Fourteenth Amendment Commons^™

Subjectively Speaking, The Applicable Standard For Deficient Medical Treatment Of Pretrial Detainees Should Be One Of Objective Reasonableness, Benjamin R. Black

Touro Law Review

There is no uniformity amongst the circuits when it comes to pretrial detainees claims for inadequate medical care. The circuits are currently grappling with this problem, applying two separate tests to pretrial detainees’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims depending on the jurisdiction in which the incident arose. The test that should be applied across all circuits is one of objective reasonableness. However, some circuits do not see it that way, applying the deliberate indifference standard, also known as the subjective standard test. The circuits applying the subjective standard are relying on case law that does not properly analyze the rights …

Privacy And Property: Constitutional Concerns Of Dna Dragnet Testing, E. Wyatt Jones

Honors Projects

DNA dragnets have attracted both public and scholarly criticisms that have yet to be resolved by the Courts. This review will introduce a modern understanding of DNA analysis, a complete introduction to past and present Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence, and existing suggestions concerning similar issues in legal scholarship. Considering these contexts, this review concludes that a focus on privacy and property at once, with a particular sensitivity to the inseverable relationship between the two interests, is Constitutionally consistent with precedent and the most workable means of answering the question at hand.

A Country In Crisis: A Review Of How The Illegitimate Supreme Court Is Rendering Illegitimate Decisions And Doing Damage That Will Not Soon Be Undone., Regina L. Ramsey ,Esq

Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity

This article will discuss in detail exactly how the court is illegitimate and makes decisions that are illegitimate, using examples from the October 2021 term. It will also explain why action needs to be taken immediately to reign in this run-away Court to restore public trust. As discussed herein, we cannot sit by and patiently wait for the Court to right itself over time because there are important issues on the current docket, such as race-conscious admissions policies of colleges and universities to ensure student bodies are diverse as future leaders are prepared to live and work in a diverse …

Respeaking The Bill Of Rights: A New Doctrine Of Incorporation, Kurt Lash

Indiana Law Journal

The incorporation of the Bill of Rights against the states by way of the Fourteenth Amendment raises a host of textual, historical, and doctrinal difficulties. This is true even if (especially if) we accept the Fourteenth Amendment as having made the original Bill of Rights binding against the states. Does this mean we have two Bills of Rights, one applicable against the federal government with a “1791” meaning and a second applicable against the state governments with an “1868” meaning? Do 1791 understandings carry forward into the 1868 amendment? Or do 1868 understandings of the Bill of Rights carry backward …

The Declaration Of Independence, Constitution, And Slavery, Johnny B. Davis

Helm's School of Government Conference - American Revival: Citizenship & Virtue

The paper address the nature of the principles of the Declaration and the Declaration's relationship to the Constitution and how these related to slavery. The argument is that the Declaration did stand for universal equality of the individual before God and the law and therefore its principles condemned slavery. The Constitution did not embrace slavery even though it failed to ban slavery but did set the foundation for the end of slavery.

Tinhatting The Constitution: Originalism As A Fandom, Stacey M. Lantagne

Faculty Scholarship

Several recent Supreme Court cases, most notably Bruen and Dobbs, have employed originalist methods to interpreting the Constitution, seeking to give the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, respectively, the meaning that was understood by the public in 1791 and 1868. In this imaginative exercise compiling massive amounts of textual evidence to arrive at conclusions regarding what unknown people were thinking, originalism resembles a type of fandom practice called RPF, or Real Person Fiction. This type of fan activity likewise compiles massive amounts of textual evidence to arrive at conclusions regarding what unknown people were thinking. It’s just that RPF revolves …

Police Or Pirates? Reforming Washington's Civil Asset Forfeiture System, Jasmin Chigbrow

Washington Law Review

Civil asset forfeiture laws permit police officers to seize property they suspect is connected to criminal activity and sell or retain the property for the police department’s use. In many states, including Washington, civil forfeiture occurs independent of any criminal case—many property owners are never charged with the offense police allege occurred. Because the government is not required to file criminal charges, property owners facing civil forfeiture lack the constitutional safeguards normally guaranteed to defendants in the criminal justice system: the right to an attorney, the presumption of innocence, the government’s burden to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, …

Let’S Go To The Beach: Gender Segregation As A Tool To Accommodate Religious Minorities, Sarah Gibbons

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

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, …

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Wise Legal Giant, Thomas A. Schweitzer

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Why Do The Poor Not Have A Constitutional Right To File Civil Claims In Court Under Their First Amendment Right To Petition The Government For A Redress Of Grievances?, Henry Rose

