Law Commons^™

Freedom Of Expression And Location: Are There Constitutional Dead Zones?, Brian Slattery

Brian Slattery

Do reporters have the right to conduct interviews in courthouse hallways? May political activists hand out leaflets in shopping centres? Are journalists entitled to attend disciplinary hearings in the chambers of the law society? Do advertisers have the right to place ads on public buses? These questions have one thing in common: they all concern the exercise of freedom of expression in certain locations — courthouses, shopping centres, private offices, buses. But do all locations without exception benefit from the guarantee of freedom of expression in section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or do some fall …

What Kind Of Judge Is Supreme Court Nominee Merrick Garland?, Caren Morrison

Caren Myers Morrison

No abstract provided.

Inaction On The Second Amendment, Lynne H. Rambo

Lynne H. Rambo

No abstract provided.

Ksr V. Teleflex: How “Obviousness” Has Changed, Daniel Becker

Daniel P. Becker

In KSR v. Teleflex, the Supreme Court examined the Federal Circuit's obviousness jurisprudence for patents. Both prior to and in this case, the Federal Circuit rigidly applied its judicially created "teaching, suggestion, or motivation" (TSM) test to determine whether the prior art would direct an inventor of ordinary skill in the art to combine references or elements in references in the same way as the patentee did. The Supreme Court, however, reversed the decision of the Federal Circuit, and held that by applying the TSM test in such a strict manner, the Federal Circuit had "analyzed the issue in a …

Insights From Canada For American Constitutional Federalism, Stephen Ross

Stephen F Ross

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 132 S. Ct. 2566 (2012), has again focused widespread public attention on the Court as an arbiter of the balance of power between the federal government and the states. The topic of the proper role a nation's highest court in this respect has been important and controversial throughout not only American, but also Canadian history, raising questions of constitutional theory for a federalist republic: What justifies unelected judges interfering with the ordinary political process with regard to federalism questions? Can courts create judicially manageable doctrines to police …

Charter Insights For American Equality Jurisprudence, Stephen Ross

Stephen F Ross

Although both the Canadian Charter and the United States Constitutions protect persons from denial of equal protection of the law, the interpretation of the broad language of the two equality guarantees has been quite different. The Supreme Court of Canada has adopted an approach of substantive equality, concluding that section 15 is designed to prevent the loss of human dignity that accompanies discrimination based on disadvantage and stereotype. At least with regard to race, a majority of the justices on the United States Supreme Court adhere to a jurisprudence of formal equality, concluding that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit …

Supervisory Liability In Section 1983 Cases, Kit Kinports

Kit Kinports

The topic of this presentation is supervisory liability in Section 1983 cases. Assume for present purposes that a plaintiff's constitutional rights have been violated - that some state official has acted in violation of the Constitution. The question to be addressed here is whether that state official's supervisors can be held liable for damages stemming from the constitutional violation.

The Buck Does Not Stop Here: Supervisory Liability In Section 1983 Cases, Kit Kinports

Kit Kinports

The appropriate standard for supervisory liability in Section 1983 cases has been a source of considerable disagreement among federal courts of appeals. In the absence of established Supreme Court authority on the subject, courts have rejected vicarious and negligence liability in favor of a higher culpability requirement, but they have not agreed on precisely what form this higher standard should take. In this article, the Author addresses the need for a uniform standard consistent with the statute's twin goals of compensating the victims of constitutional violations and deterring constitutional infractions.

The author notes at the outset that lower courts have …

Qualified Immunity In Section 1983 Cases: The Unanswered Questions, Kit Kinports

Kit Kinports

Part I of this Article describes the general policies underlying qualified immunity and the Court's decisions defining the scope of the defense. Part II then addresses two answered questions concerning Harlow v. Fitzgerald's impact on the substantive content of the qualified immunity defense: Is immunity available to the defendant who actually knows that her conduct is infringing the plaintiff's constitutional rights, even if the law governing those rights is not yet clearly established? And should a court take into account the nature of the defendant's governmental responsibilities and other circumstances surrounding her conduct in determining whether the right she violated …

Justice Blackmun's Mark On Criminal Law And Procedure, Kit Kinports

Kit Kinports

When Justice Blackmun was nominated to the Court in 1970, Americans were consumed with the idea of crime control. In the 1968 presidential campaign, Richard Nixon had called the Supreme Court "soft on crime" and had promised to "put 'law and order' judges on the Court." While sitting on the Eighth Circuit, the Justice had "seldom struck down searches, seizures, arrests or confessions," and most of his opinions in criminal cases had "affirmed guilty verdicts and sentences." Thus, according to one commentator, Justice Blackmun seemed to be "exactly what Nixon was looking for: a judge who believed in judicial restraint, …

Iqbal And Supervisory Immunity, Kit Kinports

Kit Kinports

Prior to the Supreme Court’s 2009 decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, the federal courts generally acknowledged that high-ranking government officials could be held liable for the constitutional injuries inflicted by their subordinates, though they differed on the appropriate standard of supervisory liability. In Iqbal, the Supreme Court called this case law into question, holding that constitutional tort liability hinges on proof that each defendant, “through the official’s own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.” The Court’s cursory treatment of this issue, without the benefit of briefing or oral argument, was based entirely on the misguided assumption that the doctrine of …

Habeas Corpus, Qualified Immunity, And Crystal Balls: Predicting The Course Of Constitutional Law, Kit Kinports

Kit Kinports

After describing the basic legal and policy issues surrounding the qualified immunity defense and the use of novelty to explain procedural defaults in habeas cases, Part I of this article advocates a standard for both types of cases that asks whether a person exercising reasonable diligence in the same circumstances would have been aware of the relevant constitutional principles. With this standard in mind, Part II examines the qualified immunity defense in detail, concluding that in many cases public officials are given immunity even though they unreasonably failed to recognize the constitutional implications of their conduct. Part III compares the …

Implied Wavier After Seminole Tribe, Kit Kinports

Kit Kinports

Part I of this Article briefly traces the history of the Supreme Court's Eleventh Amendment jurisprudence, focusing in particular on the opinions developing the doctrines of implied waiver and abrogation. Part II makes the case that the doctrine of implied waiver retains validity after Seminole Tribe, at least with respect to federal statutes passed pursuant to the Spending Clause that condition the receipt of federal funds on the states' waiver of the Eleventh Amendment and statutes passed under Congress's other Article I powers that regulate an activity voluntarily undertaken by the states. Finally, Part III considers other potential constitutional …