Law Commons^™

Bond, Buckley, And The Boundaries Of Separation Of Powers Standing, William Marks

Vanderbilt Law Review

A constitutional crisis is at hand. It is 2017, and a new President of the United States has taken office.' The new President generally opposes environmental regulations and accordingly nominated a candidate for Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") with a deregulatory track record. The Senate, however, stood in the way: a proenvironment party holds the majority and threatened to filibuster. New presidents in this situation typically withdraw their nominations to avoid political embarrassment. But this time was different. In a forceful display of executive authority, the President unilaterally installed the nominee as the EPA Administrator. True, this action …

The Right To Vote Under State Constitutions, Joshua A. Douglas

Vanderbilt Law Review

This Article provides the first comprehensive look at state constitutional provisions explicitly granting the right to vote. We hear that the right to vote is "fundamental," the "essence of a democratic society," and "preservative of all rights." But courts and scholars are still searching for a solution to the puzzle of how best to protect voting rights, especially because the U.S. Supreme Court has underenforced the right to vote. The answer, however, is right in front of us: state constitutions. Virtually every state constitution includes direct, explicit language granting the right to vote, as contrasted with the U.S. Constitution, which …

Qualifying Qualified Immunity, John C. Williams

Vanderbilt Law Review

I imagine Leslie Weise and Alex Young had similar feelings when, in 2005, they attended a government-funded speech by President George W. Bush in Denver. But those feelings appear to have been mixed with ones of discontent and dissent toward the President-for the pair arrived in a car with a bumper sticker reading "No More Blood for Oil," an obvious jab at Bush's Iraq War policies. On instructions from the White House Advance Office, a volunteer named Michael Casper approached Weise and Young at their seats and ejected them from the event. The Secret Service later told Weise and Young …

My Fellow Americans, We Are Going To Kill You: The Legality Of Targeting And Killing U.S. Citizens Abroad, Mike Dreyfuss

Vanderbilt Law Review

Silent and cold. At twenty thousand feet, the temperature is minus ten degrees Fahrenheit. At almost a thousand miles per hour, sound cannot keep up. Heat and noise struggle in the turbulence. Three miles away, seven thousand miles from American soil, an American citizen driving an empty road has ten seconds to live. As a leader in an organization actively engaged in armed conflict against the United States, this American citizen has become an enemy of the United States. In response to the threat he poses to his fellow Americans, his government added him to a kill list, targeted him, …

Another Can Of "Crawford" Worms: Certificates Of Nonexistence Of Public Record And The Confrontation Clause, Keith Hollingshead-Cook

Vanderbilt Law Review

The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right .. . to be confronted with the witnesses against him."' When the Supreme Court decided Crawford v. Washington in 2004, it established a new standard for assessing the scope of this right and determining when hearsay is admissible as trial evidence against a criminal defendant. Rather than basing decisions regarding a defendant's right to confrontation on a judicial inquiry into the reliability of a particular statement, an approach typified by the Court's earlier decision of Ohio v. …

Jacksonian Jurisprudence And The Obscurity Of Justice John Catron, Austin Allen

Vanderbilt Law Review

This Article argues that Justice Catron's acceptance of the general premises of the Court's Jacksonian jurisprudence accounts for his obscurity. Part One demonstrates that Catron articulated a similar framework while serving on the Tennessee Supreme Court. Part Two illustrates his continued support for that framework after he moved to the U.S. Supreme Court. Part Three, however, demonstrates that, although he embraced much of the Taney Court's jurisprudence, Catron did not move in lockstep with his colleagues. Indeed, the elements he emphasized within that framework-namely, support for state sovereignty and equality as well as an aversion to judicial policymaking-led him to …

John Mclean: Moderate Abolitionist And Supreme Court Politician, Paul Finkelman

Vanderbilt Law Review

His thirty-two years on the Supreme Court make him one of the twelve longest serving Justices in history. At the time of his death, he was the third longest serving Justice in the history of the Court, and he is sixth in length of service among all Justices who served before the twentieth century. He wrote about 240 majority opinions and about sixty separate concurring and dissenting opinions. Yet he is about as obscure a Justice as there has ever been. Few Justices have worked so hard for such a long period of time, and yet had so little impact …

Pierce Butler: A Supreme Technician, David R. Stras

Vanderbilt Law Review

Despite serving for more than sixteen years on the Supreme Court of the United States and authoring more than 300 opinions, Pierce Butler is one of the lesser-known Justices in American history. When his name is mentioned by constitutional scholars, it is usually to deride him for being one of the so-called "Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse," a group of Justices that invalidated efforts by politicians, especially President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, to enact New Deal reforms. Scholars have characterized his role in the development of constitutional law as "minimal," and he is the subject of only one full-length book, A …

