Digital Commons Network^™

Fourth Amendment Rights In The Age Of Automated License Plate Recognition Cameras, Jessica L. Terkovich

Touro Law Review

Law enforcement technology has evolved to the point of being ever-present, especially in the form of automated license plate recognition cameras. This Article analyzes recent Fourth Amendment challenges to automated license plate recognition camera systems and developments in the technological landscape in the wake of seminal cases discussing the changing expectations of privacy as law enforcement technology evolves. The Article concludes that, as is, automated license plate recognition camera systems are not unconstitutional dragnets and do not perform warrantless searches, though they have potential to raise constitutional issues in the future.

The American Dream And The Politics Of Promise: Presidential Rhetoric Against Reality On Inequality, Education, And Assistance Since 2000, Abigail Demonte

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Reclaiming The Constitution: "For There Is Always Light, If Only We're Brave Enough To See It", Palma Joy Strand, Gregory J. O'Meara S.J.

Marquette Law Review

As citizens—and as lawyers—we are schooled to view the U.S. Constitution as what—indeed—“constitutes” us as a nation and as a people. As lawyers— and as citizens—we are also schooled to understand that the Constitution is law and that its meaning is to be ascertained through the process of law and by lawyers and judges. This Article builds on a popular constitutionalism frame to describe the profound limitations of restricting constitutional meaning-making to a legal enterprise performed primarily by judges—especially in regard to positive rights written into the Constitution but under-protected in constitutional law. In addition, litigation’s either–or mindset has come …

The First Amendment Right To Privacy, Alex Chemerinsky

Marquette Law Review

The First Amendment is often considered to be in tension with privacy. This

Article is about the contexts in which it is not.

Although freedom of speech can pose challenges for privacy governance,

privacy is a core First Amendment value. Many important First Amendment decisions were motivated more by intuitions about privacy than any other interest. For each primary First Amendment liberty—the rights to speak, listen, associate, and practice religion—the Supreme Court has recognized not only a

substantive liberty but also the right to exercise it privately.

But although expressive privacy is an important First Amendment value, it

remains underrecognized, …

Re-Evaluating Deshany In An Era Of Gun Violence And Government Inaction, Bonnie Carlson

Marquette Law Review

In DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, the Supreme Court held that the State has no constitutional duty to protect individuals from violence committed by private third parties. An exception to this rule exists when the State has a special relationship to the plaintiff immediately preceding the harm. The DeShaney Court sharply proscribed the scope of the special relationship exception, holding that it only applies when the State has a plaintiff in custody. This effectively closes the door on relief for the vast majority of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 plaintiffs.

This Article proposes a new special relationship test …

Gerrymandering The Electoral College, Henry S. Noyes

Marquette Law Review

In Rucho v. Common Cause, the Supreme Court held that partisan gerrymandering is a nonjusticiable political question. The Court’s opinion admits that “[e]xcessive partisanship in districting leads to results that reasonably seem unjust.” The injustice is the ability of the majority party to use political gerrymandering to entrench itself as the governing party and to remain so, long after that party falls out of favor.

Although Rucho was an Elections Clause case, it is easily applicable to states’ exercise of their Electors Clause power. Republicans will wield this new, nonjusticiable power (and the concomitant political cover that it provides) …

Standalone Frisks, Elias Neibart, Bobby Levine

Marquette Law Review

We all think we understand Terry v. Ohio. But we don’t. In fact, for decades, we’ve taken the wrong doctrinal lesson from Terry and its progeny.

Even though Terry discussed the constitutional standards surrounding “stop-and-frisks,” many of us have interpreted Terry as only permitting a “stop-and-then-a-frisk”—that is, a police officer is permitted to stop an individual on the suspicion that he is about to engage in criminal activity, and then, and only then, can that officer frisk the individual if he believes the suspect is armed and dangerous. But that’s not right. The Terry Court never said that. And …

Corporations’ First Amendment Rights And Algorithmic Cocoons, Sol Murgui Orsucci

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

This Note examines how corporate First Amendment doctrine applies to algorithmic systems that curate commercial information and public discourse across online platforms. Courts have increasingly treated ranking, recommendation, and moderation practices as exercises of protected editorial judgment. At the same time, the Court has justified protection for corporate speech in part by reference to listener-centered interests in access to information and competitive comparison. This Note argues that the interaction between these doctrinal strands and contemporary algorithmic intermediation reveals a structural tension. Data-driven optimization can generate individualized informational environments—what this Note terms “algorithmic cocoons”—in which users encounter content, offers, and prices …

