Law Commons^™

Public Accommodations And The Right To Refrain From Expressing Oneself, Mark Strasser

Cleveland State Law Review

The United States Supreme Court has been unable to articulate a coherent position when addressing the right of individuals to refrain from expressing themselves. The Court has applied various tests inconsistently—emphasizing principles in some cases, ignoring them in subsequent cases, and then emphasizing them again in later cases as if those principles had always been applied. The Court’s approach is incoherent, offering little guidance to lower courts except to suggest that public accommodations laws may soon be found inconsistent with First Amendment guarantees.

Questioning The Legitimacy Of The Expedited Removal Process – The Tall Task Of Protecting The Constitutional Rights Of One Of America’S Most Marginalized Groups, Jacob J. Bourquin

Cleveland State Law Review

This Note explores the origin and development of 8 U.S.C. § 1225—a heavily debated facet of the United States’ immigration law. Section 1225, colloquially referred to as the “expedited removal process,” has been interpreted to permit low-level immigration officers to summarily remove certain “arriving” noncitizens from the United States without affording them the procedural due process protections guaranteed under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution to all individuals present in the United States. This Note posits that the current interpretation of § 1225, particularly the interpretation of “is arriving,” and application of the expedited removal process is inconsistent …

Free Exercise, The Respect For Marriage Act, And Some Potential Surprises, Mark Strasser

Cleveland State Law Review

Congress recently passed the Respect for Marriage Act to assure that certain marriages would remain valid even if the Supreme Court were to overrule past precedent and hold that the Constitution does not protect the right to marry a partner of the same sex or of a different race. However, the Act, as written, may not offer protection for certain same-sex or interracial marriages and may open the door to the federal protection of plural marriages, congressional intent notwithstanding, because of the Court’s increasingly robust free exercise jurisprudence.

Assessing The Future Of “Offended Observer” Standing In Establishment Clause Cases, Larry J. Obhof

Cleveland State Law Review

This Article looks at the anomaly of “offended observer” standing in Establishment Clause challenges. It calls for greater consistency in the courts’ application of constitutional standing requirements.

Under Article III, Plaintiffs seeking to raise claims in federal court must allege a concrete and particularized injury in fact in order to support federal jurisdiction. Likewise, plaintiffs seeking to challenge a government policy must allege a unique injury that is separate from the interests of the public at large. The notable exception is where plaintiffs claim personal offense at alleged government entanglement in religion. These “offended observers” are frequently given access to …

Filling The Potholes Of Pretextual Traffic Stops: A Better Road Forward For Ohio, Jordan Weeks

Cleveland State Law Review

The Fourth Amendment was one of the driving forces behind the United States Revolution. This Amendment generally protects individuals against “unreasonable” searches and seizures. But what does “reasonable” mean in the context of a traffic stop?

In 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court in Whren v. United States tried answering this question. In so doing, the Court determined that pretextual traffic stops are “reasonable.” Pretextual traffic stops occur where an officer stops a vehicle and cites a lawful reason for the stop, yet the underlying reason is unlawful. The Whren Court determined that an officer’s intent is completely irrelevant to whether …

“I Wish I Knew How It Would Feel To Be Free”: A Lamentation On Dobbs V. Jackson’S Pernicious Impact On The Lives And Liberty Of Women, April L. Cherry

Cleveland State Law Review

On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court overturned nearly fifty years of precedent when it declared in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that abortion was not a fundamental right, and therefore it was not protected by the Fourteenth Amendment and substantive due process. In law school corridors and legal scholar circles, discussion of the Court’s evisceration of abortion rights focused on the corresponding changes in Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence and the Court’s outright dismissal of stare decisis. But in homes, hospitals, community centers, and workplaces, different conversations were happening. Conversations, mostly had by women, concerned the real-life consequences of overturning …

Revisiting Compassionate Release: The Sentencing Commission’S Compassionate Changes To The 2023 Compassionate Release Policy Statement, Rachel Wilson

Cleveland State Law Review

Compassionate release is a well-established exception to the Sentencing Reform Act’s requirement that a defendant’s sentence not be reduced after its final imposition. The Act requires the Sentencing Commission, through policy statement, to describe “extraordinary and compelling reasons” warranting compassionate release. However, the Sentencing Commission’s failure to convene as a quorum for nearly four years precluded any policy statement updates. In that time, the COVID-19 pandemic and the Bureau of Prisons’ internal issues further complicated the compassionate release process. This Note analyzes the 2023 amendment to the compassionate release policy statement, its potential implications, and suggests additional steps to be …

