Digital Commons Network^™

The Williams Way: Why Roger Williams’ Philosophy Of Religious Liberty Remains Imperative Today, Michael Zigarelli

Eleutheria: John W. Rawlings School of Divinity Academic Journal

To travel the road of religious freedom, a society requires firm guardrails. To the left of the road looms the cliff of “state suppression of religion.” To the right looms the cliff of “state establishment of religion.” During the life of Roger Williams (1603?-1683), the problem in the American colonies was the latter, the inextricable entanglement of religion and civil authority. Known as “The New England Way” in Williams’ colony of Massachusetts Bay, its main tenet of governance was that social stability required religious uniformity. Williams could not disagree more, embarking on a life’s mission to proclaim that government possesses …

Deportations For Drug Convictions In The United States And The European Union: Creating A More Compassionate Approach Toward Drug Convictions In The Immigration Law, Megan Smith

San Diego International Law Journal

This Comment begins by examining and comparing the legal framework for deportation and other immigration consequences for convictions of drug offenses in the United States, the European Union, and the United Kingdom. This Comment then looks at the harsh effects of current immigration policy on individuals and marginalized communities. Finally, this Comment argues that immigration law should be reformed to adopt a more humanitarian approach toward non-citizens convicted of drug offenses. Deportation and other harsh immigration consequences for drug offenses levy disproportionately severe punishments toward vulnerable minority immigrant communities, exposing them to consequences much harsher than non-immigrants would face for …

A Guide For Our Times: Herbert Hoover's Critique Of Supreme Court Expansion, Matthew Chopp

Compass: An Undergraduate Journal of American Political Ideas

Former President Herbert Hoover’s critiques of FDR’s plan to expand the Supreme Court are useful for defending against contemporary calls to enlarge the composition of the Court, such as the Judiciary Act of 2021.

Meaningless Dna: Moore’S Inadequate Protection Of Genetic Material, Natalie Alexander

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

Moore v. Regents of the University of California represents the seminal case regarding the protection of genetic material. In this case, the California Supreme Court held that patients do not retain property rights in their excised genetic material; instead, informed consent laws serve as genetic material’s only protection. Many states have accepted the Moore court’s decision not to extend property rights to genetic material, and most states choose to protect genetic material through informed consent alone. Moore and informed consent do not adequately protect genetic material, creating unjust results in which “donors” of genetic material have little to no recourse …

Performatives In Argentine Supreme Court Dissents: A Jurilinguistic Proposal For Civilian Change Based On The American Common Law, Mariano Vitetta

Journal of Civil Law Studies

This article explores a linguistic defect in how Argentine Supreme Court dissents are written. The reader of these dissents has a hard time distinguishing between a majority opinion and a dissenting opinion, because dissents are written “as if” they were deciding the case. The confusion results from the use of performative language in dissents when adherence to reality and a plain-language approach require modal verbs reflecting the language of suggestion. This is actually the way dissents are expressed in the United States, the jurisdiction from which the Argentine Supreme Court copied its constitutional design. To make the case against the …

Making It Harder To Challenge Election Districting, Erwin Chemerinsky

Fordham Law Voting Rights and Democracy Forum

No abstract provided.

Emergency-Docket Experiments, Edward L. Pickup, Hannah L. Templin

Notre Dame Law Review Reflection

This short Essay is the first to analyze the Court’s recent emer-gency-docket experiments and discuss their effectiveness. We conclude that the Court’s interventions have real benefits: giving emergency cases greater procedure improves transparency, boosts public confidence in the Court, and gives guidance to litigants and lower courts.

But experiments are often iterative—it is unusual to hit the right result the first time. So too with the Court’s emergency-docket tinkering. In tweaking its stay factors, the Justices have failed to give suffi-cient guidance to litigants about how those factors will apply in the future. Plus, in transferring Ramirez from the emergency …

Systemic Racism In The U.S. Immigration Laws, Kevin R. Johnson

Indiana Law Journal

This Essay analyzes how aggressive activism in a California mountain town at the tail end of the nineteenth century commenced a chain reaction resulting in state and ultimately national anti-Chinese immigration laws. The constitutional immunity through which the Supreme Court upheld those laws deeply affected the future trajectory of U.S. immigration law and policy.

