Digital Commons Network^™

United Nations Free Speech Standards As The Global Benchmark For Online Platforms' Hate Speech Policies, Nadine Strossen

Articles & Chapters

No abstract provided.

China's Comparative Constitution, Bui Ngoc Son

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

The academic field of comparative constitutional law has recently had greater engagements with China's constitution. This Article explains the modes, conditions, and factors of these engagements. The country-studies of China's constitution echo and complicate recent comparative debates on transnational constitution making and the varieties of constitutionalism. Comparative constitutional scholarship formulates new concepts, such as constitutional entrepreneurship and constitutional dissonance, to understand China's constitution. Additionally, it explains China's constitutional divergence from the most similar case, namely Vietnam, and its unexpected constitutional similarities with the most different cases, such as the United States and the United Kingdom. Finally, this scholarship discusses China's …

Proving The Constitution: Burdens Of Proof And The Confrontation Clause, Enrique Schaerer

University of Richmond Law Review

In law, we never prove anything to 100% certainty. For factual propositions, the proponent has the burden of proving them to the satisfaction of a standard: a preponderance of the evidence at the low end; clear and convincing evidence in the middle; proof beyond a reasonable doubt at the high end. The standards are often explicit. Yet, for legal propositions, standards are often implicit or lacking altogether. This Article argues that, to decide legal issues, courts may look to similar burdens of proof that they use to decide factual issues. They should do so informally, using burdens of proof just …

Presumed Punishable: Sentencing On The Streets And The Need To Protect Black Lives Through A Reinvigoration Of The Presumption Of Innocence, Jelani Jefferson Exum

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

Following the police killing of George Floyd in the summer of 2020, there has been a renewed focus on protecting Black people in America from excessive police violence. While the images of George Floyd were shocking to the public, that level of extreme violence and disregard for life has been a common aspect of the lives of Black Americans throughout history. In America, Black people are "pre­sumed punishable." Due to the historical and persistent biases against Black people, Black people find themselves subject to false assumptions about their criminality and presumptions that they are deserving of punishment. This stands …

That Is Enough Punishment: Situating Defunding The Police Within Antiracist Sentencing Reform, Jalila S. Jefferson-Bullock, Jelani Jefferson Exum

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

During the summer of 2020, the police killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and others created a movement that unearthed a reality that Black people in the United States have always been aware of: systemic racism, in the form of police brutality, is alive and well. While the blatant brutality of George Floyd’s murder at the hands of police is the flame, the spark was ignited long ago. One need only review the record of recent years — the killings of Eric Garner, Michael Brown, Tamir Rice, Antwon Rose, Alton Sterling, Philando Castile, Breonna Taylor, and countless other souls …

Oversight Riders, Kevin Stack, Michael P. Vandenbergh

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Congress has a constitutionally critical duty to gather information about how the executive branch implements the powers Congress has granted it and the funds Congress has appropriated. Yet in recent years the executive branch has systematically thwarted Congress’s powers and duties of oversight. Congressional subpoenas for testimony and documents have met with blanket refusals to comply, frequently backed by advice from the Department of Justice that executive privilege justifies withholding the information. Even when Congress holds an official in contempt for failure to comply with a congressional subpoena, the Department of Justice often does not initiate criminal sanctions. As a …

Law Of The Gun: Unrepresentative Cases And Distorted Doctrine, Eric Ruben

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

There is a familiar saying, “If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” The so-called Law of the Hammer takes a distinctive form in adjudication. If all judges see is one repeating fact pattern for a given area of law, they might perceive it as archetypical and build the law around it. If that fact pattern does not accurately reflect the field, however, the result can be analytical distortion in terms of both the choice of doctrine and its implementation.