R.E.S.P.E.C.T.: The Court's Forgotten Virtue, Camille Pollutro

Cleveland State Law Review

This Article recommends a shift in constitutional interpretation that requires the existence of respect for the class at issue when a fundamental right is being considered under the narrow, historical deeply rooted test of the Fourteenth Amendment. By focusing on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, this Article highlights that the class at issue—women—are having their fundamental rights decided for them by the legal sources of 1868. In applying this strict and narrow historical deeply rooted test, the Court fails to consider the lack of respect and autonomy that women had in 1868. To the Court, if twenty-eight out …

Can Superman Save The Supreme Court After Dobbs? Using Analogical Reasoning To Teach The American People The Superpower Of Stare Decisis, Brandon Stump

Cleveland State Law Review

In this Article, I propose that in this post-Dobbs America, if Americans are ever able to believe in, or even understand the magnitude of the Supreme Court’s power, practitioners, scholars, and educators should rely on the power of analogical reasoning, something attorneys are taught beginning their first weeks of law school. Using the power of analogy, we should take the simple story of Superman to explain the magnitude of the power held by the Supreme Court and the critical role that stare decisis must play in the Court’s decision-making. Perhaps if we explain legal principles and the judiciary by …

Methodological Gerrymandering, David Simson

Cleveland State Law Review

The U.S. Supreme Court has come to decide many of the most consequential and contentious aspects of social policy via its interpretations of the U.S. Constitution. Institutional features of the Court create significant pressure on the Justices to justify their decisions as applications of “law” rather than the practice of “politics.” Their perceived failure to do so calls forth criticism sounding in a variety of registers—ranging from allegations of a lack of neutrality, lack of impartiality, or lack of “principle,” to allegations of opportunism, disingenuousness, and hypocrisy. Analyzing the Justices’ choices in relation to interpretational “methodology”—choosing one lens through which …

The Anti-Constitutionality Of The Deeply Rooted Test In Dobbs V. Jackson, Reginald Oh

Cleveland State Law Review

The deeply rooted in history test used by Justice Alito in Dobbs v. Jackson to overturn Roe v. Wade is anti-constitutional. In Dobbs, Alito concluded that, because a majority of states in 1868 criminalized abortion, abortion is not deeply rooted in history, and is therefore not a fundamental liberty under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. However, relying on state laws in 1868 to interpret constitutional text not only has no basis in the Constitution, it goes against the fundamental nature of the Constitution as an integrated whole. What I call the Integrated Constitution is based on Chief Justice John …

Putting The Brakes On California's Emissions Standards: An Analysis Of The Legal Challenges California's Advanced Clean Cars Ii Standards Will Face, Michael Maloof

Cleveland State Law Review

This Note discusses the legal implications of California’s Advanced Clean Cars II vehicle-emissions standards. These standards, which would affect vehicle model years 2026 through 2035, seek to eliminate the sale of new gasoline-powered vehicles in favor of only selling electric, zero-emission vehicles. In light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in West Virginia v. EPA, this type of “generation-shifting” plan stands on broken ground due to the applicability of the Major Questions Doctrine. The agency action here—EPA approval of a Clean Air Act §7543 waiver—is exactly the type of “extraordinary case” that the Court must strike down in order …

The New Dread, Part Ii: The Judicial Overthrow Of The Reasonableness Standard In Police Shooting, Kindaka J. Sanders

Cleveland State Law Review

This Article series argues that the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on excessive force from Graham v. Connor to the present has undermined the objectivity of the reasonableness standard. In its place, the Court has erected a standard that reflects modern conservative political ideology, including race conservatism, law and order, increased police discretion, and the deconstruction of the Warren Court’s expansion of civil rights and civil liberties. Indeed, the Court, dominated by law-and-order conservatives, is one of the greatest triumphs of conservatism. Modern conservatism developed as a backlash against various social movements like the Civil Rights Movement and spontaneous urban rebellions during …

In Pursuit Of A Modern Standard: The Constitutional Proportions Of Collateral Harm From Pursuits And Police High-Speed Driving, Julian Gilbert

Cleveland State Law Review

Police chases and high-speed driving are common practices that pose a substantial amount of harm and are often unjustified. The benefits of such chases are questionable, and rapid police action at all costs is often unnecessary. When bystanders are injured as a result of police high-speed driving, there are few avenues to have their rights vindicated, and federal court cases require plaintiffs to meet an almost impossible burden. However, under the United States Supreme Court case of County of Sacramento v. Lewis, a plaintiff can put forth evidence that their substantive due process right to life under the Fourteenth …

Alexander Hamilton And Administrative Law: How America's First Great Public Administrator Informs And Challenges Our Understanding Of Contemporary Administrative Law, Rodger D. Citron

Cleveland State Law Review

Alexander Hamilton’s recognition and reputation have soared since the premiere of "Hamilton," Lin-Manuel Miranda’s musical about him in 2015. For lawyers, Hamilton’s work on the Federalist Papers and service as the nation’s first Treasury Secretary likely stand out more than other aspects of his extraordinary life. Politics and economics were fundamental concerns addressed by the Framers in a number of ways, including what we now refer to as administrative law—the laws and procedures that guide government departments (or, as we say today, agencies). Indeed, "Hamilton" reminds us that questions of administration and administrative law have been with us since the …

The Fugazi Second Amendment: Bruen's Text, History, And Tradition Problem And How To Fix It, Patrick J. Charles

Cleveland State Law Review

This Article critiques the Supreme Court’s use of text, history, and tradition in New York Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen. In doing so, not only is the Supreme Court’s approach to history-in-law in Bruen called into question, but also the Article provides the courts with an historically objective and even-keeled ‘way-ahead’ for future Second Amendment cases and controversies.