Seattle University Law Review

Since 1963, the United States Supreme Court has recognized a constitutional right for American groups, organizations, and persons to pursue civil litigation under the First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances. However, in three cases involving poor plaintiffs decided by the Supreme Court in the early 1970s—Boddie v. Connecticut,2 United States v. Kras,3 and Ortwein v. Schwab4—the Supreme Court rejected arguments that all persons have a constitutional right to access courts to pursue their civil legal claims.5 In the latter two cases, Kras and Ortwein, the Supreme Court concluded that poor persons were properly barred from …

Gerrymandering & Justiciability: The Political Question Doctrine After Rucho V. Common Cause, G. Michael Parsons

Indiana Law Journal

This Article deconstructs Rucho’s articulation and application of the political question doctrine and makes two contributions. First, the Article disentangles the political question doctrine from neighboring justiciability doctrines. The result is a set of substantive principles that should guide federal courts as they exercise a range of routine judicial functions—remedial, adjudicative, and interpretive. Rather than unrealistically attempting to draw crisp jurisdictional boundaries between exercises of “political” and “judicial” power, the political question doctrine should seek to moderate their inevitable (and frequent) clash. Standing doctrine should continue to guide courts in determining whether they have authority over a case involving a …

State Regulatory Responses To The Prescription Opioid Crisis: Too Much To Bear?, Lars Noah

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

In order to prevent further overuse of prescription opioids, states have adopted a variety of strategies. This article summarizes the growing use of prescription drug monitoring programs, crackdowns on “pill mills,” prohibitions on the use of particularly hazardous opioids, limitations on the duration and dosage of prescribed opioids, excise taxes, physician education and patient disclosure requirements, public awareness campaigns, and drug take-back programs. Although occasionally challenged on constitutional grounds, including claims of federal preemption under the Supremacy Clause, discrimination against out-of-state businesses under the dormant Commerce Clause doctrine, and interference with rights of commercial free speech, this article evaluates the …

As Pertains To The Criminal Justice System, Is Hindsight 20/20?, Syndie G. E. Molina, Cristina Negrillo

Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity

No abstract provided.

Confessions, Convictions And Controversy: An Examination Of False Confessions Leading To Wrongful Convictions In The United States Throughout History, Kirandeep Kaur

Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity

No abstract provided.

Police Brutality And State-Sanctioned Violence In 21st Century America, Itohen Ihaza

Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity

No abstract provided.

The Inconvenience Of Justice: How Unmitigated Official Misconduct Almost Destroyed The Lives Of Five Young Boys From Harlem, Stefania Bordone, David Wright

Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity

No abstract provided.

A Class Action Lawsuit For The Right To A Minimum Education In Detroit, Carter G. Phillips

Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy

No abstract provided.

American Legion V. American Humanist Association, Seth T. Bonilla

Public Land & Resources Law Review

The separation of church and state is a key element of American democracy, but its interpretation has been challenged as the country grows more diverse. In American Legion v. American Humanist Association, the Supreme Court adopted a new standard to analyze whether a religious symbol on public land maintained by public funding violated the Constitution’s Establishment Clause.

Due Process Supreme Court Appellate Division

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Clear As Mud: Constitutional Concerns With Clear Affirmative Consent, C. Ashley Saferight

Cleveland State Law Review

Rape and sexual assault laws and policies have shifted significantly in recent years, including the introduction of affirmative consent. Unfortunately, both proponents and critics tend to confuse the issues and falsely equate affirmative consent as a substantive social standard versus a procedural standard for adjudication and punishment. Although affirmative consent generally does not represent a significant change in consent law in the United States, statutes and policies requiring a further requirement that affirmative consent be clear and unambiguous (“clear affirmative consent”) are problematic and raise constitutional concerns. When clear affirmative consent policies are used as an adjudicative standard, they increase …

The Faces Of The Second Amendment Outside The Home, Take Three: Critiquing The Circuit Courts Use Of History-In-Law, Patrick J. Charles

Cleveland State Law Review

This article seeks to critique the circuit courts’ varying history-in-law approaches, as well as to provide advice on the proper role that history-in-law plays when examining the scope of the Second Amendment outside the home. This article sets forth to accomplish this task in three parts. Part I argues why history-in-law is appropriate when adjudicating Second Amendment decisions outside the home. Part II examines the benefits and burdens of utilizing history-in-law as a method of constitutional interpretation, while breaking down the alternative approaches employed by circuit courts when adjudicating Second Amendment decisions outside the home. Lastly, Part III offers practical …

