Law Commons^™

A General Theory Of Governance: Due Process And Lawmaking Power, Louise Weinberg

William & Mary Law Review

This Article proposes a general theory describing the nature and sources of law in American courts. Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins is rejected for this purpose. Better, more general theory is available, flowing from the Due Process Clauses. At its narrowest, the proposed theory is consonant with Erie but generalizes it, embracing federal as well as state law and statutory as well as decisional law in both state and federal courts. More broadly, beyond this unification of systemic thinking, the interest-analytic methodology characteristic of due process extends to a range of substantive constitutional problems. These include problems concerning both the …

Valid Rule Due Process Challenges: Bond V. United States And Erie's Constitutional Source, Kermit Roosevelt Iii

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

"Give Me A Few More Minutes!": How Virginia Violates Due Process By Hitting The Snooze Button On A Timely Declaration Of Death, Samantha Lauren Soller

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Sacrifice And Sacred Honor: Why The Constitution Is A "Suicide Pact", Peter Brandon Bayer

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Most legal scholars and elected officials embrace the popular cliché that “the Constitution is not a suicide pact.” Typically, those commentators extol the “Constitution of necessity,” the supposition that Government, essentially the Executive, may take any action—may abridge or deny any fundamental right—to alleviate a sufficiently serious national security threat. The “Constitution of necessity” is wrong. This Article explains that strict devotion to the “fundamental fairness” principles of the Constitution’s Due Process Clauses is America’s utmost legal and moral duty, surpassing all other considerations, even safety, security and survival.

The analysis begins with the most basic premises: the definition of …

Shadowing The Flag: Extending The Habeas Writ Beyond Guantanamo, Dawinder S. Sidhu

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The writ of habeas corpus activates courts’ duty to check arbitrary or unlawful restraints by the Executive on individual liberty. In times of war, courts have been compelled to determine whether the writ is available to individuals held by the Executive outside of the territorial boundaries of the United States. In Johnson v. Eisentrager, in which World War II detainees were held in Germany, the Supreme Court answered in the negative, while in Boumediene v. Bush, involving post–9/11 detainees housedat Guantánamo, the Court reached the opposite conclusion. Operating within these two guideposts, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District …

A Child-Centered Response To The Elkins Family Law Task Force, Amy M. Pellman, Robert N. Jacobs, Dara K. Reiner

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In Elkins v. Superior Court, 163 P.3d 160 (Cal. 2007), California’s Supreme Court asked the Judicial Council to form a task force to make recommendations to increase “access to justice” in family court, because it was concerned about rules, policies, and procedures that put self-represented litigants at an unfair disadvantage in parentageand dissolution cases.

Neither the task force’s report in 2010 nor the legislation that the report inspired the same year addresses children’s due process rights, even though children ordinarily have no access to justice. This Article shows that due process sometimes requires the trial court to appoint counsel for …

Finding Equilibrium: Exploring Due Process Violations In The Whistleblower Provisions Of The Fraud Enforecement And Recovery Act Of 2009, Laura Hough

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Dodging A Bullet: Mcdonald V. City Of Chicago And The Limits Of Progessive Originalism, Dale E. Ho

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The Supreme Court’s decision in last term’s gun rights case, McDonald v. City of Chicago, punctured the conventional wisdom after District of Columbia v. Heller that “we are all originalists now.” Surprisingly, many progressive academics were disappointed. For “progressive originalists,” McDonald was a missed opportunity to overrule the Slaughter-House Cases and to revitalize the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In their view, such a ruling could have realigned progressive constitutional achievements with originalism and relieved progressives of the albatross of substantive due process, while also unlocking long-dormant constitutional text to serve as the source of new unenumerated …

The Texas Mis-Step: Why The Largest Child Removal In Modern U.S. History Failed, Jessica Dixon Weaver

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

This Article sets forth the historical and legal reasons as to how the State of Texas botched the removal of 439 children from the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints parents residing in Eldorado, Texas. The Department of Family and Protective Services in Texas overreached its authority by treating this case like a class-action removal based on an impermissible legal argument, rather than focusing on the facts and circumstances that could have been substantiated for a select group of children at risk. This impermissible legal argument regarding the “pervasive belief system” of a polygamist sect that allowed minor …

Know Your Limit: How Legislatures Have Gone Overboard With Per Se Drunk Driving Laws And How Men Pay The Price, Andrew Gore

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Abortion, The Undue Burden Standard, And The Evisceration Of Women's Privacy, Caitlin E. Borgmann

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Weighing The Need To Establish Regulatory Takings Doctrine To Justify Takings Standards Of Review And Principles, James E. Holloway, Donald C. Guy

William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review

This article revisits and examines whether the fairness and justice doctrine of Armstrong v. United States can justify and fashion standards of review to protect the right to just compensation of the Takings Clause. The Court has relied on Armstrong to show the purpose of the Takings Clause in many takings decisions. However, can Armstrong serve a greater purpose? In Dolan v. City of Tigard, the United States Supreme Court applied the unconstitutional conditions doctrine to justify the need for a standard of review to protect the right to just compensation. The Court transported questionable constitutional doctrine to validate Justice …

Avoiding Another Eldorado: Balancing Parental Liberty And The Risk Of Error With Governmental Interest In The Well-Being Of Children In Complex Cases Of Child Removal, Andrew T. Erwin

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Statutory Damages In Copyright Law: A Remedy In Need Of Reform, Pamela Samuelson, Tara Wheatland

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Sex, Booze, And Clarity: Defining Sexual Assault On A College Campus, Justin Neidig

