Digital Commons Network^™

A Conversation About Stare Decisis, Debra A. Livingston, John Q. Barrett

Faculty Scholarship

John Q. Barrett (“JQB”)

Chief Judge Debra Ann Livingston, welcome back to St. John’s.

The Chief Judge has been a friend to us for many years. It is an honor to host someone of her talent and someone in her position: the Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

We’re going to have a conversation for the first part of the program, about judging, her work, and stare decisis. But first, we need to meet you and hear a little bit about your background — where you are from — and the path that took …

Statewide Injunction: State Judicial Power And Meaningful Remedies, Constance C. Van Kley

Faculty Law Review Articles

As federal courts increasingly limit the scope of constitutional remedies, state courts have begun issuing statewide injunctions that extend protections beyond individual litigants. This article examines the doctrinal foundations and implications of such injunctions, arguing that they represent a legitimate exercise of state judicial power. By analyzing historical practices, procedural norms, and recent case law, the author contends that statewide injunctions can serve as essential tools for enforcing civil rights and ensuring meaningful relief. The piece calls for a reevaluation of remedial doctrines to better accommodate the evolving role of state courts in safeguarding constitutional guarantees.

"What Shall Be Orthodox" In Polarized Times: Overview And Response To Commentators, Linda C. Mcclain, James E. Fleming

Faculty Scholarship

“If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.” Justice Robert Jackson wrote this celebrated passage in his majority opinion in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), which protected the First Amendment right of Jehovah’s Witness children not to participate in a compulsory flag salute in public schools. In recent years, protests against imposed orthodoxy—usually invoking Barnette—have occurred in …

A Historical Case For A Robust But Non-Remedial Seventh Amendment, Jed Handelsman Shugerman

Faculty Scholarship

In Jarkesy, the Supreme Court rightly held that the Seventh Amendment required a jury trial for a case fundamentally similar to common law fraud, and it rightly limited the scope of the “public rights” exception to the Seventh Amendment. Grounded in historical and originalist methods, this essay makes four suggestions after Jarkesy:

1. Following Jarkesy, the judiciary should continue a more robust enforcement of the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. The courts should eliminate the “public rights” exception to the Seventh Amendment, which does not appear to have an original link to the Seventh Amendment. The …

The Basic Structure In Malaysia: Less Than Meets The Eye, Benjamin Joshua Ong

Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law

At first glance, studying the basic structure doctrine in Malaysia can be frustrating due to its inconsistent judicial treatment. While early cases such as Loh Kooi Choon and Phang Chin Hock rejected the doctrine, it was later accepted in landmark decisions like Sivarasa Rasiah, Semenyih Jaya, and Indira Gandhi. In 2020, scholars such as Jaclyn Neo and Yvonne Tew suggested a judicial embrace of the doctrine and its global trend toward constitutional unamendability. However, the Federal Court’s 2021 decision in Maria Chin Abdullah appeared to reject it once more, illustrating the doctrine’s precarious status. The resurgence seen in Dhinesh a/l …

Property Clause Power Play: The Blm's Conservation Rule And Loper Bright, Meridian S. Wappett, Sandra B. Zellmer

Public Land & Resources Law Review

This article examines the implications of Loper Bright on public land management through rulemaking. Part II provides a comprehensive overview of the case, its holding, and its potential ramifications. Part III delves into the history of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), to illuminate the evolution and underlying rationale for agency deference. Part IV analyzes the constitutional framework underpinning the BLM’s statutory authority, rooted primarily in the Property Clause, which delegates the task of making “needful” rules governing public lands to Congress and to federal land management agencies. Finally, Part V argues that the Rule is valid, whether a reviewing court …

A Most Essential Power: The Case For Restoring Comprehensive Land Use Authority In Indian Country, Michelle Bryan

Public Land & Resources Law Review

Part I of this article provides a brief overview of allotment and its lingering jurisdictional quagmire on impacted reservations. Stepping outside of Indian Country, Part II then outlines the U.S. Supreme Court’s longstanding recognition of sweeping, area-wide government land use authority—authority it considers among the “most essential” and “least limitable.” The Court has never applied this established law when determining tribal sovereignty over land use. That application is long overdue.

