Jurisprudence Commons^™

Baker V. State And The Promise Of The New Judicial Federalism, Charles Baron, Lawrence Friedman

Charles H. Baron

In Baker v. State, the Supreme Court of Vermont ruled that the state constitution’s Common Benefits Clause prohibits the exclusion of same-sex couples from the benefits and protections of marriage. Baker has been praised by constitutional scholars as a prototypical example of the New Judicial Federalism. The authors agree, asserting that the decision sets a standard for constitutional discourse by dint of the manner in which each of the opinions connects and responds to the others, pulls together arguments from other state and federal constitutional authorities, and provides a clear basis for subsequent development of constitutional principle. This Article explores …

A Measure Of Freedom, James W. Nickel

Articles

No abstract provided.

Memorandum Of Argument For Leave To Appeal Of The Appellant James R. Demers, Court Of Appeal For Province Of British Columbia, Jeffrey C. Tuomala

Faculty Publications and Presentations

No abstract provided.

Memorandum Of Argument For Leave To Appeal Of The Appellant James R. Demers, Court Of Appeal For Province Of British Columbia, Jeffrey C. Tuomala

Jeffrey C. Tuomala

No abstract provided.

Privatization And Political Accountability, Jack M. Beermann

Faculty Scholarship

This article is an attempt to draw some general connections between privatization and political accountability. Political accountability is to be understood as the amenability of a government policy or activity to monitoring through the political process. Although the main focus of the article is to examine different types of privatization, specifically exploring the ramifications for political accountability of each type, I also engage in some speculation as to whether there are there situations in which privatization might raise constitutional concerns related to the degree to which the particular privatization reduces political accountability for the actions or decisions of the newly …

Constitutional Revolutions: A New Look At Lower Appellate Review In American Constitutionalism, Robert Justin Lipkin

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

Judicial review allows the Supreme Court of the United States to perform revolutionary constitutional change. The United States Courts of Appeals could also be a vehicle for revolutionary constitutional adjudication.

The Paths Not Taken: The Supreme Court's Failures In Dickerson, Paul G. Cassell

Michigan Law Review

Where's the rest of the opinion? That was my immediate reaction to reading the Supreme Court's terse decision in Dickerson, delivered to me via email from the clerk's office a few minutes after its release. Surely, I thought, some glitch in the transmission had eliminated the pages of discussion on the critical issues in the case. Yet, as it became clear that I had received all of the Court's opinion, my incredulity grew.

Miranda'S Mistake, William J. Stuntz

Michigan Law Review

The oddest thing about Miranda is its politics - a point reinforced by the decision in, and the reaction to, Dickerson v. United States. In Dickerson, the Supreme Court faced the question whether Miranda ought to be overturned, either directly or by permitting legislative overrides. The lawyers, the literature, and the Court split along right-left - or, in the Court's case, right-center - lines, with the right seeking to do away with Miranda's restrictions on police questioning, and the left (or center) seeking to maintain them. The split is familiar. Reactions to Miranda have always divided along ideological lines, with …

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." …

Questioning The Relevance Of Miranda In The Twenty-First Century, Richard A. Leo

Michigan Law Review

Miranda v. Arizona is the most well-known criminal justice decision - arguably the most well-known legal decision - in American history. Since it was decided in 1966, the Miranda decision has spawned voluminous newspaper coverage, political and legal debate, and academic commentary. The Miranda warnings themselves have become so well-known through the media of television that most people recognize them immediately. As Patrick Malone has pointed out, the Miranda decision has added its own lexicon of words and phrases to the American language. Perhaps with this understanding in mind, George Thomas recently suggested that the Miranda warnings are more well-known …

Separated At Birth But Siblings Nonetheless: Miranda And The Due Process Notice Cases, George C. Thomas Iii

Michigan Law Review

Paraphrasing Justice Holmes, law is less about logic than experience. Courts and scholars have now had thirty-four years of experience with Miranda v. Arizona, including the Court's recent endorsement in Dickerson v. United States last Term. Looking back over this experience, it is plain that the Court has created a Miranda doctrine quite different from what it has said it was creating. I think the analytic structure in Dickerson supports this rethinking of Miranda. To connect the dots, I offer a new explanation for Miranda that permits us to reconcile Dickerson and the rest of the post-Miranda doctrine with the …

Miranda, Dickerson, And The Puzzling Persistence Of Fifth Amendment Exceptionalism, Stephen J. Schulhofer

Michigan Law Review

Dickerson v. United States preserves the status quo regime for judicial oversight of police interrogation. That result could be seen, in the present climate, as a victory for due process values, but there remain many reasons for concern that existing safeguards are flawed - that they are either too restrictive or not restrictive enough. Such concerns are partly empirical, of course. They depend on factual assessments of how much the Miranda rules do restrict the police. But such concerns also reflect a crucial, though often unstated, normative premise; they presuppose a certain view of how much the police should be …

Identifying And (Re)Formulating Prophylactic Rules, Safe Harbors, And Incidental Rights In Constitutional Criminal Procedure, Susan R. Klein

Michigan Law Review

The Miranda conundrum runs something like this. If the Miranda decision represents true constitutional interpretation, and all unwarned statements taken during custodial interrogation are "compelled" within the meaning of the Self-Incrimination Clause, the impeachment and "fruits" exceptions to Miranda should fall. If it is not true constitutional interpretation, than the Court has no business reversing state criminal convictions for its violation. I offer here what I hope is a satisfying answer to this conundrum, on both descriptive and normative levels, that justifies not only Miranda but a host of similar Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist Court decisions as well. In Part …