Against Doctrinal Siloing: Harmonizing Fiscal Federalism And The U.S. Constitution, David Gamage, Darien Shanske

Faculty Publications

This Essay argues that constitutional law’s treatment of fiscal federalism has fractured into a bewildering collection of doctrinal silos. Federal spending that pressures states, federal preemption of state taxes, the Dormant Commerce Clause, sovereign immunity, Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the federal taxing power are all analyzed through distinct tests, even when they implicate the same basic conflict between federal authority and state fiscal autonomy. The result is not just theoretical confusion but inconsistent constitutional answers. Current doctrine can protect states from comparatively modest liabilities while leaving uncertain whether Congress may displace large swaths of state revenue authority. …

Private Rights Of Action For Election Litigation In The Federal Courts, Derek T. Muller

Journal Articles

Election litigation is surging. But just as litigants pursue more election claims in federal courts than ever before, federal courts are growing more skeptical about their authority to hear them. This Essay, a contribution to the 2025 Arnold Lecture at the University of Arkansas Little Rock, William H. Bowen School of Law, examines the narrowing landscape of private rights of action in election law with a particular focus on claims brought ahead of the 2024 election. It traces the Supreme Court's shift toward formalism, the heavy emphasis on remedies found in federal statutes, and the diminishing avenues for private enforcement …

Sacred Or Sham? Strengthening Judicial Review Of Religious Sincerity Under The Free Exercise Clause Article Title, Montana Martinez

Faculty Scholarship

While the Court has expanded the scope of Free Exercise protections, it has conspicuously failed to articulate how courts should separate sincere religious claims from fraudulent ones. The result is a doctrinal void: any claimant can recast political or philosophical objections as "religious" and demand constitutional protection. The risk is that the Free Exercise Clause, if stripped of any sincerity filter, will collapse into a generalized right to exemption from law. This Article argues that courts can assess religious sincerity without evaluating the truth or validity of the religious belief, and it proposes a framework grounded in the constitutional text, …

Some Caution About Novel State Constitutional Rights, Nick Brod

Campbell Law Review

No abstract provided.

Apportioned Direct Taxes, Conor Clarke, Ari Glogower

Scholarship@WashULaw

The Constitution requires that Congress apportion any “direct” tax among the states by population. This once-dormant provision is now the most important constitutional limitation on Congress’s taxing power. Last year, in Moore v. United States, the Supreme Court seriously considered, for the first time in decades, whether to invalidate an Act of Congress as an unapportioned direct tax. While the law survived, Moore has opened a new era in which scholars and policymakers must again take apportionment seriously. Yet the apportionment requirement remains poorly understood.

This Article provides a new perspective on apportionment by examining how Congress and Treasury …

Taking Legality Seriously: What The Major Questions Doctrine Is — And Isn't, Andrea Scoseria Katz, Ofra Bloch

Scholarship@WashULaw

The Major Questions Doctrine (MQD), a controversial recent innovation of the Roberts Court that applies stricter scrutiny to “major” actions taken by federal agencies, has faced criticism for being atextual, unprincipled, and nakedly ideological. But this critique misses the fact that the doctrine has near-exact analogues in many other legal systems, where it is an established tool for reining in executive overreach. This Article argues that, while the MQD reflects valid rule-of-law concerns, as applied, it lacks theoretical clarity, consistency and limits. More importantly, the Court itself lacks a theory of what the MQD is. We provide an answer grounded …

Teaching Constitutional Law: Politics, Democracy And History, Andrea Scoseria Katz

Scholarship@WashULaw

Teaching Constitutional Law in the present era presents unique pedagogical challenges. My students arrive skeptical of the field, doubtful of the Supreme Court’s authority, questioning the relevance of legal methods in determining case outcomes, and perceiving constitutional adjudication as irreducibly political. Rather than dismiss these concerns, I argue that constitutional law professors must acknowledge them directly. Our task is not to restore naïve faith in judicial neutrality (an impossible ideal), but to present students with a vision of constitutional meaning-making—one grounded in politics, history, and democratic politics—in which they can recognize themselves as engaged participants in the future of our …

Foreword: The Constitution And Public Finance—Why Now And Why Ever?, Conor Clarke, Eric Kubo

Scholarship@WashULaw

This paper introduces the Washington University Law Review’s 2026 symposium issue on “Taxing, Spending, and the Constitution.” We situate the symposium’s ten papers within three interconnected developments in public finance law: the Supreme Court’s recent decision on the Sixteenth Amendment in Moore v. United States; the Trump Administration’s assertions of executive control over appropriated funds; and the use of emergency and trade statutes to justify sweeping tariff authority.

