Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- General (17)
- Constitutional law (4)
- Federal government (3)
- Actions and defenses (1)
- Attorneys general (1)
-
- Conflict of laws (1)
- Constitution. 2nd Amendment (1)
- Courts (1)
- Criminal procedure (1)
- Culture (1)
- Customary international law (1)
- Democracy (1)
- Detention of unlawful combatants (1)
- Educational law and legislation (1)
- Ethics (1)
- Exclusive and concurrent legislative powers (1)
- Firearms--Law and legislation (1)
- Gifts (1)
- Grand jury (1)
- Gun control (1)
- Human rights (1)
- Imperialism (1)
- International Court of Justice (1)
- International law (1)
- Jurisdiction (1)
- Justice (1)
- Law--Interpretation and construction (1)
- Political questions and judicial power (1)
- Political science (1)
- Punctuation (1)
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 30 of 31
Full-Text Articles in Law
Medimmune, Inc. V. Genentech, Inc.: A Patent Licensee Does Not Need To Terminate Or Breach A License Agreement In Order To Challenge Its Validity Or Enforceability, C. Tyler Ohanian
Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar
MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. asks whether Article III's restriction on the jurisdiction of the federal courts only to "cases" and "controversies," as required by the "actual controversy" limitation of the Declaratory Judgment Act, necessitates that a patent licensee terminate or breach its license agreement before seeking a declaratory judgment to hold the underlying patent invalid, unenforceable, or not infringed. Breaking with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the MedImmune majority clearly establishes a patent licensee's legal right to challenge the validity and enforceability of a patent without actually breaching or terminating the underlying licensing agreement for the …
Cunningham V. California, Christopher P. Raab
Cunningham V. California, Christopher P. Raab
Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar
In Cunningham v. California, the United States Supreme Court voted 6-3 to invalidate California's determinate sentencing law ("DSL") as violative of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court held that, notwithstanding the California Supreme Court's determination to the contrary, the DSL conflicted with prior Supreme Court precedent "by placing sentence-elevating factfinding within the judge's province," thereby "violat[ing] a defendant's right to trial by jury safeguarded by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments."
Carey V. Musladin: A Commentary On What Is Not Prejudicial, Christopher Donadio
Carey V. Musladin: A Commentary On What Is Not Prejudicial, Christopher Donadio
Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar
In a 9-0 decision, the United States Supreme Court refused to find that a California state court had acted "contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law," when that court found that it was not prejudicial for trial audience members to wear buttons with the image of the defendant's alleged murder victim. The Court relied upon the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), and its previous rulings in Estelle v. Williams and Holbrook v. Flynn, earlier cases that defined certain actions as prejudicial to a defendant in a court of law. The Court …
When Is Enough Too Much? The Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act Of 2005 And The Eighth Amendment’S Prohibition On Excessive Fines, Amy Kristin Sanders Esq.
When Is Enough Too Much? The Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act Of 2005 And The Eighth Amendment’S Prohibition On Excessive Fines, Amy Kristin Sanders Esq.
Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar
The next slip of the tongue or of the blouse will hit broadcasters where it hurts: their wallet. With the recent passage of the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005 ("BDEA"), Congress raised potential fines ten-fold in an attempt to clean up the airwaves and prevent the televised snafus that have occurred with increasing frequency during the past five years. From the broadcast of a barely covered breast during the 2004 Super Bowl to the on-air announcement of a four-letter expletive on a prime-time awards show, indecent expression has attracted the attention of the general public, advocacy groups, the Federal …
Safeco Ins. Co. Of America V. Burr: Defining Notification Requirements And Willfulness Under The Fair Credit Reporting Act, Travis S. Souza
Safeco Ins. Co. Of America V. Burr: Defining Notification Requirements And Willfulness Under The Fair Credit Reporting Act, Travis S. Souza
Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar
In a recent decision, the United States Supreme Court resolved a critical dispute regarding the interpretation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") and its notice requirement. In Safeco Ins. Co. of America v. Burr, the Court settled the definition of "willful" violation, a determination that will have enormous effects for insurance companies. Specifically, the Court held that willfulness not only includes knowing violations, but also includes a violation committed in reckless disregard of statutory obligations. While both of the insurance companies in Burr were technically victorious -- both were held not to have willfully violated the FCRA -- the …
Philip Morris Usa V. Williams: A Confusing Distinction, Sachin Bansal
Philip Morris Usa V. Williams: A Confusing Distinction, Sachin Bansal
Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar
In Philip Morris USA v. Williams, the United States Supreme Court held 5-4 that it is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Constitution for a jury to award punitive damages for harm caused to individuals other than the plaintiff. Thus, the Court concluded that, under the Constitution, a trial court could not levy punitive damages out of a desire to punish a company for injuries it inflicts upon others who are "essentially, strangers to the litigation." However, the Court confusingly drew a narrow and arguably contradictory distinction to justify its holding. Under Philip Morris USA, a jury may …
Scott V. Harris, Uchenna Evans
Scott V. Harris, Uchenna Evans
Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar
In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court reversed an 11th Circuit ruling denying qualified immunity to a police officer sued by a fleeing motorist who was rendered quadriplegic when his car was pushed over an embankment by the officer's vehicle. . The Court ruled that the officer did not violate the motorist's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure and that the officer was entitled to summary judgment. Both the federal district court and the 11th Circuit had ruled in favor of the respondent, denying the officer's summary judgment motion based on qualified immunity after finding a Fourth …
United Haulers Ass’N V. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Mgmt. Auth., Joshua J. Faber
United Haulers Ass’N V. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Mgmt. Auth., Joshua J. Faber
Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar
The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, upheld two counties' flow control ordinances that require trash haulers to deliver waste to government-owned processing facilities. The Court determined that the Commerce Clause is not violated by laws which favor state or local government entities but treat all private entities equal.
Jones V. Bock: New Clarity Under The Prison Litigation Reform Act, Squire Servance
Jones V. Bock: New Clarity Under The Prison Litigation Reform Act, Squire Servance
Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar
On January 22, 2007, the Supreme Court decided the consolidated cases of Jones v. Bock , Williams v. Overton , and Walton v. Bouchard , all of which were Sixth Circuit cases. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court provided clarity to what constitutes exhaustion of prison grievance procedures under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA). The Court's decision also offers its view on the correct way to balance the burden between prisoner plaintiffs and the judiciary, which labors to process prisoner complaints. Broken into three discreet issues, the essential holding provides a small victory for prison litigants. …
Whorton V. Bockting And The Watershed Exception Of Teague V. Lane, Tadhg Dooley
Whorton V. Bockting And The Watershed Exception Of Teague V. Lane, Tadhg Dooley
Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar
In Whorton v. Bockting, the Supreme Court considered whether its rule from Crawford v. Washington, prohibiting the admission of testimonial hearsay statements without a prior opportunity for the defendant to cross-examine the declarant, should be applied retroactively to cases on collateral appeal under the standard set forth in Teague v. Lane. The determination rested on whether Crawford announced a "new rule" that should be applied retroactively by virtue of its being a "watershed rule of criminal procedure implicating the fundamental fairness and accuracy of the criminal proceeding." In a unanimous decision, the Court held that Crawford did announce a "new …
Planned Parenthood Federation Of America, Inc. V. Gonzales, Blake Mason
Planned Parenthood Federation Of America, Inc. V. Gonzales, Blake Mason
Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar
In one of the most pivotal cases of the Fall 2006 Term, the United States Supreme Court upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 by a vote of 5-4. The Court found the Act to be facially valid, despite the absence of an exception for cases in which an abortion is necessary to preserve the health of the mother, stating that the Act was not "void for vagueness" and that it did not impose "an undue burden on a woman's right to abortion based on its overbreadth or lack of a health exception." The case signaled a departure from …
Why Originalism Won’T Die - Common Mistakes In Competing Theories Of Judicial Interpretation, Tara Smith
Why Originalism Won’T Die - Common Mistakes In Competing Theories Of Judicial Interpretation, Tara Smith
Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy
In the debate over proper judicial interpretation of the law, the doctrine of Originalism has been subjected to numerous seemingly fatal criticisms. Despite the exposure of flaws that would normally bury a theory, however, Originalism continues to attract tremendous support, seeming to many to be the most sensible theory on offer. This Article examines its resilient appeal (with a particular focus on Scalia’s Textualism). By surveying and identifying the fundamental weaknesses of three of the leading alternatives to Originalism (Popular Will theory, Dworkin’s value theory, and Judicial Minimalism), the Article demonstrates that the heart of Originalism’s appeal rests in its …
Lawrence V. Florida: Applications For Post-Conviction Relief Are, Elizabeth Richardson-Royer
Lawrence V. Florida: Applications For Post-Conviction Relief Are, Elizabeth Richardson-Royer
Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar
On February 20, 2007 , the Supreme Court announced its decision in Lawrence v. Florida, seeking to address confusion surrounding the tolling of a one-year statute of limitations applicable to federal habeas corpus petitions.
