Law Commons^™

Reclaiming Personal Privacy Rights Through The Freedom Of Intimate Association, Nancy C. Marcus

Faculty Scholarship

The United States has entered a new constitutional era where substantive due process, under attack by the Supreme Court itself, can no longer be viewed as a solid foundation for the securing of personal privacy rights. In a post-Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization world, the right to personal privacy, long understood to be protected under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments’ Due Process Clauses, is in need of a new doctrinal home. The evisceration of modern substantive due process in the context of abortion rights implicates and endangers LGBTQ+ rights and other personal privacy rights as well. As such, …

The Dignitary Confrontation Clause, Erin L. Sheley

Faculty Scholarship

For seventeen years, the Supreme Court’s Confrontation Clause jurisprudence has been confused and confusing. In Crawford v. Washington (2004), the Court overruled prior precedent and held that “testimonial” out-of-court statements could not be admitted at trial unless the defendant had an opportunity to cross-examine the declarant, even when the statement would be otherwise admissible as particularly reliable under an exception to the rule against hearsay. In a series of contradictory opinions over the next several years, the Court proceeded to expand and then seemingly roll back this holding, leading to widespread chaos in common types of cases, particularly those involving …

Yes, Alito, There Is A Right To Privacy: Why The Leaked Dobbs Opinion Is Doctrinally Unsound, Nancy C. Marcus

Faculty Scholarship

On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court released the final Dobbs majority opinion, which is substantially identical to the draft opinion. Consequently, the critique contained in this essay applies equally to the final Dobbs opinion.

On May 2, 2022, a draft majority opinion dated February 2022 and authored by Justice Alito in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization was leaked to the public. This Essay addresses the doctrinal infirmities of the underlying analysis of the draft Dobbs opinion, as well as the resulting dangers posed for the protection of fundamental privacy rights and liberties in contexts even beyond abortion.

The …

The Problem With Dobbs And The Rule Of Legality, William J. Aceves

Faculty Scholarship

In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Supreme Court reversed decades of precedent to overrule Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. In anticipation of the Court’s decision, several states adopted “trigger laws” restricting abortion. These laws were explicitly drafted to take effect if Roe and Casey were overturned. These laws joined pre-Roe “zombie laws” that restricted abortion and were never rescinded by state legislatures despite Roe and its progeny. Collectively, trigger laws and zombie laws are now being used in several states to impose restrictions on reproductive autonomy.

This Essay challenges the validity of these …

American Punishment And Pandemic, Danielle C. Jefferis

Faculty Scholarship

Many of the sites of the worst outbreaks of the disease caused by the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) are America’s prisons and jails. As of March 2021, the virus has infected hundreds of thousands of incarcerated people and well over two thousand have died as a result contracting the disease caused by the virus. Prisons and jails have been on perpetual lockdowns since the onset of the pandemic, with family visits suspended and some facilities resorting to solitary confinement to mitigate the virus’s spread, thereby exacerbating the punitiveness and harmfulness of incarceration. With the majority of the 2.3 million people incarcerated …

Scotus In The Strait Of Messina: Steering The Course Between Private Rights And Public Powers, Donald J. Smythe

Faculty Scholarship

The greatest challenge for any civilized society is to find the appropriate balance of rights and responsibilities between the individual and society. In the United States, the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of the line between individual rights and governmental powers. The prerogatives and protections for private property rights help to define that line. The Supreme Court has developed two distinct bodies of constitutional jurisprudence bearing on the protections for private property, one under the doctrine of substantive due process and the other under the Takings Clause. But the appropriate balance has been difficult to achieve, and the Supreme …

Amending A Racist Constitution, William J. Aceves

Faculty Scholarship

Ours is a racist Constitution. Despite its soaring language, it was founded on slavery and a commitment to racial inequality. This vision is etched in the constitutional text, from the notorious Three-Fifths Clause to the equally repugnant Fugitive Slave Clause. And despite the Civil War and the Reconstruction Amendments, the Constitution retains these vestiges of slavery in its fabric. After 230 years, it is time to remove these troubling provisions from the Constitution. This Essay offers a radical departure from prior constitutional practice. Instead of appending yet another amendment that would simply require readers to ignore the offending language, this …

Hernandez, Bivens, And The Supreme Court's Expanding Theory Of Judicial Abdication, William J. Aceves

Faculty Scholarship

Sergio Adrián Hernández Güereca, a fifteen-year-old Mexican child, was playing with his friends in Mexico when he was shot in the face by a U.S. Border Patrol Agent standing in the United States. Sergio died on the concrete ground where he fell.

In Hernandez v. Mesa, Sergio’s family brought a federal lawsuit seeking to hold Agent Jesus Mesa, Jr. responsible for the death of their son. They alleged Agent Mesa had violated Sergio’s constitutional rights and based their claim on the Bivens doctrine. In Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, the Supreme Court established a …

A Distinction With A Difference: Rights, Privileges, And The Fourteenth Amendment, William J. Aceves

Faculty Scholarship

In Timbs v. Indiana, the Supreme Court held the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on excessive fines was incorporated and applied to states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. While the decision was unanimous, the concurring opinions offered a revealing reflection of past constitutional battles and an intriguing vision of future conflicts. Both Justices Gorsuch and Thomas suggested resurrecting the Privileges or Immunities Clause as a more appropriate vehicle than the Due Process Clause for applying the prohibition on excessive fines to states.

