Law Commons^™

Three Strikes And You're Outside The Constitution: Will The Guantanamo Bay Alien Detainees Be Granted Fundamental Due Process?, Michael Greenberger

Faculty Scholarship

The United States Supreme Court has agreed to take up its first case arising from the War on Terror by hearing the consolidated appeals of two groups of foreign aliens who are or who had been detained at the United States Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba: Rasul v. Bush (No. 03-334) and Al Odah v. United States (No. 03-343). The cases stem from the United States' capture of several hundred prisoners in Afghanistan and Pakistan and their subsequent imprisonment at Guantanamo Bay. The prison began operation in January 2002, and approximately 90 detainees have been freed up to this time, …

Regulate, Don't Eliminate, 527s, Donald B. Tobin

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Not For Attribution: Government's Interest In Protecting The Integrity Of Its Own Expression, Helen L. Norton

Faculty Scholarship

Public entities increasingly maintain that the First Amendment permits them to ensure that private speakers’ views are not mistakenly attributed to the government. Consider, for example, Virginia’s efforts to ban the Sons of Confederate Veterans’ display of the Confederate flag logo on state-sponsored specialty license plates. Seeking to remain neutral in the ongoing debate over whether the Confederate flag is a symbol of “hate” or “heritage,” Virginia argued that the state would be wrongly perceived as endorsing the flag if the logo appeared on a state-issued plate adorned by the identifier “VIRGINIA.” The Fourth Circuit was unpersuaded, holding that the …

Lawrence's Republic, James E. Fleming

Faculty Scholarship

I am delighted and honored to participate in this symposium critiquing and celebrating the remarkable scholarship of Frank Michelman. I was a student of Frank-but of course we all are students of Frank. I also have had the good fortune to be a colleague of Frank-he has been a distinguished visiting professor at Fordham and has generously participated in a number of our conferences there. The only problem I had in preparing for the symposium is that Frank's scholarship is so rich and wide-ranging that it was difficult to decide what to write about. I initially planned to write a …

Securing Deliberative Democracy, James E. Fleming

Faculty Scholarship

The brochure for the conference frames the questions for our panel on The Constitutional Essentials of Political Liberalism as "What are the implications of Rawls's conceptions of justice as fairness and political liberalism for constitutional theory? Might his account of constitutional essentials provide a useful guiding framework for conceiving the scheme of basic liberties embodied in the American Constitution? How thin are the commitments of our Constitution as compared with our richer commitments to constitutional justice and political justice? What are the implications of Rawls's work for theory of judicial review and for enforcement of constitutional rights and obligations outside …

Court, Congress And Equal Protection: What Brown Teaches Us About The Section 5 Power, William D. Araiza

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The New Formalism: Requiem For Tiered Scrutiny?, Calvin R. Massey

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Introduction: What Does Oakley Tell Us About The Failures Of Constitutional Decision-Making?, Taylor Flynn

Faculty Scholarship

The Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision in State v. Oakley, in which the court upheld a probation order prohibiting Mr. Oakley from fathering additional children until he could support them, is a compelling example of a troubling flaw in our constitutional jurisprudence. Absent the countervailing check perhaps provided by the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions, each path of doctrinal analysis, considered separately, arguably leads to the conclusion that the probation order is valid. This is so even though a number of institutional, structural, and process-based considerations converge to render the order's constitutionality highly suspect. The prevailing doctrinal approach is to disaggregate the …

First Amendment Decisions - 2002 Term, Joel Gora

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Equal Access Act: Still Controversial After All These Years, Leora Harpaz

Faculty Scholarship

Over its twenty-year history, the Equal Access Act has continued to spark controversy. Despite a large number of court decisions that have interpreted the scope of the statute, those controversies have not yet subsided nor are they likely to for the foreseeable future. Interpretation of the Equal Access Act is complicated by ambiguities in the statute's language and the complex relationship that exists between the statute and the First Amendment's prohibition on religious establishments combined with its protection for freedom of expression. The delicate constitutional balancing act that the statute attempts to accomplish complicates the task of statutory interpretation in …

