Digital Commons Network^™

On Candor, Free Enterprise Fund, And The Theory Of The Unitary Executive, Michael J. Gerhardt

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Factual Precedents, Allison Orr Larsen

Faculty Publications

Lawyers and judges speak to each other in a language of precedents—decisions from cases that have come before. The most persuasive precedent to cite, of course, is an on-point decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. But Supreme Court opinions are changing. They contain more factual claims about the world than ever before, and those claims are now rich with empirical data. This Supreme Court factfinding is also highly accessible; fast digital research leads directly to factual language in old cases that is perfect for arguments in new ones. An unacknowledged consequence of all this is the rise of what I …

Reproductive Injustice In The New Millennium, Sybil Shainwald

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

A reexamination of the history of abortion law in the United States is essential to an understanding of recent changes. Part I of this Article will provide a synopsis of the early Anglo-American view of abortion at common law, the early anti-abortion statutes, and the state of abortion during the early twentieth century. Part II will discuss the liberalization of abortion laws, as well as the ways in which the law pertaining to a woman’s right to choose has evolved since 1973. Finally, Part III will analyze the constitutionality of the current wave of restrictions.

The Resilience Of Property, Lynda L. Butler

Faculty Publications

Resilience is essential to the ability of property to face transforming social and environmental change. For centuries, property has responded to such change through a dialectical process that identifies emerging disciplinary perspectives and debates conflicting values and norms. This dialectic promotes the resilience of property, allowing it to adapt to changing conditions and needs. Today the mainstream economic theory dominating common law property is progressively being intertwined with constitutionally protected property, undermining its long-term resilience. The coupling of the economic vision of ordinary property with constitutional property embeds the assumptions, choices, and values of the economic theory into both realms …

Calming Unsettled Waters: A Proposal For Navigating The Tenuous Power Divide Between The Federal Courts And The Uspto Under The American Invents Act, William Rose

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The Non-Redelegation Doctrine, F. Andrew Hesisck, Carissa Byrne Hessick

William & Mary Law Review

In United States v. Booker, the Court remedied a constitutional defect in the federal sentencing scheme by rendering advisory the then-binding sentencing guidelines promulgated by the U.S. Sentencing Commission. One important but overlooked consequence of this decision is that it redelegated the power to set sentencing policy from the Sentencing Commission to federal judges. District courts now may sentence based on their own policy views instead of being bound by the policy determinations rendered by the Commission.

This Article argues that, when faced with a decision that implicates an unambiguous delegation, the courts should not redelegate unless authorized by Congress …

The Eighth Amendment As A Warrant Against Undeserved Punishment, Scott W. Howe

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Should the Eighth Amendment prohibit all undeserved criminal convictions and punishments? There are grounds to argue that it must. Correlation between the level of deserts of the accused and the severity of the sanction imposed represents the very idea of justice to most of us. We want to believe that those branded as criminals deserve blame for their conduct and that they deserve all of the punishment they receive. A deserts limitation is also key to explaining the decisions in which the Supreme Court has rejected convictions or punishments as disproportional, including several major rulings in the new millennium. Yet, …

Statutory Interpretation As Constestatory Democracy, Glen Staszewski

William & Mary Law Review

This Article provides a novel solution to the countermajoritarian difficulty in statutory interpretation by applying recent insights from civic republican theory to the adjudication of statutory disputes in the modern regulatory state. From a republican perspective, freedom consists of the absence of the potential for arbitrary domination, and democracy should therefore include both electoral and contestatory dimensions. The Article argues that statutory interpretation in the modern regulatory state is best understood as a mechanism of contestatory democracy. It develops this conception of statutory interpretation by considering the distinct roles of legislatures, administrative agencies, and courts in making and implementing the …

What Matters More: A Day In Jail Or A Criminal Conviction?, John P. Gross

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Power And Responsibility: Fourth Amendment Limits On The Use Of Molecular Scanners, Paul Wolfgramm Jr.

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The Federal Medical Loss Ratio: A Permissible Federal Regulation Or An Encroachment On State Power?, Meghan S. Stubblebine

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Normative & Historical Cases For Proportional Deportation, Angela M. Banks

Faculty Publications

Is citizenship status a legitimate basis for allocating rights in the United States?