Part III details how we arrived at this state of affairs—how tribes, despite starting with sovereign control over land use throughout their territories, experienced losses in that authority over time …

Water Knows No Boundaries: Tribal Jurisdiction Over Non-Indians' Off-Reservation Conduct That Threatens On-Reservation Tribal Water Resources, Wesley J. Furlong, Lori E. Blumenthal

Public Land & Resources Law Review

This Article begins by discussing Manoomin and Sauk-Suiattle, orienting the reader to how these complicated jurisdictional issues have been addressed by Tribal courts. Next, this Article sets forth the current framework under Montana and Merrion for determining the extent of Tribal civil jurisdiction over non-Indians. Next, this Article examines the caselaw establishing Tribal Nations’ inherent sovereign authority to exercise civil jurisdiction over non-Indian activities and conduct occurring on-reservation that threaten or affect Tribal water resources and rights. Finally, this Article examines the caselaw that lays the groundwork for extending Tribal Nations’ civil jurisdiction over non-Indian activities and conduct occurring off-reservation …

Redesain Konsep Konsultasi Pembentukan Pkpu Dalam Menindaklanjuti Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi, Daffa Ladro Kusworo

Jurnal Konstitusi & Demokrasi

The research aims to identify problems in the implementation of consultation as part of the mechanism of regulation formation between KPU and DPR and the government, especially in following up the Constitutional Court's decision. The research begins by first describing the dynamics of the consultation process and its results, which are passive and tend to be formalistic after the conclusion of the RDP forum is no longer binding based on the Constitutional Court Decision 92/PUU-XIV/2016. This research uses a doctrinal method that refers to the laws and regulations related to the consultation process of the KPU together with the DPR …

“Absolute And Arbitrary”: How The Supreme Court’S Certiorari Power Violates The Nondelegation Doctrine, Dinis Cheian

BYU Law Review

The Exceptions Clause of Article III of the Constitution is clear that “Congress” “shall make” the rules prescribing the Court’s “appellate jurisdiction.” And so Congress did for almost 150 years. But in the twentieth century, Congress delegated its power to the Supreme Court in the form of—as Chief Justice Taft demanded—”absolute and arbitrary” discretion to pick its appellate cases. Today, under the resulting certiorari regime, the Court enjoys that unbridled discretion in selecting its cases.

Because Congress delegated its power to the Court without articulating “an intelligible principle,” certiorari jurisdiction violates the nondelegation doctrine and is unconstitutional. This Article is …

The Confined Life: Restrictions On Post-Conviction Sex Offenders Meets Habeas Corpus's "In Custody" Requirement, Christian Futch

Georgia Criminal Law Review

Clements v. Florida is a recent Eleventh Circuit decision holding that the court could not hear the habeas petition of a post-conviction sex offender in Florida since he failed to meet the “in custody” requirement for filing a habeas petition. However, the Eleventh Circuit did not consider the land restrictions in place against the petitioner and other sex offenders in Florida. This decision may leave sex offenders without an avenue to challenge the restrictions in place against them. Such restrictions have led to homelessness and poverty leaving sex offenders with no place to work or live, in poverty, as outcasts …

Misreading The Federal Child Pornography Statutes, Owen Senders

Georgia Criminal Law Review

For the past 40 years, federal courts have committed two grievous textual errors in interpreting the federal child-pornography statutes and sentencing guidelines. These errors have caused hundreds of wrongful convictions—many the bases for decades-long sentences—and have produced a body of caselaw that is profoundly incoherent and in direct conflict with basic tenets of First Amendment doctrine. They have also likely endangered children. This article identifies these errors, surveys their consequences, and suggests legal arguments for people charged or convicted under the child-pornography statutes.

The first error impacts the application of all of the federal child-pornography statutes and sentencing guidelines. These …

Directing Unconstitutional Verdicts: When Judges Become Jurors On Self-Defense, Anjali Pathmanathan

Georgia Criminal Law Review

The right to self-defense is one of the oldest and most universal concepts in Anglo-American criminal law and criminal procedure. Under this defense, an accused person, who honestly believed that using force was necessary to protect themself from imminent danger, did nothing criminal even if another person was harmed as a result. To assert self-defense at trial, however, the accused must admit to intentionally committing the forceful acts alleged to explain how they only used such force to save themself from immediate harm. Once an accused has made such a grave admission, the jury must consider whether the force was …

The Sealed Palace: How Direct Access To The Supreme Constitutional Court Can Bridge The Gaps In Constitutional Review In Egypt, Ahmed Sameh Fahmi

