Fourteenth Amendment Commons^™

The Eleventh Amendment And Nondiverse Suits Against States, Collin Hong

University of Cincinnati Law Review

Since Hans v. Louisiana (1890), the Supreme Court has maintained that the Eleventh Amendment protects states from suits by plaintiffs who are citizens of other states and by citizens of that state, despite the text of the Eleventh Amendment specifying that only suits from citizens of other states are barred. Scholars have noted that what therefore protects the states from suits against their own citizens is not the Eleventh Amendment, but rather a common-law immunity that existed between nations at the founding. That immunity applied both to states and to foreign nations. This article argues that just as Congress has …

The People's Court: On The Intellectual Origins Of American Judicial Power, Ian C. Bartrum

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

This article enters into the modern debate between “consti- tutional departmentalists”—who contend that the executive and legislative branches share constitutional interpretive authority with the courts—and what are sometimes called “judicial supremacists.” After exploring the relevant history of political ideas, I join the modern minority of voices in the latter camp.

This is an intellectual history of two evolving political ideas—popular sovereignty and the separation of powers—which merged in the making of American judicial power, and I argue we can only understand the structural function of judicial review by bringing these ideas together into an integrated whole. Or, put another way, …

Keeping Up: Walking With Justice Douglas, Charles A. Reich

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Segregation In The Galleries: A Reconsideration, Richard Primus

Michigan Law Review Online

When constitutional lawyers talk about the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment as applied to questions of race, they often men-tion that the spectators’ galleries in Congress were racially segregated when Congress debated the Amendment.1 If the Thirty-Ninth Congress practiced racial segregation, the thinking goes, then it probably did not mean to prohibit racial segregation.2 As an argument about constitutional interpretation, this line of thinking has both strengths and weaknesses. But this brief Essay is not about the interpretive consequences, if any, of segregation in the congressional galleries during the 1860s. It is about the factual claim that the galleries …

Originalism And Congressional Power To Enforce The Fourteenth Amendment, Christopher W. Schmidt

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

In this Essay, I argue that originalism conflicts with the Supreme Court’s current jurisprudence defining the scope of Congress’ power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment. Under the standard established in Boerne v. Flores, the Court limits congressional power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to statutory remedies premised on judicially defined interpretations of Fourteenth Amendment rights. A commitment to originalism as a method of judicial constitutional interpretation challenges the premise of judicial interpretive supremacy in Section 5 jurisprudence in two ways. First, as a matter of history, an originalist reading of Section 5 provides support for broad judicial …

The Equal Protection Component Of Legislative Generality, Evan C. Zoldan

University of Richmond Law Review

This article advances the broad project outlined above by recognizing

the equal protection component of legislative generality.

Exploring the relationship between the Equal Protection Clause

and the value of legislative generality both enhances an understanding

of the proper bounds of the Equal Protection Clause and

helps define the ultimate parameters of a value of legislative generality.

Part I of this article defines and provides paradigmatic

examples of special legislation. Part II identifies the most widely

held conceptions of equality that can be enforced through the

Equal Protection Clause and describes how special legislation offends

these conceptions. Part III describes how …

Rostker V. Goldberg: A Step Backward In Equal Protection, Or A Justifiable Affirmation Of Congressional Power?, Gilbert L. Purcell, Janet Rappaport

Pepperdine Law Review

The Supreme Court in Rostker v. Goldberg upheld a Congressional decision which excluded women from registration for service in the Armed Forces of the United States. Although the case was brought based upon equal protection grounds, the majority took a separation of powers stance and based its decision upon the fact that the Court has traditionally granted deference to the decisions of Congress in the area of military affairs. The minority opinions disagreed with the majority's analysis and claimed that the central issue in Rostker was not military in nature, but was that Congress' plan to register males only, promoted …

Substance And Method In The Year 2000, Akhil Reed Amar

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Shelby County V. Holder And The Voting Rights Act: Getting The Right Answer With The Wrong Standard, Michael James Burns

Catholic University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Section 5 Constraints On Congress Through The Lens Of Article Iii And The Constitutionality Of The Employment Non-Discrimination Act, Craig Konnoth

Publications

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) that will (hopefully) soon prohibit discrimination against LGB, and ideally, T, individuals, allows state employees to sue states for this discrimination. Scholars and activists fear that these provisions will be struck down as violative of state sovereign immunity, using the Court's recent jurisprudence on Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. This jurisprudence requires Congress to put forth evidence of past state violations of a defined constitutional right before it can subject states to suit. This Congress has done.

However, this Comment suggests that a new requirement of Section 5 legislation is in the works. Key …

Mental Health Courts And Title Ii Of The Ada: Accessibility To State Court Systems For Individuals With Mental Disabilities And The Need For Diversion, S. Elizabeth Malloy

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

Access to the judicial system, a fundamental right that has paramount importance in our society, can often present obstacles to people with disabilities in a variety of significant ways. Yet Title II mandates that state and local judicial facilities be accessible to individuals with disabilities. Recent shifts in paradigmatic approaches to special populations such as drug offenders and offenders with mental disabilities have lead to the creation of mental health courts specifically designed to address the needs of the persons with mental disabilities in order to avoid incarceration. Early outcomes in states like Ohio suggest mental health courts may better …

Schiavo And Klein (Symposium), Evan H. Caminker

Articles

When teaching federal courts, I sometimes find that students are slow to care about legal issues that initially seem picayune, hyper-technical, and unrelated to real-world concerns. It takes hard work to engage students in discussion of United States v. Klein,1 notwithstanding its apparent articulation of a foundational separation of powers principle that Congress may not dictate a "rule of decision" governing a case in federal court. A Civil War-era decision about the distribution of war spoils, one the Supreme Court has hardly ever cited since and then only to distinguish it, in cases involving takings and spotted owls? Yawn.