In immigration law the right to remain in the United States is significantly tied to citizenship status. Citizens have an absolutely secure right to remain in the United States regardless of their actions. Noncitizens’ right to remain is less secure because they can be deported if convicted of specific criminal offenses. This Article contends that citizenship is not a legitimate basis for allocating the right to remain. This Article offers normative and historical arguments for a right to remain for noncitizens. This right should be granted to …

Gary Wall, Plaintiff-Appellant V. James Wade, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees: Reply Brief Of Appellant, Tillman J. Breckenridge, Robert M. Luck Iii, Patricia E. Roberts

Appellate and Supreme Court Clinic

No abstract provided.

Gary Wall, Plaintiff-Appellant V. James Wade, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees: Brief Of Appellant, Tillman J. Breckenridge, Robert M. Luck Iii, Patricia E. Roberts

Appellate and Supreme Court Clinic

No abstract provided.

Distinguishing Between Custom And Law: Empirical Examples Of Endogeneity In Property And First Amendment Precedents, Daniel L. Chen, Susan Yeh

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The Federal Circuit As A Federal Court, Paul R. Gugliuzza

William & Mary Law Review

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction over patent appeals and, as a consequence, the last word on many legal issues important to innovation policy. This Article shows how the Federal Circuit augments its already significant power by impeding other government institutions from influencing the patent system. Specifically, the Federal Circuit has shaped patent-law doctrine, along with rules of jurisdiction, procedure, and administrative law, to preserve and expand the court's power in four interinstitutional relationships: the court's federalism relationship with state courts, its separation of powers relationship with the executive and legislative branches, its vertical …

The Exceptions Clause As A Structural Safeguard, Tara Leigh Grove

Faculty Publications

Scholars have long treated the Exceptions Clause of Article III as a serious threat to the Supreme Court’s central constitutional function: establishing definitive and uniform rules of federal law. This Article argues that scholars have overlooked an important function of the Clause. Congress has repeatedly used its broad “exceptions power” to facilitate, not to undermine, the Supreme Court’s constitutional role. Drawing on insights from social science, this Article asserts that Congress has an incentive to use its control over federal jurisdiction to promote the Court’s role in settling disputed federal questions. Notably, this argument has considerable historical support. When the …

The Dormant Second Amendment: Exploring The Rise, Fall, And Potential Resurrection Of Independent State Militias, Michael J. Golden

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The term “militia” is polarizing, misunderstood, misapplied, and generally difficult for modern Americans to digest. That is not surprising, given the depth and breadth of American militia history and militias’ substantial evolution over four centuries.

Historically, militia simply refers to a broad-based civic duty to protect one’s fellow citizens from internal and external dangers and is not limited to activities involving firearms. Reestablishing militia’s true meaning and purpose—and reinvigorating independent state militias in the United States to effect that purpose—has the potential to address states’ emerging financial and security gaps and to produce multiple other significant benefits, including recalibrating federalism. …

A Winn For Originalism Puts Establishment Clause Reform Within Reach, Patrick T. Gillen

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Battle For Disclosure Tort, Jared A. Wilkerson

W&M Law Student Publications

Legal scholars guided the creation and development of privacy torts, including what would become known as the disclosure tort, for about seventy-five years (1890-1965), a period in which most states came to recognize a common law or statutory right to privacy. Since then, scholarly attempts to curb or modify the tort have yielded little. This Article-beginning with the formalism-realism debate won by Brandeis, Pound, and Prosser and ending with modern experts--shows that notwithstanding enormous efforts by contemporary legal academics, would-be reformers of the disclosure tort have not budged it since Prosser's Restatement (Second). The Article presents both a lesson and …

Speech, Intent, And The Chilling Effect, Leslie Kendrick

William & Mary Law Review

Speaker’s intent requirements are a common but unremarked feature of First Amendment law. From the “actual malice” standard for defamation to the specific-intent requirement for incitement, many types of expression are protected or unprotected depending on the state of mind with which they are said. To the extent that courts and commentators have considered why speaker’s intent should determine First Amendment protection, they have relied upon the chilling effect. On this view, imposing strict liability for harmful speech, such as defamatory statements, would overdeter, or chill, valuable speech, such as true political information. Intent requirements are necessary prophylactically to provide …