Responding to sustained political pressure from the West, Congress in 1882 passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, an infamous piece of unabashedly racist legislation that commenced a long process of barring immigration from all of Asia to the United States. In upholding the Act, the Supreme Court …

Managing Judicial Discretion: Qualified Immunity And Rule 12(B)(6) Motions, Zachary R. Hart

Indiana Law Journal

Qualified immunity is a judicially created doctrine that shields government officials from personal liability for civil damages. Courts applying the doctrine, which is heavily dependent on the facts of the case, must determine whether the government officials’ conduct violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known. This inquiry is discretionary as judges must determine if the alleged violation was “clearly established,” a term that the Supreme Court has defined in conflicting ways. Moreover, when federal judges conduct the qualified immunity inquiry at the Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss stage, their decision is …

Chisholm V. Georgia (1793): Laying The Foundation For Supreme Court Precedent, Abigail Stanger

The Cardinal Edge

No abstract provided.

Funding Faith: The Paycheck Protection Program's Establishment Clause Violation, Brenna Jean O'Connor

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

In the early months of 2020, COVID-19 had a swift and profound impact on public health, the economy, state and local governments, and businesses across the United States. In response, on March 27, 2020, the United States Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”) to protect the American people from the worsening public health crisis and mitigate the resulting economic downturn. Additionally, within the CARES Act, Congress established the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”), which expanded the Small Business Administration’s (“SBA”) authority to guarantee forgivable loans to eligible small businesses. Among other prerequisites, the PPP …

The Suspension Clause After Department Of Homeland Security V. Thuraissigiam, Jonathan Hafetz

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

In June 2020, in Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, the Supreme Court of the United States rejected a constitutional challenge to Congress’s decision to eliminate habeas corpus jurisdiction over legal challenges to expedited removal orders by noncitizens in federal detention.

In Thuraissigiam, U.S. border patrol stopped the petitioner, Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam, a Sri Lankan national of Tamil ethnicity, shortly after he crossed the U.S.-Mexico border without inspection or an entry document. The petitioner asserted that he was fleeing persecution in his home country and sought asylum in the United States. The asylum officer concluded that Thuraissigiam had …

The Pledge Of Allegiance And Compelled Speech Revisited: Requiring Parental Consent, Caroline Mala Corbin

Indiana Law Journal

Since the Supreme Court decided West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette in 1943, free speech law has been clear: public schools may not force students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Nevertheless, in two states—Texas and Florida— students may decline to participate only with parental permission. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law on the grounds that the parental requirement furthered parents’ substantive due process right to control the upbringing of their children.

The Eleventh Circuit decision is flawed both in its understanding of the First Amendment right to be free of compelled speech and the …

Ministerial Employees And Discrimination Without Remedy, Charlotte Garden

Indiana Law Journal

The Supreme Court first addressed the ministerial exemption in a 2012 case, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC. The ministerial exemption is a defense that religious employers can invoke in discrimination cases brought by employees who qualify as “ministerial,” and it is rooted in the First Amendment principle that government cannot interfere in a church’s choice of minister. However, Hosanna-Tabor did not set out a test to determine which employees are covered by this exemption, and the decision was susceptible to a reading that the category was narrow. In 2020, the Court again took up the ministerial exemption, …

Compelled Speech And The Regulatory State, Alan K. Chen

Indiana Law Journal

Since the Supreme Court’s 1943 decision in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, it has been axiomatic that the First Amendment prohibits the government not only from censoring speech, but also from compelling it. The central holding of Barnette itself is largely uncontroversial—it seems obvious that the First Amendment’s free speech clause means that no government may require people to espouse or reproduce an ideological statement against their will. But the Court has extended the compelled speech doctrine to stop the government from forcing people to make even truthful, factual statements. These claims have resulted in some of the …

Compelled Speech And Doctrinal Fluidity, David Han

Indiana Law Journal

Even within the messy and complicated confines of First Amendment jurisprudence, compelled speech doctrine stands out in its complexity and conceptual murkiness— a state of affairs that has only been exacerbated by the Supreme Court’s decisions in NIFLA v. Becerra and Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees. This Essay observes that as the Court’s compelled speech jurisprudence has grown increasingly complex, it has also manifested a troubling degree of fluidity, where the doctrinal framework has grown so incoherent, imprecise, and unstable that it can be readily shaped by courts to plausibly justify a wide range of …