This Article uses Second Amendment jurisprudence to illustrate this phenomenon. It reveals how District of Columbia …

Vaccination And The Child’S Right To An Open Future, Elias Feldman

Lewis & Clark Law Review

States commonly require the vaccination of children through their parens pa- triae and police powers. But many states also allow parents to opt for non- medical exemptions from these vaccination requirements, contributing to the emergence of a national vaccine hesitancy crisis. By permitting parents not to vaccinate their children, do states that grant these exemptions violate children’s rights? This Article posits that children may indeed have a right to be vac- cinated and thus protected against contracting a disease for which there is a scientifically proven vaccine. This Article examines this question through the lens of Joel Feinberg’s theory of …

The Structure Of Intermediate Review, R. Randall Kelso

Lewis & Clark Law Review

Today, there are two well-established versions of intermediate review: stand- ard intermediate review, used for cases like gender discrimination or content-neutral regulations of speech in a public forum, and a heightened intermediate review standard used for content-based, subject-matter regulations of commercial speech under Central Hudson. Yet, in actual use, four other kinds of intermediate review tests have been formulated by the Court in some cases. These four should be viewed as “mutations” of the two kinds of intermediate review proper to apply. This Article discusses both the well-established versions of intermediate review, and the four variations on intermediate review applied …

Legislative Redistricting In The Time Of Covid, Norman R. Williams

Lewis & Clark Law Review

Due to the COVID pandemic, the U.S. Census Bureau was unable to provide 2020 census data to Oregon in time for the Legislature to engage in redistricting during the 2021 session, as required by the Oregon Constitution. As a result of this delay, the Oregon Legislature asked the Oregon Supreme Court to push back the constitutionally imposed deadlines for redistricting—a request which the Court agreed to in part. This Essay examines the Court’s power to revise constitutionally prescribed deadlines and the extent to which any districting plan must be based on federal census data.

Proffitt V. Florida: Distorting Death, Corinna Barrett Lain

Law Faculty Publications

This essay, Chapter 7 in Painting Constitutional Law, examines Xavier Cortada’s depiction of Proffitt v. Florida, the 1976 decision that approved Florida’s guided discretion statute after Furman v. Georgia had invalidated the death penalty in 1972. Cortada’s depiction is a fantastical piece, a piece that captures the horror of death by electrocution set against two columns of ominous looking Roman numerals. The Roman numerals represent the mechanical imposition of death — the formulaic approach to death penalty decision-making that tells sentencers to simply add up the columns of aggravating and mitigating circumstances and see where the balance lies. Cortada resists …

Originalism From The Soft Southern Strategy To The New Right: The Constitutional Politics Of Sam Ervin Jr, Logan E. Sawyer Iii

Scholarly Works

Although originalism’s emergence as an important theory of constitutional interpretation is usually attributed to efforts by the Reagan administration, the role the theory played in the South’s determined resistance to civil rights legislation in the 1960s actually helped create the Reagan coalition in the first place. North Carolina Senator Sam Ervin Jr., the constitutional theorist of the Southern Caucus, developed and deployed originalism because he saw its potential to stymie civil rights legislation and stabilize a Democratic coalition under significant stress. Ervin failed in those efforts, but his turn to originalism had lasting effects. The theory helped Ervin and other …

Who Determines Majorness?, Chad Squitieri

Scholarly Articles

The major questions doctrine is said to assist courts in identifying whether Congress has delegated authority to administrative agencies. A closer look at the doctrine, however, reveals that it has been used by courts to tell Congress how it can delegate authority. What is more, some textualists have proposed strengthening the major questions doctrine into a revived nondelegation doctrine, which speaks to whether Congress can delegate authority. This Article argues that the major questions doctrine, particularly in its strengthened form, runs afoul of key commitments of textualism.

Reclaiming The Long History Of The "Irrelevant" Nineteenth Amendment For Gender Equality, Tracy Thomas

Con Law Center Articles and Publications

The Nineteenth Amendment has been called an “irrelevant” amendment. The women’s suffrage amendment has been deemed insignificant as a constitutional authority, reduced to a historical footnote. In the Supreme Court canon, it has been diminished as a text that “merely gives the vote to women.” With the accomplishment of that simple task, the amendment has been assumed to offer little guidance to modern constitutional analysis or gender equality. The Nineteenth Amendment has become a “constitutional orphan,” disconnected from its historical origins and precedential place in constitutional jurisprudence.

