Law Commons^™

Balancing Disclosure And Privacy Interests In Campaign Finance, Sarah Harding

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

The law of campaign finance pits two important First Amendment interests against each other: disclosure and privacy. The Supreme Court has recognized the need to balance these two interests to allow for effective elections and to safeguard individual rights. However, through the years the Court has failed to balance these interests equally, resulting in vacillating decisions that unfairly sacrifice one for the other. From Burroughs v. United States in 1934 to Citizens United v. FEC in 2010, the Court has failed to provide a workable roadmap for legislatures in the creation of campaign finance disclosure laws and for lower courts …

Foreword, Congressman Lee Zeldin

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Is Suspension A Political Question, Amanda L. Tyler

Amanda L Tyler

The article focuses on the Suspension Clause of the U.S. Constitution being a political issue. It says that once suspension is viewed as a nonjusticiable political question, it would turn as a subject on which most of the restraints imposed by the Constitution would not be subjected to judicial enforcement. It is claimed that such thought should be denied because it is at odds of writ of habeas corpus heritage and would only complicate the separation of powers and the institution of judicial reviews.

Against Foreign Law, Robert J. Delahunty, John Yoo

John C Yoo

The article looks at the practice of several U.S. Supreme Court justices who have considered the decisions of foreign and international courts for guidance in interpreting the U.S. constitution. This practice has occurred in several controversial, high profile cases. There are two main reasons to think that use of foreign or international decisions extends beyond mere ornamentation.

The Commonwealth Of Puerto Rico: Trying To Gain Dignity And Maintain Culture, Arnold Leibowitz

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Defeating The Super Pacs That Distort Our Political Process, Bruce Ledewitz

Ledewitz Papers

Published scholarship collected from academic journals, law reviews, newspaper publications & online periodicals.

Fifty States, Fifty Attorneys General, And Fifty Approaches To The Duty To Defend, Neal Devins, Saikrishna B. Prakash

Faculty Publications

Whether a state attorney general has a duty to defend the validity of state law is a complicated question, one that cannot be decided by reference either to the oath state officers must take to support the federal Constitution or the supremacy of federal law. Instead, whether a state attorney general must defend state law turns on her own state’s laws. Each state has its own constitution, statutes, bar rules, and traditions, and not surprisingly, the duties of attorneys general vary across the states. To simplify somewhat, we believe that there are three types of duties. One set of attorneys …

When Rhetoric Obscures Reality: The Definition Of Corruption And Its Shortcomings, Jessica Medina

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

Due to public scorn after the unraveling of the Watergate scandal, the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of the Federal Election Campaign Act’s restrictions on political contributions and expenditures. Buckley v. Valeo established that no legitimate government interest existed to justify restrictions on campaign expenditures, and only the prevention of corruption or the appearance of corruption could justify restrictions on campaign contributions. Since then, the Court has struggled to articulate a definition of corruption that balances First Amendment protections with the potential for improper influence. This Article argues that the Court’s current definition of corruption is too narrow, and proposes …

Parents Involved: The Mantle Of Brown, The Shadow Of Plessy, John A. Powell, Stephen Menendian

john a. powell

The article explores the historical interpretations of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Supreme Court's ruling in the Parents Involved case. It argues that the Court's anticlassification principle is not supported by the central meaning and legacy of Brown. It states that the decision has changed the meaning of Brown via adopting formal equality as a normative constitutional principle. It adds that the court dismisses the harm of segregation and stresses the harm of racial classification.

Jurisdiction - The Supreme Court Upholds The Constitutionality Of The Jurisdictional Grant Of The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act Over A Suit Between An Alien And A Foreign Sovereign In United States District Court, Stephen E. Farish

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

A Survey Of The History Of The Death Penalty In The United States, Sheherezade C. Malik, D. Paul Holdsworth

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Petition For Writ Of Certiorari, Kosilek V. O'Brien, Jennifer Levi, Joseph L. Sulman, Abigail K. Hemani, Michele E. Connolly, James P. Devendorf, Jamie A. Santos, Christine Dieter

Faculty Scholarship

Jennifer Levi, on behalf of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, was one of the Authors of the Petition for Writ of Certiorari, filed in the Supreme Court of the United States on behalf of the Petitioner, Michelle Kosilek, in Kosilek v. O'Brien. Questions presented to the Court by the Petitioner were 1.) whether appellate courts must parse “ques­tions that present elements both factual and legal” into their factual and legal components, so that all factual findings can be reviewed for clear error, or whether, as the First Circuit ruled, they may review such questions as a whole along …

An Addendum In Light Of Recent Developments, Bruce Ledewitz

Ledewitz Papers

Published scholarship collected from academic journals, law reviews, newspaper publications & online periodicals.

The Voting Rights In Winter: The Death Of A Superstatute, Guy-Uriel Charles, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer

Faculty Scholarship

The Voting Rights Act (“VRA”), the most successful civil rights statute in American history, is dying. In the recent Shelby County decision, the U.S. Supreme Court signaled that the anti-discrimination model, long understood as the basis for the VRA as originally enacted, is no longer the best way to understand today’s voting rights questions. As a result, voting rights activists need to face up to the fact that voting rights law and policy are at a critical moment of transition. It is likely the case that the superstatute we once knew as the VRA is no more and is never …

The Scottish Independence Referendum And The Principles Of Democratic Secession, Benjamin Levites

Brooklyn Journal of International Law

On September 18, 2014, Scottish voters decided whether to sever the 307 years of unity between Scotland and the United Kingdom in an independence referendum. While the voters ultimately rejected independence, the process by which the Scots accomplished this historic exercise will inform further democratic secession movements.

This Note examines the significant implications of Scotland’s independence referendum by assessing the history of independence referendums and the present scope of relevant international law. The formative history of the independence referendum and modern precedential examples established the requirements for democratic secession. In turn, the Scottish independence referendum, in the context of evolving …

Beyond Edmunds: The State Constitutional Legacy Of Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille, Bruce Ledewitz

Ledewitz Papers

Published scholarship collected from academic journals, law reviews, newspaper publications & online periodicals.

Does United States V. Windsor (The Doma Case) Open The Door To Congressional Standing Rights?, Bradford Mank

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

In rare cases, a President refuses to defend a statute he believes is unconstitutional. The law is unclear whether Congress or either House of Congress has Article III standing to defend a statute that the President refuses to defend. In United States v. Windsor, the Supreme Court in 2013 addressed the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The Obama Administration took the middle position of not defending DOMA, but still enforcing it despite its view that the statute was unconstitutional to assist federal courts in reviewing the constitutionality of the statute. It was unclear whether an appeal was …