We also step back to ask why constitutional issues in public finance—long treated as a technical backwater—have become such a central site of doctrinal and political conflict. We offer several explanations beyond …

Law’S Limits: Abortion And The Social Determinants Of Health, Maya Manian

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

After Dobbs: How the Supreme Court Ended Roe but Not Abortion (“After Dobbs”) is a prescient and timely response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade and upended nearly five decades of constitutional protection for abortion. In this meticulously structured oral history, law professor David S. Cohen and sociologist Carole Joffe center the voices of abortion providers, clinic administrators, funders, and advocates from across the country. After Dobbs, not only documents the extraordinary persistence of abortion supporters in the face of legal devastation but also bears witness to …

Eroding Protections: The Decline Of Miranda Rights And Its Impact On Due Process In Contemporary America, Autumn G. Pelfrey

Honors Undergraduate Theses

This thesis examines whether the protections established in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), remain robust within contemporary criminal justice practice or have been weakened through doctrinal and practical developments. Miranda warnings were originally designed to mitigate the risk that coercive custodial interrogation would produce compelled or unreliable self-incrimination. Since 1966, however, both judicial interpretation and evolving law-enforcement practices have created a growing gap between Miranda’s formal legal promise and its practical operation in real-world interrogations.

The study evaluates the erosion of Miranda’s protective force through three primary mechanisms. First, doctrinal developments have narrowed Miranda’s scope by redefining …

Gender Therapy False Equivalency, Scott Skinner-Thompson

Publications

One critical dispute surrounding the rights of LGBTQ people and societal recognition of their existence is the legal debate regarding very different types of gender therapy. On the one hand, several states have banned the provision of gender-affirming medical care to transgender youth, positing that it is a dangerous form of mutilation. A separate set of states has banned the practice of so-called gay or gender conversion therapy that seeks to transform youth away from their queer identities, concluding that it is a form of abuse. Both sets of laws have been challenged in courts with the Supreme Court recently …

State Constitutionalism's Fragile Wall, Adam B. Sopko

Publications

The adequate and independent state grounds (AISG) doctrine has long demarcated the perimeter of the U.S. Supreme Court’s authority to review state court decisions, limiting review to questions of federal law. AISG maintains the Court’s primacy over federal law and state courts’ supremacy over state law. A comprehensive review of all filings on the Court’s docket from state courts over the last twenty years reveals that recent applications of AISG consist of subtle but significant departures from existing norms that, together, suggest a reformulation of the Court’s power over state courts that threatens their sovereign law development role. This Essay …

Gienapp's Big Book: Conceptual Rupture, Modernism, And The End Of Originalism, Logan E. Sawyer Iii

Scholarly Works

For decades, we have lived in an age of partisan jurisprudence, in which nearly every Republican has embraced originalism, and nearly every Democrat has rejected it. One can mark the start of that era in multiple places, but one good choice is November 11th, 1977. That day, in the pages of National Review, William F. Buckley previewed Government by Judiciary, Raoul Berger’s originalist critique of the Warren Court’s rights revolution. The review, entitled “Berger’s Big Book,” was highly complimentary. Berger’s rebuke of Warren Court activism was, Buckley thought, “devastating.” And he was not alone. Following the publication of Government by …

In The Beginning There Was Positive Law: Section 25, Calder V. Bull, And Constitutional Continuity, Kevin C. Walsh

Scholarly Articles

From the beginning of its operation as fundamental law for the government of the United States, the Constitution has continually operated as supreme and judicially enforceable positive law. This is the principal claim I offer as an “original-law originalist” in response to contrary claims advanced by Professor Jonathan Gienapp in Against Constitutional Originalism: A Historical Critique. Gienapp argues in Against Constitutional Originalism that “[h]istoricizing the original Constitution . . . poses a foundational challenge to originalism as it has long been conceived.”2 Constitutional originalism depends on perceived continuity with the past. But the perception of constitutional continuity turns out to …

Qui Tam Relators As Article Iv Officials, Chad Squitieri

Scholarly Articles

Since the earliest days of the republic, Congress has empowered private plaintiffs—called qui tam relators—to bring claims in court on behalf of the United States. Today, qui tam litigation accounts for billions of dollars in judgments and settlements each year. But despite qui tam’s modern significance and historical pedigree, its constitutionality has recently been questioned. To wit, several sitting Supreme Court Justices have suggested that qui tam violates the President’s Article II authority because it empowers private relators—who are neither appointed nor supervised by the President—to enforce federal law. Following similar logic, a lower federal court recently ruled a prominent …

