Law Commons^™

The Roberts Court And Penumbral Federalism, Edward Cantu

Catholic University Law Review

For several decades the Court has invoked “state dignity” to animate federalism reasoning in isolated doctrinal contexts. Recent Roberts Court decisions suggest that a focus on state dignity, prestige, status, and similar ethereal concepts—which derive from a “penumbral” reading of the Tenth Amendment—represent the budding of a different doctrinal approach to federalism generally. This article terms this new approach “penumbral federalism,” an approach less concerned with delineating state from federal regulatory turf, and more concerned with maintaining the states as viable competitors for the respect and loyalty of the citizenry.

After fleshing out what “penumbral federalism” is and its …

Prosecuting The Material Support Of Terrorism: Federal Courts, Military Commissions, Or Both?, P. Scott Rufener

University of Massachusetts Law Review

This note argues that given the recent changes in the 2009 MCA the overall scheme for prosecuting material support of terrorism offenses is satisfactory (i.e., material support crimes should remain under the jurisdiction of both forums), but that the jurisdiction of military commissions over material support offenses should be limited to those providing material support to further specific acts of terrorism (as opposed to generalized support) and to those giving aid to terrorists or foreign terrorist organizations (hereinafter ―FTOs) in active theaters of war.

Foreign And Religious Family Law: Comity, Contract, And The Constitution, Ann Laquer Estin

Pepperdine Law Review

The article focuses on role of the U.S. courts in confronting religious laws in dispute resolution of various cases of domestic relations, contracts, and torts. Topics discussed include role of secular courts in maintaining constitutional balance between the free exercise and establishment clauses, constitutional challenges faced by religious adherents, and importance of legal pluralism in the U.S.

Rethinking The “Religious-Question” Doctrine, Christopher C. Lund

Pepperdine Law Review

The “religious question” doctrine is a well-known and commonly accepted notion about the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses. The general idea is that, in our system of separated church and state, courts do not decide religious questions. And from this premise, many things flow — including the idea that courts must dismiss otherwise justiciable controversies when they would require courts to resolve religious questions. Yet a vexing thought arises. The religious-question doctrine traditionally comes out of a notion that secular courts cannot resolve metaphysical or theological issues. But when one looks at the cases that courts have been dismissing pursuant to …

Introduction: Religious Law In The 21st Century, Michael A. Helfand

Pepperdine Law Review

An introduction is presented in which the editor discusses various articles present in symposium including role of the U.S. courts in interpreting religious laws, practice of religious laws in secular states, and political, and legal structures of Jewish and Islamic identities.

Military Tribunals And Due Process In Post-Revolutionary Egypt, Bianca C. Isaias

The International Lawyer

No abstract provided.