Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Cell Phones Are Orwell's Telescreen: The Need For Fourth Amendment Protection In Real-Time Cell Phone Location Information, Matthew Devoy Jones
Cell Phones Are Orwell's Telescreen: The Need For Fourth Amendment Protection In Real-Time Cell Phone Location Information, Matthew Devoy Jones
Cleveland State Law Review
Courts are divided as to whether law enforcement can collect cell phone location information in real-time without a warrant under the Fourth Amendment. This Article argues that Carpenter v. United States requires a warrant under the Fourth Amendment prior to law enforcement’s collection of real-time cell phone location information. Courts that have required a warrant prior to the government’s collection of real-time cell phone location information have considered the length of surveillance. This should not be a factor. The growing prevalence and usage of cell phones and cell phone technology, the original intent of the Fourth Amendment, and United States …
Originalism And Second-Order Ipse Dixit Reasoning In Chisholm V. Georgia, D.A. Jeremy Telman
Originalism And Second-Order Ipse Dixit Reasoning In Chisholm V. Georgia, D.A. Jeremy Telman
Cleveland State Law Review
This Article presents a new perspective on the Supreme Court’s constitutional jurisprudence during the Early Republic. It focuses on what I am calling second-order ipse dixit reasoning, which occurs when Justices have to decide between two incommensurable interpretive modalities. If first-order ipse dixit is unreasoned decision-making, second-order ipse dixit involves an unreasoned choice between or among two or more equally valid interpretive options. The early Court often had recourse to second-order ipse dixit because methodological eclecticism characterized its constitutional jurisprudence, and the early Court established no fixed hierarchy among interpretive modalities.
Chisholm, the pre-Marshall Court’s most important constitutional decision, illustrates …
Notice, Due Process, And Voter Registration Purges, Anthony J. Gaughan
Notice, Due Process, And Voter Registration Purges, Anthony J. Gaughan
Cleveland State Law Review
In the 2018 case of Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, a divided United States Supreme Court upheld the procedures that Ohio election authorities used to purge ineligible voters from the state’s registration lists. In a 5-4 ruling, the majority ruled that the Ohio law complied with the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) as amended by the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA). This Article contends that the controlling federal law—the NVRA and HAVA—gave the Supreme Court little choice but to decide the case in favor of Ohio’s secretary of state. But this article also argues …