This constricting view of the Nineteenth Amendment ignores the structural implications and significant …

Rulifying Reasonable Expectations: Why Judicial Tests, Not Originalism, Create A More Determinate Fourth Amendment, Michael Gentithes

Con Law Center Articles and Publications

For decades, commentators have decried the Supreme Court’s Fourth Amendment search jurisprudence as a hopelessly confusing jumble. Critics save their harshest barbs for the judicially created “reasonable expectations of privacy” test, suggesting that it provides little guidance and leaves search cases open to wide judicial discretion. Motivated by such critiques, several Justices have recently claimed that an originalist approach could replace the reasonable expectations test, limit judicial discretion, and clarify the Fourth Amendment’s meaning.

This Article provides a comprehensive defense of the reasonable expectations test against originalist calls to abandon it. It notes two flaws in the originalist response. First, …

Reclaiming The Long History Of The "Irrelevant" Nineteenth Amendment, Tracy A. Thomas

Akron Law Faculty Publications

The Nineteenth Amendment has been called an “irrelevant” amendment. The women’s suffrage amendment has been deemed insignificant as a constitutional authority, reduced to a historical footnote. In the Supreme Court canon, it has been diminished as a text that “merely gives the vote to women.” With the accomplishment of that simple task, the amendment has been assumed to offer little guidance to modern constitutional analysis or gender equality. The Nineteenth Amendment has become a “constitutional orphan,” disconnected from its historical origins and precedential place in constitutional jurisprudence. This constricting view of the Nineteenth Amendment ignores the structural implications and significant …

Rulifying Reasonable Expectations: Why Judicial Tests, Not Originalism, Create A More Determinate Fourth Amendment, Michael Gentithes

Akron Law Faculty Publications

For decades, commentators have decried the Supreme Court’s Fourth Amendment search jurisprudence as a hopelessly confusing jumble. Critics save their harshest barbs for the judicially created “reasonable expectations of privacy” test, suggesting that it provides little guidance and leaves search cases open to wide judicial discretion. Motivated by such critiques, several Justices have recently claimed that an originalist approach could replace the reasonable expectations test, limit judicial discretion, and clarify the Fourth Amendment’s meaning. This Article provides a comprehensive defense of the reasonable expectations test against originalist calls to abandon it. It notes two flaws in the originalist response. First, …

The Bivens "Special Factors" And Qualified Immunity: Duplicative Barriers To The Vindication Of Constitutional Rights, Amelia G. Collins

University of Richmond Law Review

Part I of this note traces the history of the Bivens cause of action and analyzes the original “special factors” that concerned the Supreme Court. Part I also outlines the purpose behind implying a Bivens cause of action for plaintiffs bringing constitutional claims. Part II includes the same analysis of the qualified immunity defense, both to its history and purpose. Part III demonstrates how the Supreme Court has incorporated the concerns addressed by qualified immunity into the “special factors” analysis, rather than acknowledging the mitigating nature of immunity defenses when examining if any “special factors” exist. Finally, Part IV argues …

Arguing About The Jus Ad Bellum, Monica Hakimi

Faculty Scholarship

Quite a bit of research suggests that international law’s argumentative practice has value insofar as it leads to or affirms some kind of normative settlement. This chapter uses the argumentative practice in the jus ad bellum to counter that view. The chapter’s central claim is that arguments about the jus ad bellum are valuable, even when they do not lead to normative settlement and the law’s content on the issue in dispute remains contested. The reason they are valuable is that they promote certain values that are associated with the rule of law.

Re-Reading Chevron, Thomas W. Merrill

Faculty Scholarship

Though increasingly disfavored by the Supreme Court, Chevron remains central to administrative law doctrine. This Article suggests a way for the Court to reformulate the Chevron doctrine without overruling the Chevron decision. Through careful attention to the language of Chevron itself, the Court can honor the decision’s underlying value of harnessing comparative institutional advantage in judicial review, while setting aside a highly selective reading that unduly narrows judicial review. This re-reading would put the Chevron doctrine – and with it, an entire branch of administrative law – on firmer footing.