Compelled Disclosure And The Workplace Rights It Enables, Catherine Fisk

Indiana Law Journal

Worker and consumer protection laws often rely on the regulated entity to notify workers or consumers of their legal rights because it is effective and efficient to provide information at the time and place where it is most likely to be useful. Until the Supreme Court ruled in NIFLA v. Becerra in 2018 that a California law regulating crisis pregnancy centers was an unconstitutional speaker-based, contentdiscriminatory regulation of speech, mandatory disclosure laws were constitutionally uncontroversial economic regulation. Yet, the day after striking down a disclosure law in NIFLA, the Court in Janus v. AFSCME Council 31 expanded the right of …

Federal Judicial Power And Federal Equity Without Federal Equity Powers, John Harrison

Notre Dame Law Review

This Article discusses the ways in which the federal courts do and do not have equity powers. Article III courts have the judicial power, which enables them to apply the law, primary and remedial. Applicable remedial law often includes the law of equitable remedies, so the federal courts have the power and obligation to give remedies pursuant to equitable principles. The law of equitable remedies, written and unwritten, is external to the courts, not created by them, the same way written law is external to the courts. Because the unwritten law of equitable remedies is found largely in judicial practice, …

A Responsive Remedy For Unconstitutional Removal Restrictions, William C. Eisenhauer

Notre Dame Law Review

The Supreme Court has inconsistently approached the remedies in unlawful removal restriction cases. This inconsistency fails to redress plaintiffs injured by unlawful executive power, blurs the separation of powers, and discourages other constitutional actors from considering their actions’ implications.3 This Note proposes a straight-forward solution to those problems.

It begins in Part I by laying out the mechanics of appointment and removal, with special attention to the constitutional and precedential intricacies of the removal power. Part II introduces the remedial problem by describing the Supreme Court’s two most recent removal cases and identifying the problematic inconsistencies. Part III dis-cusses in …

The Demise Of The Bivens Remedy Is Rendering Enforcement Of Federal Constitutional Rights Inequitable But Congress Can Fix It, Henry Rose

Northern Illinois University Law Review

A federal statute allows a person whose federal constitutional rights are violated by state actors to sue for damages. There is no analogous federal statute that allows a person whose constitutional rights are violated by federal actors to sue for damages. In 1971, the United States Supreme Court allowed a suit for damages against federal law enforcement officials who allegedly violated Fourth Amendment rights to proceed directly under the Constitution, creating the Bivens remedy. Beginning in 1983, the Supreme Court reversed course and issued ten consecutive decisions in which it denied a Bivens remedy because no federal statute authorizes suits …

Calling Balls And Strikes? Chief Justice Roberts In October Term 2019, Meghan Dalton

Notre Dame Law Review

Part I of this Note will outline the scope of the assignment power, focusing on the strategic considerations a Chief Justice can make in assigning opinions. Part II will analyze Roberts’s voting and assignment patterns in October Term 2019, specifically applying the earlier discussions to his assignment choices in three key cases decided this term. Part III will focus on Chief Justice Roberts’s jurisprudential values and explore how these concerns might have informed his decision making in October Term 2019. Finally, this Note concludes by asking to what extent Roberts’s recent assignment choices are consistent with his signature promise to …

Dissenter On The Bench: Ruth Bader Ginsburg’S Life & Work, Danielle Dallas

Children's Book and Media Review

The second woman on the United States Supreme Court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg has led an incredible life of discipline and commitment to fairness and equality. Born in 1933 in Brooklyn, NY, Ruth’s love of learning and opera was influenced by her mother. Evidenced by her early school and church essays Ruth was a deep, critical thinker who experienced discrimination as a Jew and as a female. After her studies at Cornell and her legal training at Harvard and Columbia law schools, she was not offered positions or even invited to interview at law firms, despite graduating at the top of …

Preview—Oklahoma V. Castro-Huerta: A Test Of State And Tribal Sovereignty, Genevieve Antonioli Schmit