Justice Thomas took this proposal one step further. He suggested the Privileges or Immunities Clause …

Who's Causing The Harm?, Catherine A. Hardee

Faculty Scholarship

My parents started a software company out of our family room when I was just five years old As a child, the business felt like the sixth member of our family A fourth child who grew up alongside my sisters and me and whom my parents struggled with, stressed over, and strove to infuse with their values just as they did their flesh and blood children. Take pride in your work and stand behind what you do applied equally to homework and product launches. The Golden Rule to treat others as you would like to be treated meant that, long …

Certain Certiorari: The Digital Privacy Rights Of Probationers, Daniel Yeager

Faculty Scholarship

In a recent oral argument, a judge on the California Court of Appeal told me they had "at least 50" pending cases on the constitutionality of probation conditions authorizing suspicionless searches of digital devices. As counsel of record in three of those cases, I feel positioned to comment on this hot topic within criminal law. My intention here is less to reconcile California's cases on suspicionless searches of probationers' digital devices than to locate them within the precedents of the United States Supreme Court, which is bound before long to pick up a case for the same purpose.

Why Federal Rule Of Evidence 403 Is Unconstitutional, And Why That Matters, Kenneth S. Klein

Faculty Scholarship

It might seem at best quixotic, and at worst absurd, to assert that Federal Rule of Evidence 403-an iconic evidentiary exclusionary rule providing that relevant evidence can be excluded if it is too time-consuming or distracting-is unconstitutional. Yet, if the Sixth and Seventh Amendments to the Constitution-respectively preserving the right to a criminal jury and a civil jury- are to be taken seriously, that conclusion not only is plausible, but perhaps inescapable. More surprisingly and consequentially, deep thinking about the constitutionality of FRE 403 exposes that there may be constitutional concerns with large swaths of the Federal Rules of Evidence, …

The Coordination Conundrum, Catherine A. Hardee

Faculty Scholarship

Justice Souter's oft-repeated quote aptly summarizes the function of strict standards of review in constitutional jurisprudence to protect unpopular speech from restrictions based on content-laden value judgments. While strict standards have their advantages, commentators have found fault with their rigidity and have questioned whether any decision-making process can, or should, be free of pragmatic considerations. This doctrinal discussion has been reinvigorated by two recent United States Supreme Court opinions. At the root of both cases was the Court's reliance on the distinction between coordinated and independent speech. This Article examines the validity of this divide and challenges the foundation upon …

Linguistic Colonialism: Law, Independence, And Language Rights In Puerto Rico, Andrea Freeman

Faculty Scholarship

Part I reviews and analyzes courts' attempts to reconcile the conflict between the statutory English-language requirement for federal jurors, Puerto Rico's almost entirely Spanish-speaking population, and the Sixth Amendment's constitutional mandate. This part consists of three sub-parts: a description of Puerto Rico's linguistic landscape in comparison with that of the United States, a history of fair cross section challenges pertaining to the District of Puerto Rico, and a comparative look at fair cross section challenges in the Ninth Circuit. Part II examines the tension between language and constitutional rights through the lens of one case, Diffenderfer v. Gomez-Colon. In this …

Is Ashcroft V. Iqbal The Death (Finally) Of The “Historical Test” For Interpreting The Seventh Amendment?, Kenneth S. Klein

Faculty Scholarship

There is the possibility that the recent Supreme Court decision of Ashcroft v. Iqbal finally will be the necessary impetus to revisit one of the more bizarre but enduring canards of American jurisprudence -- the way we interpret the Seventh Amendment's preservation of a right to a jury trial in federal civil litigation. The Seventh Amendment provides that "[i]n suits at common law ... the right of trial by jury shall be preserved." To this day, the way we apply the Seventh Amendment-in other words, what we interpret to be the constitutional intent and mandate of our Founders-is to postulate …

Ashcroft V. Iqbal Crashes Rule 8 Pleading Standards On To Unconstitutional Shores, Kenneth S. Klein

Faculty Scholarship

Since the early nineteenth century, the interpretation of the Seventh Amendment preservation of the right to a civil trial by jury has remained static and become increasingly anachronistic. Over the same period of time, the evolution of modern civil procedure pleading standards has been on a collision course with that interpretation. The penultimate 2007 Supreme Court opinion in this field, Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, raised the specter of an impending impasse between pleading standards and the Seventh Amendment. The 2009 opinion in Ashcroft v. Iqbal is the point of impact. While the Iqbal opinion fails to even acknowledge …

Overcoming Hiddenness: The Role Of Intentions In Fourth Amendment Analysis, Daniel B. Yeager

Faculty Scholarship

This Article rehearses a response to the problems posed to and by the Supreme Court's attempts to work out the meaning and operation of the word "search." After commencing Part II by meditating on the notion of privacy, I take up its relation to the antecedent suspicion or knowledge that Fourth-Amendment law requires as a justification for all privacy invasions. From there, I look specifically at that uneasy relation in Supreme Court jurisprudence, which has come to privilege privacy over property as a Fourth Amendment value. From there, Part III reviews the sources or bases that can tell us what …

Stubbornness Of Pretexts, Daniel B. Yeager

Faculty Scholarship

This Article will reflect on (1) how the Whren v. United States failure to acknowledge what counts as a pretext accounts for the residual confusion as to whether or not Whren really has killed off the pretext argument in constitutional criminal procedure, and (2) the extent to which the Court in Sullivan compounded that failure, which I hope to lightly correct here by distinguishing motives from intentions and then by elaborating the role that each plays, or at least should play, in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.

Confessions And Culture: The Interaction Of Miranda And Diversity, Floralynn Einesman

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Vampires Among Us, Floralynn Einesman

Faculty Scholarship

The integrity of an individual's person is a cherished value of our society. That we today hold that the Constitution does not forbid the States minor intrusions into an individual's body under stringently limited conditions in no way indicates that it permits more substantial intrusions, or intrusions under other conditions.