Dura Pharmaceuticals V. Broudo: The Unlikely Tort Of “Securities Fraud”: Dura Pharmaceuticals V. Broudo, Oleg Cross
Dura Pharmaceuticals V. Broudo: The Unlikely Tort Of “Securities Fraud”: Dura Pharmaceuticals V. Broudo, Oleg Cross
Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar
Created pursuant to section 10 of the 1934 Securities Act, Rule 10b-5 is a cornerstone of the federal securities laws. The federal courts' interpretations have largely defined the rule, which seeks to remedy a broad range of securities fraud and market manipulation. Elements of the rule, such as "scienter" and "reliance," were defined at length by earlier court decisions. However, no court had held definitively whether a private plaintiff bringing an action under the rule must demonstrate a causal connection between the alleged fraud and the subsequent loss to that plaintiff. This issue, referred to as "loss causation," was decided …
Burton V. Stewart: Reconsidering What Makes A Supreme Court Decision ‘New’, Michael Goodman
Burton V. Stewart: Reconsidering What Makes A Supreme Court Decision ‘New’, Michael Goodman
Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar
In Burton v. Stewart, the Supreme Court narrowly avoided deciding whether Blakely v. Washington is a "new" rule as well as a related question of whether Blakely should be applied retroactively on collateral review. Instead, the Court ruled that Mr. Burton's petition for review did not meet the "gatekeeping requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)." By deciding Burton on procedural grounds rather than considering the merits of the underlying claims upon which certiorari was granted, the Court delayed consideration of important issues, which are likely to resurface.
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. V. White, Christian J. Brann
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. V. White, Christian J. Brann
Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar
On June 22, 2006, the United States Supreme Court broadened the purview of the anti-retaliation provision of Title VII in all circuits but one when it held that the provision prohibits those employer actions that would be considered materially adverse by a reasonable employee, regardless of whether such actions occurred at the workplace or were related to employment. In so holding, the Supreme Court did three things worthy of comment. First, the Court expunged the confusion caused by disparate and incompatible treatments of the anti-retaliation provision by the circuit courts. Second, by subjecting all employer action to review, the Court …
Eminent Domain After Kelo V. City Of New London: Compensating For The Supreme Court’S Refusal To Enforce The Fifth Amendment, Scott D. Mikkelsen
Eminent Domain After Kelo V. City Of New London: Compensating For The Supreme Court’S Refusal To Enforce The Fifth Amendment, Scott D. Mikkelsen
Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar
Governments, both state and federal, have the right to take private property for public use, provided that just compensation is paid. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution sets the legal standard for these propositions; this power is known as the right of eminent domain. In the landmark decision, Kelo v. City of New London, the Supreme Court held that the taking of a citizen’s private property for economic development qualified as a public use within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment. Several scholars, legislatures, and individuals, have objected to Kelo’s extension of the power of eminent …
Lopez V. Gonzales & Toledo-Flores V. United States: State Felony Drug Convictions Not Necessarily Aggravated Felonies Requiring Deportation, Ryan Wagner
Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar
The United States Courts of Appeals split over whether state felony drug convictions, which were punishable only as misdemeanors under federal law, constituted aggravated felonies under immigration law. The controversy was based upon the interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). Under the Act, an alien who is convicted of an “aggravated felony” is automatically deported from the United States. According to the INA, an aggravated felony includes “illicit trafficking in a controlled substance . . . including a drug trafficking crime (as defined in section 924(c) of Title 18).” Although the INA does not define “illicit trafficking,” Title …
