Digital Commons Network^™

Hernández V. Mesa: A Case For A More Meaningful Partnership With The Inter-American Commission On Human Rights, Peyton Jacobsen

Seattle University Law Review

Through an in-depth examination of Hernández, the Inter-American Human Rights System, and the success of Mexico’s partnership with said system, this Note will make a case for embracing human rights bodies— specifically, the Inter-American System on Human Rights—as an appropriate and necessary check on the structures that form the United States government. Part I will look closely at the reasoning and judicially created doctrine that guided the decision in Hernández, with the goal of providing a better understanding of the complicated path through the courts that led to a seemingly straightforward yet unsatisfying result. Part II will illustrate the scope …

Moving From Harm Mitigation To Affirmative Discrimination Mitigation: The Untapped Potential Of Artificial Intelligence To Fight School Segregation And Other Forms Of Racial Discrimination, Andrew Gall

Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology

No abstract provided.

Textualism, Judicial Supremacy, And The Independent State Legislature Theory, Leah Litman, Katherine Shaw

Articles

This piece offers an extended critique of one aspect of the so-called “independent state legislature” theory. That theory, in brief, holds that the federal Constitution gives state legislatures, and withholds from any other state entity, the power to regulate federal elections. Proponents ground their theory in two provisions of the federal Constitution: Article I’s Elections Clause, which provides that “[t]he Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof,” and Article II’s Presidential Electors Clause, which provides that “[e]ach State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature …

Not A Suicide Pact: Urgent Strategic Recommendations For Reducing Domestic Terrorism In The United States, Barbara L. Mcquade

Articles

America’s Bill of Rights protects U.S. citizens’ rights to free speech, to bear arms, and to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, among other things. But, as the Supreme Court has consistently held, no right is absolute. All rights must be balanced against other societal needs, including and especially public safety. As the threat of domestic terrorism metastasizes in the United States, Americans need to use the practical wisdom that Justice Robert L. Jackson advised in 1949 to ensure the survival of the republic.

In recognition of this growing threat, the Biden administration issued the nation’s first National Strategy …

Countering The New Election Subversion: The Democracy Principle And The Role Of State Courts, Jessica Bulman-Pozen, Miriam Seifter

Faculty Scholarship

Among the threats to American democracy, the most serious may also be the most banal: future elections will be compromised by quiet changes to the law. State legislators across the country have introduced bills that give them power to reject the will of voters. They have established sham audits and investigations. And they have created new criminal offenses that undermine professional election administration. While power-shifting legislation, audits, and criminal penalties advertise their fealty to law, they threaten the franchise and electoral integrity, as well as nonpartisan, expert election administration. Because of its ostensibly legal, even legalistic, character, however, the new …

A Scholarly Error And A Larger Truth, Philip A. Hamburger

Faculty Scholarship

Can Congress delegate its legislative power? The question has stimulated much recent scholarship, including Professor Nicholas Parrillo’s detailed study of the 1798 federal tax act. According to his article, the statute delegated binding rulemaking power. My recent SSRN draft Nondelegation Blues questions Parrillo’s conclusion. But now in this blog, he suggests that my article misreads his argument.

The Insular Cases Run Amok: Against Constitutional Exceptionalism In The Territories, Christina D. Ponsa-Kraus

Faculty Scholarship

The Insular Cases have been enjoying an improbable — and unfortunate — renaissance. Decided at the height of what has been called the “imperialist” period in U.S. history, this series of Supreme Court decisions handed down in the early twentieth century infamously held that the former Spanish colonies annexed by the United States in 1898 — Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and Guam — “belong[ed] to, but [were] not a part of, the United States.” What exactly this meant has been the subject of considerable debate even as those decisions have received unanimous condemnation. According to the standard account, the …

How Federalism Built The Fbi, Sustained Local Police, And Left Out The States, Daniel C. Richman, Sarah Seo

