Law Commons^™

The Dark Side Of The Force: The Legacy Of Justice Holmes For First Amendment Jurisprudence, Steven J. Heyman

Steven J. Heyman

Modern First Amendment jurisprudence is deeply paradoxical. On one hand, freedom of speech is said to promote fundamental values such as individual self-fulfillment, democratic deliberation, and the search for truth. At the same time, however, many leading decisions protect speech that appears to undermine these values by attacking the dignity and personality of others or their status as full and equal members of the community. In this Article, I explore where this Jekyll-and-Hyde quality of First Amendment jurisprudence comes from. I argue that the American free speech tradition consists of two very different strands: a liberal humanist view that emphasizes …

The Countermajoritarian Classics (And An Upside Down Theory Of Judicial Review), Corinna Barrett Lain

Corinna Lain

Brown v. Board of Education. Engel v. Vitale. Miranda v. Arizona. Furman v. Georgia. Roe v. Wade. Within the academy, these countermajoritarian classics stand as a testament to the Supreme Court’s willingness to thwart the will of a national majority in the name of minority rights. Yet a historical examination of these cases reveals a dramatically different narrative, illustrating just how majoritarian even ostensibly countermajoritarian cases can be. Indeed, in several of these cases, the Court’s ruling was so majoritarian, so consistent with national public opinion, that it only looked countermajoritarian because the seemingly majoritarian stance of the democratically elected …

The Dark Side Of The Force: The Legacy Of Justice Holmes For First Amendment Jurisprudence, Steven J. Heyman

Steven J. Heyman

Modern First Amendment jurisprudence is deeply paradoxical. On one hand, freedom of speech is said to promote fundamental values such as individual self-fulfillment, democratic deliberation, and the search for truth. At the same time, however, many leading decisions protect speech that appears to injure these values by attacking the dignity and personality of others or their status as full and equal members of the community. In this Article, I explore where the Jekyll-and-Hyde quality of First Amendment jurisprudence comes from. I argue that the American free speech tradition actually consists of two very different strands: a liberal humanist view that …

Originalism Is Useless, Lawrence Rosenthal

Lawrence Rosenthal

Originalism is in ascendance. Both in judicial opinions and in the legal academy, originalist methods of constitutional interpretation are increasingly prominent. This essay nevertheless makes what may seem a claim – originalism is useless. In this, the essay takes a different path the the critics of orignalism have offered to date. Attacks on originalism usually question its normative desirability, but do not doubt that originalism offers a distinct approach to constitutional adjudication as compared to nonoriginalism. The concern here is with the question whether originalism is actually of help in addressing the kind of constitutional questions that come before the …

Originalism Is Useless, Lawrence Rosenthal

Lawrence Rosenthal

Originalism is in ascendance. Both in judicial opinions and in the legal academy, originalist methods of constitutional interpretation are increasingly prominent. This essay nevertheless makes what may seem a claim – originalism is useless. In this, the essay takes a different path the the critics of orignalism have offered to date. Attacks on originalism usually question its normative desirability, but do not doubt that originalism offers a distinct approach to constitutional adjudication as compared to nonoriginalism. The concern here is with the question whether originalism is actually of help in addressing the kind of constitutional questions that come before the …

The Dark Side Of The Force: The Legacy Of Justice Holmes For First Amendment Jurisprudence, Steven J. Heyman

Steven J. Heyman

Modern First Amendment jurisprudence is deeply paradoxical in nature. On one hand, freedom of speech is said to promote fundamental values such as individual self-fulfillment, democratic deliberation, and the search for truth. At the same time, however, many decisions protect speech that appears to harm these values by attacking the dignity and personality of other people or their status as full and equal members of the community. In this Article, I explore where this Jekyll-and-Hyde quality comes from. I argue that the American free speech tradition actually consists of two very different strands: a liberal humanist view that emphasizes the …

Reaction Or Reformation?: Leo Strauss And American Constitutional Law, Andrew C. Spiropoulos

Andrew C. Spiropoulos

This article explains the importance of the work of the political theorist Leo Strauss to the study of American constitutional law. The foundation of Strauss's work was his belief that the civilization of the West faces a profound crisis. This crisis, he argued, was a crisis of modernity, by which he meant modern political philosophy. The nature of this crisis is the West's loss of faith in reason, the cornerstone of its way of life. This loss of faith threatens the intellectual, spiritual, and even physical health of the West. Strauss argued that this crisis came about because of the …

"Censorship In The Video Game Industry: Government Intervention Or Parental Controls?", Richard J. Hunter Jr., Hector R. Lozada, Ann Mayo

Richard J Hunter Jr.

The article is a comprehensive review of the constitutional issues surrounding legislation which regulates the video game industry in the context of the Illinois Sexually Explicit Video Game Law (SEVGL). The article reviews the process of the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB), the application of strict scrutiny analysis by the Court of Appeals, the discussion relating to the constitutionality of the SEVGL, and revisits the important precedents found in Ginsberg and Miller. The article offers a suggestion for future legislative efforts in the area of regulation of this important industry.

