Digital Commons Network^™

Symposium: Gender, Health & The Constitution: On The Constitutional Requirement For Adequate Prenatal Care Post-Dobbs, Ainslee Johnson-Brown

ConLawNOW

This Essay argues that state abortion statutes codifying government interests in the health and welfare of the unborn trigger a constitutional right to prenatal care where adequate medical care is constitutionally required in the penal system. It explores the healthcare mandates required by the U.S. Constitution in the era before the passage of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs, specifically looking at abortion access and prenatal provisions in the penological system. It then dissects abortion-related legislation passed by various states in the wake of Dobbs—emphasizing language within the legislative findings that could trigger a constitutional obligation for prenatal …

Symposium: Pandemics And The Constitution: Calling Their Own Shots: Governors' Emergency Declarations During The Covid-19 Pandemic, Maggie Davis, Christine Gentry, Trudy Henson

ConLawNOW

This paper outlines governors’ powers to combat public health emergencies, and then analyzes specific measures taken by the states in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. State powers to quarantine, isolate, and take other measures to protect the public health and welfare are well-established, going back to the police power reserved for states in the Tenth Amendment and recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court over one hundred years ago. Additionally, most state constitutions and statutes specifically grant governors authority to take a variety of protective measures during emergencies. While large-scale quarantine and isolation orders have not been previously implemented in the …

Symposium: Pandemics And The Constitution: Federalism And Contagion: Reevaluating The Role Of The Cdc, Kyle J. Connors

ConLawNOW

The United States Government’s response to the coronavirus outbreak raises difficult questions of federalism. This essay argues for greater federal leadership and involvement to mount the most effective response to a pandemic. As history shows, a response led by local governments is vulnerable to collective action problems and political impediments. An improved response structure in a contagious disease event would include more federal leadership and policy dictated by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), to be then effectuated by state and local governments. This power can be exercised either formally, through federal grants, or informally through the influence of public …

Symposium: Pandemics And The Constitution: Pandemic Surveillance - The New Predictive Policing, Michael Gentithes, Harold J. Krent

ConLawNOW

As the fight against the coronavirus pandemic continues, state governments are considering more invasive surveillance to determine who has been exposed to the virus and who is most likely to catch the virus in the future. Widespread efforts to test temperatures have been initiated; calls for contact tracing have increased; and plans have been revealed to allow only those testing positive for the virus’s antibodies (who presumably now are immune) to return to work and travel. Such fundamental liberties may now hinge on the mere probabilities that one may catch the disease or be immune from it.

To assess the …

Symposium: Pandemics And The Constitution: Tiered Scrutiny In A Pandemic, Jeffrey D. Jackson

ConLawNOW

During this spring of COVID-19, Americans are facing numerous state and local government-imposed restrictions that would have seemed implausible a few short months ago. While many of these restrictions seem to be unquestionably warranted, there have been others that have the potential to negatively impact fundamental rights. From abortion restrictions to gun control, these actions threaten liberty in the name of police powers. During this time of crisis, there is a need for courts to be especially vigilant. Throughout the nation’s history, the concept of emergency power has been used to justify restrictions on the rights of Americans, with tragic …

Symposium: Pandemics And The Constitution: Positive Constitutionalism In A Pandemic: Demanding Responsibility From The Trump Administration, Ruthann Robson

ConLawNOW

We have become accustomed to conceiving of our constitutional rights as affording protection only against government infringement, but not as granting us any positive rights to claim government protection or action. The circumstances surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic should make us question this reflexive resort to negative constitutionalism. The numerous failures of the present federal Administration to ameliorate and address the pandemic are startling. Even under current doctrinal limits of negative rights, the Administration’s failures should give rise to individual constitutional claims. Most importantly, we should reorient our constitutional frameworks, theories, and doctrines toward recognition of positive rights to health and …

Symposium: Pandemics And The Constitution: Why The Special Needs Doctrine Is The Most Appropriate Fourth Amendment Theory For Justifying Police Stops To Enforce Covid-19 Stay-At-Home Orders, Henry F. Fradella

ConLawNOW

Despite the fact that the steps the federal and state governments take to curtail the spread of the viral infection are presumably taken in the best interest of public health, governmental actions and actors must comply with the U.S. Constitution even during a pandemic. Some public health measures, such as stay-at-home orders, restrict the exercise of personal freedoms ranging from the rights to travel and freely associate to the ability to gather in places of worship for religious services. This Essay explores several completing doctrines that might justify the authority of law enforcement to stop people who are out of …

