Constitutional Law Commons^™

Rethinking Judicial Minimalism: Abortion Politics, Party Polarization, And The Consequences Of Returning The Constitution To Elected Government, Neal Devins

Neal E. Devins

No abstract provided.

The Exceptions Clause As A Structural Safeguard, Tara Leigh Grove

Tara L. Grove

Scholars have long treated the Exceptions Clause of Article III as a serious threat to the Supreme Court’s central constitutional function: establishing definitive and uniform rules of federal law. This Article argues that scholars have overlooked an important function of the Clause. Congress has repeatedly used its broad “exceptions power” to facilitate, not to undermine, the Supreme Court’s constitutional role. Drawing on insights from social science, this Article asserts that Congress has an incentive to use its control over federal jurisdiction to promote the Court’s role in settling disputed federal questions. Notably, this argument has considerable historical support. When the …

The Article Ii Safeguards Of Federal Jurisdiction, Tara Leigh Grove

Tara L. Grove

Jurisdiction stripping has long been treated as a battle between Congress and the federal judiciary. Scholars have thus overlooked the important (and surprising) role that the executive branch has played in these jurisdictional struggles. This Article seeks to fill that void. Drawing on two strands of social science research, the Article argues that the executive branch has a strong incentive to use its constitutional authority over the enactment and enforcement of federal law to oppose jurisdiction-stripping measures. Notably, this structural argument has considerable historical support. The executive branch has repeatedly opposed jurisdiction-stripping proposals in Congress. That has been true even …

Standing Outside Article Iii, Tara Leigh Grove

Tara L. Grove

The U.S. Supreme Court has insisted that standing doctrine is a “bedrock” requirement only of Article III. Accordingly, both jurists and scholars have assumed that the standing of the executive branch and the legislature, like that of other parties, depends solely on Article III. But I argue that these commentators have overlooked a basic constitutional principle: federal institutions must have affirmative authority for their actions, including the power to bring suit or appeal in federal court. Article III defines the federal “judicial Power” and does not purport to confer any authority on the executive branch or the legislature. Executive and …

A (Modest) Separation Of Powers Success Story, Tara Leigh Grove

Tara L. Grove

No abstract provided.

Professional Rights Speech, Timothy Zick

Timothy Zick

Some regulations of professional-client communications raise important, but sofar largely overlooked, constitutional concerns. Three recent examples of professional speech regulation-restrictions on physician inquiries regarding firearms, "reparative" therapy bans, and compelled abortion disclosures-highlight an important intersection between professional speech and constitutional rights. In each of the three examples, state regulations implicate a non-expressive constitutional right--the right to bear arms, equality, and abortion. States are actively, sometimes even aggressively, using their licensing authority to limit and structure conversations between professionals and their clients regarding constitutional rights. The author contends that government regulation of "professional rights speech" should be subjected to heightened First …

Professors Alan J. Meese And Nathan B. Oman On Why Hobby Lobby And For-Profit Corporations Are Rfra Persons, Alan J. Meese, Nathan B. Oman

Nathan B. Oman

No abstract provided.

Hobby Lobby, Corporate Law, And The Theory Of The Firm: Why For-Profit Corporations Are Rfra Persons, Alan J. Meese, Nathan B. Oman

Nathan B. Oman

No abstract provided.

Professors Alan J. Meese And Nathan B. Oman On Why Hobby Lobby And For-Profit Corporations Are Rfra Persons, Alan J. Meese, Nathan B. Oman

Alan J. Meese

No abstract provided.

Hobby Lobby, Corporate Law, And Rfra, Alan J. Meese

Alan J. Meese

No abstract provided.

Hobby Lobby, Corporate Law, And The Theory Of The Firm: Why For-Profit Corporations Are Rfra Persons, Alan J. Meese, Nathan B. Oman

Alan J. Meese

No abstract provided.

Hobby Lobby And Corporate Social Responsibility: A View From The Right, Alan J. Meese

Alan J. Meese

No abstract provided.

Justifying A Prudential Solution To The Williamson County Ripeness Puzzle, Katherine Mims Crocker

Katherine Mims Crocker

No abstract provided.

When Delegation Begets Domination: Due Process Of Administrative Lawmaking, Evan J. Criddle

Evan J. Criddle

No abstract provided.

