Constitutional Law Commons^™

National Pork Is A Bibb Case, Not A Pike Case, Michael S. Knoll, Ruth Mason

All Faculty Scholarship

In October 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, a Ninth Circuit case out of California, dismissing a challenge to Proposition 12, which, inter alia, bans the sale of wholesome pork (without regard to where it was produced) from the offspring of breeding sows confined in a manner California voters consider “cruel.” National Pork thus puts the Court in the position of choosing between the often-criticized undue-burden strand of the dormant Commerce Clause and California’s request that the Court approve its ban on out-of-state pork not because of the products’ qualities, but …

Solving The Congressional Review Act’S Conundrum, Cary Coglianese

All Faculty Scholarship

Congress routinely enacts statutes that require federal agencies to adopt specific regulations. When Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act in 2010, for example, it mandated that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopt an anti-corruption regulation requiring energy companies to disclose payments they make to foreign governments. Although the Dodd-Frank Act specifically required the SEC to adopt this disclosure requirement, the agency’s eventual regulation was also, like other administrative rules, subject to disapproval by Congress under a process outlined in a separate statute known as the Congressional Review Act (CRA).

After the SEC issued its …

Brief Of Professors Michael Knoll And Ruth Mason As Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioners In National Pork Producers Council V. Ross, Michael S. Knoll, Ruth Mason

All Faculty Scholarship

The district court erred when it concluded that because Proposition 12 applies only to in-state sales, it could not be extraterritorial. On the contrary, because California regulates pork production based on domestic, inbound, and outbound sales, its regulation is internally inconsistent and overbroad. As an obligation of interstate comity, this Court has understood extraterritoriality to require the basis of regulation to be internally consistent. A regulation is internally consistent when, if every state regulated using the same nexus as the challenged state, cross-border commercial activity would not be regulated by more than one state. Proposition 12 cannot meet this basic …

The Pennhurst Doctrines And The Lost Disability History Of The "New Federalism", Karen Tani

All Faculty Scholarship

This Article reconstructs the litigation over an infamous institution for people with disabilities—Pennhurst State School & Hospital—and demonstrates that litigation’s powerful and underappreciated significance for American life and law. It is a tale of two legacies. In U.S. disability history, Halderman v. Pennhurst State School & Hospital is a celebrated case. The 1977 trial court decision recognized a constitutional “right to habilitation” and ordered the complete closure of an overcrowded, dehumanizing facility. For people concerned with present-day mass incarceration, the case retains relevance as an example of court-ordered abolition.

For those outside the world of deinstitutionalization and disability rights, however, …

Keeping Our Distinctions Straight: A Response To “Originalism: Standard And Procedure”, Mitchell N. Berman

All Faculty Scholarship

For half a century, moral philosophers have distinguished between a “standard” that makes acts right and a “decision procedure” by which agents can determine whether any given contemplated act is right, which is to say whether it satisfies the standard. In “Originalism: Standard and Procedure,” Stephen Sachs argues that the same distinction applies to the constitutional domain and that clear grasp of the difference strengthens the case for originalism because theorists who emphasize the infirmities of originalism as a decision procedure frequently but mistakenly infer that those flaws also cast doubt on originalism as a standard. This invited response agrees …

How Practices Make Principles, And How Principles Make Rules, Mitchell N. Berman

All Faculty Scholarship

The most fundamental question in general jurisprudence concerns what makes it the case that the law has the content that it does. This article offers a novel answer. According to the theory it christens “principled positivism,” legal practices ground legal principles, and legal principles determine legal rules. This two-level account of the determination of legal content differs from Hart’s celebrated theory in two essential respects: in relaxing Hart’s requirement that fundamental legal notions depend for their existence on judicial consensus; and in assigning weighted contributory legal norms—“principles”—an essential role in the determination of legal rights, duties, powers, and permissions. Drawing …

The Public Square Has Eyes (Or Cameras): Anonymous Speech Under The First And Fourth Amendments In The Age Of Facial Recognition, Apratim Vidyarthi

Prize Winning Papers

Winner of Penn Law's 2022 Fred G. Leebron Memorial Prize for the best paper in the field of constitutional law.

What Comes After January 6? On The Contingent Congressional Procedure, William B. Ewald

All Faculty Scholarship

Most criticism of the system of presidential election focuses on the Electoral College, and most criticism of the Electoral College focuses narrowly on the shortcomings of the Electoral College itself. The objections are well known. The most basic is an objection of political principle. The Electoral College, on its face, deviates from the democratic principle of one-person-one-vote and gives the vote of a citizen in Wyoming approximately the same weight as 3.5 votes in California. The result is an unequal distribution of political power, both between citizens and among states. We can call this the 3.5:1 problem.

There are …

From Negative To Positive Algorithm Rights, Cary Coglianese, Kat Hefter

All Faculty Scholarship

Artificial intelligence, or “AI,” is raising alarm bells. Advocates and scholars propose policies to constrain or even prohibit certain AI uses by governmental entities. These efforts to establish a negative right to be free from AI stem from an understandable motivation to protect the public from arbitrary, biased, or unjust applications of algorithms. This movement to enshrine protective rights follows a familiar pattern of suspicion that has accompanied the introduction of other technologies into governmental processes. Sometimes this initial suspicion of a new technology later transforms into widespread acceptance and even a demand for its use. In this paper, we …

Presidential Accountability And The Rule Of Law: Can The President Claim Immunity If He Shoots Someone On Fifth Avenue?, Claire Oakes Finkelstein, Richard Painter

All Faculty Scholarship

Can a sitting President be indicted while in office? This critical constitutional question has never been directly answered by any court or legislative body. The prevailing wisdom, however, is that, though he may be investigated, a sitting President is immune from actual prosecution. The concept of presidential immunity, however, has hastened the erosion of checks and balances in the federal government and weakened our ability to rein in renegade Presidents. It has enabled sitting Presidents to impede the enforcement of subpoenas and other tools of investigation by prosecutors, both federal and state, as well as to claim imperviousness to civil …

The Runaway Presidential Power Over Diplomacy, Jean Galbraith

All Faculty Scholarship

The President claims exclusive control over diplomacy within our constitutional system. Relying on this claim, executive branch lawyers repeatedly reject congressional mandates regarding international engagement. In their view, Congress cannot specify what the policy of the United States is with respect to foreign corruption, cannot bar a technology-focused agency from communicating with China, cannot impose notice requirements for withdrawal from a treaty with Russia, cannot instruct Treasury officials how to vote in the World Bank, and cannot require the disclosure of a trade-related report. And these are just a few of many examples from recent years. The President’s assertedly exclusive …

Navigating The Identity Thicket: Trademark's Lost Theory Of Personality, The Right Of Publicity, And Preemption, Jennifer E. Rothman

All Faculty Scholarship

Both trademark and unfair competition laws and state right of publicity laws protect against unauthorized uses of a person’s identity. Increasingly, however, these rights are working at odds with one another, and can point in different directions with regard to who controls a person’s name, likeness, and broader indicia of identity. This creates what I call an "identity thicket" of overlapping and conflicting rights over a person’s identity. Current jurisprudence provides little to no guidance on the most basic questions surrounding this thicket, such as what right to use a person’s identity, if any, flows from the transfer of marks …