Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Constitution (2)
- First Amendment (2)
- Health care (2)
- NFIB v. Sebelius (2)
- Supreme Court (2)
-
- Administrative law (1)
- Affordable Care Act (1)
- Affordable Care Act (ACA) (1)
- Assisted suicide (1)
- Cap and Trade (1)
- Climate change (1)
- Columbia Law Review (1)
- Commerce Clause (1)
- Commercial speech (1)
- Constitutional interpretation (1)
- Constitutional law (1)
- Defense of Marriage Act (1)
- Dormant commerce clause (1)
- Ethos (1)
- Fordham Law Review (1)
- Freedom of speech (1)
- Harvard Journal of Law & Gender (1)
- Hate speech (1)
- Individual rights and liberties (1)
- John Roberts (1)
- Juvenile crime (1)
- Juvenile offender (1)
- Law and Inequality (1)
- Leakage (1)
- Logos (1)
Articles 1 - 12 of 12
Full-Text Articles in Law
Brief Of Amici Curiae Professors Nan D. Hunter, Et Al., Addressing The Merits In Support Of Respondents, Nan D. Hunter, Suzanne B. Goldberg
Brief Of Amici Curiae Professors Nan D. Hunter, Et Al., Addressing The Merits In Support Of Respondents, Nan D. Hunter, Suzanne B. Goldberg
Faculty Scholarship
In this amicus brief filed in United States v. Windsor, pending before the Supreme Court, amici constitutional law professors argue that all classifications that carry the indicia of invidiousness should trigger a more searching inquiry than the traditional rational basis test under the Equal Protection Clause would suggest. Classifications that already receive heightened scrutiny, such as race or sex, fit easily into this approach. But the Court’s equal protection jurisprudence has become muddied in a series of cases in which it says rational basis review, but appears to do a more rigorous review. Sexual orientation classifications seemingly were analyzed …
Administrative Constitutionalism, Gillian E. Metzger
Administrative Constitutionalism, Gillian E. Metzger
Faculty Scholarship
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration adopts a rule requiring tobacco companies to include graphic images warning of the health risks associated with smoking, defending the rule at length against the claim it violates the First and Fifth Amendments. The Department of Education and the Department of Justice (DOJ) jointly issue guidance explaining how elementary and secondary schools can voluntarily consider race consistently with governing constitutional law. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) in DOJ issues a memorandum to the Attorney General concluding that the President had constitutional authority to commit U.S. forces as part of the NATO military campaign …
Pathetic Argument In Constitutional Law, Jamal Greene
Pathetic Argument In Constitutional Law, Jamal Greene
Faculty Scholarship
Pathetic argument, or argument based on pathos, persuades by appealing to the emotions of the reader or listener. In Aristotle's classic treatment, it exists in parallel to logical argument, which appeals to deductive or inductive reasoning, and ethical argument, which appeals to the character of the speaker. Pathetic argument is common in constitutional law, as in other practical discourse-think of "Poor Joshua!"- but existing accounts of constitutional practice do not provide resources for understanding the place of and limitations upon such appeals when they appear in judicial opinions. This Article begins to fill that gap. Pathetic argument is one of …
Constitutional Uncertainty And The Design Of Social Insurance: Reflections On The Aca Case, Michael J. Graetz, Jerry L. Mashaw
Constitutional Uncertainty And The Design Of Social Insurance: Reflections On The Aca Case, Michael J. Graetz, Jerry L. Mashaw
Faculty Scholarship
The Health Care Case is best understood as a legal attack on the means but not the goals of the health care legislation. This emphasis on means rather than ends and on state over federal powers potentially poses significant risks for the complex institutional arrangements for social insurance that now exist and may imply harmful constraints on how Congress can restructure these programs to better meet the needs of the American people in the twenty-first-century economy. Not coincidentally, the new constitutional framework announced in the ACA decision favors those who want to dismantle rather than strengthen the nation’s social insurance …
Machine Speech, Tim Wu
Machine Speech, Tim Wu
Faculty Scholarship
Computers are making an increasing number of important decisions in our lives. They fly airplanes, navigate traffic, and even recommend books. In the process, computers reason through automated algorithms and constantly send and receive information, sometimes in ways that mimic human expression. When can such communications, called here “algorithmic outputs,” claim First Amendment protection?