The Equal Access Act: Still Controversial After All These Years, Leora Harpaz

Faculty Scholarship

Over its twenty-year history, the Equal Access Act has continued to spark controversy. Despite a large number of court decisions that have interpreted the scope of the statute, those controversies have not yet subsided nor are they likely to for the foreseeable future. Interpretation of the Equal Access Act is complicated by ambiguities in the statute's language and the complex relationship that exists between the statute and the First Amendment's prohibition on religious establishments combined with its protection for freedom of expression. The delicate constitutional balancing act that the statute attempts to accomplish complicates the task of statutory interpretation in …

Probation Restrictions Impacting The Right To Procreate: The Oakley Error, Jennifer L. Levi

Faculty Scholarship

In State v. Oakley, the all-male four-justice majority held that a probation condition restricting David Oakley's right to have children passed constitutional muster. This Article discusses this question of the appropriate approach to evaluating the constitutionality of probation conditions. The Wisconsin Supreme Court's approach is compared to that of other courts in cases involving, in some way, decisions limiting a probationer's right to have children. The Author concludes that regardless of what constitutional standard or degree of scrutiny courts apply, cases can (and do) go both ways with respect to upholding or striking down probation restrictions on fundamental rights. However, …

In Praise Of A Skeletal Apa: Judicial Discretion, Remedies For Agency Inaction And Apa Amendment, William D. Araiza

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Sway Of The Swing Vote: Justice Sandra Day O'Connor And Her Influence On Issues Of Race, Religion, Gender And Class: Foreword, Paula A. Monopoli

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Slaughter-House Five: Views Of The Case, David S. Bogen

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

A Property Clause For The Twenty-First Century, John D. Leshy

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Federal Role In Managing The Nation's Groundwater, John D. Leshy

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Reading Clarence Thomas, Kendall Thomas

Faculty Scholarship

Several years ago, a special issue of The New Yorker entitled "Black in America" included an extraordinary profile of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Authored by Jeffrey Rosen, the article begins with an account of Justice Thomas's interventions in two of the most important cases decided during the Court's previous term. In the first of these cases, Missouri v. Jenkins, the Court was called upon to define the constitutional scope and limits of the federal judicial power to address racial concentration in Kansas City's public schools through salary increases and the creation of magnet programs. In the second …

The "Inexorable Zero", Bert I. Huang

Faculty Scholarship

[F]ine tuning of the statistics could not have obscured the glaring absence of minority [long-distance] drivers .... [T]he company's inability to rebut the inference of discrimination came not from a misuse of statistics but from "the inexorable zero."

The Supreme Court first uttered the phrase "inexorable zero" a quarter-century ago in International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States, a landmark Title VII case. Ever since, this enigmatic name for a rule of inference has echoed across legal argument about segregation, discrimination, and affirmative action. Justice O'Connor, for instance, cited the "inexorable zero" in a major sex discrimination decision upholding an …

Marbury V. Madison And European Union "Constitutional" Review, George A. Bermann

Faculty Scholarship

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Marbury v. Madison specifically raises the question of the legitimacy of a "horizontal" species of judicial review, that is, review by courts of the exercise of powers by the coordinate branches of government. The same question could be asked with respect to judicial review in the European Union. More particularly, how problematic or contestable has "horizontal" judicial review been within the European Union as a matter of principle? And, irrespective of its contestability, how have the courts of the European Union exercised "horizontal" review? We will find, however, that it is not the "horizontal" …

Overcoming Hiddenness: The Role Of Intentions In Fourth Amendment Analysis, Daniel B. Yeager

Faculty Scholarship

This Article rehearses a response to the problems posed to and by the Supreme Court's attempts to work out the meaning and operation of the word "search." After commencing Part II by meditating on the notion of privacy, I take up its relation to the antecedent suspicion or knowledge that Fourth-Amendment law requires as a justification for all privacy invasions. From there, I look specifically at that uneasy relation in Supreme Court jurisprudence, which has come to privilege privacy over property as a Fourth Amendment value. From there, Part III reviews the sources or bases that can tell us what …

Making A Federal Case Of It: Sabri V. United States And The Constitution Of Leviathan, Gary S. Lawson

Faculty Scholarship

The popular expression “Don't make a federal case out of it!” only makes sense if federal involvement is something unusual or special that is reserved for matters of urgent national interest. It assumes that a “federal case” is, or at least ought to be, something relatively rare and noteworthy.