Justice Sutherland Reconsidered, Samuel R. Olken

Vanderbilt Law Review

In the annals of Supreme Court history, George Sutherland occupies a curious place. Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1921 to 1938, the Utah native has long been identified as one of the infamous "Four Horsemen," known largely for his role as a judicial conservative instrumental in the Court's invalidation of significant aspects of the New Deal. Yet Sutherland was also the author of several influential opinions involving matters as diverse as civil rights, freedom of expression, and others that recognized the broad authority of the federal government in the realm of foreign and military affairs. A proponent …

Bushrod Washington, Herbert A. Johnson

Vanderbilt Law Review

In October 1822, President Thomas Jefferson urged Justice William Johnson to take the lead in reinstituting the Jay-Ellsworth Court's practice of issuing seriatim opinions. He extolled the English preference for documenting each judge's reasoning on the issues before the Court and deplored its recent abandonment under the influence of Lord Mansfield. Justifying his own silent acquiescence in opinions of the Marshall Court, Johnson pointed to the situation when he joined the U.S. Supreme Court in 1804. He recalled that "Cushing was incompetent. Chase could not be got to think or write-Patterson [sic] was a slow man and willingly declined the …

Rico Overreach: How The Federal Government's Escalating Offensive Against Gangs Has Run Afoul Of The Constitution, Matthew H. Blumenstein

Vanderbilt Law Review

The United States has a problem with gangs. According to the Department of Justice, there are more than twenty thousand gangs in the United States today, with over one million members. There are gangs in every state and in the District of Columbia. This is a dire problem in the eyes of federal government officials. According to Attorney General Michael Mukasey, "Gangs threaten our society .... They bring a culture of violence and drugs to our doorsteps, creating an atmosphere of fear, diminishing the quality of life, and endangering the safety, well-being, and future of our children." In response, the …

A Darwinist View Of The Living Constitution, Scott Dodson

Vanderbilt Law Review

There is much debate, and has been for some time, over whether we have a "living" Constitution, one that adapts to changing circumstances and evolves over time. The metaphor arose and gained initial force during the Progressive Era and has been at the forefront of the debate on constitutional interpretation ever since. There is a more recent division, most prominently marked by Professor Owen Jones and Professors Brian Leiter and Michael Weisberg, over whether biology has a meaningful role to play in legal developments. Professor Jones has written many articles promoting the potential utility of behavioral and evolutionary science to …

The Court, The Constitution, And The History Of Ideas, Scott D. Gerber

Vanderbilt Law Review

Several of the nation's most influential constitutional law scholars have been arguing for the better part of a decade that judicial review should be sharply limited, or eliminated altogether. The list includes such prominent thinkers as Professor Mark V. Tushnet of Harvard Law School, Professor Cass R. Sunstein of the University of Chicago Law School, and Dean Larry D. Kramer of Stanford Law School. In place of the doctrine made famous by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, these leading voices of the legal academy call for "popular constitutionalism": a constitutional law that is defined outside of the …

The Constitutional Dimension Of Immigration Federalism, Clare Huntington

Vanderbilt Law Review

In Farmers Branch, Texas, the city council enacted a measure to fine landlords who rent their premises to unauthorized migrants,' and in Arizona, the state legislature passed a law imposing stiff penalties on employers who intentionally or knowingly hire unauthorized migrants. In San Francisco, the board of supervisors passed a measure that bars law enforcement officers from inquiring into the immigration status of an individual in the course of a criminal investigation. In Alabama and Florida, state officials have entered into agreements with the federal government permitting state law enforcement officers to arrest and detain non-citizens on immigration charges. Other …

Non-Judicial Precedent, Michael J. Gerhardt

Vanderbilt Law Review

This Article proposes a new paradigm for analyzing the role of precedent in constitutional law. The conventional perspective equates precedent with judicial decisions, particularly those of the Supreme Court, and almost totally ignores the constitutional significance of precedents made by public authorities other than courts. Yet, non- judicial actors produce precedents that are more pervasive than those made by courts in constitutional law. Non-judicial precedents are not only confined to the backwaters of constitutional law, but they also pertain to serious constitutional matters-presidential succession, secession, congressional power to remove Presidents and Justices, and the respective authorities of the President and …

Constitutional Evidence Law, Alex Stein

Vanderbilt Law Review

This Article identifies the causes and consequences of a puzzling asymmetry in constitutional law. Of the three facets of adjudicative factfinding-evidence, procedure, and rules of decision- only two are constitutionalized. Constitutional law regulates procedural and decisional rules, but not whether the evidence that factfinders use is adequate.

