Digital Commons Network^™

State Separation Of Powers And The Federal Courts, Ann Woolhandler

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The cases discussed herein mostly surfaced in the regulatory era of the latter half of the nineteenth century and the early twentieth century. This Article first discusses arguments as to state delegations of legislative power, and the Court’s rejection of legislative-style deference that state agencies often argued for. This Article next discusses the Court’s decisions as to state adjudicative bodies, and its refusal to treat state agency adjudicators as full-fledged courts. This Article then addresses the Court’s response to arguments for unreviewable executive discretion and to laws allowing delegations to private parties. It then addresses whether the discussion sheds light …

In Search Of A Legislative Leviathan: Judicial Enforcement Of Senate Nominations Rules, Sam Simon

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The Senate is trapped in a collective action problem. Both political parties would be better off if the Senate could consistently confirm judicial nominees on a reasonable timeline. However, when the party that controls the presidency does not control the Senate, Senate leaders face strong incentives to block nominees using whatever excuse they can find. Any Senate majority considering playing nice with a president of the opposing party runs the risk that its kindness will not be repaid when the tables are turned. The only rational strategy is to apply what scholars have called the Iron Rule: do unto others …

Sola Scriptura: Slavery, Federalism And The Textual Power To Provide For The General Welfare, Calvin H. Johnson

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article argues specifically that under the text of the Constitution, Congress has the general power to provide for the welfare through tax and any other necessary and appropriate means. Clause 1 of the description of powers of Congress in Article I, Section 8, gives Congress the power to tax and spend to provide for the common defense and general welfare. Common defense and domestic welfare are parallel in the text and equally plenary, subject only to restrictions protecting individual rights. The final clause of Section 8 then allows Congress to reach the goal of general welfare by any necessary …

The False Promise Of Expanded Religious Liberty Rights After The Covid-19 Cases And Fulton V. City Of Philadelphia, Shlomo C. Pill

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article explains and critiques the Supreme Court’s recent reframing of religious free exercise rights. This change was initiated by a series of “shadow docket” rulings issued in late 2020 and early 2021 in which the Court sustained religious challenges to COVID-19 capacity restrictions and mask mandates. That doctrinal shift was confirmed and reinforced by the Court’s subsequence decision in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. In these cases, the Court significantly narrowed the Smith test, which, since 1990, had subjected neutral and generally applicable laws that burden religious practice to only rational basis review. Under the Court’s new free …

Let My People Go, Part One: Black Rebellion And The Second Amendment Political Necessity Defense, Kindaka Sanders

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article argues that when an individual or group acts to protect a government-assailed constitutional right by criminal means, the doctrine of political necessity may serve as a constitutionally protected defense. The doctrine of political necessity builds on the common law doctrine of necessity. The necessity doctrine, also referred to as the “choice of evils” defense, exonerates an individual who creates a social harm to allay a greater harm to herself or others. Both state and federal courts have been especially reluctant to allow the use of the necessity defense in cases with political implications, in which the defendant acts …

On The Nexus Between The Strength Of The Separation Of Powers And The Power Of The Judiciary, Rivka Weill

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article makes four novel arguments: (1) There is an inverse relationship between the strength of a separation of powers structure and the strength of the judiciary. In a strong separation of powers structure, one should expect a weaker judiciary, and vice versa. This nexus exists empirically, and is supported on normative and strategic grounds. (2) This nexus is manifested through a web of common law doctrines that developed to support a given separation of powers structure and shape the judicial oversight of the political branches. This Article identifies a list of common law doctrines—including standing, justiciability, deference, and judicial …

Answering The Political Question: Demonstrating An Intent-Based Framework For Partisan Gerrymandering, Kyle H. Keraga

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Partisan gerrymandering is widely recognized as a threat to the foundations of our democracy. Political parties with control over their state legislatures routinely leverage the redistricting process to entrench themselves in power—suppressing political adversaries, chilling public participation, and polarizing the electorate. Nevertheless, despite a persistent recognition that partisan gerrymandering is incompatible with basic democratic principles, the Supreme Court struggled to develop a stable and consistent doctrinal approach to this issue, even as reliable standards emerged to adjudicate malapportionment and racial gerrymandering claims. Recently, in Rucho v. Common Cause, the Court abandoned the search entirely, holding that partisan gerrymandering is …

Qualified Knowledge: The Case For Considering Actual Knowledge In Qualified Immunity Jurisprudence As It Relates To The First Amendment Right To Record, Carly Laforge

William & Mary Law Review

This Note argues that this particular finding of the Frasier court is both pragmatically and philosophically problematic. By design, the qualified immunity doctrine seeks to shield police officers from civil rights lawsuits. However, prioritizing assumed knowledge over actual knowledge in determining what qualifies as a clearly established constitutional right harms the citizens that law enforcement officers have sworn to protect and serve. While traditional delineations of clearly established rights have involved appeals to precedent, public policy concerns are also important considerations in the qualified immunity analysis. In this way, Frasier is especially concerning in that it prioritizes the total defense …

Supreme Court Cases That Persist: The Japanese American Cases, Louis Fisher

William & Mary Law Review Online

As with any human institution, the United States Supreme Court makes errors that, over a period of time, need correction. By focusing on the Japanese American cases, Hirabayashi (1943) and Korematsu (1944), the record is particularly remarkable. Over many decades the Supreme Court had abundant evidence that the two decisions were defective. It was not until June 26, 2018, in Trump v. Hawaii, that the Supreme Court announced that “Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided.” If Korematsu was that deficient, why did it take the Court seventy-four years to admit it? Moreover, what about Hirabayashi? The decision …

Decolonizing Equal Sovereignty, Rosa Hayes

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

In Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013), the Supreme Court announced that a tradition of equal sovereignty among the states prohibits unwarranted federal intrusions into state sovereignty and invoked this newly created doctrine to strike down Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act. Scholarly critiques in Shelby County’s immediate aftermath debated the constitutional validity of the Court’s equal sovereignty reasoning and warned of the dire threat the VRA’s effacement posed to voting rights—concerns that recent litigation have vindicated.

But other recent litigation suggests that, abstracted from its problematic and consequential origins, equal sovereignty may be deployed …

The New Insular Cases, Willie Santana

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

The Insular Cases is a name given to a series of cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court dealing with the status of the territories the United States acquired at the turn of the twentieth century. The Insular Cases rely on outmoded assumptions about the peoples who live in those islands, ninety-eight percent of whom belong to racial and ethnic minorities, and extend the extraconstitutional doctrine of territorial incorporation, a Plessy-style doctrine of separate governance for these territories that is different than the territories that preceded them. These cases, and the doctrine they announced, have been universally decried as …

A State Within A State: Re-Examining The Federal Lands Question And Its Effect On State Sovereignty, David Wilde

William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review

Though the path of the public lands debate is well-trodden, this Note will seek to answer the question in novel ways. First, it uses the Corpus of Founding Era American English to perform an objective linguistic analysis of the phrase “dispose of” in the Property Clause. Through this analysis, it appears that an ordinary person at the time the Constitution was adopted would most likely have read the phrase “dispose of” in the Property Clause to mean sell, give away, bestow, or put into another’s hand or power.

Next, this Note investigates the historical and philosophical understandings of state sovereignty …

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 …