Law Commons^™

Resolving The Qualified Immunity Dilemma: Constitutional Tort Claims For Nominal Damages, James E. Pfander

Faculty Working Papers

Scholars have criticized the Court's qualified immunity decision in Pearson v. Callahan on the ground that it may lead to stagnation in the judicial elaboration of constitutional norms. Under current law, officers sued in their personal capacity for constitutional torts enjoy qualified immunity from liability unless the plaintiff can persuade the court that the conduct in question violated clearly established law. Pearson permits the lower courts to dismiss on the basis of legal uncertainty; it no longer requires the courts to address the merits of the constitutional question. This essay suggests that constitutional tort claimants should be permitted to avoid …

Phony Originalism And The Establishment Clause, Andrew M. Koppelman

Faculty Working Papers

The "originalist" interpretations of the Establishment Clause by Supreme Court Justices William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas are remarkably indifferent to the original purposes of that clause. Their arguments are a remarkable congeries of historical error and outright misrepresentation. This is not necessarily a criticism of originalism per se. However, the abuse of originalist scholarship that these judges have practiced raises questions about what originalist scholars are actually accomplishing.

Forced Labor, Revisited: The Thirteenth Amendment And Abortion, Andrew Koppelman

Faculty Working Papers

Many recent works on the Thirteenth Amendment break new ground, deploying the amendment in new and creative ways. This is not one of them. I here restate an argument I made twenty years ago, defending abortion rights on the basis of the amendment. I then consider how the work was received, offer some amendments to the argument, and conclude with some reflections on how, perhaps, it can have more influence in the future.

Corruption Of Religion And The Establishment Clause, Andrew Koppelman

Faculty Working Papers

Government neutrality toward religion is based on familiar considerations: the importance of avoiding religious conflict, alienation of religious minorities, and the danger that religious considerations will introduce a dangerous irrational dogmatism into politics and make democratic compromise more difficult. This paper explores one consideration, prominent at the time of the framing, that is often overlooked: the idea that religion can be corrupted by state involvement with it. This idea is friendly to religion but, precisely for that reason, is determined to keep the state away from religion.

If the religion-protective argument for disestablishment is to be useful today, it cannot …