Constitutional Law Commons^™

Tax Constitutional Questions In Obamacare Continued: Nfib V. Sebelius In Light Of Citizens United V. Fec, Speiser V. Randall, Windsor V. United States, Lawrence V. Texas, Et Al., John R. Dorocak

University of St. Thomas Journal of Law and Public Policy

No abstract provided.

The Saving Construction At 5 Years, Josh Blackman

University of St. Thomas Journal of Law and Public Policy

No abstract provided.

Religion Lessons From Europe: Intolerant Secularism, Pluralistic Neutrality, And The U.S. Supreme Court, Antony Barone Kolenc

Pace International Law Review

Case law from the European Court of Human Rights demonstrates to the U.S. Supreme Court how a pluralistic neutrality principle can enrich the American society and harness the value of faith in the public sphere, while at the same time retaining the vigorous protection of individual religious rights. The unfortunate alternative to a jurisprudence built around pluralistic neutrality is the inevitability of intolerant secularism—an increasingly militant separation of religious ideals from the public life, leading ultimately to a repressive society that has no room in its government for religious citizens. The results of intolerant secularism are seen in ...

Going To The Clerk’S Office And We’Re Not Going To Get Married, Alicia F. Blanchard

University of Massachusetts Law Review

Same-sex marriage is a controversial topic subject to great debate. The Supreme Court in 2015 federally recognized the legality of same-sex marriages in Obergefell v. Hodges. Despite this ruling, some people looked for any reason to denounce the holding. Perhaps none were more vocal than those who rejected same-sex marriage on the basis of their religious tenets. Miller v. Davis provided people who were morally opposed to same-sex marriage a platform to support their concerns grounded in a First Amendment right to freedom of religion. The question is how far does one’s freedom of religion extend? Does freedom of ...

Preserving The ‘Jewel Of Their Souls’: How North Carolina’S Common Law Could Save Cyber-Bullying Statutes, Nick Mcguire

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

In State v. Bishop, the North Carolina Supreme Court struck down the state’s cyber-bullying statute on the grounds that it violated the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. Cyber-bullying, bullying that occurs through electronic technology, has become more prevalent in recent years as much of adolescent life shifts to social media and digital communications. Increasing evidence of cyber-bullying’s negative effects on children has prompted numerous state legislatures to take action. Many states have enacted generic policies for school personnel to take reasonable action to combat cyber-bullying during school hours. This note, however, argues for an alternative approach ...

Brief Of Amici Curiae Corporate Law Professors In Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. V. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Harold Kent Greenfield, Daniel A. Rubens

Kent Greenfield

Professor Greenfield was the principal author of an amicus brief on behalf of 33 corporate law professors in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, argued in December 2017. The brief argues that shareholders’ religious and political beliefs should not be projected onto a corporation for purposes of First Amendment accommodation.

Miller, John Goodrum, Sr., 1853-1936 (Mss 629), Manuscripts & Folklife Archives

MSS Finding Aids

Finding aid only for Manuscripts Collection 629. Writings of John Goodrum Miller, Sr., a lawyer and native of Caldwell County, Kentucky. Includes a family history, a personal memoir, and manuscript chapters on early Kentucky history, English church history, and the U.S. Constitution. Also includes a small amount of material related to The Black Patch War, Miller’s book on the Night Riders.

Precedent And Constitutional Structure, Randy J. Kozel

Northwestern University Law Review

The Constitution does not talk about precedent, at least not explicitly, but several of its features suggest a place for deference to prior decisions. It isolates the judicial function and insulates federal courts from official and electoral control, promoting a vision of impersonality and continuity. It charges courts with applying a charter that is vague and ambiguous in important respects. And it was enacted at a time when prominent thinkers were already discussing the use of precedent to channel judicial discretion.

Taken in combination, these features make deference to precedent a sound inference from the Constitution’s structure, text, and ...

