Law Commons^™

The Collective Right Endures: Pre-Heller Precedent And Our Understanding Of The Modern Second Amendment, William Reach

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Prior to 2008, legal scholars who examined the Second Amendment fell roughly into two camps: those who believed “the right of the people to . . . bear arms” only covered state militias, and those who believed it extended to individual citizens.

After District of Columbia v. Heller conclusively established that the “Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms," discussion of the collective right to bear arms largely receded from public discussion and most litigation surrounding the Second Amendment shifted to define the outer edges of the individual right. But the pre-Heller showdown between these …

Executive Unilateralism And Individual Rights In A Federalist System, Meredith Mclain, Sharece Thrower

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Presidents have a wide array of tools at their disposal to unilaterally influence public policy, without the direct approval of Congress or the courts. These unilateral actions have the potential to affect a variety of individual rights, either profitably or adversely. Governors too can employ unilateral directives for similar purposes, often impacting an even wider range of rights. In this Article, we collect all executive orders and memoranda related to individual rights issued between 1981 and 2018 at the federal level, and across the U.S. states, to analyze their use over time. We find that chief executives of all kinds …

Destructive Federal Decentralization, David Fontana

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article—written for a symposium hosted by the William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal—focuses on the efforts by the Trump administration to relocate federal officials outside of Washington to reduce the capacity of the federal government. Federalism and the separation of powers are usually the twin pillars of structural constitutional law. Locating federal officials outside of Washington— federal decentralization—has been an additional tool of diffusing power that has started to gain some scholarly attention. These debates largely focus on structural constitutional law as constructive—as improving the capacity and operation of the federal and state governments. The power …

Universal Human Rights And Constitutional Change, David Sloss, Wayne Sandholtz

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Scholars have written volumes about the dramatic constitutional changes that occurred in the United States in the decades after World War II. Several leading scholarly accounts adopt an internal perspective, focusing primarily on domestic factors that drove constitutional change. Other scholars adopt a more transnational perspective, linking domestic constitutional change in the United States to Cold War politics, or to the rise of totalitarianism. This Article builds on the work of scholars like Mary Dudziak and Richard Primus who have emphasized the transnational factors that contributed to constitutional change in the United States. However, our account differs from both Dudziak …

Silencing State Courts, Jeffrey Steven Gordon

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In state courts across the Nation, an absolutist conception of the First Amendment is preempting common law speech torts. From intentional infliction of emotional distress and intrusion upon seclusion, to intentional interference with contractual relations and negligent infliction of emotional distress, state courts are dismissing speech tort claims on the pleadings because of the broad First Amendment defense recognized by Snyder v. Phelps in 2011. This Article argues, contrary to the scholarly consensus, that Snyder was a categorical departure from the methodology adopted by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the landmark 1964 case that first applied the First …

The Federal–State Standing Gap: How To Enforce Federal Law In Federal Court Without Article Iii Standing, Peter N. Salib, David K. Suska

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

You, too, can sue Donald Trump under the Emoluments Clause!

Since Inauguration Day, several lawsuits have been filed against President Trump because of his refusal to divest certain assets. They assert that Trump’s business interests conflict with the Emoluments Clause of Article I. That arcane provision forbids certain federal officials from accepting any perquisite or gain from a foreign monarch or state. The suits contend, for example, that a foreign dignitary’s booking of a room at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C. would constitute an unlawful emolument.

Most commentators quickly threw cold water on the prospect of any plaintiff …

The Narrowing Of Federal Power By The American Political Capital, David Fontana

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Essay--—prepared for a symposium hosted by the William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal on the future of the District of Columbia--—argues that American federal power can be better understood by considering the features of the metropolitan area that houses the most important parts of the American federal government. In other American metropolitan areas and in most capital metropolitan areas elsewhere in the world, local life features multiple and diverse industries. Washington is the metropolitan area that houses the most important parts of the American federal government, and Washington is dominated by the government and related industries. Washington is, …

Retained By The People: Federalism, The Ultimate Sovereign, And Natural Limits On Government Power, Stephanie Hall Barclay

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Brewing tensions between state governments and the federal government have reached a boiling point unmatched since the civil rights debates of the 1960s. In light of the rapid expansion of federal power combined with colliding views on various policies, the call for states’ rights has increasingly become a rallying cry for lawmakers that has gained traction with groups on varying points along the political spectrum, as well as a frequent theory employed by the Supreme Court. While the system of federalism created by the Constitution certainly has its unique benefits, and while it is true that the federal government was …

Parental Exclusion From The Education Governance Kaleidoscope: Providing A Political Voice For Marginalized Students In Our Time Of Disruption, Tiffani N. Darden