International Law Colloquia, Spring 2006 Series, Roger Alford, Laura Dickinson, Mark Drumbl, Karen Knop, Diane Orentlicher, Brad Roth, Edward Swaine

Diane Orentlicher

Spring 2006 Presenters: February 10: Laura A. Dickinson (University of Connecticut School of Law), Democracy and Trust February 17: Mark A. Drumbl (Washington and Lee University School of Law), Atrocity and Punishment February 24: Karen Knop (University of Toronto Faculty of Law), Enemies and Outlaws: War and the Public/Private Citizen March 3: Brad R. Roth (Wayne State University Department of Political Science), State Sovereignty, International Legality, and Moral Disagreement April 7: Diane Orentlicher (American University Washington College of Law), Whose Justice? Reconciling Universal Jurisdiction with Democratic Principles April 14: Roger P. Alford (Pepperdine University School of Law), Foreign Relations as …

Reaction Or Reformation?: Leo Strauss And American Constitutional Law, Andrew C. Spiropoulos

Andrew C. Spiropoulos

This article explains the importance of the work of the political theorist Leo Strauss to the study of American constitutional law. The foundation of Strauss's work was his belief that the civilization of the West faces a profound crisis. This crisis, he argued, was a crisis of modernity, by which he meant modern political philosophy. The nature of this crisis is the West's loss of faith in reason, the cornerstone of its way of life. This loss of faith threatens the intellectual, spiritual, and even physical health of the West. Strauss argued that this crisis came about because of the …

Corporate Social Responsibility After Citizens United, David G. Yosifon

David G. Yosifon

The Supreme Court recently held Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission (2010) that the First Amendment forbids Congress from restricting the political speech of corporations. While corporate theory did very little to inform the Court’s thinking in Citizens United, this article argues that the holding in Citizens United requires us to rethink corporate theory. Specifically, this article demonstrates that the shareholder primacy norm in American corporate governance relies on the assumption that corporations can be restrained from influencing external governmental operations. We can enjoy the efficiencies generated by shareholder primacy, mainstream corporate theorists have long argued, because we can rely …

Original Habeas Redux, Lee B. Kovarsky

Lee Kovarsky

In "Original Habeas Redux," I map the modern dimensions of the Supreme Court’s most exotic jurisdiction—the original habeas writ. The Court has not issued such relief since 1925 and, until recently, had not ordered a case transferred pursuant to that authority in over fifty years. In August 2009, by transferring a capital prisoner’s original habeas petition to a federal district court rather than dismissing it outright, In re Davis abruptly thrust this obscure power back into mainstream legal debate over both the death penalty and the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction. Scrambling to understand how the authority has evolved since its …

Corporate Social Responsibility After Citizens United, David G. Yosifon

David G. Yosifon

The Supreme Court recently held in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission (2010) that the First Amendment forbids Congress from restricting the political speech of corporations. While corporate theory did very little to inform the Court’s thinking in Citizens United, this article argues that the holding in Citizens United requires us to rethink corporate theory. Specifically, this article demonstrates that the shareholder primacy norm in American corporate governance relies on the assumption that corporations can be restrained from influencing external governmental operations. We can enjoy the efficiencies generated by shareholder primacy, mainstream corporate theorists have long argued, because we can …

In Search Of A Theory Of Deference: The Eighth Amendment, Democratic Pedigree, And Constitutional Decisionmaking, Eric Berger

Eric Berger

The Supreme Court’s recent Eighth Amendment death penalty case law is in disarray, and the confusion is symptomatic of a larger problem in constitutional doctrine. In Baze v. Rees and Kennedy v. Louisiana, the Court approached the challenged state policies with vastly different levels of deference. Though the Court purported to apply longstanding Eighth Amendment tests in both cases, Baze was highly deferential to state policy, and Kennedy was not deferential at all. Remarkably, neither the Court nor legal scholars have acknowledged, let alone justified, these contrasting approaches. This article proposes a theory of deference to address this discrepancy. Courts …

The Roberts’S Supreme Court Takes A Sledge Hammer To Ashwander And Cautious Constitutional Jurisprudence: Citizens United V. Federal Election Commission, Allen E. Shoenberger

Allen E Shoenberger

The methodology of the Supreme Court in its recent decision permitting unlimited corporate financing of election advertisements is more troubling that the specific holding. All signs of constitutional restraint are abandoned as the court employs a sledgehammer to smash Congresses attempt to eliminate the actuality and fear of corruption from electoral politics.