The Horne Dilemma: Protecting Property's Richness And Frontiers, Lynda L. Butler

Lynda L. Butler

In a 2015 decision, the Supreme Court concluded that real and personal property should not be treated differently under the Takings Clause and that a government condition requiring raisin growers, in certain years, to reserve a percentage of their crop for the government to manage in noncompetitive venues was a per se physical taking. The decision to treat both real and personal property as equally worthy of protection under the Takings Clause has merit given the weak historical evidence suggesting stronger protection for land and the importance of personal property to income generation and capital development in a modern society. …

2014 Bill Of Rights Journal Symposium: Atkins On The Ground, Paul Marcus, Jeffrey Bellin, Caroline Everington, Marc Tassé, John H. Blume

Jeffrey Bellin

Atkins v. Virginia A Dozen Years Later: A Report Card

In 2002 the United States Supreme Court overturned decades-long precedent, holding that the execution of defendants with intellectual and developmental disabilities violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

This symposium discusses and evaluates the decision in Atkins v. Virginia, including its effects and application in practice, from both legal and psychological points of view.

The Post-Riley Search Warrant: Search Protocols And Particularity In Cell Phone Searches, Adam M. Gershowitz

Adam M. Gershowitz

Last year, in Riley v. California, the Supreme Court required police to procure a warrant before searching a cell phone. Unfortunately, the Court’s assumption that requiring search warrants would be “simple” and very protective of privacy was overly optimistic. This article reviews lower court decisions in the year since Riley and finds that the search warrant requirement is far less protective than expected. Rather than restricting search warrants to the narrow evidence being sought, some magistrates have issued expansive warrants authorizing a search of the entire contents of the phone with no restrictions whatsoever. Other courts have authorized searches …

2014 Bill Of Rights Journal Symposium: Atkins In Other Contexts, Adam M. Gershowitz, Paul Marcus, Christopher Slobogin, Scott Sundby

Adam M. Gershowitz

Atkins v. Virginia A Dozen Years Later: A Report Card

In 2002 the United States Supreme Court overturned decades-long precedent, holding that the execution of defendants with intellectual and developmental disabilities violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

This symposium discusses and evaluates the decision in Atkins v. Virginia, including its effects and application in practice, from both legal and psychological points of view.

Using Statutes To Set Legislative Rules: Entrenchment, Separation Of Powers, And The Rules Of Proceedings Clause, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

No abstract provided.

September 14, 2019: Constitution Day 2019, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “Constitution Day 2019“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

Do Laws Have A Constitutional Shelf Life?, Allison Orr Larsen

Allison Orr Larsen

Times change. A statute passed today may seem obsolete tomorrow. Does the Constitution dictate when a law effectively expires? In Shelby County v. Holder, the 2013 decision that invalidated a provision of the Voting Rights Act, the Court seems to answer that question in the affirmative. Although rational and constitutional when written, the Court held that the coverage formula of the law grew to be irrational over time and was unconstitutional now because it bears “no logical relation to the present day.” This reason for invalidating a law is puzzling. The question answered in Shelby County was not about whether …

Counterfeit Campaign Speech, Rebecca Green

Faculty Publications

We are entering an era in which computers can manufacture highly-sophisticated images, audio, and video of people doing and saying things they have, in fact, not done or said. In the context of political campaigns, the danger of “counterfeit campaign speech” is existential. Do current laws adequately regulate faked candidate speech? Can counter speech effectively neutralize it? Because it takes place in the vaulted realm of core political speech, would the First Amendment stymie any attempt to outlaw it? Many smart people who have looked at the general problem of deceit in campaigns have concluded that the state has no …

June 23, 2019: All The Justices Get Religion Wrong Again, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “All the Justices Get Religion Wrong Again“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

June 22, 2019: What The Supreme Court Should Have Said, But Didn't, In The Maryland Cross Case, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “What the Supreme Court Should Have Said, But Didn't, in the Maryland Cross Case“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

May 15, 2019: What Impeachment And Court-Packing Have In Common, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “What Impeachment and Court-packing Have in Common“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

April 14, 2019: Two Cases Of Independence--The Court And The Fed--And What They Tell Us About American Nihilism, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “ Two Cases of Independence--the Court and the Fed--and What They Tell Us About American Nihilism“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

State Empowerment And The Compact Clause, James F. Blumstein, Thomas J. Cheeseman

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

February 23, 2019: Opening Of The Memphis Talk On Court-Packing, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “Opening of the Memphis talk on Court-Packing“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

Examining Entrenched Masculinities In The Republican Government Tradition, Jamie R. Abrams

Jamie R. Abrams

No abstract provided.

January 26, 2019: Why There Is No Left Federalist Society, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “Why There is No Left Federalist Society“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.