts use to evaluate …

Imposing A Daily Burden On Thousands Of Innocent Citizens: The Supreme Court Unnecessarily Limited Motorists' Fourth Amendment Rights In Kansas V. Glover, George M. Dery

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

This Article analyzes Kansas v. Glover, in which the Supreme Court ruled that an officer could stop a vehicle owned by a person having a revoked license on the assumption that the owner was currently driving the vehicle. This work examines the concerns created by Glover’s ruling. This Article asserts that, in creating its new rule enabling police to stop a motorist without first confirming his or her identity, the Court based its holding on the existence of two facts, thus effectively changing its traditional “totality of the circumstances” analysis for reasonable suspicion to a categorical rule. Further, …