Symposium: Erie At Eighty: Choice Of Law Across The Disciplines: Erie As A Way Of Life, Ernest A. Young

ConLawNOW

This essay—presented as the keynote address to the University of Akron School of Law’s conference on “Erie at 80”—considers the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins on the broader landscape of American law. I begin with Erie’s contribution to our modern, positivist understanding of the nature of law. That understanding, however, is under threat from pervasive tendencies, on both the political Left and Right, to collapse the distinction between law as a set of positivist choices adopted by government and law as the principles that we think are just, right, and true. …

Symposium: 50 Years With The 25th Amendment: The Twenty-Fifth Amendment: Its Crafting And Drafting Process, John D. Feerick

ConLawNOW

The Twenty-fifth Amendment’s development occurred over a period of ten years, from 1955 to 1965. This historic effort addressed questions raised but not answered at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 as to what constitutes “presidential inability” and who is authorized to determine its existence. This article is a response to the enormous interest in the amendment that has emerged between 2017 and 2019. Many accounts of what the amendment provided for and what was intended by its language appeared in the media and writings during this period. The article takes the reader through the step by step development of the …

Suppression Of Free Tweets: How Packingham Impacts The New Era Of Government Social Media And The First Amendment, Elise Berry

ConLawNOW

As social media popularity grows, so too does the constitutional conflicts between the First Amendment’s public forum doctrine and a public official’s social media. More and more claims of viewpoint discrimination are arising from the district courts, stemming from a public official’s use of his or her social media to delete comments or ban users from their official social media pages. Similarly, President Donald Trump’s use of his Twitter has also instigated a law suit against him for viewpoint discrimination under the public forum doctrine. While the Supreme Court has been silent on the issue, its decision in Packingham v. …

Remedies Symposium: Contempt Fines And The Eleventh Amendment, John Sanchez

ConLawNOW

The Eleventh Amendment permits plaintiffs to recover prospective relief, for example, injunctive or declaratory relief, against a state. By contrast, the Eleventh Amendment bars recovery of retrospective relief against a state. The classic legal remedy of money damages is not recoverable. There are three types of contempts: civil compensatory and coercive contempt and criminal contempt. Civil compensatory contempt fines and criminal contempt fines are clearly retrospective in nature and so are not recoverable against a state. At the same time, civil coercive contempt fines are prospective and so should be recoverable against a state despite the Eleventh Amendment. Problems arise, …

Surprising Originalism: The Regula Lecture, Lawrence B. Solum

ConLawNOW

This article takes the reader on a guided tour of contemporary originalist constitutional theory. Most Americans believe that they already know everything they need to know about constitutional originalism. But in many cases, they are mistaken. Contemporary originalists do not believe that we should ask, "What would James Madison do?" Instead, the mainstream of contemporary originalism aims to recover the original public meaning of the constitutional text. Conservatives and libertarians are sure that originalism is a necessary corrective to the liberal excesses of the Warren Court. Progressives have an almost unshakeable belief that originalism is a right-wing ideology that seeks …

The Icing On The Cake: How Background Factors Affect Law Faculty Predictions In Masterpiece Cakeshop, Michael Conklin

ConLawNOW

In this research, I explore law school faculty perceptions and predictions of the highly publicized Masterpiece Cakeshop case. I created a survey to assess how law faculty members’ prediction of the case may be affected by their area of instruction, background in business, religious involvement, political affiliation, same-sex union celebration participation, exposure to the case, and personal desired outcome for the case. I contacted over 800 law school faculty members, inviting them to participate in the research. The ninety-three completed responses provide insight into how law school faculty demographics may be indicators of their Supreme Court case predictions. Furthermore, different …

Remedies Symposium: Statutory Damages And Standing After Spokeo V. Robins, Richard L. Heppner Jr.

