Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- United States Supreme Court (7)
- Abortion (2)
- Federal courts (2)
- Judicial review (2)
- Sixth Amendment (2)
-
- Voting Rights Act (2)
- A. Leon Higginbotham (1)
- Activism (1)
- Affirmative action (1)
- Alabama (1)
- Appeals (1)
- Appointed counsel (1)
- Barack Obama (1)
- Bellotti (1)
- Bush v. Gore (1)
- Caseloads (1)
- Certiorari (1)
- Citizens United (1)
- Civil rights (1)
- Clarence Thomas (1)
- Colorado v. Connelly (1)
- Confessions (1)
- Confrontation Clause (1)
- Constitution (1)
- Constitutional Law (1)
- Constitutional interpretation (1)
- Constitutional law (1)
- Constraint (1)
- Convictions (1)
- Corporate political speech (1)
Articles 1 - 20 of 20
Full-Text Articles in Constitutional Law
Demosprudence, Interactive Federalism, And Twenty Years Of Sheff V. O'Neill, Justin R. Long
Demosprudence, Interactive Federalism, And Twenty Years Of Sheff V. O'Neill, Justin R. Long
Law Faculty Research Publications
Professor Lani Guinier and others have recently developed a theory called "demosprudence" that explains the democracy-enhancing potential of certain types of US. Supreme Court dissents. Separately, state constitutionalists have described state constitutions' capacity to offer a base of resistance against the U.S. Supreme Court's narrow conception of individual rights. Applying these two seemingly unrelated theories to school desegregation litigation in Connecticut and to same-sex marriage litigation in Iowa, this Essay suggests that certain state constitutional decisions might function like U.S. Supreme Court dissents to enhance democratic activism. In this way, interactive federalism might usefully serve as a category of demosprudence.
Section 5: Individual Rights, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Section 5: Individual Rights, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.
New Groups And Old Doctrine: Rethiking Congressional Power To Enforce The Equal Protection Clause, William D. Araiza
New Groups And Old Doctrine: Rethiking Congressional Power To Enforce The Equal Protection Clause, William D. Araiza
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
The Supreme Court’S Controversial Gvrs – And An Alternative, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl
The Supreme Court’S Controversial Gvrs – And An Alternative, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl
Faculty Publications
This Article addresses a relatively neglected portion of the Supreme Court's docket: the "GVR"-that is, the Court's procedure for summarily granting certiorari, vacating the decision below without finding error, and remanding the case for further consideration by the lower court. The purpose of the GVR device is to give the lower court the initial opportunity to consider the possible impact of a new development (such as a recently issued Supreme Court decision) and, if necessary, to revise its ruling in light of the changed circumstances. The Court may issue scores or even hundreds of these orders every year
This Article …
An Open Letter From Heaven To Barack Obama, F. Michael Higginbotham
An Open Letter From Heaven To Barack Obama, F. Michael Higginbotham
All Faculty Scholarship
Since the passing of A. Leon Higginbotham, Jr. in 1998, many have wondered what the award winning author, longest-serving black federal judge, first black to head a federal regulatory agency, recipient of the Spingarn Medal and the Congressional Medal of Freedom, and author of the famous “Open Letter to Clarence Thomas” would think of the state of race relations today. Appointed to the Federal Trade Commission in 1962, Higginbotham served in several powerful federal positions including Vice-Chairman of the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, member of the first wiretap surveillance court, and chief judge of a …
Constraining Public Employee Speech: Government's Control Of Its Workers' Speech To Protect Its Own Expression, Helen Norton
Constraining Public Employee Speech: Government's Control Of Its Workers' Speech To Protect Its Own Expression, Helen Norton
Publications
This Article identifies a key doctrinal shift in courts' treatment of public employees' First Amendment claims--a shift that imperils the public's interest in transparent government as well as the free speech rights of more than twenty million government workers. In the past, courts interpreted the First Amendment to permit governmental discipline of public employee speech on matters of public interest only when such speech undermined the government employer's interest in efficiently providing public services. In contrast, courts now increasingly focus on--and defer to--government's claim to control its workers' expression to protect its own speech.
