Law Commons^™

Dodging A Bullet: Mcdonald V. City Of Chicago And The Limits Of Progressive Originalism, Dale E. Ho

Dale E Ho

The Supreme Court’s decision in last term’s gun rights case, McDonald v. City of Chicago, punctured the conventional wisdom after District of Columbia v. Heller that “we are all originalists now.” Surprisingly, many progressive academics were disappointed. For “progressive originalists,” McDonald was a missed opportunity to overrule the Slaughter-House Cases and to revitalize the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In their view, such a ruling could have realigned progressive constitutional achievements with originalism and relieved progressives of the albatross of substantive due process, while also unlocking long-dormant constitutional text to serve as the source of new unenumerated …

From Immutable To Existential: Protecting Who We Are And Who We Want To Be With The 'Equalerty' Of The Substantive Due Process Clause, Aaron J. Shuler

Aaron J Shuler

Abstract Scholars have written about the duality of the substantive due process and equal protection doctrines and described how they have worked in tandem, although many academics have focused on, or outright called for, a preference for the use of the equal protection clause. Another contingent of the academic community, however, has discussed the favored use of substantive due process in the last fifty years in providing equal treatment for all groups by ferreting out discrimination against marginalized minorities. Scholars have also separately alluded to substantive due process’ ability to protect the most existential of liberties. This works seeks to …

Sorry Ma'am, Your Baby Is An Alien: Outdated Immigration Rules And Assisted Reproductive Technology, Scott Titshaw

Scott Titshaw

The growing use of assisted reproductive technology (ART) and legal recognition of same-sex relationships are raising questions regarding the recognition of parent-child relationships. State and foreign family law have been wrestling with these issues for decades, but U.S. immigration law is lagging far behind. So far, guidance exists on only one ART related issue under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA): whether a U.S. citizen transmits her citizenship to a child born abroad. Unfortunately, that guidance is contradictory. The U.S. Department of State (DOS) requires genetic kinship for citizenship transmission. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals focuses on the parents’ …

'Freedom Of Contract' In Halachic Family Law? – A Comparison Of The Babylonian Talmud And The Palestinian Talmud, Yehezkel Margalit

Hezi Margalit

Recently we are witness to a growing interest in nuptial agreements, both in Jewish and civil law. In civil law it is customary to trace the “meta-story” of the development of civil family law from sacrament to status and from status to contract. Indeed, during the last fifty years we have seen how nuptial agreements developed to regulate different aspects of marriage in civil law, both in Israel and in the rest of the world. During the last twenty-five years an interest has also emerged in halakhic perspectives on “freedom of contract,” which is available for couples who wish to …

Pearson, Iqbal, And Procedural Judicial Activism, Goutam U. Jois

Goutam U Jois

In its most recent term, the Supreme Court decided Pearson v. Callahan and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, two cases that, even at this early date, can safely be called “game-changers.” What is fairly well known is that Iqbal and Pearson, on their own terms, will hurt civil rights plaintiffs. A point that has not been explored is how the interaction between Iqbal and Pearson will also hurt civil rights plaintiffs. First, the cases threaten to catch plaintiffs on the horns of a dilemma: Iqbal says, in effect, that greater detail is required to get allegations past the motion to dismiss stage. …

The Right To Arms In The Living Constitution, David B. Kopel

David B Kopel

This Article presents a brief history of the Second Amendment as part of the living Constitution. From the Early Republic through the present, the American public has always understood the Second Amendment as guaranteeing a right to own firearms for self-defense. That view has been in accordance with élite legal opinion, except for a period in part of the twentieth century.

"Living constitutionalism" should be distinguished from "dead constitutionalism." Under the former, courts looks to objective referents of shared public understanding of constitutional values. Examples of objective referents include state constitutions, as well as federal or state laws to protect …

Clear As Mud: How The Uncertain Precedential Status Of Unpublished Opinions Muddles Qualified Immunity Determinations, David R. Cleveland

David R. Cleveland

While unpublished opinions are now freely citeable under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1, their precedential value remains uncertain. This ambiguity muddles the already unclear law surrounding qualified immunity and denies courts valuable precedents for making fair and consistent judgments on these critical civil rights issues. When faced with a claim that they have violated a person’s civil rights, government officials typically claim qualified immunity. The test is whether they have violated “clearly established law.” Unfortunately, the federal circuits differ on whether unpublished opinions may be used in determining clearly established law. This article, Clear as Mud: How the Uncertain …