The Influence Of The Warren Court And Natural Rights On Substantive Due Process, James Marmaduke

Calvert Undergraduate Research Awards

Advanced Research Winner 2019:

While the concept of substantive due process has guided judicial decision making even prior to the Civil War, it has become a lightning rod among the juristic community especially since the 1960s. This controversy includes issues ranging from the applicability and reliability to the cogency and legitimacy of the doctrine of substantive due process Many scholars attribute the skepticism toward the concept of substantive due process to be the result of a paradigm shift in the middle of the 20^th century when this concept transitioned from an economic and property rights based approach to one …

The New Impartial Jury Mandate, Richard Lorren Jolly

Michigan Law Review

Impartiality is the cornerstone of the Constitution’s jury trial protections. Courts have historically treated impartiality as procedural in nature, meaning that the Constitution requires certain prophylactic procedures that secure a jury that is more likely to reach verdicts impartially. But in Peña- Rodriguez v. Colorado, 137 S. Ct. 855 (2017), the Supreme Court recognized for the first time an enforceable, substantive component to the mandate. There, the Court held that criminal litigants have a Sixth Amendment right to jury decisions made without reliance on extreme bias, specifically on the basis of race or national origin. The Court did not …

Reefer Madness: The Constitutional Consequence Of The Federal Government's Inconsistent Marijuana Policy, Zachary Ford

Texas A&M Law Review

In the past twenty years, the United States has witnessed over half of its states create marijuana laws that expressly contradict the federal government’s complete ban of the drug. Nine states have completely legalized marijuana for recreational use in the past five years alone. Meanwhile, much of the country remains staunchly opposed to legalization in any form. This difference between state and federal law has the largest negative impact on noncitizens, namely lawful permanent residents whom reside in states that follow the federal government’s complete ban. Congress’s Immigration and Nationality Act broadly defines “conviction,” so even minor drug convictions under …

After All These Years, Lochner Was Not Crazy—It Was Good, Randy E. Barnett

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

For this year’s Rosenkranz Debate, we have been asked to debate the question: Lochner v. New York: Still Crazy After All These Years? It is my job to defend the “negative” position. My burden is not to establish that Lochner was correctly decided, but merely that it was not “crazy.” I intend to meet that burden and exceed it. I intend to show how Lochner v. New York was not at all crazy; in fact, it was a reasonable and good decision.

The Privileges And Immunities Of Non-Citizens, R. George Wright

Cleveland State Law Review

However paradoxically, in some practically important contexts, non-citizens of all sorts can rightly claim what amount to privileges and immunities of citizens. This follows from a careful and entirely plausible understanding of the inherently relational, inescapably social, and essentially reciprocal nature of at least some typical privileges and immunities.

This Article contends that the relationship between constitutional privileges and immunities and citizenship is more nuanced, and much more interesting, than usually recognized. Crucially, allowing some non-citizens to invoke the privileges and immunities of citizens often makes sense. The intuitive sense that non-citizens cannot logically claim the privileges or immunities of …

When Constitutional Rights Clash: Masterpiece Cakeshop's Potential Legacy, Ken Hyle

ConLawNOW

The narrow question presented to the U.S. Supreme Court in Masterpiece Cakeshop is undoubtedly one of great national importance. The decision will likely yield a framework for courts to resolve conflicts that specifically involve religious freedom, artistic expression, and anti-discrimination laws in the context of public accommodations. However, my essay suggests that Masterpiece Cakeshop is an appropriate vehicle for the Court to expound upon a broader, more fundamental constitutional issue: what is the optimal framework for resolving direct conflicts between constitutional rights? The essay begins by exploring the inherent flaw in a framework grounded in the traditional levels of judicial …

Remedies And The Government's Constitutionally Harmful Speech, Helen Norton

Publications

Although governments have engaged in expression from their inception, only recently have we begun to consider the ways in which the government’s speech sometimes threatens our constitutional rights. In my contribution to this symposium, I seek to show that although the search for constitutional remedies for the government’s harmful expression is challenging, it is far from futile. This search is also increasingly important at a time when the government’s expressive powers continue to grow—along with its willingness to use these powers for disturbing purposes and with troubling consequences.

More specifically, in certain circumstances, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, or damages can …

The Prevailing Culture Over Immigration: Centralized Immigration And Policies Between Attrition And Accommodation, Antonios Kouroutakis

Seton Hall Circuit Review

No abstract provided.