Law Commons^™

Reliance Interests In Statutory And Constitutional Interpretation, William N. Eskridge Jr., John Garver Professor Of Jurisprudence

Vanderbilt Law Review

People and companies rely on public law when they plan their activities; society relies on legal entitlements when it adapts to new technology, economic conditions, and social groups; legislators, administrators, and judges rely on settled law when they pass, implement, and interpret statutes (respectively). Such private, societal, and public “reliance interests” are the “dark matter” of America’s law of interpretation. They underwrite most interpretive doctrine, and their perceived force broadly and deeply affects the application of doctrine.

Reliance interests anchor the constitutional bias in favor of interpretive continuity, and they provide guardrails for the leading theories of interpretation-—namely-—textualism or original …

Constitutional Limits On The Imposition And Revocation Of Probation, Parole, And Supervised Release After Haymond, Nancy J. King

Vanderbilt Law Review

In its Apprendi line of cases, the Supreme Court has held that any fact found at sentencing (other than prior conviction) that aggravates the punishment range otherwise authorized by the conviction is an “element” that must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury. Whether Apprendi controls factfinding for the imposition and revocation of probation, parole, and supervised release is critically important. Seven of ten adults under correctional control in the United States are serving terms of state probation and post-confinement supervision, and roughly half of all prison admissions result from revocations of such terms. But scholars have yet …

The Ghost Of John Hart Ely, Ryan D. Doerfler, Samuel Moyn

Vanderbilt Law Review

The ghost of John Hart Ely haunts the American liberal constitutional imagination. Despite the failure long ago of any progressive constitutional vision in an increasingly conservative Supreme Court, Ely’s conjectures about the superiority of judges relative to legislatures in the protection of minorities and the policing of the democratic process remain second nature. Indeed, they have been credible enough among liberals to underwrite an anxious or even hostile attitude toward judicial reform. In order to exorcise Ely’s ghost and lay it to rest, this Article challenges his twin conjectures. First, the Article argues that there is little historical and no …

Federalism And The Military Power Of The United States, Robert Leider

Vanderbilt Law Review

This Article examines the original meaning of the constitutional provisions governing the raising and organization of military forces. It argues that the Framers carefully divided the military between the federal and state governments. This division provided structural checks against the misuse of military power and made it more difficult to use offensive military force. These structural checks have been compromised by the creation of the U.S. Army Reserve, the dual enlistment of National Guard officers and soldiers, and the acceptance of conscription into the national army, all of which have enhanced federal military power beyond its original constitutional limits.

This …

"Plausible Cause": Explanatory Standards In The Age Of Powerful Machines, Kiel Brennan-Marquez

Vanderbilt Law Review

Much scholarship in law and political science has long understood the U.S. Supreme Court to be the "apex" court in the federal judicial system, and so to relate hierarchically to "lower" federal courts. On that top-down view, exemplified by the work of Alexander Bickel and many subsequent scholars, the Court is the principal, and lower federal courts are its faithful agents. Other scholarship takes a bottom-up approach, viewing lower federal courts as faithless agents or analyzing the "percolation" of issues in those courts before the Court decides. This Article identifies circumstances in which the relationship between the Court and other …

The Jurisdiction Canon, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Vanderbilt Law Review

This Article concerns the interpretation of jurisdictional statutes. The fundamental postulate of the law of the federal courts is that the federal courts are courts of limited subject-matter jurisdiction. That principle is reinforced by a canon of statutory interpretation according to which statutes conferring federal subject-matter jurisdiction are to be construed narrowly, with ambiguities resolved against the availability of federal jurisdiction. This interpretive canon is over a century old and has been recited in thousands of federal cases, but its future has become uncertain. The Supreme Court recently stated that the canon does not apply to many of today's most …

A Tribute To Justice Scalia: Why Bad Cases Make Bad Methodology, Brian T. Fitzpatrick

Vanderbilt Law Review

The Vanderbilt Law Review asked me to write a short memorial tribute to my old boss, Justice Antonin Scalia, and I am fortunate that Dean Chemerinsky's new book provides an apt occasion to do so. To be as blunt as the Justice would have been: he would have hated this book. Not because Dean Chemerinsky is not a gifted writer; he most surely is. But because the entire methodology of the book-a methodology I call "bad-cases" reasoning-was anathema to the Justice. The Justice may not have been right about everything, but he was right about this: bad-cases reasoning is bad …

Thinking About The Supreme Court's Successes And Failures, Erwin Chemerinsky

Vanderbilt Law Review

The Supreme Court often has failed at its most important tasks and at the most important times. I set out this thesis at the beginning the book:

To be clear, I am not saying that the Supreme Court has failed at these crucial tasks every time. Making a case against the Supreme Court does not require taking such an extreme position. I also will talk about areas where the Court has succeeded in protecting minorities and in enforcing the limits of the Constitution. My claim is that the Court has often failed where and when it has been most needed. …

Constitutionalizing Corporate Law, Elizabeth Pollman

Vanderbilt Law Review

The Supreme Court has recently decided some of the most important and controversial cases involving the federal rights of corporations in over two hundred years of jurisprudence. In rulings ranging from corporate political spending to religious liberty rights, the Court has dramatically expanded the zone in which corporations can act free from regulation. This Article argues these decisions represent a doctrinal shift, even from previous cases granting rights to corporations. The modern corporate rights doctrine has put unprecedented weight on state corporate law to act as a mechanism for resolving disputes among corporate participants regarding the expressive and religious activity …

Original Meaning And The Precedent Fallback, Randy J. Kozel

Vanderbilt Law Review

There is longstanding tension between originalism and judicial precedent. With its resolute focus on deciphering the enacted Constitution, the originalist methodology raises questions about whether judges can legitimately defer to their own pronouncements. Numerous scholars have responded by debating whether and when the Constitution's original meaning should yield to contrary precedent. This Article considers the role of judicial precedent not when it conflicts with the Constitution's original meaning but rather when the consultation of text and historical evidence is insufficient to resolve a case. In those situations, deference to precedent can serve as a fallback rule of constitutional adjudication. The …

The Obligation Of Members Of Congress To Consider Constitutionality While Deliberating And Voting: The Deficiencies Of House Rule Xii And A Proposed Rule For The Senate, Russ Feingold

Vanderbilt Law Review

Most scholarly attention on constitutional interpretation is focused on the judicial branch and its role in our system of separation of powers. Nonetheless, constitutional interpretation should not take place solely in the courts. Rather, history suggests our Framers envisioned that members of Congress, as well as the President and the courts, would have an independent and important role to play in interpreting our Constitution. Yet this obligation has eroded such that House Speaker John Boehner, with the support of the Tea Party and his Republican colleagues, called for a "sea change" in the way the House of Representatives operates, with …

The Constitutional Dimension Of Immigration Federalism, Clare Huntington

Vanderbilt Law Review

In Farmers Branch, Texas, the city council enacted a measure to fine landlords who rent their premises to unauthorized migrants,' and in Arizona, the state legislature passed a law imposing stiff penalties on employers who intentionally or knowingly hire unauthorized migrants. In San Francisco, the board of supervisors passed a measure that bars law enforcement officers from inquiring into the immigration status of an individual in the course of a criminal investigation. In Alabama and Florida, state officials have entered into agreements with the federal government permitting state law enforcement officers to arrest and detain non-citizens on immigration charges. Other …

Non-Judicial Precedent, Michael J. Gerhardt

Vanderbilt Law Review

This Article proposes a new paradigm for analyzing the role of precedent in constitutional law. The conventional perspective equates precedent with judicial decisions, particularly those of the Supreme Court, and almost totally ignores the constitutional significance of precedents made by public authorities other than courts. Yet, non- judicial actors produce precedents that are more pervasive than those made by courts in constitutional law. Non-judicial precedents are not only confined to the backwaters of constitutional law, but they also pertain to serious constitutional matters-presidential succession, secession, congressional power to remove Presidents and Justices, and the respective authorities of the President and …

"The House Was Quiet And The World Was Calm The Reader Became The Book", Burt Neuborne

Vanderbilt Law Review

Professor Neuborne argues that we err in reading the Bill of Rights "in splendid isolation" as a randomly ordered set of clause-bound norms. Instead, he argues that the disciplined order and placement of the thirty-three ideas in the Bill of Rights, especially the six textual ideas united in the First Amendment, reveals a deep contextual structure imposed by the Founders that sheds important light on the meaning of the constitutional text. He argues that the "vertical" order of the first ten amendments, as well as the "horizontal" order of ideas within each amendment, provides important clues to a judge seeking …

Government Of The Good, Abner S. Greene

Vanderbilt Law Review

Government "speaks" both directly through its own pronouncements and indirectly through funding private speech. Many scholars of both political theory and constitutional law have argued that government should not use its persuasive powers to promote contested notions of the good life. Whether the issue is providing information about childbirth without also providing information about abortion or insisting on adherence to decency standards when awarding cultural grants, scholars generally have maintained that government should avoid taking sides.