ConLawNOW

In Spokeo v. Robins, the U.S. Supreme Court held that courts may no longer infer the existence of an injury in fact—and thus constitutional standing—from a statute’s use of a particular remedy, such as a statutory or liquidated damages provision. But Spokeo also directed courts to consider whether Congress intended to identify an intangible harm and elevate it to the status of a “concrete” injury in fact when deciding standing questions. This article argues that courts can and should continue to pay close attention to the structure and language of statutory remedial provisions in making that assessment. The article proposes …

When Constitutional Rights Clash: Masterpiece Cakeshop's Potential Legacy, Ken Hyle

ConLawNOW

The narrow question presented to the U.S. Supreme Court in Masterpiece Cakeshop is undoubtedly one of great national importance. The decision will likely yield a framework for courts to resolve conflicts that specifically involve religious freedom, artistic expression, and anti-discrimination laws in the context of public accommodations. However, my essay suggests that Masterpiece Cakeshop is an appropriate vehicle for the Court to expound upon a broader, more fundamental constitutional issue: what is the optimal framework for resolving direct conflicts between constitutional rights? The essay begins by exploring the inherent flaw in a framework grounded in the traditional levels of judicial …

Remedies Symposium: Reexamining Bivens After Ziglar V. Abbasi, Bernard W. Bell

ConLawNOW

In Ziglar v. Abbasi, the U.S. Supreme Court revisited Bivens doctrine, suggesting that courts recognize constitutional tort actions only in cases closely analogous to one of the cases comprising the 1970s/1980s era Bivens trilogy, namely Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, Davis v. Passman, and Carlson v. Green. In doing so the Court set forth several factors that might make a case distinguishable from those 1970s/1980s cases. This essay argues that the key to Ziglar v. Abbasi is not the analogical exercise the Court imposed, but the Court’s concern that Bivens actions could become a mechanism for …

Remedies Symposium: Remedies And The Government's Constitutionally Harmful Speech, Helen Norton

ConLawNOW

Although governments have engaged in expression from their inception, only recently have we begun to consider the ways in which the government’s speech sometimes threatens our constitutional rights. In my contribution to this symposium, I seek to show that although the search for constitutional remedies for the government’s harmful expression is challenging, it is far from futile. This search is also increasingly important at a time when the government’s expressive powers continue to grow—along with its willingness to use these powers for disturbing purposes and with troubling consequences.

More specifically, in certain circumstances, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, or damages can …

Restoring Nobility To The Constitution: A Modern Approach To A Founding Principle, Marc A. Greendorfer

ConLawNOW

It is common lore in the United States that our federal government was structured with a number of checks and balances that ensure, at a minimum, the equal application of law among all citizens. While there are indeed such structural mechanisms embedded in the Constitution, they don’t always work as intended and, in fact, at times they fail utterly to prevent blatant abuses of the rule of law by the vast and growing political class in America. Our political office holders (and their favored constituents) can, and do, pick and choose which laws apply to them and, more importantly, which …

Prayer And The Meaning Of The Establishment Clause: A Debate On Town Of Greece V. Galloway, Patrick M. Garry

ConLawNOW

Greece v. Galloway involved the constitutionality of the town of Greece’s practice of opening its monthly town board meetings with an invocation given by a volunteer chaplain of the month. The issue in Greece was not the appropriateness, sensitivity, or wisdom of the prayers, nor whether some people are offended by the prayers.

The Establishment Clause is not about feelings, just as the Speech Clause is not about the feelings of people who disagree with or are offended by other people’s speech. The Establishment Clause is not an individual rights clause; it is a clause focused on the institutional liberty …

Who Amended The Amendment?, John Olsson

ConLawNOW

The purpose and intent of the Sixth Amendment of the US Constitution has been repeatedly distorted by textualist misinterpretation, orchestrated by elements of the judiciary more concerned with preserving the power of government than the rights of individual defendants. As a result, it is hard to know what the Amendment stands for, since it has been successively re‑interpreted and, effectively, amended for at least the past 80 years and possibly longer. The author argues that it is time for courts to return to the spirit of the laws that actuated the Bill of Rights over two hundred years ago, and …

The Founders On: "Does The Constitution Work?", Craig A. Stern

ConLawNOW

Whether the Constitution works depends upon the purpose of its working. Discerning that purpose, however, has resisted consensus. Consequently, this article suggests a roundabout way to supply at least a tentative answer to the question whether the Constitution works. The Founders believed that the Constitution, like any republican form of government, would work only for a moral and religious people. They framed and adopted the Constitution in that belief. John Adams warned that without morality and religion, the passions of the people “would break the strongest cords of our Constitution.” A glance at how some cords have fared with a …