Faculty Scholarship

This Article examines the endurance of police localism amid the improbable growth of the FBI in the early twentieth century when the prospect of a centralized law enforcement agency was anathema to the ideals of American democracy. It argues that doctrinal accounts of federalism do not explain these paradoxical developments. By analyzing how the Bureau made itself indispensable to local police departments rather than encroaching on their turf, the Article elucidates an operational, or collaborative, federalism that not only enlarged the Bureau’s capacity and authority but also strengthened local autonomy at the expense of the states. Collaborative federalism is crucial …

The Costs Of The Punishment Clause, Cortney E. Lollar

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Criminal punishment pursuant to a facially valid conviction in a court of law is an uncontested exception to the Thirteenth Amendment’s prohibition on slavery and involuntary servitude. After all, the Constitutional text reads, “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States.” And yet, beginning almost immediately after the Thirteenth Amendment was adopted, states regularly employed criminal statutes to limit the movement and behaviors of those previously enslaved and subject them to slavery-type labor camps in conditions that closely mirrored slavery. Because neither the …

State Rejection Of Federal Law, Thomas B. Bennett

Faculty Publications

Sometimes the United States Supreme Court speaks, and states do not follow. For example, in 2003, the Arizona Supreme Court agreed to "reject" a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, because no "sound reasons justif[ied] following" it. Similarly, in 2006, Michigan voters approved a ballot initiative that, according to the legislature that drafted it, sought "at the very least to freeze' the state's ... law to prevent" state courts from following a ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court. Surprising though this language may be, there is nothing nefarious about these cases. Cooper v. Aaron this is not. Unlike more notorious …

The Insidious Effect Of Soundbites: Why Fences Aren't Punishment, Theresa Gabaldon

American University Law Review

This Article was inspired by two recent Supreme Court decisions dealing with the ability of the Securities and Exchange Commission to seek disgorgement of unlawfully obtained profits. The topic, however, is not disgorgement. That is a different article, published by the author in the Cornell Lazu Reviezu in 2020, on which this one builds. This Article focuses instead on jurisprudential methodology. The Court has begun to exhibit an unfortunate penchant for jurisprudence by soundbite—the functional equivalent of Googling its ozun precedents for pithy quotes taken out of context from inapt cases. The results are, to put it politely, mischievous.

This …

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 …

Originalism And The Inseparability Of Decision Procedures From Interpretive Standards, Michael L. Smith

Faculty Articles

In his article, Originalism: Standard and Procedure, Professor Stephen E. Sachs describes a never-ending debate between originalism's advocates and critics. Originalists argue that certain historical facts determine the Constitution's meaning. But determining these facts is difficult, if not impossible for judges, attorneys, and the public. Sachs seeks to rise above this debate, arguing that the legal community should not expect originalism to offer a procedure for interpreting the Constitution. Instead, the legal community should treat originalism as a

standard to judge interpretations.

This Article takes issue with this approach. Originalism is not like other instances in law where statutes or …

Hb 1: Forum Act, Tuscan Fairfield, Paul-Michael Haley

Georgia State University Law Review

The Act prevents the creation of free speech zones at public institutions of higher education including Georgia universities, colleges, and technical colleges. Additionally, the Act allows universities to create reasonable, content- and viewpoint-neutral, and narrowly tailored time, place, and manner restrictions on any expressive activity on campus.

Adventures In The Article V Wonderland: Justiciability And Legal Sufficiency Of The Era Ratifications, Danaya C. Wright

UF Law Faculty Publications

This Article examines the paradoxical world of Article V—the amending power of the Constitution—in light of the recent ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). It explores the question of whether Article V issues are justiciable, what role the federal and state courts play in determining Article V procedures, and who has the jurisdiction to evaluate the legal sufficiency of state ratifications. This is a confounding area of law, and with a few judicial precedents, some textualism and originalism arguments, and recourse to logic and scholarship, I conclude that the ERA is validly the Twenty-Eighth Amendment. I provide a detailed …

Was Justice Ginsburg Roe-Ght?: Reimagining U.S. Abortion Discourse In The Wake Of Argentina's Marea Verde, 48 Mitchell Hamline L. Rev. 128 (2022), Kim D. Ricardo