In The Stationhouse After Dickerson, Charles D. Weisselberg

Michigan Law Review

Miranda v. Arizona established the high water mark of the protections afforded an accused during a custodial interrogation. During the decades that followed, the United States Supreme Court allowed Miranda's foundation to erode, inviting a direct challenge to the landmark ruling. In Dickerson v. United States, the Court turned back such a challenge and placed Miranda upon a more secure, constitutional footing. This Article explores the impact of Dickerson in the place where Miranda was meant to matter most: the stationhouse. As I have described elsewhere, Supreme Court decisions have influenced a number of California law enforcement agencies to instruct …

China's Post-Modern Legal Research And Its Prospects（中国的后现代法学研究及其前景）, Meng Hou

Hou Meng

No abstract provided.

Starbucks And The New Federalism: The Court's Answer To Globalization, Robert Knowles

Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

In The Wake Of Lee V. Weisman: The Future Of School Graduation Prayer Is Uncertain At Best, Stephen Durden

Stephen Durden

No abstract provided.

Nude Entertainment Zoning, Stephen Durden

Stephen Durden

Local government regulation, as opposed to prohibition, of nude entertainment began in earnest in the 1970's. These regulations generally fell into four categories: (1) zoning; (2) prohibiting nude entertainment in conjunction with the service of alcohol; (3) licensing; and (4) regulating conduct, e.g., hours of operation, distance from customers, prohibition of private booths. The proliferation of these many and varied approaches began soon after the Supreme Court in California v. LaRue held that nude dancing is, or at least might be, protected by the First Amendment. Prior to LaRue, states regularly prohibited nude entertainment via general prohibitions on lewd and …

Arguments In Favour Of A Functional Theory Of Fundamental Rights, Gianluigi Palombella

Gianluigi Palombella

The article suggests a relational concept of fundamental rights. This concept

enhances the «functional» rôle played by some of the rights in the system of a state

governed by the rule of law, rather than an ethical universality or a substantial content

coinciding with any list of «human» rights. Fundamental rights belong to the fundamental

(ideal, substantice and normative) criteria of recognition/selection of actions and norms in

the institutional/normative practice of a legal order. Given this premise, the work analyses

some relevant issues: universal-fundamental nexus, property rights, liberty rights, social

rights. Fundamental rights refuse any rigid classification which identifies and …

The Most Dangerous Justice Rides Again: Revisiting The Power Pageant Of The Justices, Paul H. Edelman, Jim Chen

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Who is the most powerful Supreme Court Justice? In 1996 we measured voting power on the Court according to each Justice's ability to form five-member coalitions. From the set of all coalitions formed by the Court during its 1994 and 1995 Terms, we developed a generalized Banzhaf index of the Justices' relative strength. Generally speaking, participating in a greater number of unique coalitions translates into greater judicial voting power. To supplement the small number of decisions then available, we derived hypothetical five-Justice coalitions from the intersections of actually observed coalitions involving more than five members. Professor Lynn Baker contested our …

Further Thoughts, Erwin Chemerinsky

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Getting Beyond Formalism In Constitutional Law: Constitutional Theory Matters, Erwin Chemerinsky

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Replies To Professor Chemerinsky, David W. Levy, Harry F. Tepker Jr., Arthur G. Lefrancois, Kevin W. Saunders, Michael A. Scaperlanda, Katheleen R. Guzman, Lindsay G. Robertson

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Procedural Reforms In Capital Cases Applied To Perjury, 34 J. Marshall L. Rev. 453 (2001), Steven Clark

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Bad Medicine: Erisa's Equitable Remedies And The Preemption Of Fundamental Legal Rights, 34 J. Marshall L. Rev. 583 (2001), Marilyn Lablaiks

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

In The Wake Of Crosby V. National Foreign Trade Council: The Impact Upon Selective Purchasing Legislation Throughout The United States, 34 J. Marshall L. Rev. 827 (2001), Ako Miyaki-Murphy

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Punishing Thought: A Narrative Deconstructing The Interpretive Dance Of Hate Crime Legislation, 35 J. Marshall L. Rev. 123 (2001), Anne B. Ryan

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Righting Illinois' Wrongs: Suggestions For Reform And A Call For Abolition, 34 J. Marshall L. Rev. 469 (2001), Sharone Levy

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Cook V. Gralike: Easy Cases And Structural Reasoning, Vicki C. Jackson

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In Cook v Gralike, the Court - unanimous as to result - struck down a Missouri initiative amending the state constitution to require that the failure of candidates for U.S. Congress to support a particular term-limits amendment to the United States Constitution be noted on the ballot. In an opinion joined by seven Justices, the Court held that the Missouri law exceeded the scope of states' powers to regulate the "time, place and manner" of holding congressional elections . . . The opinions are analyzed preliminarily in Part I. Part II below suggests that even if there were no Elections …

Terry Firma: Background Democracy And Constitutional Foundations, Frank I. Michelman

Michigan Law Review

Ages ago, I had the excellent luck to fall into a collaboration with Terrance Sandalow to produce a casebook now long forgotten. There could have been no more bracing or beneficial learning experience for a fledgling legal scholar (meaning me). What brought us together indeed was luck from my standpoint, but it was enterprise, too - the brokerage of an alert West Publishing Company editor picking up on a casual remark of mine as he made one of his regular sweeps through Harvard Law School. A novice law professor, I mentioned to him how much I admired a new essay …