For the founding generation, federal involvement in people's affairs, especially through the criminal law, was in fact a relatively rare and noteworthy event. In The Federalist, James Madison told the citizens of New York that the powers of the proposed new national government “will be exercised principally on external objects, as …

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. Madison 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.

Experimentalist Equal Protection, Brandon L. Garrett, James S. Liebman

Faculty Scholarship

Elsewhere Garrett and Liebman have recounted that though James Madison is considered "the Father of the Constitution," his progeny disappointed him because it was defenseless against self-government's "mortal disease " – the oppression of minorities by local majorities – because the Framers rejected the radical structural approach to equal protection that Madison proposed. Nor did the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and federal courts enforcing it adopt a solution Madison would have considered "effectual." This Article explores recent subconstitutional innovations in governance and public administration that may finally bring the nation within reach of the constitutional polity …

Against Separation, Philip A. Hamburger

Faculty Scholarship

In 1802, in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, Thomas Jefferson wrote that the First Amendment had the effect of "building a wall of separation between Church & State." As it happens, when Congress drafted the First Amendment in 1789, Jefferson was enjoying Paris. Nonetheless, his words about separation are often taken as an authoritative interpretation of the First Amendment's establishment clause. Indeed, in the 1947 Everson v. Board of Education decision, the Supreme Court quoted Jefferson's pronouncement to justify its conclusion that the First Amendment guarantees a separation of church and state. Not only the justices but …

Parks As Gyms? Recreational Paradigms And Public Health In The National Parks, Jay D. Wexler

Faculty Scholarship

When scholars and policymakers think about the relationship between public health and environmental law and policy, they likely think first about controlling pollution and other toxic substances. As other articles have amply demonstrated, water pollution, air pollution, and other environmental toxins can have significant deleterious effects on the public's health. Scholars rightly pay serious attention to these relationships, and policymakers wisely devise methods and strategies to ameliorate the public health risks posed by these polluting substances.

Although pollution control might be the most obvious and important intersection between environmental policy and public health, legal and policy decisions regarding the management …

Natural Resources Policy In The Bush (Ii) Administration: An Outsider's Somewhat Jaundiced Assessment, John D. Leshy

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Is There A First Amendment Defense For Bush V. Gore , Abner S. Greene

Faculty Scholarship

Could so many well-established scholars be wrong? Is it possible that Bush v. Gore is defensible, after all? The two pillars of the decision-the Equal Protection Clause justification for the merits holding and the "safe harbor" remedial ruling - indeed seem weak. The alternative merits view-that the Florida Supreme Court had engaged in statutory amendment under the guise of statutory interpretation, thus violating Article II of the federal Constitution-runs aground against the plausible (albeit not necessarily correct) readings of the state high court. If one agrees that these merits and remedial arguments are indefensible, then mustn't one agree with the …

Supreme Court Of The United States As Quasi-International Tribunal: Reclaiming The Court's Original And Exclusive Jurisdiction Over Treaty-Based Suits By Foreign States Against States, The, Thomas H. Lee

Faculty Scholarship

The thesis of this Article is that the Constitution vests in the Supreme Court original and exclusive jurisdiction over suits brought by foreign states against States alleging violation of ratified treaties of the United States. The basis for non-immunity in suits by foreign states is the same theory of ratification consent that is presumed to justify suits against States by other States or the United States. Just as the States by ratifying the Constitution agreed to suits in the national court by other States and the national sovereign to ensure domestic peace, they agreed to suits by foreign states in …

English Constitutionalism Circa 2005, Or, Some Funny Things Happened After The Revolution, Ernest A. Young

Faculty Scholarship

reviewing Adam Tompkins, Public Law (2003)