Slavery's Constitution: Rethinking The Federal Consensus, Maeve Glass

Faculty Scholarship

For at least half a century, scholars of the early American Constitution have noted the archival prominence of a doctrine known as the “federal consensus.” This doctrine instructed that Congress had no power to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it existed. Despite its ubiquity in the records, our understanding of how and why this doctrine emerged is hazy at best. Working from a conceptual map of America’s founding that features thirteen local governments coalescing into two feuding sections of North and South, commentators have tended to explain the federal consensus either as a vestige of …

Propertied Rites, Kellen R. Funk

Faculty Scholarship

This Essay reviews Jack Rakove’s Beyond Belief, Beyond Conscience and Winnifred Fallers Sullivan’s Church State Corporation with an eye towards the complex management of religious property in U.S. constitutional doctrine. Part I summarizes Rakove’s book and highlights its value in the context of recent scholarship on early American legislative theory. Part II critiques Rakove’s turn from description towards advocacy of James Madison’s liberal protestant political theology. Part III summarizes Sullivan’s book as a particularly potent rebuttal to Rakove’s. Part IV takes up Sullivan’s method to consider the most recent crisis of religious property before the Supreme Court, that of government …

A Perfectly Empty Gift, Christina D. Ponsa-Kraus

Faculty Scholarship

“Almost citizens.” What does that even mean? It’s like being “kind of pregnant,” isn’t it? In other words, nonsense. Citizenship isn’t an “almost” kind of thing. It’s all or nothing. Unless, I suppose, the word “almost” is used in a simple temporal sense – as in, “Our naturalization ceremony is tomorrow. We’re almost citizens! Yay!” There, the phrase “almost citizens” makes sense. Otherwise not. Right?

Wrong. “Almost citizens,” in a sense as ambiguous as it sounds, is what Almost Citizens: Puerto Rico, the U S Constitution, and Empire is about. “Almost citizens” describes what Puerto Ricans were from 1898, when …

The Compensation Constraint And The Scope Of The Takings Clause, Thomas W. Merrill

Faculty Scholarship

The idea I wish to explore in this Essay is whether the established methods for determining just compensation can shed light on the meaning of other issues that arise in litigation under the Takings Clause. Specifically, is it possible to “reverse engineer” the Takings Clause by reasoning from settled understandings about how to determine just compensation in order to reach certain conclusions about when the Clause applies, what interests in private property are covered by the Clause, and what does it mean to take such property?

The proposed exercise is positive or descriptive in nature rather than normative. The hypothesis …

National Legal Paradigms For Public Health Emergency Responses, James G. Hodge Jr.

American University Law Review

The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed significant weaknesses of the U.S. federalist system in controlling major infectious disease threats. At the root of American failures to adequately respond is a battle over public health primacy in emergency preparedness and response. Which level of government—federal or state—should actually “call the shots” to quell national emergencies? Constitutional principles of cooperative federalism suggest both levels of government are responsible. Yet real-time applications of these principles, coupled with dubious national leadership, contributed to horrific public health outcomes across America. No one seeks a repeat performance of U.S. COVID-19 response efforts to forthcoming major health threats. …

When Thoughts And Prayers Are Not Enough: Why Age-Based Restrictions On Purchasing Firearms Pass Constitutional Muster, Madeline P. Fuller

American University Law Review

After the tragic shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School that took the lives of seventeen students and staff members and injured countless others, the community debated how this event could have been prevented. There were security failures on the part of the school and police—unlocked doors, passive deputies and a security guard, and a broken PA system—all of which may have lessened the casualties had they been operating properly. However, these security measures might not have been tested and found lacking if another preventative measure had already taken place: prohibiting the young shooter from legally purchasing a weapon.

Florida …

The Two Percent: How Florida’S Capital Punishment System Defies The Eighth Amendment, Sofia Perla

FIU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Dehors The Record: A Correction Of A Final Jeopardy Question, Thomas E. Baker

FIU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Professor Fish—Why Are You Still Picking On Liberalism?, Micah Schwartzman

FIU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Judicial Deference To Administrative Interpretation Of Statutes From A Comparative Perspective, Vincent Martenet

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

This Article examines, from a comparative perspective, how judicial deference to administrative interpretation of statutes takes place and whether it is constitutionally admissible. Since constitutions and statutes rarely deal expressly with this issue, courts may have to determine whether or not such deference is permitted, and, if so, whether generally or in certain cases only. The constitutional, legal, and judicial context prevailing in each country is particularly important in this regard. Nevertheless, it may provide courts with little, if any, guidance on the specific issue of deference to administrative statutory interpretation. In this respect, a nuanced approach along all or …