Constitutional Law Commons^™

Preempting Private Prisons, Christopher Matthew Burgess

Washington Law Review

In 2019 and 2021, respectively, California and Washington enacted laws banning the operation of private prisons within each state, including those operated by private companies in contracts with the federal government. Nevertheless, the federal government continues to contract with private prisons through Immigrations and Customs Enforcement for the detention of non-United States citizens. In 2022, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held in GEO Group, Inc. v. Newsom that federal immigration law preempted California’s private prison ban.

Preemption—when federal law supersedes state law—is a doctrinal thicket. Federal courts analyze preemption issues in multiple different ways in a particular case, often …

Burning A Hole In The Pocket Of Justice: Prop. 66'S Underfunded Attempt To Fix California's Death Penalty, Flavia Costea

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

California has struggled with the administrative and financial burdens of a flawed death penalty system for decades. In an effort to save the death penalty, the voters of California enacted Proposition 66, which promised to deliver a quicker and more cost-effective system. This Article focuses on the provision of Prop. 66 that expands the number of lawyers who can act as defense lawyers for inmates on death row. While this provision superficially seems to solve the shortage of defense attorneys willing to take on death penalty cases, without significant funding, the shortage of resources and pressure to speed up executions …

Fixing Hollingsworth: Standing In Initiative Cases, Karl Manheim, John S. Caragozian, Donald Warner

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

In Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal filed by the “Official Proponents” of California’s Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California. Chief Justice Roberts’ majority opinion held that initiative sponsors lack Article III standing to defend their ballot measures even when state officials refuse to defend against constitutional challenges. As a result, Hollingsworth provides state officers with the ability to overrule laws that were intended to bypass the government establishment—in effect, an “executive veto” of popularly-enacted initiatives.

The Article examines this new “executive veto” in depth. It places Hollingsworth in context, discussing the initiative process …

Preserving Home Rule: The Text, Purpose, And Political Theory Of California’S Municipal Affairs Clause, Brett A. Stroud

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Under The Influence Of California's New Drunk Driving Law: Is The Drunk Driver's Presumption Of Innocence On The Rocks? , Douglas Caiafa, A. Randall Farnsworth

Pepperdine Law Review

On January 1, 1982, the new California drunk driving law went into effect. This law makes it a crime to drive a motor vehicle where one's blood alcohol level is .10 or more. The law also marks a legislative attempt to curtail the practice of plea bargaining in drunk driving cases and significantly increases the penalties imposed upon those convicted of drunk driving. This Comment will discuss the provisions of the new drunk driving law and examine its constitutionality.

California's Constitutional Right To Privacy, J. Clark Kelso

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Mandatory Chemical Castration For Perpetrators Of Sex Offenses Against Children: Following California's Lead, Peter J. Gimino Iii

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.