Law Commons^™

On Not Being “Not An Originalist”, H. Jefferson Powell

Faculty Scholarship

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

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Solicitor General As Mediator Between Court And Agency, Margaret H. Lemos

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Categoricalism And Balancing In First And Second Amendment Analysis, Joseph Blocher

Faculty Scholarship

The least discussed element of District of Columbia v. Heller might ultimately be the most important: the battle between the majority and dissent over the use of categoricalism and balancing in the construction of constitutional doctrine. In Heller, Justice Scalia’s categoricalism essentially prevailed over Justice Breyer’s balancing approach. But as the opinion itself demonstrates, Second Amendment categoricalism raises extremely difficult and still-unanswered questions about how to draw and justify the lines between protected and unprotected “Arms,” people, and arms-bearing purposes. At least until balancing tests appear in Second Amendment doctrine—as they almost inevitably will—the future of the Amendment will depend …

You’Ve Come A Long Way, Baby: Two Waves Of Juvenile Justice Reforms As Seen From Jena, Louisiana, Sara Sun Beale

Faculty Scholarship

This article describes the origins and impact of two modern reforms that dramatically rewrote the law governing the prosecution of juvenile offenders: the Warren Court’s due process decisions and the juvenile justice legislation of the 1990s. Beginning with the prosecution of Mychal Bell, who was one of the Jena 6, the article provides a broader historical and analytical framework to assess the procedural protections available to juveniles charged with serious offenses, particularly the adequacy of the remedies to challenge prosecutorial discretion and disparate treatment by the prosecution.

The article first describes the key role race played in the Warren Court’s …

Self-Execution And Treaty Duality, Curtis A. Bradley

Faculty Scholarship

The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution states that, along with the Constitution and laws of the United States, treaties made by the United States are part of the "supreme Law of the Land." At least since the Supreme Court's 1829 decision in Foster v. Neilson, however, it has been understood that treaty provisions are enforceable in U.S. courts only if they are "self-executing." The legitimacy and implications of this self-execution requirement have generated substantial controversy and uncertainty among both courts and commentators. This Article attempts to clear up some of the conceptual confusion relating to the self-execution doctrine and, …

The Other Delegate: Judicially Administered Statutes And The Nondelegation Doctrine, Margaret H. Lemos

Faculty Scholarship

The nondelegation doctrine is the subject of a vast and everexpanding body of scholarship. But nondelegation literature, like nondelegation law, focuses almost exclusively on delegations of power to administrative agencies. It ignores Congress's other delegate-the federal judiciary.

This Article brings courts into the delegation picture. It demonstrates that, just as agencies exercise a lawmaking function when they fill in the gaps left by broad statutory delegations of power, so too do courts. The nondelegation doctrine purports to limit the amount of lawmaking authority Congress can cede to another institution without violating the separation of powers. Although typically considered only with …

The Federal Judicial Power And The International Legal Order, Curtis A. Bradley

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Preclearance, Discrimination, And The Department Of Justice: The Case Of South Carolina, Guy-Uriel Charles, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Checks And Balances: Congress And The Federal Court, Paul D. Carrington

Faculty Scholarship

This essay was published as a chapter in Reforming the Supreme Court: Term Limits for Justices (Paul D. Carrington & Roger Cramton eds, Carolina Academic Press 2006). Its point is that Congress has long neglected its duty implicit in the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers to constrain the tendency of the Court, the academy and the legal profession to inflate the Court's status and power. The term "life tenure" is a significant source of a sense of royal status having not only the adverse cultural effects noted by Nagel, but also doleful effects on the administration and enforcement of …

Reflections On The Teaching Of Constitutional Law, William W. Van Alstyne

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

“Testimonial” And The Formalistic Definition: The Case For An “Accusatorial” Fix, Robert P. Mosteller

Faculty Scholarship

The definition that the Supreme Court ultimately gives to the concept of testimonial statements will obviously be of critical importance in determining whether the new Confrontation Clause analysis adopted by Crawford affects only a few core statements or applies to a broader group of accusatorial statements knowingly made to government officials and perhaps private individuals at arm's length from the speaker. I contend that the broader definition is more consistent with the anti-inquisitorial roots of the Confrontation Clause when that provision is applied in the modern world. If my sense of the proper scope of the clause is roughly correct, …

Medellin V. Dretke: Federalism And International Law, Curtis A. Bradley, Lori Fisler Damrosch, Martin Flaherty

Faculty Scholarship

This is an edited version of a debate held at Columbia Law School on February 21, 2005.

Ten Commandments, Nine Judges, And Five Versions Of One Amendment - The First. (“Now What?”), William W. Van Alstyne

Faculty Scholarship

This article explores the variety of opinions expressed by the Justices in the two “Ten Commandments” cases, specifically Justice O’Connor’s dissent and Justice Breyer’s concurrence in Van Orden v. Perry.