More specifically, courts increasingly permit government …
Justice Sutherland Reconsidered, 62 Vand. L. Rev. 639 (2009), Samuel R. Olken
Justice Sutherland Reconsidered, 62 Vand. L. Rev. 639 (2009), Samuel R. Olken
UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Ex Parte Young: Sovereignty, Immunity, And The Constitutional Structure Of American Federalism, Charlton C. Copeland
Ex Parte Young: Sovereignty, Immunity, And The Constitutional Structure Of American Federalism, Charlton C. Copeland
Articles
No abstract provided.
Preemption By Stealth, Sandra B. Zellmer
Preemption By Stealth, Sandra B. Zellmer
Faculty Law Review Articles
By making federal law supreme to state law, the U.S. Constitution gives Congress "an extraordinary power." Perhaps the extraordinarily powerful nature of the Supremacy Clause is the reason for its checkered treatment by the Supreme Court. Recent preemption decisions give lip service to federalism concerns, but in many cases state statutes, regulations, and remedies have been struck down with little regard for either federal-state comity or institutional competence. If federal regulatory regimes always accomplished optimal regulation perfect equipoise between protecting human health and promoting economic development while fostering innovation by governments and regulated entities-preemption of state law would be far …
How Planned Parenthood V. Casey (Pretty Much) Settled The Abortion Wars, Neal Devins
How Planned Parenthood V. Casey (Pretty Much) Settled The Abortion Wars, Neal Devins
Faculty Publications
More than twenty-one years after Robert Bork's failed Supreme Court nomination and seventeen years after Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, the rhetoric of abortion politics remains unchanged. Pro-choice interests, for example, argue that states are poised to outlaw abortion and that Roe v. Wade is vulnerable to overruling. In this Essay, I will debunk those claims. First, I will explain how Casey's approval of limited abortion rights reflected an emerging national consensus in 1992. Second, I will explain why the Supreme Court is unlikely to risk political backlash by formally modifying Casey- either by restoring the trimester test …
Limits Of Interpretivism, Richard A. Primus
Limits Of Interpretivism, Richard A. Primus
Articles
Justice Stephen Markman sits on the Supreme Court of my home state of Michigan. In that capacity, he says, he is involved in a struggle between two kinds of judging. On one side are judges like him. They follow the rules. On the other side are unconstrained judges who decide cases on the basis of what they think the law ought to be. This picture is relatively simple, and Justice Markman apparently approves of its simplicity. But matters may in fact be a good deal more complex.
The Courts Under President Obama, Scott A. Moss
Citizens Not United: The Lack Of Stockholder Voluntariness In Corporatepolitical Speech, Elizabeth Pollman
Citizens Not United: The Lack Of Stockholder Voluntariness In Corporatepolitical Speech, Elizabeth Pollman
All Faculty Scholarship
As the Supreme Court reconsiders prior decisions upholding limits on corporate electioneering from general funds, this Essay suggests that the longstanding concern about the lack of stockholder assent to corporate political speech is more compelling than ever. Patterns of U.S. stockholding have significantly changed in the past several decades so as to heighten the concern and caution against a broad overruling of precedents. Stockholders' ability to sell their securities or pursue a derivative action, and other means of "corporate democracy," do not alleviate the concern. A broad decision in favor of Citizens United could leave even stockholders who carefully screen …
Colorado V. Connelly: What Really Happened, William T. Pizzi
Colorado V. Connelly: What Really Happened, William T. Pizzi
Publications
In 1986, the Supreme Court decided Colorado v. Connelly, a landmark case in due process and fifth amendment law. The case began when Francis Barry Connelly approached a police officer on the street in downtown Denver to confess to having killed a young woman several months earlier in southwest Denver. Because Connelly was suffering from acute schizophrenia and was hearing auditory hallucinations commanding him to confess, state courts suppressed his statements to the police on the grounds (1) that his statements before arrest were involuntary and inadmissible under the due process clause and (2) those statements post-arrest could not …
From Bush V. Gore To Namudno: A Response To Professor Amar, Ellen D. Katz
From Bush V. Gore To Namudno: A Response To Professor Amar, Ellen D. Katz
Articles