In this Article, Professor Greene supports the contrary position, advocating a vigorous role for government speech even in areas of great social contest. Government …

Conservatives, Liberals, Romantics: The Persistent Quest For Certainty In Constitutional Interpretation, Frederick M. Gedicks

Vanderbilt Law Review

From the time that Robert Bork issued his first attack on the Warren Court, originalism has belonged to political conservatives. This interpretive theory, which holds that the understanding of the Constitution at the time it was drafted and ratified controls its contemporary meaning, has been regularly utilized by conservative judges and politicians over the last two decades to question the legitimacy of various (mostly liberal) Supreme Court decisions. Given the liberal tilt of the legal academy, it is not suprising that advocates of originalism constitute a minority of constitutional scholars.

Recently, a prominent constitutional theorist with unmistakably liberal credentials announced …

All The Supreme Court Really Needs To Know It Learned From The Warren Court, Suzanna Sherry

Vanderbilt Law Review

It is accepted wisdom among constitutional law scholars that the Supreme Court is now considerably more conservative than it was during the tenure of Chief Justice Earl Warren. In this Article, I hope to suggest that the conventional wisdom is at least partly wrong. In Part I, I suggest that many of the current Court's so-called conservative cases and doctrines are direct descendants of Warren Court cases and doctrines. Although my attribution of similarity is new, the description of the cases and doctrines themselves is entirely unoriginal. Indeed, the history of the two sets of cases-of the Warren Court and …

On The Merits: A Response To Professor Sherry, John C.P. Goldberg

Vanderbilt Law Review

Professor Sherry's Article has three parts. The first is doctrinal and undertakes to demonstrate that the above quoted wisdom is not only false, but patently so. It is apparent, this Part argues, that the current Court has not drifted toward the "right," but has steadfastly held to the principle of justice that animated the Warren Court. This is the principle of "formal neutrality," which generally holds that government may never distinguish among its citizens on the basis of race, creed, or color.

Professor Sherry's second project is to explain why constitutional scholars have failed to recognize this obvious consistency. Her …

Old Wine In New Bottles: The Constitutional Status Of Unconstitutional Speech, Mark A. Graber

Vanderbilt Law Review

This Article explores whether contemporary advocates of restrictions on bigoted expression have more in common with contemporary advocates of broad First Amendment rights or with past censors. The critical theorists who would ban some hate speech rely heavily on the equal citizenship principles that radical civil libertarians believe justify almost absolute speech rights. Past censors, however, also relied heavily on principles that libertarians in their generation thought justified almost absolute speech rights. The First Amendment, past and present censors argue, does not fully protect speech in- consistent with what they believe are basic constitutional values. This claim repudiates a basic …

The Constitutionality Of Student-Led Prayer At Public School Graduation Ceremonies, Johanna J. Raimond

Vanderbilt Law Review

The Supreme Court consistently has held that it is unconstitutional to pray in public school classrooms.' Until 1992, however, the Court had never addressed the issue of prayer at a public school graduation ceremony. Prior to the Court's ruling, public school districts across the country regularly included a prayer of some variety in their graduation programs. In June 1992, the Supreme Court finally addressed this longstanding practice. In Lee v. Weisman, the Court held that the Providence, Rhode Island school district violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by permitting a rabbi to offer an invocation and benediction at …

The Continuing Evolution Of Criminal Constitutional Law In State Courts, S. Carran Daughtrey

Vanderbilt Law Review

Although early state constitutions were important and ambitious documents for their time, the development of state constitutional law stagnated after the drafting and adoption of the federal constitution., As the doctrine of federalism has resurfaced, however, states have begun to turn to their constitutions to grant more protection for their citizens. The states' criminal constitutional laws have changed significantly and continue to evolve today.

In the 1960s, the Warren Court expanded basic protections for criminal defendants by finding that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments. The Court held that the Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual …

A Precarious Path: The Bill Of Rights After 200 Years, Tony A. Freyer

Vanderbilt Law Review

The Bill of Rights occupies an ambiguous place in American society. Americans favor the Bill of Rights in principle, but when asked whether they support particular rights guarantees for real-life practices such as gun ownership, capital punishment, abortion, and flag burning, Americans fervently and profoundly disagree. The essays David J. Bodenhamer and James W. Ely, Jr. have compiled in The Bill of Rights in Modern America After 200 Years, richly suggest why Americans have reconciled principle and practice with such difficulty. Written for a popular audience by specialists who possess a profound knowledge of and differing views concerning the technical …

State Courts Reject "Leon" On State Constitutional Grounds: A Defense Of Reactive Rulings, Leigh A. Morrissey