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

The Unbearable Lightness Of Marriage In The Abortion Decisions Of The Supreme Court: Altered States In Constitutional Law, William W. Van Alstyne

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Your Honor, I Seen Him With That Gang: The Constitutionality Of The Federal Criminal Street Gang Statute In The Wake Of Apprendi V. New Jersey, Jennifer E. Fleming

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Solipsism: Toward A Thick Doctrine Of Article Iii Duty; Or Why The Federal Circuits' Nonprecedential Status Rules Are (Profoundly) Unconstitutional, Penelope Pether

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Lawrence As An Eighth Amendment Case: Sodomy And The Evolving Standards Of Decency, Sheldon Bernard Lyke

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

This Article offers an alternate reading of Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down the Texas sodomy statute that criminalized private, consensual, and adult same-sex intercourse. While most scholars discuss Lawrence as a substantive due process case and struggle to find meaning in the ambiguity of the decision's language, I propose that Lawrence is better read as an Eighth Amendment case. This Article argues that the majority opinion analyzed the constitutionality of the Texas sodomy law as it would analyze the cruelty and unusualness of a criminal law in an Eighth Amendment evolving standards of …

Roe At Thirty-Six And Beyond: Enhancing Protection For Abortion Rights Through State Constitutions, Linda J. Wharton

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

In a series of decisions over the past three decades, the Supreme Court has seriously undermined Roe v. Wade's promise of full and meaningful federal constitutional protection for women's access to abortion. While the new Obama administration will enhance protection for reproductive rights at the federal level, the reality remains that reconstituting the Supreme Court with a majority of Justices amenable to fully restoring Roe's strict protections will likely take many years. This Article considers whether state constitutions are a promising avenue for enhancing protection for abortion rights.

This Article looks back on thirty years of reproductive rights litigation under …

Mothers Versus Babies: Constitutional And Policy Problems With Prosecutions For Prenatal Maternal Substance Abuse, Meghan Horn

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

This note examines the constitutional and policy implications of criminal prosecutions for prenatal maternal substance abuse under statutes criminalizing drug delivery, child abuse, and manslaughter. Although only one of these convictions has been upheld in the thirty years since a prosecutor first brought such charges, prosecutors continue to propose new and increasingly inventive theories of prosecution. Not only do these cases present procedural due process, substantive due process, and equal protection problems, they also cannot be supported by public policy. The prosecutions are opposed by healthcare workers, pit the interests of mothers and unborn children against each other, and actually …

Whither Sexual Orientation Analysis?: The Proper Methodology When Due Process And Equal Protection Intersect, Sharon E. Rush

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article suggests that there is Proper Methodology that courts apply when reviewing cases at the intersection of due process and equal protection. Briefly, courts operate under a rule that heightened review applies if either a fundamental right or a suspect class is involved in a case, and that rational basis review applies if neither is involved (the "Rule"). Two primary exceptions to the Rule exist, and this Article identifies them as the "Logical" and "Ill Motives" Exceptions. The Logical Exception applies when a court need not apply heightened review because a law fails rational basis review. The Ill Motives …

Be They Fish Or Not Fish: The Fishy Registration Of Nonsexual Offenders, Ofer Raban

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

A Child's Right: What Should The State Be Required To Provide To Teenagers Aging Out Of Foster Care, Katherine M. Swift

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Teenagers aging out of foster care face harms that can be traced to their lack of preparation for adulthood. This Article argues that teenagers in foster care have a substantive due process right to services not only while they are in state custody but also after they age out of care. The lower federal courts have interpreted the Supreme Court's decision in DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services to mean that foster children-like prisoners and mentally retarded people held in state custody-have a substantive due process right to personal safety. What the courts have not considered is how …

Political Judging: When Due Process Goes International, Montré D. Carodine

William & Mary Law Review

The Supreme Court's recent reliance on foreign precedent to interpret the Constitution sparked a firestorm of criticism and spawned a rich debate regarding the extent to which U.S. courts should defer to foreign law when developing U.S. constitutional norms. This Article looks at a subset of the issue of deference to foreign law and international influences in judicial decision making: the extent to which our courts should apply American notions of due process in determining whether to recognize and enforce judgments obtained abroad. Courts reviewing foreign judgments to determine whether they areworthy of recognition have created an "international due process"analysis. …

Dumbo's Feather: An Examination And Critque Of The Supreme Court's Use, Misuse, And Abuse Of Tradition In Protecting Fundamental Rights, Ronald J. Krotoszynski Jr.

William & Mary Law Review

The Justices of the Supreme Court have a great deal in common with the gifted pachyderm from the Walt Disney animated classic feature Dumbo. Like Dumbo's "magic" feather that purportedly enabled him to exercise his natural ability to fly, the tradition limitation on the Court's jurisprudence on unenumerated fundamental constitutional rights provides a more-apparent-than real constraint on the Court's almost unlimited ability to nullify legislative and executive action. In all too many substantive due process cases, reason seems to follow a predetermined result, rather than the result in the case following from the applicable governing principles. In this Article, Professor …

Sexuality And Sovereignty: The Global Limits And Possibilities Of A Lawrence, Sonia K. Katyal

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Universes Colliding: The Constitutional Implications Of Arbitral Class Actions, Maureen A. Weston

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Is Economic Exclusion A Legitimate State Interest? Four Recent Cases Test The Boundaries, Timothy Sandefur

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Banging On The Backdoor Draft: The Constitutional Validity Of Stop-Loss In The Military, Evan M. Wooten

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.