Federalism And Accountability: State Attorneys General, Regulatory Litigation, And The New Federalism, Timothy Meyer
Federalism And Accountability: State Attorneys General, Regulatory Litigation, And The New Federalism, Timothy Meyer
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Federal Suits And General Laws: A Comment On Judge Fletcher's Reading Of Sosa V. Alvarez-Marchain, Ernest A. Young
Federal Suits And General Laws: A Comment On Judge Fletcher's Reading Of Sosa V. Alvarez-Marchain, Ernest A. Young
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
A Constitutional Conundrum Of Second Amendment Commas: A Short Epistolary Report, William W. Van Alstyne
A Constitutional Conundrum Of Second Amendment Commas: A Short Epistolary Report, William W. Van Alstyne
Faculty Scholarship
Prompted by the court’s decision in Parker v. District of Columbia, this series of correspondence discusses the effect possible forms of punctuation may have on the Second Amendment. The article makes comments on the important grammars during the founding and also two possible writings of the Second Amendment that contain different sets of punctuation.
Presidential Powers Including Military Tribunals In The October 2005 Term, Erwin Chemerinsky
Presidential Powers Including Military Tribunals In The October 2005 Term, Erwin Chemerinsky
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
The Constitution Outside The Constitution, Ernest A. Young
The Constitution Outside The Constitution, Ernest A. Young
Faculty Scholarship
Countries lacking a single canonical text define the “constitution” to include all laws that perform the constitutive functions of creating governmental institutions and conferring rights on individuals. The British Constitution, for example, includes a variety of constitutive statutes, such as the Magna Carta and the Parliament Acts. This Article proposes a thought experiment: what if we defined the U.S. Constitution by function, rather than by form? Viewed from this perspective, “the Constitution” would include not only the canonical document but also a variety of statutes, executive materials, and practices that structure our government. What these constitutive materials lack is a …
Rediscovering Brandeis’S Right To Privacy, Erwin Chemerinsky
Rediscovering Brandeis’S Right To Privacy, Erwin Chemerinsky
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
The State-Created Danger Doctrine, Erwin Chemerinsky
The State-Created Danger Doctrine, Erwin Chemerinsky
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
The Fifth Amendment And The Grand Jury, Sara Sun Beale, James E. Felman
The Fifth Amendment And The Grand Jury, Sara Sun Beale, James E. Felman
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
School Naming Rights And The First Amendment’S Perfect Storm, Joseph Blocher
School Naming Rights And The First Amendment’S Perfect Storm, Joseph Blocher
Faculty Scholarship
In the past five years, public schools across the country have begun to explore a new avenue of fundraising: selling naming rights to school facilities. The popularity and monetary value of these sales, however, only highlight the importance of the First Amendment concerns they raise. This Article uses school naming rights as a lens through which to examine the conflicts between government speech, commercial speech, and forum analysis, three categories of First Amendment analysis that are simultaneously and problematically implicated by school naming rights sales. Courts and scholars have long noted the internal ambiguities within these three categories, but have …
A System Of Wholesale Denial Of Rights, Michael E. Tigar
A System Of Wholesale Denial Of Rights, Michael E. Tigar
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Mandatory Constitutions, Paul D. Carrington
The Federal Judicial Power And The International Legal Order, Curtis A. Bradley
The Federal Judicial Power And The International Legal Order, Curtis A. Bradley
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.