Vanderbilt Law Review

In 1984, the United States Supreme Court announced a broad exception to the federal exclusionary rule' in United States v. Leon. The Court held the exclusionary rule inapplicable when police officers obtain evidence in reasonable, good faith reliance on a warrant later found to be defective. Commentators had advised against the creation of the so-called good faith exception before Leon. After Leon, they promulgated a torrent of commentary criticizing both the Leon Court's reasoning and its result. Today, because Leon does not control state constitutional decisions, the battle over the good faith exception is fought on the state level. Currently, …

Quasi-Constitutional Law: Clear Statement Rules As Constitu, William N. Eskridge, Jr., Philip P. Frickey

Vanderbilt Law Review

In one of the most celebrated law review articles of all time, Karl Llewellyn argued that the traditional canons of statutory construction are not reliable guides to predicting judicial interpretations, because for every canon supporting one interpretation there is a counter-canon cutting against that interpretation. He accomplished his tour de force in large part by focusing upon the "referential" canons-rules referring the Court to an outside or preexisting source to determine statutory meaning'-and upon the "linguistic" canons-general conventions of language, grammar, and syntax. Llewellyn did not explore in any detail the "substantive" canons, the clear statement rules or presumptions of …

People's Court, Nicholas S. Zeppos

Vanderbilt Law Review

The Supreme Court's opinion in Bowers v. Hardwick' contains the usual cant about the legitimacy of the judicial function. In holding that the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment does not recognize a fundamental right to practice homosexual sodomy, the Court cautioned that "[t]he Court is most vulnerable and comes nearest to illegitimacy when it deals with judge-made constitutional law having little or no cognizable roots in the language or design of the Constitution. What exactly did the Court mean? That the public would refuse to obey judicial judgments if the Court were to recognize rights not "found in" …

The Ripple Effects Of Slaughter-House: A Critique Of A Negative Rights View Of The Constitution, Michael J. Gerhardt

Vanderbilt Law Review

Upon seeing Niagara Falls for the first time, Oscar Wilde reportedly remarked that it "would be more impressive if it flowed the other way." I have a similar reaction to a series of narrow Supreme Court interpretations of the fourteenth amendment, beginning with the Slaughter-House Cases, decided in 1872, and extending to the 1989 decisions in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services and DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services. In Slaughter-House the Court interpreted the privileges or immunities clause of the fourteenth amendment as merely protecting interests other federal laws already protected, while recently the Court interpreted the due …

Another View: Our Magnificent Constitution, William B. Reynolds

Vanderbilt Law Review

Let me start with the observation that I regard myself to be most privileged to be a public servant at a time when we celebrate the 200th anniversary of the Constitution a magnificent document that has, in my view, no equal in history and every reason to be feted. It is by now no revelation that the Framers would be aghast at the size and reach of government today; but they would also be enormously proud of how much of their legacy has endured. The vitality of the original Constitution, and its various amendments, is reflected by its ability to …

The Coercion Test And Conditional Federal Grants To The States, Donald J. Mizerk

Vanderbilt Law Review

In July of 1984 Congress amended the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982' to require the states either to raise their minimum drinking age to twenty-one or forfeit a percentage of their federal highway grant. This congressional action forced the states to make an extremely difficult decision. The states either could enact a law that their residents might not support or forego the federal highway funds that the states desperately needed to complete important highway improvements. Many states were displeased with both options and challenged the constitutionality of Congress' conditional spending program.

The states' legal challenge has initiated renewed discussion …

Social Order And The Limits Of Law: A Theoretical Essay, Arthur S. Miller

Vanderbilt Law Review

Professor Jenkins maintains that Americans demand that "the law solve all of [their] problems and secure all of [their] purposes." The result is that we "so overload the legal apparatus that it short circuits, creating a spectacular display of fireworks but affecting nothing save its own wreckage."' That assertion, even if only partially accurate, merits close and continuing attention. Jenkins' analysis of that hypothesis--that proposition-is at once thought-provoking and illuminating. We are all in his debt for having written such a challenging book, even though I have some fundamental disagreements with how he develops that theme. Jenkins' work is a …

Democracy And Distrust: A Theory Of Judicial Review, Michael Conant

Vanderbilt Law Review

This review is a critique of the major themes in Democracy and Distrust: A Theory of Judicial Review,' by Professor John Hart Ely of Harvard Law School. Ely primarily addresses the amount of discretion exercised by Supreme Court justices in deciding constitutional cases, a fundamental issue since few scholars today would contest the actual existence of the judicial review power of the Court. Ely's thorough scholarship presents a fine discussion of the Court's legitimacy when it extends its discretion beyond the base of the actual constitutional language. Professor Ely misses the mark, however, in his argument that certain open-ended constitutional …