Data Sanctuaries: Rethinking Technological Progress To Preserve Federalism, Nathan S. Lee

Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights & Social Justice

Why are sanctuary states and cities in the present moment largely failing to protect immigrants and other vulnerable people from federal enforcement of an agenda based on mass deportation and fear? While federalism was painted during the Civil Rights Era as a weapon of states to protect policies of discrimination and segregation, federalism was also a powerful tool used by Northern States before the Civil War to resist Southern and federal laws enabling the dehumanizing capture and transport offugitive slaves (or suspected fugitive slaves). What has changed in the passing years to make federalism seem like such a thin concept, …

No Exception For Ultra Vires Discrimination, Rev. James Deboer

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

The Ministerial Exception (“the Exception”) is an affirmative defense that religious institutions may use to obtain dismissal of discrimination claims brought by current and former ministerial employees.The Exception rests on the seemingly straightforward premise that churches and other religious institutions must be free to select and remove their own ministers without interference from secular laws.  It applies with equal force to any kind of discrimination; extends to harassment and retaliation; and is not confined to forms of alleged discrimination motivated by religious belief.

The Supreme Court has only addressed the Exception twice. First, in 2012, through Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church …

The Ambiguity That Isn’T: Why Same-Sex Marriage Is Legal In American Samoa, Dante Cade Harootunian, Sammi Lawrence

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that prohibitions on same-sex marriage violate the equal protection guarantees of the U.S. Constitution, several government officials in American Samoa issued statements claiming that the decision had no effect in American Samoa, and, to date, no same-sex couples have

applied for a marriage license in the territory. This Article analyzes the Obergefell decision in light of other federal and territorial court decisions that determined the applicability of constitutional rights to U.S. territories and concludes that, despite the statements of local officials, the Obergefell decision applies in American Samoa, and the …

Why Dobbs Is No Roadmap For Deciding State Constitutional Abortion Issues, Daniel A. Small

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

In deciding that Fourteenth Amendment “liberty” does not protect a woman’s decision to end her pregnancy, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization sought to distinguish the precedent that Roe and Casey relied on to recognize an abortion right. The Dobbs majority claimed that this precedent did not support a right to abortion because, in its view, destroying a fetus is more immoral than the conduct at issue in those earlier cases. However, moral concerns about fetal destruction shed no light on the nature or characteristics of a woman’s liberty interest in an abortion decision. These concerns, therefore, cannot show whether …

Politics As Usual: Racial Pay Inequity And The Illusion Of Inclusion In The Rise And Fall Of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, And Accessibility Executive Orders, Francois C. Melville

West Chester University Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Final Projects

This research examines pressing moral policy questions of our time: who determines when the United States of America has fulfilled its broken promise of equality for all, and what constitutes an appropriate measure of reparative justice. It interrogates why the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Executive Orders (EOs) implemented across presidential administrations, intended to advance social equity, were grounded in conflict and symbolic gestures rather than scientifically evidenced issues such as wage inequality directly linked to upward career mobility. Race conscious policy generates cultural clashes centered on the perception that gains made by Black and Brown Americans come at the …

A Theory Of Major Questions, Nicholas Almendares

Cardozo Law Review

The major questions doctrine has been fiercely criticized as an example of the Supreme Court’s “imperial” turn where it concentrates ever more power in its own hands. The doctrine is sweeping, vague, and lacks a clear justification. Not only does the Court get to decide when the doctrine applies and when the heightened standard is satisfied, but it has also not offered good reasons behind this rule. A well-defined theory would give the doctrine structure, clarity, and consistency. While majority opinions have been conspicuously quiet on the theory behind the major questions doctrine, concurrences, namely by Justice Gorsuch, have argued …

Interpreting Anti-Boycott Laws In The Shadow Of The First Amendment, Joseph A. Tomain

Articles by Maurer Faculty

Thirty-eight states have enacted “anti-BDS” laws. These laws require people or entities doing business with the state to certify that they do not participate in the Boycott Divestment Sanction movement against Israel. Typically, these laws define boycott as a “refusal to deal, terminating business, or other actions” that limit commercial relations with Israel or Israeli entities. It is highly contested in the courts and commentary whether these anti-boycott laws violate the First Amendment. Assuming arguendo that the “refusal to deal” and “terminating business” clauses do not implicate the First Amendment, that leaves the residual clause. At least one court and …