Theses and Dissertations

This thesis examines the limitations of Egypt’s current constitutional review system and argues for the introduction of a direct access mechanism to the Supreme Constitutional Court (SCC). Under Egypt’s centralized model of judicial review, individuals are restricted to indirect access through ordinary courts, which has resulted in significant procedural and substantive inefficiencies. The referral-based mechanism of judicial review of legislation has caused delays in adjudicating constitutional claims, the insulation of certain laws from review, legislative omissions, and excessive gatekeeping by lower courts. Through a comparative analysis of direct access models in Colombia, Germany, Turkey, and South Africa, the thesis identifies …

The Benefits Of The Fourth Amendment’S Property-Rights Baseline, Nicholas A. Kahn-Fogel

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Taking The Road Less Traveled Makes All The Difference: The Tenth Circuit Applies The Collateral Order Doctrine Narrowly—And Properly—In Coomer V. Make Your Life Epic Llc, Paul Cooke

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Protect The Clearwater V. Montana Department Of Environmental Quality, Gillian Ellison

Public Land & Resources Law Review

In Protect the Clearwater v. Montana Department of Environmental Quality, the Montana Supreme Court reinforced that injunctive relief provisions in the Montana Environmental Protection Act are the exclusive avenue for injunctive relief once a claim has been filed under MEPA. The Court clarified that parties may not separately seek preliminary injunctions under Montana’s general injunction statute when a MEPA action contesting the same permit is already pending.

A Matter Of Public Concern: Wright V. Dorsey And The Need For Speech Protections Beyond Anti-Slapp Law, Henry Valentine

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Wright v. Dorsey, a recent defamation case, demonstrates the limitations of anti-SLAPP ("Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation") law and the need for supplemental speech protections. Joshua Wright, an antitrust law practitioner and former professor, sued Elyse Dorsey and Angela Landry for defamation. Dorsey and Landry had claimed that Wright used his position as their professor (and later employer) to pressure them into non-consensual sexual relationships; Wright acknowledged their relationships but claimed they were fully consensual, and that stating otherwise was defamatory. Anti-SLAPP law failed to protect Dorsey and Landry even though Wright's lawsuit was ultimately a SLAPP. To better protect …

Montana Environmental Information Center. V. Montana Department Of Public Service Regulation, Sadie Giles

Public Land & Resources Law Review

Montana Environmental Information Center v. Montana Department of Public Service Regulation provides insight into the discretion of the Public Service Commission and its impact on renewable energy development in Montana, especially in the wake of the repeal of the Renewable Power Production and Rural Economic Development Act. This case evaluates the Commission’s decisions to grant waivers to NorthWestern Energy for its 2015 and 2016 renewable energy purchase obligations under the Act. The Court found the Commission’s decisions were arbitrary and unsupported by substantial evidence and appropriate reasoning. Montana’s renewable portfolio standards had proven effective in promoting renewable energy and economic …

The Objective Observer: The Washington State Supreme Court's Remedial Aspirations And Experience On The Ground, David B. Owens

Washington Law Review

The Washington State Supreme Court has adopted an “objective observer rule” for addressing whether race impacted jury selection and extended this rule to evaluating all aspects of Washington courts, including jury trials. The objective observer rule allows courts to evaluate whether decisions in those courtrooms could be viewed as the result of racial bias, even where there is no evidence of specific racial animus and in the absence of racial slurs. The rule, which covers a form of disparate impact, has now existed for over half a decade. This Article outlines the Washington State Supreme Court’s development of the objective …

The Gift Of Public Funds Bogeyman, Noah Purcell, Michelle Saperstein

Washington Law Review

Washington’s “gift of public funds” doctrine is frequently misunderstood in ways that impede innovative ideas aimed at remedying some of our state’s most intractable problems. This doctrine arises from article VIII, sections 5 and 7 of the Washington Constitution, which prohibit state and local governments from gifting assets or loaning credit. While the Washington State Supreme Court historically applied these provisions in restrictive and confusing ways, the Court’s modern jurisprudence recognizes that the doctrine is inapplicable to funding expended for any of the many “fundamental purposes” of government. Even where a government program does not fall under this broad category, …

Why Medicaid Is Addressing Homelessness With Section 1115 Waivers: A Critical Examination Of The United States' Federalist Mental Health System, Joshua Haas

Washington Law Review

Housing and health care are deeply interconnected, and their systemic relationship profoundly affects individual and societal well-being. Inadequate funding has undermined the American mental health system for decades, leading to gaps in care that have caused lasting harm to vulnerable individuals and society as a whole. This Comment examines the historical connections between homelessness and the American mental health system. It explores the benefits and criticisms of the United States’ federalist approach to health care, particularly focusing on Medicaid and its “section 1115 waivers,” which grant states flexibility to develop innovative, state-specific Medicaid programs. Recently, states began to utilize section …

