Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Constitution (39)
- Supreme Court (25)
- Brown v. Board of Education (17)
- Roe v. Wade (13)
- Virginia (12)
-
- The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction (11)
- Federal (9)
- Protection (9)
- Act (8)
- Affordable (8)
- Care (8)
- Constitutional (8)
- Politics (8)
- ACA (7)
- Civil Rights Act (7)
- Congress (7)
- Education (7)
- Griswold v. Connecticut (7)
- Patient (7)
- Rights (7)
- United States (7)
- Constitutionality (6)
- Death (6)
- Execution (6)
- Race (6)
- State (6)
- Taking the Constitution Away from the Courts (6)
- 9/11 (5)
- Constitutional Convention (5)
- Dred Scott v. Sandford (5)
Articles 1 - 30 of 266
Full-Text Articles in Law
Solving Slapp Slop, Nicole J. Ligon
Solving Slapp Slop, Nicole J. Ligon
University of Richmond Law Review
In a substantial minority of states, wealthy and powerful individuals can, without much consequence, bring defamation lawsuits against the press and concerned citizens to silence and intimidate them. These lawsuits, known as “strategic lawsuits against public participation” (“SLAPP”s), are brought not to compensate a wrongfully injured person, but rather to discourage the defendants from exercising their First Amendment rights. In other words, when well resourced individuals feel disrespected by public criticism, they sometimes sue the media or concerned citizens, forcing these speakers to defend themselves in exorbitantly expensive defamation actions. In states without anti-SLAPP statutes—statutes aimed at protecting speakers from …
What Is The Standard For Obtaining A Preliminary Injunction In Virginia?, Stuart A. Raphael
What Is The Standard For Obtaining A Preliminary Injunction In Virginia?, Stuart A. Raphael
University of Richmond Law Review
A perception exists that the Supreme Court of Virginia has not articulated the legal standard for adjudicating preliminary-injunction motions in Virginia circuit courts. For decades, lawyers and legal scholars have advocated that Virginia trial judges borrow the federal preliminary-injunction standard applied in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Virginia trial courts have generally followed that advice. Virginia courts at first applied the Fourth Circuit’s Blackwelder test, which called upon judges to balance the four traditional factors and allowed a stronger balanceof-hardship showing to offset a weaker showing of likely success on the merits. After the 2008 …
Replacing Tinker, Noah C. Chauvin
Replacing Tinker, Noah C. Chauvin
University of Richmond Law Review
In this Article, I wish to question whether reaffirming the animating spirit of Tinker is the best way to protect student speech rights. In allowing schools to punish student speech that school officials reasonably believe could be substantially disruptive, Tinker founds students’ free expression rights on unstable ground. This is true for two reasons. First, the Tinker standard allows school officials to regulate student speech based on their own perceptions of what its impacts will be. While these perceptions must be reasonable, courts have shown extraordinary deference to educators’ claims that student speech could be substantially disruptive. Second, the substantial …
Redefining The Badges Of Slavery, Nicholas Serafin
Redefining The Badges Of Slavery, Nicholas Serafin
University of Richmond Law Review
Section 2 of the Thirteenth Amendment grants Congress the authority to eliminate the “badges and incidents” of slavery. What constitutes an incident of slavery is clear: the incidents of slavery are the legal restrictions, such as submission to a master and a ban on the ownership of productive property, that were inherent in the institution of slavery itself. What constitutes a badge of slavery is far less certain, and relatively few legal scholars have examined the historical meaning of the metaphor. Nevertheless, there has emerged a renewed interest in Section 2, such that the literature now abounds with proposals for …
Frenemy Federalism, Scott Bloomberg
Frenemy Federalism, Scott Bloomberg
University of Richmond Law Review
Federalism scholars have long been fascinated by the unique relationship between the federal government and states that have legalized marijuana. And with good reason. For the past fifty years, Congress has classified marijuana as a Schedule I drug under the federal Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”), deeming the drug to have a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use. Congress’s aim in establishing Schedule I of the CSA was to “eliminate the market in Schedule I substances.” Thus, possessing, distributing, and manufacturing marijuana are federally illegal. Congress’s objective notwithstanding, over two-thirds of the states (and territories) have legalized marijuana …
Out Of Sight And Out Of Mind: Criminal Laws Disguised Moral Culpability Requirement, Andrew Ingram
Out Of Sight And Out Of Mind: Criminal Laws Disguised Moral Culpability Requirement, Andrew Ingram
University of Richmond Law Review
Last spring, the Supreme Court of the United States made a little-remarked constitutional ruling in Kahler v. Kansas. Upon casual inspection, Kahler looks like a doctrinal dead-end. The petitioner asked the Supreme Court to recognize a due process right for mentally ill defendants to raise the M’Naghten right-and-wrong test of insanity, and the Court said, “No.” The petitioner’s failure notwithstanding, Kahler is not a barren vine. On the contrary, it is heavy-laden with new doctrinal insights for criminal law scholars.