Public Land & Resources Law Review

Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta challenges the reach of the United States Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in McGirt v. Oklahoma and tests the settled criminal jurisdiction scheme within Indian Country. On April 27, 2022, beginning at 10:00 a.m. EST., the U.S. Supreme Court will hear argument on the sole question of whether a state court has concurrent jurisdiction with a federal court to prosecute non-Indians who commit crimes against Indians in Indian country. The State of Oklahoma (“Petitioner”) argues that it has concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute such crimes. Castro-Huerta (“Respondent”) argues that the Court should adopt the current understanding that the …

Administrative Investigations, Aram A. Gavoor, Steven A. Platt

Indiana Law Journal

This Article establishes the subject of federal administrative investigations as a new area of study in administrative law. While the literature has addressed investigations by specific agencies and congressional investigations, there is no general account for the trans-substantive constitutional value of administrative investigations. This Article provides such an account by exploring the positive law, agency behaviors, and constraints pertaining to this unresearched field. It concludes with some urgency that the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946—the statute that stands as a bill of rights for the Administrative State—does not serve to regulate administrative investigations and that Article III courts have held …

The Shadow Docket: What Is Happening And What Should Be Done, Collin Mitchell

Brigham Young University Prelaw Review

In light of recent emergency decisions made by the Court ranging from issues addressing the COVID-19 pandemic, religious freedom, abortion rights, and polarized redistricting plans, the Supreme Courts use of the shadow docket has come under renewed scrutiny. This paper argues that the Court's use of the shadow docket, while permissible in the past, is threatening the legitimacy of the Supreme Court and unduly burdening the American Judicial System at large. Due to these effects, this paper advocates to reduce the Supreme Court's use of the shadow docket through the creation of a new specialized court system to handle emergency …

Outside Tinker’S Reach: An Examination Of Mahanoy Area School District V. B. L. And Its Implications, Michelle Hunt

Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy

In the 1969 landmark case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, the Supreme Court reassured students that they do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” Ever since then, the exact scope of students’ free speech rights has been unclear, but the high court has used Tinker’s substantial disruption test to clarify its scope in successive legal challenges. In 2017, B. L., a Mahanoy Area School District student, was suspended from her cheerleading team after using vulgar language off-campus that made its way back to her coaches. She …

How In The World Could They Reach That Conclusion?, Hon. Carlton Reeves

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

No abstract provided.

The Neuroscience Of Qualified Immunity, Gary S. Gildin

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

Qualified immunity not only absolves public officials from accountability for the damages caused when they deprive a citizen of their constitutional rights; by virtue of companion doctrines shielding governmental entities from liability, conferral of immunity leaves the victim to bear the loss. Therefore, it is essential that the contours of immunity be carefully calibrated to align with its intended purposes.

The United States Supreme Court has continuously expanded immunity to protect the exercise of discretion where, albeit acting in violation of constitutional norms, the official could have reasonably believed their conduct was constitutional. This Article exposes the implicit assumptions as …

Aggregate Stare Decisis, Kiel Brennan-Marquez

Indiana Law Journal

The fate of stare decisis hangs in the wind. Different factions of the Supreme Court are now engaged in open debate—echoing decades of scholarship—about the doctrine’s role in our constitutional system. Broadly speaking, two camps have emerged. The first embraces the orthodox view that stare decisis should reflect “neutral principles” that run orthogonal to a case’s merits; otherwise, it will be incapable of keeping the law stable over time. The second argues that insulating stare decisis from the underlying merits has always been a conceptual mistake. Instead, the doctrine should focus more explicitly on the merits—by diagnosing the magnitude of …

The Aoc In The Age Of Covid—Pandemic Preparedness Planning In The Federal Courts, Zoe Niesel

St. Mary's Law Journal

The 2020 COVID-19 pandemic created a crisis for American society—and the federal courts were not exempt. Court facilities came to a grinding halt, cases were postponed, and judiciary employees adopted work-from-home practices. Having court operations impacted by a pandemic was not a new phenomenon, but the size, scope, and technological lift of the COVID-19 pandemic was certainly unique.

Against this background, this Article examines the history and future of pandemic preparedness planning in the federal court system and seeks to capture some of the lessons learned from initial federal court transitions to pandemic operations in 2020. The Article begins by …