Law Commons^™

Banning Abortions Based On A Prenatal Diagnosis Of Down Syndrome: The Future Of Abortion Regulation, Alexandra Russo

Touro Law Review

Since the infamous Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade, the United States has remained divided, each side unyielding to the other regarding the legal and moral issues surrounding abortion. The issues surrounding abortion have become progressively more politicized, thus threatening a woman’s right to a safe and healthy termination of her pregnancy. Restrictions on a woman’s ability to terminate a child with a genetic disorder, such as Down syndrome, highlight this concern. State restrictions on abortion that prohibit abortions based on a diagnosis of Down syndrome seek to prevent the stigmatization of the Down syndrome community. Regulations, such as …

Witness For The Self: Miranda V. Arizona’S Political Theology, Graham James Mcaleer

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Charles Reich: Due Process In The Eye Of The Receiver, Harold Hongju Koh

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rock And Hard Place Arguments, Jareb Gleckel, Grace Brosofsky

Seattle University Law Review

This Article explores what we coin “rock and hard place” (RHP) arguments in the law, and it aims to motivate mission-driven plaintiffs to seek out such arguments in their cases. The RHP argument structure helps plaintiffs win cases even when the court views that outcome as unfavorable.

We begin by dissecting RHP dilemmas that have long existed in the American legal system. As Part I reveals, prosecutors and law enforcement officials have often taken advantage of RHP dilemmas and used them as a tool to persuade criminal defendants to forfeit their constitutional rights, confess, or give up the chance to …

School “Safety” Measures Jump Constitutional Guardrails, Maryam Ahranjani

Seattle University Law Review

In the wake of George Floyd’s murder and efforts to achieve racial justice through systemic reform, this Article argues that widespread “security” measures in public schools, including embedded law enforcement officers, jump constitutional guardrails. These measures must be rethought in light of their negative impact on all children and in favor of more effective—and constitutionally compliant—alternatives to promote school safety. The Black Lives Matter, #DefundthePolice, #abolishthepolice, and #DefundSchoolPolice movements shine a timely and bright spotlight on how the prisonization of public schools leads to the mistreatment of children, particularly children with disabilities, boys, Black and brown children, and low-income children. …

“Public Use” Or Public Abuse? A New Test For Public Use In Light Of Kelo, Taylor Haines

Seattle University Law Review

The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment has long been controversial. It allows the government to take private property for the purpose of “public use.” But what does public use mean? The definition is one of judicial interpretation. It has evolved from the original meaning intended by the drafters of the Constitution. Now, the meaning is extremely broad. This Note argues that both the original and contemporary meaning of public use are problematic. It explores the issues with both definitions and suggests a new test, solidified in legislation instead of judicial interpretation.

Judges Do It Better: Why Judges Can (And Should) Decide Life Or Death, Andrew R. Ford

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

Following its decision in Furman v. Georgia, the Supreme Court of the United States has attempted to standardize procedures that states use to subject offenders to the ultimate penalty. In practice, this attempt at standardization has divided capital sentencing into two distinct parts: the death eligibility decision and the death selection decision. The eligibility decision addresses whether the sentencer may impose the death penalty, while the selection decision determines who among that limited subset of eligible offenders is sentenced to death. In Ring v. Arizona, the Court held for the first time that the Sixth Amendment right to …

A Prudential Take On A Prudential Takings Doctrine, Katherine Mims Crocker

Michigan Law Review Online

The Supreme Court is set to decide a case requesting reconsideration of a doctrine that has long bedeviled constitutional litigants and commentators. The case is Knick v. Township of Scott, and the doctrine is the “ripeness” rule from Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank that plaintiffs seeking to raise takings claims under the Fifth Amendment must pursue state-created remedies first—the so-called “compensation prong” (as distinguished from a separate “takings prong”). This Essay argues that to put the compensation prong in the best light possible, the Court should view the requirement as a “prudential” rule rather than (as it …

Policing In The Era Of Permissiveness: Mitigating Misconduct Through Third-Party Standing, Julian A. Cook Iii