Congress's Power To Enforce Fourteenth Amendment Rights: Lessons From Federal Remedies The Framers Enacted , Robert J. Kaczorowski

Faculty Scholarship

Professor Robert Kaczorowski argues for an expansive originalist interpretation of Congressional power under the Fourteenth Amendment. Before the Civil War Congress actually exercised, and the Supreme Court repeatedly upheld plenary Congressional power to enforce the constitutional rights of slaveholders. After the Civil War, the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment copied the antebellum statutes and exercised plenary power to enforce the constitutional rights of all American citizens when they enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and then incorporated the Act into the Fourteenth Amendment. The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment thereby exercised the plenary power the Rehnquist Court claims the …

Federalism Re-Constructed: The Eleventh Amendment's Illogical Impact On Congress' Power, Marcia L. Mccormick

All Faculty Scholarship

The Constitution is designed to protect individual liberty and equality by diffusing power among the three branches of the federal government and between the federal and state governments, and by providing a minimum level of protection for individual rights. Yet, the Supreme Court seems to think that federalism is about protecting states as states rather than balancing governmental power to protect individuals. In the name of federalism, the Supreme Court has been paring away at Congress' power to enact civil rights legislation. In doing so, it has transformed the Fourteenth Amendment into a vehicle for protecting states rights rather than …

Dissing Congress, Ruth Colker, James J. Brudney

Michigan Law Review

The Supreme Court under Chief Justice Rehnquist's recent leadership has invalidated numerous federal laws, arguably departing from settled precedent to do so. The Rehnquist Court has held that Congress exceeded its constitutional authority in five instances during the 2000-01 Term, on four occasions during the 1999-2000 Term and in a total of twenty-nine cases since the 1994-95 Term. Commentators typically explain these decisions in federalism terms, focusing on the Court's use of its power to protect the States from an overreaching Congress. That explanation is incomplete and, in important respects, unpersuasive. The Rehnquist Court has not been as solicitous of …

Miranda, The Constitution, And Congress, David A. Strauss

Michigan Law Review

Are Miranda warnings required by the Constitution, or not? If they are, why has the Supreme Court repeatedly said that the rights created by Miranda are "not themselves rights protected by the Constitution"? If not, why can't an Act of Congress, such as 18 U.S.C. 3501, declare them to be unnecessary? These were the central questions posed by United States v. Dickerson. It is not clear that the majority opinion ever really answered them. The majority said that "Miranda is constitutionally based," that Miranda has "constitutional underpinnings," that Miranda is "a constitutional decision," and that Miranda "announced a constitutional rule." …

Private Remedies For Public Wrongs Under Section 5 (Symposium: New Directions In Federalism), Evan H. Caminker

Articles

The Supreme Court has ushered in the new millennium with a renewed emphasis on federalism-based limits to Congress's regulatory authority in general, and Congress's Section 5 power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment in particular. In a recent string of cases, the Court has refined and narrowed Section 5's enforcement power in two significant ways.1 First, the Court made clear that Congress lacks the authority to interpret the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment's substantive provisions themselves, and may only "enforce" the judiciary's definition of Fourteenth Amendment violations. 2 Second, the Court embraced a relatively stringent requirement concerning the relationship between means …

Chase Court And Fundamental Rights: A Watershed In American Constitutionalism, The , Robert J. Kaczorowski

Faculty Scholarship

Three weeks before he died in May 1873, the frail and ailing Salmon P. Chase joined three of his brethren in dissent in one of the most important cases ever decided by the United States Supreme Court, the Slaughter-House Cases.1 This decision was a watershed in United States constitutional history for several reasons. Doctrinally, it represented a rejection of the virtually unanimous decisions of the lower federal courts upholding the constitutionality of revolutionary federal civil rights laws enacted in the aftermath of the Civil War. Institutionally, it was an example of extraordinary judicial activism in overriding the legislative will of …

Employment Discrimination, Charles Stephen Ralston, Paul Kamenar, William Bradford Reynolds, Gail Wright-Sirmans

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Enforcement Provisions Of The Civil Rights Act Of 1866: A Legislative History In Light Of Runyon V. Mccrary, The Review Essay And Comments: Reconstructing Reconstruction, Robert J. Kaczorowski

Faculty Scholarship

The purpose of this Comment is to examine the history of the enactment and early enforcement of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 from the perspective of the remedies Congress sought to provide to meet the problems that necessitated the legislation. Its main foci are the statute's enforcement provisions and their early implementation, an aspect of the history of the statute that has not been fully considered in relation to section one, the provision that has received the most scholarly attention. The occasion of this study is the Supreme Court's reconsideration of Runyon v. McCrary' in Patterson v. McLean Credit …

The Salerno Challenge To The Bail Reform Act Of 1984, Aba Heiman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Log-Rolling And Judicial Review, Michael J. Waggoner

Publications

No abstract provided.