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article develops how the judiciary should play an instrumental part in amplifying the parent’s voice as a citizenship broker for their child. The Supreme Court scrutinizes school-board actions with little consideration of parents’ substantive due process right to control their child’s education through the political process. Through representative school boards, effective participation models, and an enforcement framework, parents could hold the power to affect education policies. Parents deserve full citizenship recognition in the tiered processes controlling public education policy. In addition to recognizing “quality” education as a government interest, the Supreme Court should also take into account the political …

The Transformation Of Immigration Federalism, Jennifer M. Chacón

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Federal Law In State Court: Judicial Federalism Through A Relational Lens, Charlton C. Copeland

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Enforcing federalism is most commonly thought to involve the search for a
constitutional delegation of substantive power. Although in modern times the substantive power might be overlapping or shared authority, federalism enforcement proceeds from a determination about the site of substantive power. This conception of federalism enforcement preserves the Constitution’s commitment to fractionated authority by determining whether power is legitimately possessed. Thus we understand significant federalism disputes in our age as framed by whether Congress has the authority to enact comprehensive health care reform legislation, or whether Congress
has exceeded its authority in reenacting the Voting Rights Act’s preclearance requirements. …

Family Law Federalism: Divorce And The Constitution, Ann Laquer Estin

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

American divorce law was transformed by the Supreme Court in a series of decisions beginning with Williams v. North Carolina in 1942. These constitutional full faith and credit cases resolved a long-standing federalism problem by redefining the scope of state power over marital status. With these decisions, the Court shifted from an analysis based on the competing interests of different states to an approach that highlighted the individual interests of the parties involved. This change fundamentally altered state power over the family by extending to individuals greater control of their marital status. In the process, the Court cleared a path …

Conflicting Commerce Clauses: How Raich And American Trucking Dishonor Their Doctrines, John W. Moorman

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

"So Long As Our System Shall Exist": Myth, History, And The New Federalism, Paul D. Moreno

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This article provides the broad historical context necessary to understand contemporary developments in federalism doctrine. It shows that dual federalism has a long and varied history and that federalism is a content-neutral principle to which both sides in major political contests have appealed. It seeks to show that the predominant perspective on federalism today - that it is an inherently conservative principle - is the result of historical misperception. This article reinterprets the history of American federalism in light of recent historical scholarship concerning various periods: principally the country's founding; slavery, the Civil War, and Reconstruction; the late nineteenth-century social …

The Supreme Court And The Federalist Papers: Is There Less Here Than Meets The Eye?, Melvyn R. Durchslag

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Domestic Relations, Missouri V. Holland, And The New Federalism, Mark Strasser

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Federalism And Formalism, Allison H. Eid

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Many commentators have criticized the Supreme Court's New Federalism decisions as "excessively formalistic. " In this Article, Professor Eid argues that this "standard critique" is wrong on both a descriptive and normative level. Descriptively, she argues that the standard critique mistakenly downplays the extent to which the New Federalism decisions consider the values that federalism serves, and contends that they employ the same sort of formalism/functionalism blend that is found in the Court's separation of powers jurisprudence. Professor Eid then contends that the standard critique's normative prescription - a case-by-case balancing test that would weigh the federal interest against the …

Federal Power, States' Rights, Individual Rights: Mentally Disabled Prisoners And The Supreme Court's New Activism, Tom Kollas

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Note examines the situation of mentally disabled prisoners who seek to assert their rights in federal court. Neither laws affecting the disabled nor laws affecting prisoners receive heightened scrutiny by the judiciary, which, thus far, also refuses to recognize the unique burdens of those who fit both categories. Because mentally disabled prisoners do not qualify for heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause, recent developments in the federalism doctrine lead the courts to conclude that they are without jurisdiction to hear suits brought by prisoners against state penitentiaries. This Note explores the underpinnings of federalism, separation of powers, and …

Federal Jurisdiction Over State Claims To Shipwrecks: Should The Eleventh Amendment Go Down With The Ship?, Mark R. Baumgartner

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The Eleventh Amendment prohibits citizens from bringing actions in law or equity against individual states in federal courts. The Amendment does not address whether states are subject to federal jurisdiction for actions in admiralty in which both a shipwreck salvor and a state claim title to a shipwreck Analyzing applicable admiralty, federal, and common law in the context of Eleventh Amendment jurisprudence, this Note examines whether the states are subject to pure admiralty actions in federal court by citizen-salvors seeking either title to or reward for salvaging a shipwreck. The original intentions of admiralty law: rewarding salvors for their efforts, …