Brooklyn Law Review

On April 4, 2015, Walter L. Scott was driving his vehicle when he was stopped by Officer Michael T. Slager of the North Charleston, South Carolina, police department for a broken taillight. A dash cam video from the officer’s vehicle showed the two men engaged in what appeared to be a rather routine verbal exchange. Sometime after Slager returned to his vehicle, Scott exited his car and ran away from Slager, prompting the officer to pursue him on foot. After he caught up with Scott in a grassy field near a muffler establishment, a scuffle between the men ensued, purportedly …

Due Process Rights Before Eu Agencies: The Rights Of Defense, David E. Shipley

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

The Extraterritorial Application Of The Fifth Amendment: A Need For Expanded Constitutional Protections., Guinevere E. Moore, Robert T. Moore

St. Mary's Law Journal

Since 2010, there have been forty-three cases—and ten deaths—involving the use of deadly force by United States agents against Mexican nationals along the border. Currently, the official policy is that officers may still use deadly force where they “reasonably believe”—based upon the totality of the circumstances—that they are in “imminent danger” of death or serious injury. Officers were found reasonable in using deadly force in situations as mundane as young boys throwing rocks. In light of these actions, the Mexican government has raised serious concerns about the disproportionate use of force by United States agents. The question now raised is …

United States V. Salvucci: The Problematic Absence Of Automatic Standing, William C. Bollard

Pepperdine Law Review

The United States Supreme Court recently abolished the automatic standing rule in United States v. Salvucci. The author analyzes the difficulties created for the criminal defendant charged with a possessory crime. In particular, this note focuses on the inequitable position the defendant is placed in when his suppression hearing testimony is used as a tool to impeach subsequent testimony offered at trial. The author continues by pointing out that the "prosecutorial self-contradiction," sought to be abolished in Salvucci, remains a part of our present judicial system. In conclusion, the author offers several considerations that will necessarily be an integral part …

Mind The Gap: Expansion Of Texas Governmental Immunity Between Takings And Tort., Jadd F. Masso

St. Mary's Law Journal

In Jennings v. City of Dallas, the city’s wastewater collection division was dispatched to unstop a clogged sewer main but instead caused sewage to spew into the Jennings’ home with dramatic force, causing extensive damage. The Jennings subsequently filed suit against the city, alleging its actions constituted an unconstitutional taking, damaging, or destruction of their property for public use without adequate compensation in violation of Article I, § 17 of the Texas Constitution. The issue presented from the case was whether an individual citizen should be liable for such losses when the damage—as an incident to governmental action—in effect benefits …

Securing One's Fourth Amendment Rights Through Issue Preclusion: Assessing Texas's Application Of Collateral Estoppel To Multiple Suppression Motions Filed In Separate Courts., Garrett T. Reece

St. Mary's Law Journal

This Comment will assess the split in Texas courts over the issue of collateral estoppel’s application in different motion to suppress hearings. By placing collateral estoppel within the confines of the Double Jeopardy Clause, federal law essentially extinguished one form of collateral estoppel and invented another form of the doctrine. Remnants of both forms are still alive, however, and Texas is one state in which both forms of collateral estoppel may be invoked in a criminal proceeding. Part II provides a historical analysis of the exclusionary rule, Double Jeopardy Clause, and collateral estoppel’s rise in criminal court. Part III addresses …

Kelo V. City Of New London, Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District V. United States, And Washoe County V. United States: A Fifth Amendment Takings Primer., Christopher L. Harris, Daniel J. Lowenberg

St. Mary's Law Journal

The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment is a remedy available to citizens for the government's undue interference with private property rights. It operates similarly to an affirmative defense as it entitles citizens to “just compensation” when the government “takes” private property for “public use.” The Takings Clause thus embodies the idea that society values the protection of private property. The Supreme Court of the United States stated the purpose of the Takings Clause is “to bar Government from forcing citizens from bearing public burdens which, in all fairness, should be borne by the public as a whole.” Kelo v. …

In Re V.L.K. V. Troxel: Is The Best Interest Standard In A Motion To Modify The Sole Managing Conservator Subject To A Due Process Or Course Challenge., David F. Johnson