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Redundant Reliance And The Supreme Court's Application Of Stare Decisis, Daniel Kim

CMC Senior Theses

When the Supreme Court invokes the doctrine of stare decisis in their opinions, they are appealing to the fundamental principle that precedents have authority by virtue of being a precedent. However, they also recognize other concerns that come with the decision to defer to precedents or to overturn them. In pursuit of maintaining the rule of law, the Court uses various legal tests to guide them through sometimes competing concerns of precedential authority, including what is called reliance interests: the consideration of whether the precedent has engendered a reliance to the said precedent, to the extent that overturning it would …

Federal Courts’ Recalcitrance In Refusing To Certify State Law Covid-19 Business Interruption Insurance Issues, Christopher French

Faculty Scholarship

Over 2,000 COVID-19 business interruption insurance cases have been filed in state and federal courts the past two years with most of the cases filed in or removed to federal courts. The cases are governed by state law. Rather than certify the novel state law issues presented in the cases to the respective state supreme courts that ultimately will determine the law applicable in the cases, each of the eight federal circuit courts to issue decisions on the merits in such cases to date has done so by making an Erie guess regarding how the controlling state supreme courts would …

Super Deference And Heightened Security, Jonathan H. Adler

Faculty Publications

Judicial review of federal agency action is systematically deferential. Such deference is arguably at its peak where agencies address scientific and highly technical matters within their area of expertise. This is what some call “super deference.” While there may be strong arguments for deferential review of agency scientific determinations as a general matter, there are reasons to question such deference when agency action implicates constitutional concerns. In particular, where agency actions trigger heightened scrutiny, such as occurs when agency actions intrude upon expressly enumerated or otherwise recognized fundamental rights or adopt constitutionally suspect classifications, courts should not apply traditional levels …

When Police Volunteer To Kill, Alexandra L. Klein

Faculty Articles

The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of lethal injection, yet states continue to struggle with drug shortages and botched executions. Some states have authorized alternative methods of execution, including the firing squad. Utah, which has consistently carried out firing squad executions throughout its history, relies on police officers from the jurisdiction where the crime took place to volunteer to carry out these executions. This represents a plausible-and probable method for other states in conducting firing squad executions.

Public and academic discussion of the firing squad has centered on questions of pain and suffering. It has not engaged with the …

The Third Amendment In 2020, Michael L. Smith

Faculty Articles

Compared with other Amendments in the Bill of Rights, the Third Amendment does not get much attention. Its prohibition on the quartering of soldiers in houses during peacetime, along with its prohibition on similar quartering during times of war absent legal prescription, is rarely the subject of litigation or scholarship. Indeed, most people—and likely most attorneys—probably cannot tell you what the Third Amendment covers if put on the spot. This Article aims to fix this by giving the Third Amendment the respect that one of the Constitution's original amendments deserves. This Article surveys and analyzes caselaw, scholarship, and popular media …

Constitutional Rights As Human Rights: Freedom Of Speech, Equal Protection, And The Right Of Privacy, Michael J. Perry

Faculty Articles

Much of my recent scholarly work has addressed questions concerning the political morality - the global political morality of human rights. This essay continues in that vein; I focus on a relationship I began to discuss almost forty years ago, in my first book: the relationship between (some) constitutional rights and (some) human rights. My overarching claim here: There is a significant interface between the constitutional law of the United States and the political morality of human rights. My principal aim in this Essay is to defend (and illustrate) that broad claim by defending three narrower claims:

1. The constitutional …

Resetting The Foundations: Renewing Freedom Of Expression Under Section S.2(B) Of The Charter, Jamie Cameron

Articles & Book Chapters

The 40^th anniversary of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms on April 17, 2022 is a time for reckoning, and an opportunity to ready s.2’s fundamental freedoms for the future. In particular, this article offers a moment of pause to invest in s.2(b)’s guarantee of expressive freedom and its renewal. The discussion begins by addressing s.2(b)’s “fault lines”, which are embedded in the jurisprudence at both stages of the analysis – breach as well as justification. What then follows is a proposal for renewal that begins, under s.2(b), with a theory or principle of freedom and a revised …