Privacy And Consent Over Time: The Role Of Agreement In Fourth Amendment Analysis, Christine Jolls

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Property's Constitution, James Y. Stern

Faculty Publications

Long-standing disagreements over the definition of property as a matter of legal theory present a special problem in constitutional law. The Due Process and Takings Clauses establish individual rights that can be asserted only if “property” is at stake. Yet the leading cases interpreting constitutional property doctrines have never managed to articulate a coherent general view of property, and in some instances have reached opposite conclusions about its meaning. Most notably, government benefits provided in the form of individual legal entitlements are considered “property” for purposes of due process but not takings doctrines, a conflict the cases acknowledge but do …

Erie's International Effect, Michael S. Green

Faculty Publications

To what extent does the Erie doctrine apply in an international context? In his article When Erie Goes International, Professor Childress argues that a federal court choosing between state law and the law of a foreign nation should often (or perhaps always) ignore Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co. and use federal choice of law rules rather than the rules of the state where the federal court is located.

In this Essay, I have three points to make in response. The first is that Childress’s article, even if successful, leaves the bulk of the Erie doctrine unchanged in …

Constitutional Remedies And Public Interest Balancing, John M. Greabe

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The conventional account of our remedial tradition recognizes that courts may engage in discretionary public interest balancing to withhold the specific remedies typically administered in equity. But it generally does not acknowledge that courts possess the same power with respect to the substitutionary remedies usually provided at law. The conventional account has things backwards when it comes to constitutional remedies. The modern Supreme Court frequently requires the withholding of substitutionary constitutional relief under doctrines developed to protect the perceived public interest. Yet it has treated specific relief to remedy ongoing or imminent invasions of rights as routine, at least when …

The Supreme Court's Theory Of Private Law, Nathan B. Oman, Jason M. Solomon

Faculty Publications

In this Article, we revisit the clash between private law and the First Amendment in the Supreme Court’s recent case, Snyder v. Phelps, using a private-law lens. We are scholars who write about private law as individual justice, a perspective that has been lost in recent years but is currently enjoying something of a revival.

Our argument is that the Supreme Court’s theory of private law has led it down a path that has distorted its doctrine in several areas, including the First Amendment–tort clash in Snyder. In areas that range from punitive damages to preemption, the Supreme Court has …

Social Science Studies And The Children Of Lesbians And Gay Men: The Rational Basis Perspective, Carlos A. Ball

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article seeks to determine whether the social science literature on the children of lesbians and gay men precludes the government from relying on child welfare considerations to justify same-sex marriage bans and parenting restrictions affecting lesbians and gay men under the highly deferential rational basis test. Under that test, courts must uphold laws and regulations that have any conceivable basis of fact which is rationally related to a legitimate state interest. After comprehensively reviewing the social science literature, the Article concludes that the empirical evidence showing the lack of an association between parental sexual orientation and the psychological and …

Lawrence's Stealth Constitutionalism And Same-Sex Marriage Litigation, Eric Berger

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Constitutional law scholarship often focuses on two taxonomies: doctrinal categories and interpretive methodologies. Consequently, constitutional scholars sometimes neglect other important facets of constitutional decisionmaking, particularly extra-doctrinal stealth determinations that courts render frequently in constitutional opinions. The U.S. Supreme Court regularly confronts the questions underlying these determinations, but despite their centrality to constitutional decisionmaking, these issues often escape careful scrutiny.

Lawrence v. Texas exemplifies the phenomenon. Lawrence framed its central question at a broad level of generality; relied on hybrid reasoning, using equal-protection rationales to support a substantive due process holding; declined to identify a level of scrutiny; and invoked changing …

To Cut Or Not To Cut?: Addressing Proposals To Ban Circumcision Under Both A Parental Rights Theory And Child-Centered Perspective In The Specific Context Of Jewish And Muslim Infants, Andrew E. Behrns

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Crossing The Final Border: Securing Equal Gender Protection In Immigration Cases, Michelle L. Sudano

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.