Constitutional law regulates procedure through a set of rules that determine a person's power to control the trial by adducing evidence in support of her case and by examining the evidence of her adversary. Constitutional law regulates decisionmaking by setting probability requirements for findings of fact-standards of proof-and by allocating the burdens of …

The Political Safeguards Of Executive Privilege, David A. O'Neil

Vanderbilt Law Review

To an unprecedented degree, the nation's welfare now depends on constitutionally sound outcomes to disputes between Congress and the President over executive branch information. Yet we still lack a satisfying theoretical account of the optimal method for achieving those outcomes. In the years since Watergate, courts and scholars have embraced a theory premised on an unexamined faith that the Constitution's structure embeds in the political process the tools and incentives necessary for each branch to vindicate its interests. Judicial interference, this conventional model further assumes, is both unnecessary and unwise; left to their own devices, the political branches will pursue …

The New Commerce Clause Doctrine In Game Theoretical Perspective, Maxwell L. Stearns

Vanderbilt Law Review

The Roberts Court emerges at a critical juncture in the development of Commerce Clause doctrine. While the Commerce Clause doctrine implicates federalism and separation of powers, concerns rooted in the earliest part of our constitutional history, the arrival of a new Court presents an ideal opportunity to critically assess existing doctrines and to develop new analytical paradigms. An analysis of Commerce Clause doctrine reveals that while the Rehnquist Court successfully imposed substantive limits on the scope of this important source of congressional power for the first time in sixty years, that Court was far less successful in developing a coherent …

Commandeering And Its Alternatives: A Federalism Perspective, Neil S. Siegel

Vanderbilt Law Review

This inquiry argues that current Tenth Amendment jurisprudence causes net harm to federalism values under certain circumstances. Specifically, New York v. United States and Printz v. United States protect state autonomy to some extent by requiring the federal government to internalize more of the costs of federal regulation before engaging in regulation. But anticommandeering doctrine harms state autonomy in situations where the presence of the rule triggers more preemption going forward. Preemption generally causes a greater compromise of federalism values than does commandeering by eroding state regulatory control.

While it is a context-sensitive empirical question whether specific applications of the …

Getting The Math Right: Why California Has Too Many Seats In The House Of Representatives, Paul H. Edelman

Vanderbilt Law Review

"One person, one vote" sounds like a simple mathematical equation. Actually, it isn't quite that easy, but over the last forty years, the Supreme Court has distilled a fairly stable and predictable test for resolving the basic issue of equal representation: how much population difference between districts is permissible? In one area of representation, however, the Court has gotten the math wrong. In its only opinion on the decennial apportionment of Congress, the 1992 case U.S. Department of Commerce v. Montana, the Court punted. Rather than apply its well-established test from the districting cases, the Court deferred to Congress on …

Cheating The Constitution, Pamela R. Metzger

Vanderbilt Law Review

It is constitutional black letter law. To obtain a criminal conviction, the prosecution must prove every element of the offense, by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The Constitution entitles a defendant to confront and cross-examine all witnesses against him. Yet, for the past thirty years, state legislatures have quietly approved laws that cheat the Constitution. These laws fly, undetected, beneath the constitutional radar, violating fundamental constitutional rights.

Although other constitutional cheats abound, this Article examines one archetypical example of constitutional cheating: statutes that permit state prosecutors to use hearsay state crime laboratory reports, in lieu of live witness testimony, to …

The Unconstitutionality Of "Hold Until Cleared": Reexamining Material Witness Detentions In The Wake Of The September 11th Dragnet, Ricardo J. Bascuas

Vanderbilt Law Review

On March 11, 2004, terrorists affiliated with the Al Qaida networkl detonated bombs on four commuter trains in Madrid, Spain, killing 191 people and injuring 2,000 others. Hours later, the Spanish National Police (SNP) recovered a fingerprint from a bag of detonators found in a stolen van parked at a station from which three of the bombed trains departed. The SNP requested assistance from the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation to identify the owner of the print. FBI experts concluded that the print belonged to Brandon Mayfield, a U.S. citizen living in a suburb of Portland, Oregon, and the …

Taking Miranda's Pulse, William T. Pizzi, Morris B. Hoffman

Vanderbilt Law Review

The Supreme Court decided five Miranda1 cases in 2003-2004, making this one of the most active fifteen-month periods for the law of self-incrimination since the controversial case was decided in 1966. In this Article, we consider three of those five cases-Chavez v. Martinez, Missouri v. Seibert and United States v. Patane-along with the blockbuster decision four years ago in Dickerson v. United States. in an attempt to decipher what, if anything, this remarkable level of activity teaches us about the direction of the Court's self-incrimination jurisprudence. In the end, while these cases, like those before them, may not entirely clarify …