St. Mary's Law Journal

Texas Family Code section 156.101 is unconstitutional. In In re V.L.K, the Texas Supreme Court held that the Texas Legislature removed the injurious retention element from section 156.101 and no longer required a finding that the natural parent be injurious to the welfare of the child. The Texas Supreme Court’s ruling is contradictory to the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Troxel v. Granville. In Troxel, the Supreme Court struck down a state statute that effectively permitted any third party to file a motion to challenge custody. Under Texas law, any affected party, not limited to parties named in the …

Iolta In The Balance: The Battle Of Legality And Morality Between Robin Hood And The Miser Recent Development., Katherine L. Smith

St. Mary's Law Journal

Interest on Lawyers Trust Account (IOLTA) programs recently survived a constitutional challenge. IOLTA programs require interest earned from trust accounts deposited with client money to fund legal services for the poor. Many states, including Texas, maintain a mandatory IOLTA program, requiring all lawyers who handle client funds to participate. Proponents of IOLTA argue it benefits civil justice. Opponents argue it is an unconstitutional taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The Fifth Circuit held IOLTA accounts to be an unconstitutional taking of client property. The Ninth Circuit, however, found IOLTA accounts constitutional, holding that IOLTA accounts are not a taking …

The Paths Not Taken: The Supreme Court's Failures In Dickerson, Paul G. Cassell

Michigan Law Review

Where's the rest of the opinion? That was my immediate reaction to reading the Supreme Court's terse decision in Dickerson, delivered to me via email from the clerk's office a few minutes after its release. Surely, I thought, some glitch in the transmission had eliminated the pages of discussion on the critical issues in the case. Yet, as it became clear that I had received all of the Court's opinion, my incredulity grew.

Miranda'S Mistake, William J. Stuntz

Michigan Law Review

The oddest thing about Miranda is its politics - a point reinforced by the decision in, and the reaction to, Dickerson v. United States. In Dickerson, the Supreme Court faced the question whether Miranda ought to be overturned, either directly or by permitting legislative overrides. The lawyers, the literature, and the Court split along right-left - or, in the Court's case, right-center - lines, with the right seeking to do away with Miranda's restrictions on police questioning, and the left (or center) seeking to maintain them. The split is familiar. Reactions to Miranda have always divided along ideological lines, with …

Miranda, The Constitution, And Congress, David A. Strauss

Michigan Law Review

Are Miranda warnings required by the Constitution, or not? If they are, why has the Supreme Court repeatedly said that the rights created by Miranda are "not themselves rights protected by the Constitution"? If not, why can't an Act of Congress, such as 18 U.S.C. 3501, declare them to be unnecessary? These were the central questions posed by United States v. Dickerson. It is not clear that the majority opinion ever really answered them. The majority said that "Miranda is constitutionally based," that Miranda has "constitutional underpinnings," that Miranda is "a constitutional decision," and that Miranda "announced a constitutional rule." …

Separated At Birth But Siblings Nonetheless: Miranda And The Due Process Notice Cases, George C. Thomas Iii

Michigan Law Review

Paraphrasing Justice Holmes, law is less about logic than experience. Courts and scholars have now had thirty-four years of experience with Miranda v. Arizona, including the Court's recent endorsement in Dickerson v. United States last Term. Looking back over this experience, it is plain that the Court has created a Miranda doctrine quite different from what it has said it was creating. I think the analytic structure in Dickerson supports this rethinking of Miranda. To connect the dots, I offer a new explanation for Miranda that permits us to reconcile Dickerson and the rest of the post-Miranda doctrine with the …

Miranda, Dickerson, And The Puzzling Persistence Of Fifth Amendment Exceptionalism, Stephen J. Schulhofer

Michigan Law Review

Dickerson v. United States preserves the status quo regime for judicial oversight of police interrogation. That result could be seen, in the present climate, as a victory for due process values, but there remain many reasons for concern that existing safeguards are flawed - that they are either too restrictive or not restrictive enough. Such concerns are partly empirical, of course. They depend on factual assessments of how much the Miranda rules do restrict the police. But such concerns also reflect a crucial, though often unstated, normative premise; they presuppose a certain view of how much the police should be …

