Law Commons^™

Brief Amicus Curiae Of Joseph R. Grodin As Amicus Curiae Supporting Neither Party (Vacatur), Elk Grove Unified School District V. Newdow, No. 02-1624 (U.S. Dec. 19, 2003), ., Neal K. Katyal

U.S. Supreme Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Exacting Tests: Determining When A Taking Is Unconstitutional, John R. Nolon, Jessica A. Bacher

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

In the past, courts generally deferred to legislatures when determining whether a law constitutes a regulatory taking. However, not all regulations are treated equal, and different tests apply to different types of regulations. Types of land use actions with a lower threshold of constitutionally include exactions, and regulations that apply fixed fee schedules to private landowners. This article combs both federal and New York law to come to the clear determination that universal standards exist for each type of regulation.

You Can't Ask (Or Say) That: The First Amendment And Civil Rights Restrictions On Decisionmaker Speech, Helen L. Norton

Faculty Scholarship

Many antidiscrimination statutes limit speech by employers, landlords, lenders, and other decisionmakers in one or both of two ways: (1) by prohibiting queries soliciting information about an applicant's disability, sexual orientation, marital status, or other protected characteristic; and (2) by proscribing discriminatory advertisements or other expressions of discriminatory preference for applicants based on race, sex, age, sexual orientation, or other protected characteristics.

This Article explores how we might think about these laws for First Amendment purposes. Part I outlines the range of civil rights restrictions on decisionmaker speech, while Part II identifies the antidiscrimination and privacy concerns that drive their …

Injustice Casts Shadow On History Of State Executions, John Bessler

All Faculty Scholarship

This article, published in the StarTribune of Minneapolis, discusses the history of lynchings and executions in the State of Minnesota. It specifically discusses miscarriages of justice that have taken place in Minnesota, along with highlighting other problems associated with capital punishment.

Valuation Averaging: A New Procedure For Resolving Valuation Disputes, Keith Sharfman

Rutgers Law School (Newark) Faculty Papers

In this Article, Professor Sharfman addresses the problem of "discretionary valuation": that courts resolve valuation disputes arbitrarily and unpredictably, thus harming litigants and society. As a solution, he proposes the enactment of "valuation averaging," a new procedure for resolving valuation disputes modeled on the algorithmic valuation processes often agreed to by sophisticated private firms in advance of any dispute. He argues that by replacing the discretion of judges and juries with a mechanical valuation process, valuation averaging would cause litigants to introduce more plausible and conciliatory valuations into evidence and thereby reduce the cost of valuation litigation and increase the …

Summary Of Seres V. Lerner, 120 Nev. Adv. Op. 95, Sally L. Galati

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The sister of a manslaughter victim, on her mother’s behalf, brought an action against the felon, who wrote a book regarding the killing of the victim, seeking to recover the felon’s book proceeds under the Nevada “Son of Sam” law. The district court found the applicable Nevada statute to be unconstitutional and dismissed the plaintiff’s action. Plaintiff appealed.

America After 9/11: Freedom Preserved Or Freedom Lost: Hearing Before The S. Comm. On The Judiciary, 108th Cong., Nov. 18, 2003 (Statement Of Viet D. Dinh, Prof. Of Law, Geo. U. L. Center), Viet D. Dinh

Testimony Before Congress

No abstract provided.

Delusions Of Grand Juries, Niki Kuckes

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Frictions Of Federalism: The Rise And Fall Of The Federal Common Law Of Interstate Nuisance, Robert V. Percival

Faculty Scholarship

Prior to the erection in the 1970s of a comprehensive federal regulatory infrastructure to protect the environment, transboundary pollution disputes frequently were adjudicated by the U.S. Supreme Court, exercising its original jurisdiction over disputes between states. In a series of cases commencing at the dawn of the Twentieth Century, the Court served as a national arbiter of interstate pollution disputes. This paper reviews the history of the Supreme Court's use of these cases to develop a federal common law of interstate nuisance.

The paper argues that while federal common law initially performed a zoning function by encouraging polluters to relocate …

Gao's Recent Report On The Implementation Of Exec. Order 12630 And The State Of Federal Agency Protections Of Private Property Rights: Hearing Before The H. Subcomm. On The Judiciary, 108th Cong., Oct. 16, 2003 (Statement Of John D. Echeverria, Exec. Dir., Georgetown Environmental Law & Policy Inst., Geo. U. L. Center), John D. Echeverria

Testimony Before Congress

No abstract provided.

In Defense Of Chief Justice Roy S. Moore, Jeffrey C. Tuomala

Faculty Publications and Presentations

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Existence Conditions And Judicial Review, Michael C. Dorf, Matthew D. Adler

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Although critics of judicial review sometimes call for making the entire Constitution nonjusticiable, many familiar norms of constitutional law state what we call "existence conditions" that are necessarily enforced by judicial actors charged with the responsibility of applying, and thus as a preliminary step, identifying, propositions of sub-constitutional law such as statutes. Article I, Section 7, which sets forth the procedures by which a bill becomes a law, is an example: a putative law that did not go through the Article I, Section 7 process and does not satisfy an alternative test for legal validity (such as the treaty-making provision …

The Evolution Of Equality In American Law, Gerald Torres

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

To Catch A Killer: Roadblocks And The Fourth Amendment, Michael T. Morley

Scholarly Publications

No abstract provided.