The case deserves a thorough look—not for what it can teach us about constitutional contentions that the Court has …
Rules And Standards In Justice Scalia's Fourth Amendment, Robert M. Bloom, Eliza S. Walker
Rules And Standards In Justice Scalia's Fourth Amendment, Robert M. Bloom, Eliza S. Walker
University of Richmond Law Review
When looking at Justice Scalia’s approach to the Fourth Amendment, most would say he was an originalist and a textualist. Justice Scalia himself would like to explain, “I’m an originalist and a textualist, not a nut.” Although originalism and textualism were often prevalent in his Fourth Amendment decisions, even more important to his decision-making was his disdain for judicial activism. To limit judicial discretion, Justice Scalia frequently opted to impose bright-line rules rather than vague standards. This is apparent not only within his jurisprudence as a whole, but also specifically in his Fourth Amendment decisions.
This Article examines Justice Scalia’s …
Religious Exemptions As Rational Social Policy, Justin W. Aimonetti, M. Christian Talley
Religious Exemptions As Rational Social Policy, Justin W. Aimonetti, M. Christian Talley
University of Richmond Law Review
In its 1963 decision Sherbert v. Verner, the Supreme Court interpreted the Free Exercise Clause to permit religious exemptions from general laws that incidentally burdened religious practice. Sherbert, in theory, provided stringent protections for religious freedom. But those protections came at a price. Religious adherents could secure exemptions even if they had no evidence the laws they challenged unfairly targeted their religious conduct. And they could thereby undermine the policy objectives those laws sought to achieve. Because of such policy concerns, the Court progressively restricted the availability of religious exemptions. In its 1990 decision Employment Division v. Smith …
Proving The Constitution: Burdens Of Proof And The Confrontation Clause, Enrique Schaerer
Proving The Constitution: Burdens Of Proof And The Confrontation Clause, Enrique Schaerer
University of Richmond Law Review
In law, we never prove anything to 100% certainty. For factual propositions, the proponent has the burden of proving them to the satisfaction of a standard: a preponderance of the evidence at the low end; clear and convincing evidence in the middle; proof beyond a reasonable doubt at the high end. The standards are often explicit. Yet, for legal propositions, standards are often implicit or lacking altogether. This Article argues that, to decide legal issues, courts may look to similar burdens of proof that they use to decide factual issues. They should do so informally, using burdens of proof just …
The Bivens "Special Factors" And Qualified Immunity: Duplicative Barriers To The Vindication Of Constitutional Rights, Amelia G. Collins
The Bivens "Special Factors" And Qualified Immunity: Duplicative Barriers To The Vindication Of Constitutional Rights, Amelia G. Collins
University of Richmond Law Review
Part I of this note traces the history of the Bivens cause of action and analyzes the original “special factors” that concerned the Supreme Court. Part I also outlines the purpose behind implying a Bivens cause of action for plaintiffs bringing constitutional claims. Part II includes the same analysis of the qualified immunity defense, both to its history and purpose. Part III demonstrates how the Supreme Court has incorporated the concerns addressed by qualified immunity into the “special factors” analysis, rather than acknowledging the mitigating nature of immunity defenses when examining if any “special factors” exist. Finally, Part IV argues …
Pills, Public Nuisance, And Parens Patriae: Questioning The Propriety Of The Posture Of The Opioid Litigation, Michelle L. Richards
Pills, Public Nuisance, And Parens Patriae: Questioning The Propriety Of The Posture Of The Opioid Litigation, Michelle L. Richards
University of Richmond Law Review
The opioid crisis has been in litigation for almost twenty years on various fronts, including criminal prosecutions of pharmaceutical executives, civil lawsuits by individuals against drug manufacturers and physicians, class actions by those affected by opioid abuse, and criminal actions filed by the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”). In the early 2000s, opioid litigation began with individual plaintiffs filing suit against manufacturers and others for damages allegedly related to opioid use. The litigation has since expanded significantly in terms of the type of plaintiffs and defendants, the nature of the claims being asserted, and the damages attributable to the crisis.