In The Stationhouse After Dickerson, Charles D. Weisselberg

Michigan Law Review

Miranda v. Arizona established the high water mark of the protections afforded an accused during a custodial interrogation. During the decades that followed, the United States Supreme Court allowed Miranda's foundation to erode, inviting a direct challenge to the landmark ruling. In Dickerson v. United States, the Court turned back such a challenge and placed Miranda upon a more secure, constitutional footing. This Article explores the impact of Dickerson in the place where Miranda was meant to matter most: the stationhouse. As I have described elsewhere, Supreme Court decisions have influenced a number of California law enforcement agencies to instruct …

Dead Man Talking: Competing Narratives And Effective Representation In Capital Cases Essay., Jeffrey J. Pokorak

St. Mary's Law Journal

As Karl Hammond’s case indicates, to serve justice, balance between the Kill Story and Human Story is necessary in a capital trial. This Essay seeks, through deconstruction of Karl Hammond’s case, to identify and illustrate the values of telling these combating stories. Part III describes the Kill Story and the Human Story in Karl’s case from the record of his trial, appeals, and petitions. Part III also demonstrates how the failure to tell one side of the story in either the guilt-innocence phase or the punishment phase can have a prejudicial effect on the jury’s decision. Part IV then discusses …

Counter-Revolution In Constitutional Criminal Procedure? Two Audiences, Two Answers, Carol S. Steiker

Michigan Law Review

For the purposes of my argument, I adapt Professor Meir Dan-Cohen's distinction (which he in turn borrowed from Jeremy Bentham) between "conduct" rules and "decision" rules. Bentham and Dan-Cohen make this distinction in the context of substantive criminal law; for their purposes, "conduct" rules are addressed to the general public in order to guide its behavior (for example, "Let no person steal") and "decision" rules are addressed to public officials in order to guide their decisionmaking about the consequences of violating conduct rules (for example, "Let the judge cause whoever is convicted of stealing to be hanged"). But as any …

The Presumption Of Innocence: Patching The Tattered Cloak After Maryland V. Craig., Ralph H. Kohlmann

St. Mary's Law Journal

Over one hundred years ago, the United States Supreme Court recognized the importance of the presumption of innocence in a criminal justice system which is based on due process. The Court declared the presumption of innocence is “the undoubted law, axiomatic, and elementary, and its enforcements lies at the foundation … of our criminal law.” The Court’s changing view of the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause is the most recent contribution to the reduction in the practical value of the presumption of innocence. In Maryland v. Craig, the Court decided that while face-to-face confrontation forms the core of values furthered in …

The Supreme Court Takes A Weapon From The Drug War Arsenal: New Defenses To Civil Drug Forfeiture., Scott Alexander Nelson

St. Mary's Law Journal

This Comment discusses the history and development of forfeiture law—emphasizing the misnomer of “guilty property”—and addresses the lack of constitutional safeguards in the civil forfeiture statutes. It outlines prospective constitutional defenses announced by the United States Supreme Court, emphasizing the Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process, the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause, and the “innocent owner” defense. The federal statute authorizing civil forfeiture, 21 U.S.C. § 881 (Forfeiture Statute), was initially enacted as part of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970. The Comprehensive Forfeiture Act of 1984 amended the statute to impose forfeiture on real property …

Double Jeopardy

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Critical Reexamination Of The Takings Jurisprudence, Glynn S. Lunney Jr

Michigan Law Review

To provide some insight into the nature of these disagreements, and to suggest a possible solution to the compensation issue, this article undertakes a critical reexamination of the takings jurisprudence. It focuses on the two bases which the modem Court has articulated as support for its resolution of the compensation issue: (1) the articulated purpose of using the just compensation requirement "to bar Government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens"; and (2) the early case law. Beginning with the Court's first struggles with the compensation issue in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, this article traces …

Peremptory Jury Strike In Texas After Batson And Edmondson., Alan B. Rich

St. Mary's Law Journal

In Batson v. Kentucky, the United States Supreme Court overruled that portion of Swain v. Alabama, which had imposed a “crippling burden of proof” upon a person who wished to vindicate his right of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment in the face of a racially motivated peremptory challenge. Under Batson, a defendant can raise an inference of discrimination and prove it using only evidence adduced at his own trial. Two fundamental questions needing resolution prior to involving the Batson procedures are: (A) who has standing to bring a Batson challenge; and (B) who must be challenged before the Batson …