In his Dunwody Lecture, Professor Akhil Amar invites us to revisit the Bush v. Gore controversy and consider what went wrong. This short essay responds to Professor Amar by taking up his invitation and looking at the decision through a seemingly improbable lens, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last June in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. One (NAMUDNO) v. Holder. Among its many surprises, NAMUDNO helps illuminate the Court’s fundamental error nine years ago. Professor Amar forcefully argues that the mistrust with which the Justices in the Bush v. Gore majority viewed the Florida Supreme Court was both unjustified …
Response, Frames Of Reference And The "Turn To Remedy" In Facial Challenge Doctrine, Kevin C. Walsh
Response, Frames Of Reference And The "Turn To Remedy" In Facial Challenge Doctrine, Kevin C. Walsh
Scholarly Articles
This Symposium on Facial Challenges in the Roberts Court provides an opportunity to chart a path toward greater doctrinal coherence in light of the Court's most recent uses of the distinction between facial and as-applied challenges. In his contribution to this Symposium, David Faigman makes two claims that I address in this response. The first of Professor Faigman's claims is descriptive: "the debate over facial versus as-applied challenges is merely a subcategory of the pervasive issue concerning defining the proper frame of reference for empirical questions arising under the Constitution.'"' As Professor Faigman uses the term, a "frame of reference" …
Constitutional Limits On Punitive Damages Awards: An Analysis Of Supreme Court Precedent, Dorothy S. Lund
Constitutional Limits On Punitive Damages Awards: An Analysis Of Supreme Court Precedent, Dorothy S. Lund
Faculty Scholarship
Over the last fifteen years, the Supreme Court has formulated new constitutional principles to constrain punitive damages awards imposed by state courts, invoking its authority under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This intervention has been controversial from the start, generating dissents from several Justices asserting that the actions of the Court are unwarranted and amount to unjustified judicial activism. Over the ensuing years lower courts and commentators have criticized the Court’s prescription of procedural and substantive limitations, finding them to be vague and unnecessarily restrictive of state common law prerogatives. Some observers with an economic orientation have …
Procedural Obstacles To Reviewing Ineffective Assistance Of Trial Counsel Claims In State And Federal Postconviction Proceedings., Eve Brensike Primus
Procedural Obstacles To Reviewing Ineffective Assistance Of Trial Counsel Claims In State And Federal Postconviction Proceedings., Eve Brensike Primus
Articles
Ineffective assistance of trial counsel is one of the most frequently raised claims in state and federal postconviction petitions. This is hardly surprising given reports of trial attorneys who refuse to investigate their cases before trial, never meet with their clients before the day of trial, and fail to file any motions or object to inadmissible evidence offered at trial. Unfortunately, the current structure of indigent defense funding makes it impossible for many public defenders to provide effective representation to their clients.
Giles V. California: A Personal Reflection, Richard D. Friedman
Giles V. California: A Personal Reflection, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
In this Essay, Professor Friedman places Giles v. California in the context of the recent transformation of the law governing the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. He contends that a robust doctrine of forfeiture is an integral part of a sound conception of the confrontation right. One reason this is so is that cases fitting within the traditional hearsay exception for dying declarations can be explained as instances of forfeiture. This explanation leads to a simple structure of confrontation law, qualified by the principle that the confrontation right may be waived or forfeited but not subject to genuine exceptions. …
Withdrawal: The Roberts Court And The Retreat From Election Law, Ellen D. Katz
Withdrawal: The Roberts Court And The Retreat From Election Law, Ellen D. Katz
Articles
Last Term the Supreme Court handed down four decisions that upheld diverse efforts by state governments to regulate the electoral process. The Court turned back challenges to New York’s method for nominating judicial candidates, Washington’s modified blanket primary system, Indiana’s voter identification requirement, and Alabama’s use of gubernatorial appointment to fill county commission vacancies in Mobile County. Unlike other recent election decisions, these were not close cases. All nine Justices supported the New York holding, while supermajorities voted in favor of the result in the others. This consensus, moreover, emerged even as the Court voted to reverse unanimous decisions by …