The …
The Historical Case For Constitutional "Concepts", Glenn E. Chappell
The Historical Case For Constitutional "Concepts", Glenn E. Chappell
University of Richmond Law Review
The concepts/conceptions dichotomy is prominent in both the philosophy of language and the field of constitutional interpretation. It is most prominently illustrated through the provisions in the Constitution that contain broad, open-ended moral language. Those who hold the “conceptions” view believe that the legal content of those provisions includes both abstract moral concepts and its communicators’ subjective beliefs about, or conceptions of, how those concepts should apply. Under this view, the judge’s role is mostly empirical: he is tasked with examining historical evidence to ascertain those conceptions, which in turn supply applicational criteria by which he can decide specific cases. …
The People's Lawyer: The Role Of Attorney General In The Twenty-First Century, Mark J. Herring
The People's Lawyer: The Role Of Attorney General In The Twenty-First Century, Mark J. Herring
University of Richmond Law Review
For the last five years, it has been my privilege to serve the people as their attorney general. The origin of the position of attorney general can be traced back centuries, but in a world that has become more interconnected, complex, and fast-paced, what does the role of a state attorney general entail in the twenty-first century and beyond? Is the proper role as a diligent but reactive defender of statutes and state agencies, or is there a deeper responsibility that calls for a more proactive and engaged use of its tools and authority? I have found that the job …
Enforcing Statutory Maximums: How Federal Supervised Release Violates The Sixth Amendment Rights Defined In Apprendi V. New Jersey, Danny Zemel
University of Richmond Law Review
The Sixth Amendment commands that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.” Trial by a jury of one’s peers is a fundamental American legal right, existing in the earliest colonies before being codified in both Article III of the Constitution and the Sixth Amendment. The jury trial right derives from “the mass of the people,” ensuring that “no man can be condemned of life, or limb, or property, or reputation, without the concurrence of the …
Race, Speech, And Sports, Matthew J. Parlow
Race, Speech, And Sports, Matthew J. Parlow
University of Richmond Law Review
Race, sports, and free speech rights intersected in a very controversial and public way during the 2016 and 2017 National Football League (“NFL”) seasons. On August 26, 2016, Colin Kaepernick spurred a national debate when he refused to stand during the playing of the national anthem before the NFL preseason game between the Green Bay Packers and the San Francisco 49ers, Kaepernick’s team at the time.
Non-Contact Excessive Force By Police: Is That Really A Thing?, Michael J. Jacobsma
Non-Contact Excessive Force By Police: Is That Really A Thing?, Michael J. Jacobsma
University of Richmond Law Review
When people hear the words “police” and “excessive force,” they usually associate those words with an unjustified assault and battery, or lethal force made against suspects by law enforcement officers during an arrest or investigation. When such acts occur, the victim of the excessive force has the right to pursue a civil action against the police officer pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if committed by state or local police, or a Bivens action if committed by federal agents. But can a police officer be sued for excessive force without making any physical contact with the plaintiff? The answer to …
Characterizing Power For Separation-Of-Powers Purposes, Tuan N. Samahon
Characterizing Power For Separation-Of-Powers Purposes, Tuan N. Samahon
University of Richmond Law Review
The U.S. Constitution parcels "legislative," "executive," and "judicial" powers among the separate branches of the federal government, but leaves those powers undefined. Accordingly, characterizing exercises of power becomes an important threshold inquiry in separation-of-powers disputes. This symposium Essay canvasses four competing judicial approaches to the characterization of power: functional inquiry; identity-of-the-officer formalism; historical induction; and skepticism. In this area, Justice Scalia's formalism has been particularly influential but created considerable tension with original public meaning originalism. This Essay explains how Scalia's formalism led to his embrace of delegation and concludes by cautioning against judicial oversimplification in the characterization inquiry.