Race-Conscious Affirmative Action By Tax Exempt 501(C)(3) Corporations After Grutter And Gratz, David A. Brennen

Scholarly Works

Part I of this Article examines how the Equal Protection Clause limits the government's ability to engage in race-based affirmative action. Part I focuses on how constitutional law analysis has evolved in light of the Supreme Court's recent decisions in Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger. Part II provides a brief description of tax law's public policy limitation. This part shows how the IRS, though not required to do so, has generally followed Equal Protection Clause jurisprudence when applying the public policy limitation to race-based activity by private tax exempt 501(c)(3) institutions. Part III discusses how the Supreme …

The (Un)Favorable Judgment Of History: Deportation Hearings, The Palmer Raids, And The Meaning Of History, Harlan G. Cohen

Scholarly Works

As Americans respond to the events of September 11, 2001, they are being forced to contemplate their place in American history-past, present, and future. This has become particularly stark in the fight over secret deportation hearings. Following September 11, Attorney General John Ashcroft announced that the deportation hearings of "special interest" aliens would be closed to the public. Applying Richmond Newspapers's two-pronged logic-and-experience test, the Third and Sixth Circuits subsequently split over the constitutionality of the blanket closure. At the heart of their disagreement was the scarce history of deportation hearings and whether such hearings had been closed in the …

Using Statutes To Set Legislative Rules: Entrenchment, Separation Of Powers, And The Rules Of Proceedings Clause, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Rhetorically Reasonable Police Practices: Viewing The Supreme Court's Multiple Discourse Paths, Kathryn R. Urbonya

Faculty Publications

This Article analyzes the United States Supreme Court's numerous and shifting rhetorical discourse paths for declaring whether particular governmental practices constituted unreasonable searches or seizures under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. It examines how the Court has manipulated classic discourse paths arising from text, history, precedent and structure. It reveals that among and within each of these categories, the Court has created conflicting approaches. The Article argues that the Court's construction of Fourth Amendment reasonableness has depended upon which discourse paths it has selected as well as how it has characterized the values embedded within the discourse …

Lbj's Ghost: A Contextual Approach To Targeting Decisions And The Commander In Chief, James E. Baker

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The moral imperative and relevance of the Law of Armed Conflict (“LOAC”) is more apparent today than before September 11, 2001. Law distinguishes democratic societies from the terrorists who attack them; nowhere is this more apparent than in the methods and means of warfare. Indeed, part of our revulsion and contempt for terrorism lies in the terrorists' indiscriminate, disproportionate, and unnecessary violence against civilians. In contrast, the enduring strength of the LOAC is its reliance on the principles of proportionality, necessity, and discrimination, which protect civilians and minimize combatant suffering. For these reasons, we should not begrudge the LOAC's limitations …

Section 7: Federalism In The Rehnquist Court, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Speech: The Bill Of Rights, Garrett Epps

All Faculty Scholarship

The Bill of Rights is a much more fortuitous addition to the Constitution than many people imagine. The tired delegates at Philadelphia were unable to make the final effort to frame a bill of rights, and their failure nearly caused the collapse of ratification. When the First Congress met, James Madison took responsibility for making the new government live up to the implied pledge made during ratification to provide a partial list, drawn from the historic rights on English subjects. Not all Madison's proposed amendments were adopted however. The work of adumbrating the full scope of liberty under the Constitution …

Federal Maritime Commission V. South Carolina State Ports Authority: Small Iceberg Or Just The Tip?, Gordon G. Young

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Speaking Outdoors, Lewis H. Larue

Scholarly Articles

Not available.

Marshall V Madison: The Supreme Court And Original Intent, 1803-1835, Gordon Lloyd

School of Public Policy Working Papers

Should the justices of the Supreme Court rely on “original intent” as the foundation for constitutional interpretation? Or should they be free to interpret the Constitution in light of hermeneutical approaches created by current philosophies of law? This essay examines the Marshall Court to determine whether its opinions take their bearings from the American Founding or instead rely on a philosophy of jurisprudence that can be separated from the Founding. The purposes of this essay are fourfold: 1) to provide a comprehensive account of the use of the Framers by the Marshall Court, 2) address the normative question of the …

Moral Rights, Judicial Review, And Democracy: A Response To Horacio Spector, Laura S. Underkuffler

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Rhetorical Uses Of Marbury V. Madison: The Emergence Of A "Great Case", Davison M. Douglas

Faculty Publications

Marbury v. Madison is today indisputably one of the "great cases" of American constitutional law because of its association with the principle of judicial review. But for much of its history, Marbury has not been regarded as a seminal decision. Between 1803 and 1887, the Supreme Court never once cited Marbury for the principle of judicial review, and nineteenth century constitutional law treatises were far more likely to cite Marbury for the decision's discussion of writs of mandamus or the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction than for its discussion of judicial review. During the late nineteenth century, however, the exercise of …

Bring Back The Draft?, Neal Devins

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Decision-Making Outside The Courts, Michael J. Gerhardt

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Justice White And The Right Of Privacy, David D. Meyer

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Interpretative Equality As A Structural Imperative (Or 'Pucker Up And Settle This!'), Gary S. Lawson

Faculty Scholarship

To serious students of the Constitution, Chief Justice Marshall's discussion of judicial review in Marbury v. Madisont was about judicial equality-the power of the courts, co-equal to the similar powers of the legislative and executive departments, to construe and apply the Constitution in the course of their duties. To less serious students of the Constitution, Marbury was about judicial supremacy-the supposedly paramount power of courts to interpret and apply the Constitution in a fashion that binds other legal actors, including the legislative and executive departments and state officials.