Unincorporated, Unprotected: Religion In An Established State, Kathryn E. Komp

Vanderbilt Law Review

In the summer of 2004, the group American Veterans Standing for God and Country ("American Veterans") began a cross-country pilgrimage to carry a 5,200-pound statue of the Ten Commandments to Washington D.C. The infamous statue cost Roy Moore his job as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court when he refused to remove it from the lobby of the state courthouse in 2002. American Veterans took up Moore's cause, however, and in October they brought the Commandments statue to a Christian rally in Washington, D.C. The group then planned to ask Congress to display the statue permanently in the Capitol …

"The House Was Quiet And The World Was Calm The Reader Became The Book", Burt Neuborne

Vanderbilt Law Review

Professor Neuborne argues that we err in reading the Bill of Rights "in splendid isolation" as a randomly ordered set of clause-bound norms. Instead, he argues that the disciplined order and placement of the thirty-three ideas in the Bill of Rights, especially the six textual ideas united in the First Amendment, reveals a deep contextual structure imposed by the Founders that sheds important light on the meaning of the constitutional text. He argues that the "vertical" order of the first ten amendments, as well as the "horizontal" order of ideas within each amendment, provides important clues to a judge seeking …

Corruption Of A Term: The Problematic Nature Of 18 U.S.C. §1512(C), The New Federal Obstruction Of Justice Provision, Daniel A. Shtob

Vanderbilt Law Review

The year 2002 may be remembered in the annals of the law as the year that corporate America became accountable for its actions. The boardroom, equated with the smoke-filled room of corrupt enterprise and political machination, came under fire as industry giants sank amidst charges of misconduct. In response to high profile allegations of corporate fraud, Congress commenced a fervent bipartisan effort to draft and implement a law to counter corporate obstruction of justice. On July 1, 2002, President George W. Bush signed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The bill included a section that prescribes strong penalties for individuals who corruptly impede …

War And American Constitutional Order, Mark E. Brandon

Vanderbilt Law Review

In their introduction to a fine new edition of Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America, Harvey C. Mansfield and Delba Winthrop claim that "[i]f the twentieth century has been an American century, it is because the work of America... has been to keep democracy strong where it is alive and to promote it where it is weak or nonexistent." By "democracy" they doubtless intend something akin to "constitutional democracy," "liberal democracy," or "republican government." I take each of these to be a rough proxy for a constitutionalist system that includes (1) institutions authorized by and accountable to the people (both …

Constitutional Issues Raised By States' Exclusion Of Fertility Drugs From Medicaid Coverage In Light Of Mandated Coverage Of Viagra, Erin L. Connolly

Vanderbilt Law Review

On July 2, 1998, officials at the Health Care Financing Administration ("HCFA"), the federal agency responsible for administering the Medicaid program,' mandated that state Medicaid pro- grams provide coverage for the impotency drug Viagra. The HCFA's announcement has proven very controversial, encountering resistance from many states who view the mandate as financially impairing their ability to provide other Medicaid services. Mandated Medicaid coverage of Viagra is also curious, considering that the Medicaid statute specifically permits states to exclude fertility drugs, a category of drugs into which Viagra falls, from coverage under state Medicaid programs. Moreover, most states do in fact …

Timing And Delegation: A Reply, Jonathan R. Siegel

Vanderbilt Law Review

For two authors who come to such different conclusions, Professor Manning and I agree on a good deal. We agree that courts, in considering whether to consult legislative history in the course of statutory construction, must take heed of the special constitutional rule against congressional self-aggrandizement.' Thus, we agree that the Constitution forbids courts to give authoritative weight to post-enactment legislative history, because the effect of such a judicial practice is to permit Congress to delegate a very important power, the power to elaborate the meaning of statutes, to its committees or Members. We also agree, however, that Congress may, …

Naked Land Transfers And American Constitutional Development, Mark A. Graber

Vanderbilt Law Review

The constitutional prohibition on naked land transfers, laws granting to B property that belonged to A, played a far greater role in American constitutional development than is generally realized. The Marshall and Taney Courts heard numerous cases in which government officials were accused of expropriating private property, typically by legislative oversight rather than by deliberate intent. When resolving these cases, antebellum justices relied heavily on "certain great principles of justice" rather than on specific constitutional provisions. Supreme Court majorities on several occasions probably exercised the judicial power to declare federal laws unconstitutional. More frequently, Marshall and Taney Court decisions in …