Miller V. Alabama And The (Past And) Future Of Juvenile Crime Regulation, Elizabeth S. Scott
Miller V. Alabama And The (Past And) Future Of Juvenile Crime Regulation, Elizabeth S. Scott
Faculty Scholarship
This essay was the keynote address for a symposium on Miller v Alabama, the 2012 Supreme Court opinion holding unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment a statute imposing a mandatory sentence of life without parole for juveniles convicted of homicide. The essay argues that Miller embodies a way of thinking about juvenile crime that has taken hold in the early 21st century – an approach that emphasizes the importance for legal policy of developmental differences between juveniles and adults. This emerging trend contrasts sharply with the regulatory approach of the 1990s when moral panics over juvenile crime fueled punitive law reforms …
The Presumption Of Constitutionality And The Individual Mandate, Gillian E. Metzger, Trevor W. Morrison
The Presumption Of Constitutionality And The Individual Mandate, Gillian E. Metzger, Trevor W. Morrison
Faculty Scholarship
Every American law student learns that there is a difference between a statute's meaning and its constitutionality. A given case might well present both issues, but law students are taught that the questions are distinct and that their resolution requires separate analyses. This is all for good reason: the distinction between statutory meaning and constitutional validity is both real and important. But it is not complete. Any approach to statutory interpretation depends on a view about the appropriate role of the judiciary (or other institutional interpreter) in our constitutional system; "[a]ny theory of statutory interpretation is at base a theory …
The Dignity Of Equality Legislation, Olatunde C.A. Johnson
The Dignity Of Equality Legislation, Olatunde C.A. Johnson
Faculty Scholarship
In Congressional Power to Effect Sex Equality, Patricia Seith argues that legal and social science commentary on the ratification failure of the Equal Rights Amendment ("ERA") does not properly account for the legislative gains achieved by the Economic Equity Act ("Equity Act"). In drawing attention to the Equity Act, Seith's account challenges common explanations of the source of women's equality gains, particularly the narratives offered by legal commentators who typically focus on the role of the Constitution and the courts. As Seith points out, the conventional account in legal history focuses on the effectuation of a "de facto ERA," …
"Children Are Different": Constitutional Values And Justice Policy, Elizabeth S. Scott
"Children Are Different": Constitutional Values And Justice Policy, Elizabeth S. Scott
Faculty Scholarship
This essay explores the importance for Eighth Amendment jurisprudence and for juvenile crime regulation of Miller v. Alabama (2012) and two earlier Supreme Court opinions rejecting harsh sentences for juveniles. It argues that the Court has broken new ground in defining juveniles as a category of offenders who are subject to special Eighth Amendment protections. In Miller and in Graham v. Florida (2010) particularly, the Court has applied to juveniles' non-capital sentences the rigorous proportionality review that, for adults, has been reserved for death sentences. The essay then turns to the implications of the opinions for juvenile crime policy, arguing …
Regulating Electricity Imports Into Rggi: Toward A Legal, Workable Solution, Shelley Welton, Michael Gerrard, Jason Munster
Regulating Electricity Imports Into Rggi: Toward A Legal, Workable Solution, Shelley Welton, Michael Gerrard, Jason Munster
Faculty Scholarship
This white paper evaluates the legal workability and constitutionality of what is frequently considered the most feasible mechanism for RGGI to use in regulating imports: an obligation on RGGI “load serving entities” (LSEs) – those companies responsible for supplying electricity to end-use customers – to purchase allowances to account for the emissions associated with the electricity they sell that is imported. Ultimately, although there are many design complexities yet to be worked out, we find that an LSE-centered approach could present a viable pathway forward for RGGI states’ regulation of imports. It is likely to create long-term price signals about …
The Missing Due Process Argument, Jamal Greene
The Missing Due Process Argument, Jamal Greene
Faculty Scholarship
The argument that eventually persuaded five members of the Supreme Court to conclude that the individual mandate exceeded Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce is one most observers originally considered frivolous. In that respect, it is similar to another potential argument against the mandate — that forcing someone to pay for insurance violates the liberty interests guaranteed by the Constitution’s Due Process Clause. The Commerce Clause argument was the centerpiece of the challenge to the mandate; the due process argument was not meaningfully advanced at all. This chapter suggests reasons why.
Hate Speech And The Demos, Jamal Greene
Hate Speech And The Demos, Jamal Greene
Faculty Scholarship
It is sometimes said that the statist and aristocratic traditions of Europe render its political institutions less democratic than those of the United States. Richard Posner writes of “the less democratic cast of European politics, as a result of which elite opinion is more likely to override public opinion than it is in the United States.” If that is true, then there are obvious ways in which it figures into debates over the wisdom of hate-speech regulation. The standard European argument in favor of such regulation may easily be characterized as antidemocratic: Restrictions on hate speech protect unpopular minority groups …