Acknowledgments, Andrew E. Hemby
Acknowledgments, Andrew E. Hemby
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
States Suing The Federal Government: Protecting Liberty Or Playing Politics?, Elbert Lin
States Suing The Federal Government: Protecting Liberty Or Playing Politics?, Elbert Lin
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
The President, Prosecutorial Discretion, Obstruction Of Justice, And Congress, Henry L. Chambers Jr.
The President, Prosecutorial Discretion, Obstruction Of Justice, And Congress, Henry L. Chambers Jr.
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
A Non-Originalist Separation Of Powers, Eric J. Segall
A Non-Originalist Separation Of Powers, Eric J. Segall
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
Drawing Lines Of Sovereignty: State Habeas Doctrine And The Substance Of States' Rights In Confederate Conscription Cases, Withrop Rutherford
Drawing Lines Of Sovereignty: State Habeas Doctrine And The Substance Of States' Rights In Confederate Conscription Cases, Withrop Rutherford
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Highest Court: A Dialogue Between Justice Louis Brandeis And Justice Antonin Scalia On Stare Decisis, P. Thomas Distanislao Iii
The Highest Court: A Dialogue Between Justice Louis Brandeis And Justice Antonin Scalia On Stare Decisis, P. Thomas Distanislao Iii
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
Anchors Aweigh: Analyzing Birthright Citizenship As Declared (Not Established) By The Fourteenth Amendment, Elizabeth Farrington
Anchors Aweigh: Analyzing Birthright Citizenship As Declared (Not Established) By The Fourteenth Amendment, Elizabeth Farrington
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
Preventing An Air Panopticon: A Proposal For Reasonable Legal Restrictions On Aerial Surveillance, Jake Laperruque
Preventing An Air Panopticon: A Proposal For Reasonable Legal Restrictions On Aerial Surveillance, Jake Laperruque
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Equal Protection Component Of Legislative Generality, Evan C. Zoldan
The Equal Protection Component Of Legislative Generality, Evan C. Zoldan
University of Richmond Law Review
This article advances the broad project outlined above by recognizing
the equal protection component of legislative generality.
Exploring the relationship between the Equal Protection Clause
and the value of legislative generality both enhances an understanding
of the proper bounds of the Equal Protection Clause and
helps define the ultimate parameters of a value of legislative generality.
Part I of this article defines and provides paradigmatic
examples of special legislation. Part II identifies the most widely
held conceptions of equality that can be enforced through the
Equal Protection Clause and describes how special legislation offends
these conceptions. Part III describes how …
Indecency Four Years After Fox Television Stations: From Big Papi To A Porn Star, An Egregious Mess At The Fcc Continues, Clay Calvert, Minch Minchin, Keran Billaud, Kevin Bruckenstein, Tershone Phillips
Indecency Four Years After Fox Television Stations: From Big Papi To A Porn Star, An Egregious Mess At The Fcc Continues, Clay Calvert, Minch Minchin, Keran Billaud, Kevin Bruckenstein, Tershone Phillips
University of Richmond Law Review
Using the WDBJ case as an analytical springboard, this article examines the tumultuous state of the FCC's indecency enforcement regime more than three years after the Supreme Court's June 2012 opinion in Fox Television Stations. Part I of this article briefly explores the missed First Amendment opportunities in Fox Television Stations, as well as some possible reasons why the Supreme Court chose to avoid the free-speech questions in that case." Part II addresses the FCC's decision in September 2012 to target only egregious instances of broadcast indecency and, in the process, to jettison hundreds of thousands of complaints that had …
The Constitutional Limits Of Client-Centered Decision Making, Todd A. Berger
The Constitutional Limits Of Client-Centered Decision Making, Todd A. Berger
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
Truth Or Doubt? An Empirical Test Of Criminal Jury Instructions, Michael D. Cicchini, Lawrence T. White
Truth Or Doubt? An Empirical Test Of Criminal Jury Instructions, Michael D. Cicchini, Lawrence T. White
University of Richmond Law Review
Part I of this article briefly discusses the concept of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, along with its importance to individuals and society generally. Part II surveys some of the truth-related language used in multiple state and federal jurisdictions. It also examines the constitutional problems created by this language and discusses courts' inadequate responses to these problems.
Part III explains our controlled experiment, including our hypotheses, study design, and empirical findings. Part IV discusses these findings and their significance and argues that courts should immediately terminate their use of truth-based jury instructions so that our constitutional guarantees are fulfilled. Finally, …