Rethinking Patent Law's Exclusive Appellate Jurisdiction, Christa Laser

Cleveland State Law Review

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was created in 1982 to unify and clarify patent law, inter alia. It was built from political compromise after the Hruska Commission, which studied the caseload crisis in the federal appellate courts in the 1970s, initially recommended creation of a new National Court of Appeals that would exist between the regional federal appellate circuits and the Supreme Court. The Federal Circuit judges admirably implemented these functions for four decades.

However, the initial function of the Federal Circuit might no longer be as needed in the current judicial climate. The environment …

Reforming State Electoral College Laws To Depolarize American Politics, M. Akram Faizer

Cleveland State Law Review

Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee involved the Supreme Court gutting the remaining vestiges of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), such that jurisdictions will have free rein to impose partisan burdens on franchise rights that have a disproportionate negative effect on racial minority voters who, based on racial political polarization, prefer Democratic Party candidates over their Republican opponents. Brnovich follows the highly divisive 2020 presidential election that Joe Biden won against former President Trump based on very narrow margins in highly contested swing states, notwithstanding a nationwide popular margin of more than 8 million votes. This blurring of the lines between …

Beyond The Horizons Of The Harvard Forewords, Or Bassok

Cleveland State Law Review

American constitutional thought is controlled by certain paradigms that limit the ability to think beyond them. A careful reading of the Harvard Law Review Forewords—the “tribal campfire” of American constitutional thinkers—is one way to detect these paradigms. Based on reading these Forewords since their inception in 1951 and until 2019, I track how the concept of judicial legitimacy has been understood over the years. My analysis shows that in recent decades an understanding of judicial legitimacy in terms of public support has risen to the status of a controlling paradigm. While this understanding is currently considered commonsensical, it stands in …

Reexamining The Vicarious Criminal Liability Of Corporations For The Willful Crimes Of Their Employees, Evan Tuttle

Cleveland State Law Review

Corporate compliance programs in the United States have evolved substantially in the past several decades, expanding exponentially in both number and scope. Yet, our legal standard of corporate criminal liability for the acts of employees has remained largely unchanged for the past fifty years. United States v. Hilton Hotels established that a corporation can be held liable for the acts of its employee, even though the employee’s conduct may be contrary to their actual instructions or contrary to the employer’s stated policies. That holding, cited with favor by the Supreme Court, was based on a deeply flawed interpretation of precedent, …

Changing Counterspeech, G.S. Hans

Cleveland State Law Review

A cornerstone of First Amendment doctrine is that counterspeech — speech that responds to speech, including disfavored, unpopular, or offensive speech — is preferable to government censorship or speech regulation. The counterspeech doctrine is often invoked to justify overturning or limiting legislation, regulation, or other government action. Counterspeech forms part of the rationale for the "marketplace of ideas" that the First Amendment is arguably designed to promote. Yet critics assert that counterspeech is hardly an effective remedy for the harms caused by "hate speech" and other offensive words that are expressed in American society, given the realities of how speech …

Re-Imprisonment Without A Jury Trial: Supervised Release And The Problem Of Second-Class Status, Stephen A. Simon

Cleveland State Law Review

The Supreme Court’s 2019 decision in United States v. Haymond shone a light on a practice that has not yet received attention commensurate with its significance: the re-imprisonment of individuals on supervised release without a jury trial. At first blush, the decision is most notable for setting bounds on the government’s ability to re-imprison individuals on supervised release without observing the constitutional rights normally available to defendants in criminal prosecutions. However, examination of the opinions reveals that the decision’s immediate doctrinal impact was quite limited. Moreover, although the three opinions issued in the case reflected disagreements among the Justices, all …

Corporations "Pac" A Punch: Corporate Involvement's Influence In Elections And A Proposal For Public Campaign Financing In Ohio, Taylor Hagen

Cleveland State Law Review

In 2010, the United States Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision ruled that limiting corporate spending in elections violates the First Amendment right to free speech. With this decision, the Supreme Court overturned election spending restrictions that dated back more than a century. Before Citizens United v. FEC was decided, the Court had previously held that these restrictions were permissible because there is a governmental interest in preventing election and campaign corruption. Now, corporations may expend unlimited funds for outside election spending, to super PACs, and may even establish their own PACs. Increased corporate involvement in elections has deteriorated American …

The War On Drugs: Moral Panic And Excessive Sentences, Michael Vitiello

Cleveland State Law Review

The United States’ War on Drugs has not been pretty. Moral panic has repeatedly driven policy when states and the federal government have regulated drugs. Responding to that panic, legislators have authorized severe sentences for drug offenses.