The Inherent Structure Of Free Speech Law, Joshua P. Davis, Joshua D. Rosenberg

Joshua P. Davis

To date no one has discovered a set of organizing principles for free speech doctrine, an area of the law that has been criticized as complex, ad hoc, and even incoherent. We provide a framework that distills free speech law down to three judgments: the first about the role of government; the second about the target of government regulation; and the third a constrained cost-benefit analysis. The framework can be summarized by three propositions: first, the Constitution constrains government if it regulates private speech, but not if government speaks, sponsors speech, or restricts expression in managing an internal governmental function; …

Drug Safety And Commercial Speech: Television Advertisements And Reprints On Off-Label Uses, Margaret Gilhooley

Margaret Gilhooley

1/11/10

PREPUBLICATION VERSION

DRUG SAFETY AND COMMERCIAL SPEECH:

TELEVISION ADVERTISEMENTS AND REPRINTS ON OFF-LABEL USES

By Margaret Gilhooley©

ABSTRACT

This paper examines how the constitutional protections for commercial speech have limited the ability of Congress and FDA to regulate prescription drugs in ways that can affect safety. In Thompson v. Western States, the Supreme Court struck down a Congressional restriction on advertisements for unapproved “compound” drugs because a disclosure that FDA had not approved the compound was considered a constitutionally adequate alternative. While drug compounds are a relatively obscure category, the decision influenced Congress in deciding not to require a …

Citizenship And Constitutionalism, Sujit Choudhry

Sujit Choudhry

No abstract provided.

Voting Rights And Election Law, Michael Dimino, Bradley Smith, Michael Solimine

Michael R Dimino

Constitutional Torts: Cases, Comments And Questions (With M. Wells & T. Eaton) (Supp. 2011-12), Sheldon Nahmod

Sheldon Nahmod

No abstract provided.

Drug Safety And Commercial Speech: Television Advertisements And Reprints On Off-Label Uses, Margaret Gilhooley

Margaret Gilhooley

1/11/10

PREPUBLICATION VERSION

DRUG SAFETY AND COMMERCIAL SPEECH:

TELEVISION ADVERTISEMENTS AND REPRINTS ON OFF-LABEL USES

By Margaret Gilhooley©

ABSTRACT

This paper examines how the constitutional protections for commercial speech have limited the ability of Congress and FDA to regulate prescription drugs in ways that can affect safety. In Thompson v. Western States, the Supreme Court struck down a Congressional restriction on advertisements for unapproved “compound” drugs because a disclosure that FDA had not approved the compound was considered a constitutionally adequate alternative. While drug compounds are a relatively obscure category, the decision influenced Congress in deciding not to require a …

Erie's Suppressed Premise, Michael S. Green

Michael S. Green

The Erie doctrine is usually understood as a limitation on federal courts’ power. This Article concerns the unexplored role that the Erie doctrine has in limiting the power of state courts. According to Erie Railroad v. Tompkins, a federal court must follow state supreme court decisions when interpreting state law. But at the time that Erie was decided, some state supreme courts were still committed to Swift v. Tyson. They considered the content of their common law to be a factual matter, concerning which federal (and sister state) courts could make an independent judgment. Indeed, the Georgia Supreme Court still …

The Constitution And Our Debt To The Future, Rena I. Steinzor

Rena I. Steinzor

Health and safety laws have always been justified as manifestations of congressional authority to regulate and protect the free flow of interstate commerce under Article I, section 8 of the Constitution. Professor Steinzor argues that reliance on the Commerce Clause can support next generation proposals, including a National Environmental Legacy Act proposed by Professor Alyson Flournoy, which would require that any action on federal land involving the consumption or destruction of resources must be sustainable, as well as pending climate change legislation. But, Steinzor says, a far more desirable constitutional foundation for such laws is the General Welfare Clause found …

The Inconvenience Of A “Constitution [That] Follows The Flag ... But Doesn’T Quite Catch Up With It”: From Downes V. Bidwell To Boumediene V. Bush, Pedro A. Malavet

Pedro A. Malavet

Boumediene v. Bush, resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court in June of 2008, granted habeas corpus rights, at least for the time being, to the persons detained at Guantanamo Bay Naval Station. The majority partially based its ruling on the doctrine of the Insular Cases, first set forth in the 1901 decision in Downes v. Bidwell. Additionally, the four dissenting justices agreed with the five in the majority that the plurality opinion of Justice Edward Douglass White in Downes —as affirmed by a unanimous court in 1922 in Balzac v. People of Porto Rico— is still the dominant interpretation of …

Horizontal Erie And The Presumption Of Forum Law, Michael S. Green

Michael S. Green

According to Erie Railroad v. Tompkins and its progeny, a federal court interpreting state law must decide as the state’s supreme court would. In this Article, I argue that a state court interpreting the law of a sister state is subject to the same obligation. It must decide as the sister state’s supreme court would. Horizontal Erie is such a plausible idea, one might think it is already established law. But the Supreme Court has in fact given state courts significant freedom to misinterpret sister state law. And state courts have taken advantage of this freedom, by routinely presuming that …