Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Racialized Bankruptcy Federalism, Rafael I. Pardo
Racialized Bankruptcy Federalism, Rafael I. Pardo
Scholarship@WashULaw
Notwithstanding the robust national power conferred by the U.S. Constitution’s Bankruptcy Clause, the design and administration of federal bankruptcy law entails choices about the extent to which non-bankruptcy-law entitlements will remain un-displaced. When such entitlements sound in domestic nonfederal law (i.e., state or local law), displacing them triggers federalism concerns. Considerations regarding the relationship between the federal government and the nation’s smaller political subdivisions might warrant preserving nonfederal-law entitlements even though their displacement would be authorized pursuant to the bankruptcy power. But such considerations might also suggest replacing those entitlements with bankruptcy-specific ones. Some scholarship has theorized about the principles …
The Superfluous Fifteenth Amendment?, Travis Crum
The Superfluous Fifteenth Amendment?, Travis Crum
Scholarship@WashULaw
This Article starts a conversation about reorienting voting rights doctrine toward the Fifteenth Amendment. In advancing this claim, I explore an unappreciated debate—the “Article V debate”—in the Fortieth Congress about whether nationwide black suffrage could and should be achieved through a statute, a constitutional amendment, or both. As the first significant post-ratification discussion of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Article V debate provides valuable insights about the original public understandings of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and the distinction between civil and political rights.
The Article V debate reveals that the Radical Republicans’ initial proposal for nationwide black suffrage included both …
The Promise And Peril Of The Anti-Commandeering Rule In The Homeland Security Era: Immigrant Sanctuary As An Illustrative Case, Trevor George Gardner
The Promise And Peril Of The Anti-Commandeering Rule In The Homeland Security Era: Immigrant Sanctuary As An Illustrative Case, Trevor George Gardner
Scholarship@WashULaw
Despite the broad powers wielded by the federal government in security administration, the Supreme Court’s holding in Printz v. United States serves as a substantial check against federal overreach. Hand wringing by legal scholars over the Court’s reasoning in Printz and the rigid rules against commandeering attached to this reasoning have obscured the fact that the case now stands as a bulwark against the expansion of federal authority over state, county, and local police. Given the holding in Printz, ICE cannot require the active participation of subnational police in immigration enforcement and must instead—despite its previous assertions to the contrary—solicit …