By design, Article III gives federal judges independence, in part, to protect fundamental rights against mob rule. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has often failed to protect fundamental rights in times of moral panic. For example, it eroded Fourth Amendment protections during the War on Drugs. Similarly, it failed to protect drug offenders from excessive prison sentences during the War on Drugs. This Article …

No Longer Innocent Until Proven Guilty: How Ohio Violates The Fourth Amendment Through Familial Dna Searches Of Felony Arrestees, Jordan Mason

Cleveland State Law Review

In 2013, the United States Supreme Court legalized DNA collection of all felony arrestees upon arrest through its decision in Maryland v. King. Since then, the State of Ohio has broadened the use of arrestee DNA by subjecting it to familial DNA searches. Ohio’s practice of conducting familial DNA searches of arrestee DNA violates the Fourth Amendment because arrestees have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information that is extracted from a familial DNA search and it fails both the totality of the circumstances and the special needs tests. Further, these tests go against the intention of the …

Private Affairs: Public Employees And The Right To Sexual Privacy, Susan A. Jacobsen

Cleveland State Law Review

Currently, the federal circuit courts split on whether public employers can discipline their employees for legal, off-duty sexual activity. The Fifth and Tenth Circuits permit discipline in these scenarios; the Ninth Circuit does not. At issue is whether certain public employees, like police officers, should be held to a higher standard because of their duty to the public or whether the Constitution entitles them to privacy rights that shield them from discipline. This Note concludes the latter and argues against punishing the legal, off-duty sexual conduct of all public employees. Because the right to sexual privacy already exists within the …

Bucklew V. Precythe'S Return To The Original Meaning Of "Unusual": Prohibiting Extensive Delays On Death Row, Jacob Leon

Cleveland State Law Review

The Supreme Court, in Bucklew v. Precythe, provided an originalist interpretation of the term “unusual” in the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. This originalist interpretation asserted that the word “unusual” proscribes punishments that have “long fallen out of use.” To support its interpretation, the Supreme Court cited John Stinneford’s well-known law review article The Original Meaning of “Unusual”: The Eighth Amendment as a Bar to Cruel Innovation. This Article, as Bucklew did, accepts Stinneford’s interpretation of the word “unusual” as correct. Under Stinneford’s interpretation, the term “unusual” is a legal term of art derived from eighteenth-century …

Decoding Judicial Reasoning In China: A Comparative Empirical Analysis Of Guiding Cases, Runhua Wang

Cleveland State Law Review

The judicial system in China recently started using legal precedents—known as guiding cases—as a new legal source to eliminate adjudicative inconsistency. Guiding cases (“GCs”) present the current judicial reasoning to some extent and can be used to predict the future of judicial reasoning in China. What are GCs? What legal issues do GCs address? How do they address legal issues? How do GCs affect the legal system and adjudication in China? This Article answers these questions with empirical evidence and comparisons to judicial reasoning in the United States. It is the first empirical research providing a systematic review of all …

The Nfl Player, The Schoolchild, And The Entertainer: When The Term "Free Speech" Is Too Freely Spoken, Exactly "Who's On First?", Christian Ketter

Cleveland State Law Review

As America’s media and politicians continue to debate the free speech rights of NFL players, schoolchildren, and entertainers, the dialogue has confused many Americans as to what exactly the First Amendment protects. Chief Justice John G. Roberts ultimately assumes the role of an umpire in many of these issues, guiding the United States Supreme Court to incrementally “call balls and strikes.” In recent years, the Court has umpired employment rights and state action cases, and Roberts’s calls will likely further distance the Court that decided Morse v. Frederick from the one that decided Tinker v. Des Moines. Amid a …

How Conscientious Objectors Killed The Draft: The Collapse Of The Selective Service During The Vietnam War, Bill Raley

Cleveland State Law Review

This Article argues that a key-but-overlooked factor in the Vietnam-era breakdown of the draft system was the Supreme Court’s expansion of the religious conscientious objector ("CO") exemption. It asserts that the Court understood that the CO exemption violated the Establishment Clause, but rather than strike the exemption down, the Court avoided the constitutional issue by interpreting away the religious element of CO statutes. The Article concludes that the Court’s rulings caused CO exemptions to skyrocket, which in turn caused the draft system to collapse toward the end of the Vietnam War.