Law Commons^™

Flint Of Outrage, Toni M. Massaro, Ellen Elizabeth Brooks

Notre Dame Law Review

Officials replaced safe water sources with contaminated water sources for tens of thousands of people living in Flint, Michigan, from April 2014 to October 2015. Overwhelming evidence indicates that the officials knew the water was potentially harmful to residents’ health and property. This unfathomable disregard for the residents of Flint sparked national outrage and prompted criminal charges as well as multiple civil suits.

Residents’ civil claims included two strands of substantive due process: that the actions infringed residents’ fundamental liberty rights to bodily integrity and to state protection from harmful acts by third parties, and that the government actions “shocked …

The Classical Avoidance Canon As A Principle Of Good-Faith Construction, Brian Taylor Goldman

Journal of Legislation

No abstract provided.

California Propositions 62 & 66 As Misguided Models For The Capital Punishment Debate: The Argument For The Inclusion Of Catholic Social Teaching And Other Religious Denominations In The Discussion And A Proposed Solution, Cornelius V. Loughery

Journal of Legislation

No abstract provided.

The Constitution That Couldn’T: Examining The Implicit Imbalance Of Constitutional Power In The Context Of Nominations, And The Need For Its Remedy, James E. Britton

Journal of Legislation

No abstract provided.

Penn Central Take Two, Christopher Serkin

Notre Dame Law Review

Penn Central v. New York City is the most important regulatory takings case of all time. There, the Supreme Court upheld the historic preservation of Grand Central Terminal in part because the City offset the burden of the landmarking with a valuable new property interest—a transferable development right (TDR)—that could be sold to neighboring property. Extraordinarily, 1.2 million square feet of those very same TDRs, still unused for over forty years, are the subject of newly resolved takings litigation. According to the complaint, the TDRs that saved Grand Central were themselves taken by the government, which allegedly wiped out their …

The Exceptional Role Of Courts In The Constitutional Order, N.W. Barber, Adrian Vermeule

Notre Dame Law Review

This Article looks at a rare part of the judicial role: those exceptional cases when the judge is called upon to pass judgment on the constitution itself. This arises in three groups of cases, roughly speaking. First, in exceptional cases the validity of the constitution and the legal order is thrown into dispute. Second, on some occasions the judge is asked to rule on the transition from one constitutional order to another. Third, there are some cases in which the health of the constitutional order requires the judge to act not merely beyond the law, as it were, but actually …

Dynamic Regulatory Constitutionalism: Taking Legislation Seriously In The Judicial Enforcement Of Economic And Social Rights, Richard Stacey

Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy

The international human rights revolution in the decades after the Second World War recognized economic and social rights alongside civil and political rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1949, the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights in 1966, regional treaties, and subject-specific treaties variously describe rights to food, shelter, health, and education, and set out state obligations for the treatment of children. When they first appeared, these international, economic, and social rights instruments raised questions about whether economic and social rights are justiciable in domestic legal contexts and whether they can be meaningfully enforced by courts …

Capital Punishment Of Unintentional Felony Murder, Guyora Binder, Brenner Fissell, Robert Weisberg

Notre Dame Law Review

Under the prevailing interpretation of the Eighth Amendment in the lower courts, a defendant who causes a death inadvertently in the course of a felony is eligible for capital punishment. This unfortunate interpretation rests on an unduly mechanical reading of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Enmund v. Florida and Tison v. Arizona, which require culpability for capital punishment of co-felons who do not kill. The lower courts have drawn the unwarranted inference that these cases permit execution of those who cause death without any culpability towards death. This Article shows that this mechanical reading of precedent is mistaken, because the …

Subconstitutional Checks, Shima Baradaran Baughman

Notre Dame Law Review

Constitutional checks are an important part of the American justice system. The Constitution demands structural checks where it provides commensurate power. The Constitution includes several explicit checks in criminal law. Criminal defendants have rights to counsel, indictment by grand jury, and trial by jury; the public or executive elects or appoints prosecutors; legislatures limit actions of police and prosecutors; and courts enforce individual constitutional rights and stop executive misconduct. However, these checks have rarely functioned as intended because the Constitution and criminal law have failed to create—what I call—“subconstitutional checks” to adapt to the changes of the modern criminal state. …

Data Breaches, Identity Theft, And Article Iii Standing: Will The Supreme Court Resolve The Split In The Circuits?, Bradford C. Mank

Notre Dame Law Review

In data breach cases, the plaintiff typically alleges that the defendant used inadequate computer security to protect the plaintiff’s personal data. In most, but not all cases, the plaintiff cannot prove that a hacker or thief has actually used or sold the data to the plaintiff’s detriment. In most cases, a plaintiff alleges that the defendant’s failure to protect his personal data has caused him damages by increasing his risk of suffering actual identity theft in the future and therefore imposed costs on the plaintiff when he reasonably takes measures to prevent future unauthorized third-party data access by purchasing credit …

Lafler V. Cooper's Remedy: A Weak Response To A Constitutional Violation, Matthew T. Ciulla

Notre Dame Law Review Reflection

The Lafler v. Cooper Court should have chosen the remedy of specific performance of the original plea bargain. The specific performance remedy, long implemented by federal courts in Lafler-like scenarios, and ordered by the district court in Lafler, precisely cures the Lafler injury—the accused regains the ability to accept the original plea offer, except he now has the benefit of effective assistance of counsel. The specific performance remedy, when coupled with the safeguards of the Strickland prongs, poses little risk of abuse, and gives heft to the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of effective assistance of counsel in the plea …