Resetting The Foundations: Renewing Freedom Of Expression Under Section 2(B) Of The Charter, Jamie Cameron

Articles & Book Chapters

The 40^th anniversary of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms on April 17, 2022 is a time for reckoning, and an opportunity to ready s.2’s fundamental freedoms for the future. In particular, this article offers a moment of pause to invest in s.2(b)’s guarantee of expressive freedom and its renewal. The discussion begins by addressing s.2(b)’s “fault lines”, which are embedded in the jurisprudence at both stages of the analysis – breach as well as justification. What then follows is a proposal for renewal that begins, under s.2(b), with a theory or principle of freedom and a revised …

Navassa: Property, Sovereignty, And The Law Of The Territories, Joseph Blocher, Mitu Gulati

Faculty Scholarship

The United States acquired its first overseas territory—Navassa Island, near Haiti—by conceptualizing it as a kind of property to be owned, rather than a piece of sovereign territory to be governed. The story of Navassa shows how competing conceptions of property and sovereignty are an important and underappreciated part of the law of the territories—a story that continued fifty years later in the Insular Cases, which described Puerto Rico as “belonging to” but not “part of” the United States.

Contemporary scholars are drawn to the sovereignty framework and the public-law tools that come along with it: arguments about rights and …

Feminist Legal History And Legal Pedagogy, Paula A. Monopoli

Faculty Scholarship

Women are mere trace elements in the traditional law school curriculum. They exist only on the margins of the canonical cases. Built on masculine norms, traditional modes of legal pedagogy involve appellate cases that overwhelmingly involve men as judges and advocates. The resulting silence signals that women are not makers of law—especially constitutional law. Teaching students critical modes of analysis like feminist legal theory and critical race feminism matters. But unmoored from feminist legal history, such critical theory is incomplete and far less persuasive. This Essay focuses on feminist legal history as foundational if students are to understand the implications …

Gender, Voting Rights, And The Nineteenth Amendment, Paula A. Monopoli

Faculty Scholarship

One hundred years after the woman suffrage amendment became part of the United States Constitution, a federal court has held—for the first time—that a plaintiff must establish intentional discrimination to prevail on a direct constitutional claim under the Nineteenth Amendment. In adopting that threshold standard, the court simply reasoned by strict textual analogy to the Fifteenth Amendment and asserted that “there is no reason to read the Nineteenth Amendment differently from the Fifteenth Amendment.” This paper’s thesis is that, to the contrary, the Nineteenth Amendment is deserving of judicial analysis independent of the Fifteenth Amendment because it has a distinct …

The Dubious Constitutional Origins Of Treaty Overrides: A Response To Rosenbloom And Shaheen, Reuven Avi-Yonah

Articles

In 1888, the Supreme Court decided a case called Whitney v. Robert- son, which is generally considered to be the source of the proposition that, under the Constitution, later-in-time statutes can override earlier treaties (the Rule). The Rule is highly controversial because it violates articles 26 and 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), which the United States has accepted as binding on it as cus- tomary international law (CIL). Despite that, the United States has since Whitney routinely engaged in treaty overrides, and the Court has repeatedly endorsed the Rule even while narrowing its application …

Developing Police, Madalyn K. Wasilczuk

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Appealing Compelled Disclosures In Discovery That Threaten First Amendment Rights, Richard L. Heppner Jr.

Law Faculty Publications

Last year, the Supreme Court held in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta that a California anti-fraud policy compelling charities to disclose the identities of their major donors violated the First Amendment. That holding stems from the 1958 case NAACP v. Alabama where the Court held that a discovery order compelling the NAACP to disclose the names of its members violated the First Amendment right of free association because of the members’ justifiable fear of retaliation.

In the over sixty years since NAACP v. Alabama, the Court has only decided a handful of cases about how compelled disclosures of …