Law, Politics, And Judicial Review: A Comment On Hasen, Guy-Uriel Charles

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Affirmative Action And Colorblindness From The Original Position, Guy-Uriel Charles

Faculty Scholarship

In this Article, the author explores Grutter v. Bollinger from the vantage point of the colorblindness principle. He posits that the Grutter decision is noteworthy for two reasons. First, the Court rejected the argument that the Constitution is colorblind and that the classifications based on race are per se unconstitutional. Second, the Court explicitly recognized that racial categorizations are not all morally equivalent. The author uses classical liberalism as a heuristic for exploring whether the colorblindness argument is necessarily a moral imperative. He ultimately concludes that the Court adopted the correct approach in Grutter in rejecting the allure of the …

In Defense Of Deference, Guy-Uriel Charles, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Racial Identity, Electoral Structures, And The First Amendment Right Of Association, Guy-Uriel Charles

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

State Sovereign Immunity And Stare Decisis: Solving The Prisoners’ Dilemma Within The Court, Neil S. Siegel

Faculty Scholarship

This Comment argues that the liberal and conservative blocs on the U.S. Supreme Court are embroiled in a Prisoners' Dilemma with respect to whether they should follow precedent on the question of congressional abrogation of state sovereign immunity. The analytical consequence of this strategic situation within the Court is that, over the long run, all of the Justices would more fully realize their views of the merits of Eleventh Amendment cases by demonstrating more--not less--respect for the independent value of stare decisis. This Comment uses game theory to substantiate this claim, after which it offers a potential, contingent solution to …

Challenges To Racial Redistricting In The New Millennium: Hunt V. Cromartie As A Case Study, Guy-Uriel Charles, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Section 5 Mystique, Morrison, And The Future Of Federal Antidiscrimination Law, Margaret H. Lemos, Samuel Estreicher

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The New Etiquette Of Federalism: New York, Printz And Yeskey, Matthew D. Adler, Seth F. Kreimer

Faculty Scholarship

In New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), the Court revived "state sovereignty" as a justiciable constitutional constraint on federal mandates, and struck down portions of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act on the grounds that the statute impermissibly "commandeered" state governments. Printz v. United States, 117 S.Ct. 2365 (1997), confirmed the anti-commandeering principle and relied upon it to invalidate elements of another federal statute, the Brady Act. This Article analyzes and criticizes the anti-commandeering jurisprudence, as it has emerged in New York, Printz, and a case decided by the Court last Term, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections …

A Judicial Postscript To The Church-State Debates Of 1989: How Porous The Wall, How Civil The State?, William W. Van Alstyne

Faculty Scholarship

This work is a continuation of the debate regarding the Establishment Clause. The focus lies with Justice O’Connor’s concurrence in County of Allegheny v. ACLU and how this opinion harkens back to a concept shared by Jefferson and Madison, that the establishment clause is designed to prevent government favoritism.

Comments On Standards Of Judicial Review, William W. Van Alstyne

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Rhetorical Styles On The Fuller Court, Walter F. Pratt

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Making Sense Of Desegregation And Affirmative Action, William W. Van Alstyne

Faculty Scholarship

This review discusses J. Harvie Wilkinson's "From Brown to Bakke" and its companion work, "Counting by Race: Equality from the Founding Fathers to Bakke and Weber" written by Terry Eastland and William J. Bennett. Wilkinson's work is found to maintain a narrow focus on its specific subject of school desegregation and the Supreme Court, but it suffers from over-exaggeration and an abundance of adornment in his writing style. "Counting" is a provocative piece that asserts the position that the Constitution is still not color-blind, despite what many have proposed, and makes an authoritative argument for such a claim.

A Political And Constitutional Review Of United States V. Nixon, William W. Van Alstyne

Faculty Scholarship

This comparison of United States v. Nixon and the Pentagon Papers case finds the greatest similarity and significance shared by the two cases was the anti-climactic nature of their conclusions. While both cases concerned constitutional questions of the highest order, centered around the scope of the executive power, both cases were drawn on such narrow grounds that there was hardly any effect on constitutional law doctrine.

Foreword: Waiver Of Constitutional Rights: Disquiet In The Citadel, Michael E. Tigar

Faculty Scholarship

Foreword to Harvard Law Review review of Supreme Court 1969 Term

Labor Law Decisions Of The Supreme Court, October Term 1967-68, Charles H. Livengood Jr.

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Book Review, William W. Van Alstyne

Faculty Scholarship

This review of "The Supreme Court on Trial" by Charles Hyneman, questions why the work’s tackling the age-old issues of the source of judicial review and its constitutionality is particularly novel or unique from other such examinations. Issue is also taken with Brown v. Board of Educaion's dominance of such discussion and the book’s poor treatment of the desegregation cases.