Deference And Prisoner Accommodations Post-Holt: Moving Rluipa Toward "Strict In Theory, Strict In Fact", Barrick Bollman

Northwestern University Law Review

The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) requires prisons to make accommodations to regulations that substantially burden a prisoner’s religious exercise, unless the prison can show that the regulation is the least restrictive means to meeting a compelling interest. This language suggests strict scrutiny, and yet in Cutter v. Wilkinson, the Supreme Court instead intimated in dicta that courts should give prison officials “due deference” when applying this test. The 2015 case of Holt v. Hobbs presented the Court with an opportunity to clarify how much deference is due under RLUIPA. Though Holt declared that there should ...

A Muslim Registry: The Precursor To Internment?, Sahar F. Aziz

Sahar F. Aziz

Newsroom: 'You Can't Help Being In Awe' 1-30-2018, Michael M. Bowden, Edward Fitzpatrick

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Voto Singular: Caso Fernández Prada Velásquez, Jose Luis Sardon

Jose Luis Sardon

Gerrymandering And Conceit: The Supreme Court's Conflict With Itself, Mckay Cunningham

McKay Cunningham

In November 2016, a federal court struck as unconstitutional Wisconsin’s redistricting map under both the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause. The court’s decision in Whitford v. Gill marks the first time a federal court invalidated a redistricting map as unconstitutional for partisan gerrymandering in over thirty years. Wisconsin has appealed the decision to the United States Supreme Court, which recently granted review. The Supreme Court has long held that extreme partisan gerrymandering violates equal protection but has simultaneously refused to determine the merits of gerrymandering disputes, instead labeling them as non-justiciable political questions. In particular, the ...

Thurgood Marshall Memorial Lecture Series: "The Race Card And The Trump Card: New Challenges And Familiar Frustrations" February 5, 2018, Roger Williams University School Of Law

School of Law Conferences, Lectures & Events

No abstract provided.

The Federal Equity Power, Michael T. Morley

Boston College Law Review

Throughout the first century and a half of our nation’s history, federal courts treated equity as a type of general law. They applied a uniform, freestanding body of principles derived from the English Court of Chancery to all equitable issues that came before them, regardless of whether a case arose under federal or state law. In 1945, in Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, the United States Supreme Court held that, notwithstanding the changes wrought by the Erie Doctrine, federal courts may continue to rely on these traditional principles of equity to determine the availability of equitable relief, such as ...

Wyoming V. Zinke, Jaclyn Van Natta

Public Land and Resources Law Review

In Wyoming v. Zinke, the Bureau of Land Management attempted to update a regulation governing hydraulic fracturing from the 1980s, but oil and gas industry companies opposed, and brought suit. The district court held in favor of the industry petitioners, and the Bureau of Land Management and citizen group intervenors appealed. In the wake of appeal, Donald J. Trump became President of the United States. The administration change caused the Bureau of Land Management to alter its position and align with the new administration. Secretary of the Interior, Ryan Zinke, via executive order, began rescinding the new fracking regulation, which ...

Voto Singular: Caso Reforma Del Sistema Privado De Pensiones, Jose Luis Sardon

Jose Luis Sardon

Racism And Impeachment Power, John M. Greabe

Law Faculty Scholarship

[Excerpt] “Does racism constitute a legitimate basis for removing a president? More generally, what is the scope of Congress's removal power?

”In all but the most extraordinary circumstances, the remedy for incompetent political leadership -indeed, even abhorrent political leadership lies in the next election. But the Constitution does provide Congress with tools to remove certain federal officeholders between elections.”

Chance To Change: Jennings V. Rodriguez As A Chance To Bring Due Process To A Broken Detention System, Joe Bianco

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Jennings v. Rodriguez will determine whether specific classes of detained noncitizens will be entitled to bond hearings before Immigration Judges moving forward. The challenge comes from the Ninth Circuit, which, with the Second Circuit, mandates bond hearings for some detainees automatically after six months. Those Circuits found that after that point, the detention was arbitrary without a showing by the Government of why the noncitizen needed continued detention. The Government seeks to retain the current system, where the noncitizen’s detention release is entirely at the Government’s discretion. This commentary sets out the case and argues that the better ...

Newsroom: A Painful History 1-19-2018, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.