The Continuing Unevolving Model Of Decency, Kennedy V. Louisiana In Peril, Patrick S. Metze

Criminal Law Practitioner

Professor Metze reflects on Kennedy v. Louisiana in its part in the development of Eighth Amendment jurisprudence and how the Supreme Court initially used Kennedy to further our understanding of the limits of the Eighth Amendment. The Court recently avoided a meaningful discussion of how our society is maturing and evolving by acknowledging a purposeful effort of some to reflect modern beliefs in opposition to those who would interpret everything through an 18th-century prism. After a case-by-case analysis of how the Court has used Kennedy, it is apparent the conservative majority now on the Court has decided there is no …

Criminalization Of Immigration Through State Enforcement: Lessons From Texas’S Latest Efforts To Criminalize Immigration Through Senate Bill 4, A. Regenold Bright

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Unfulfilled Promise Of Confédération Des Syndicats Nationaux: A Case Study On The Reconciliation Of Equality And Freedom Of Association, Andrea Talarico

Dalhousie Law Journal

The evolution of the protection of collective bargaining rights in Canada has been marked by a tension between freedom of association (section 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, “the Charter”) and equality (section 15(1) of the Charter). In most cases before the Supreme Court of Canada (“the SCC”), the SCC has examined both rights separately. More recently, the SCC has treated equality as a value (rather than a right), using the value of equality to inform its interpretation of freedom of association. Both these approaches (the “Siloed Approach” and the “Charter Values” approach) fail …

The Right To Exit Religion, Zalman Rothschild

Articles

This Article argues that just over fifty years ago, in Wisconsin v. Yoder, the Supreme Court recognized what might be called a right to exit religion. In this decision, the Court expressed appreciation for preserving insular religious communities, while simultaneously articulating the principle that accommodations for such communities must not unduly restrict community members’ ability to exit should they wish to do so. Yet courts and scholars have largely overlooked Yoder’s recognition of a right to exit religion. To make this “right” more concrete, the Article examines impediments to it through a case study of one large insular religious community—the …

The Equal Protection-Fourth Amendment Shell Game: An Essay On The Limited Reach Of The 2023 Affirmative Action Cases, The Fourth Amendment, And Race Beyond Skin Color, David B. Owens

Articles

In striking down race-conscious admissions at Harvard and the University of North Carolina, the Supreme Court used lofty rhetoric about the importance of ending race discrimination, even calling the command of Equal Protection “universal.” In two ways, this Essay explores the legal and practical limits of the affirmative action cases and illustrates how the Court’s claimed concern about race discrimination rings hollow. First, this Essay discusses state actors permitted to use race in their decision-making: the police. Unlike elite universities whose policies are subject to exacting scrutiny, the Supreme Court permits police to use race when deciding whom to seize …

Discussing The Unconstitutionality Of The Dual Sovereign Doctrine, Kaden Collorafi

NSU Undergraduate Law Journal

This paper critically examines the United States Supreme Court’s long-standing endorsement of the Dual Sovereignty Doctrine, which permits successive prosecutions by both state and federal governments for the same underlying conduct. Rooted in dicta from Moore v. Illinois and formally adopted in United States v. Lanza, the doctrine, in the author’s opinion, has repeatedly undermined the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Despite the incorporation of this clause to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment in Benton v. Maryland, the Court has maintained the doctrine on grounds of judicial practicality and sovereign independence.

Through an in-depth review …

Culpable Kids, Cara H. Drinan

Texas A&M Law Review

When a child commits a crime, how do states determine if that child is culpable? There are procedural rules that determine the forum for a minor’s trial and doctrines that limit children’s exposure to the most severe sentencing. But when it comes to culpability, states employ the same substantive law whether the defendant is 50 or 15. As this Article explains, that approach is profoundly flawed. In the early 21st century, in a series of cases known as the Miller trilogy, the United States Supreme Court established that youth are fundamentally different from adults and state sentencing practices must recognize …

Nourishing The Living Tree: Vincent Macdonald And His Constitutional Thought, Preston Jordan Lim

Faculty Publications

Since the enactment of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canadian judges have increasingly approached the Constitution through a living constitutionalist lens, adapting the Constitution to contemporary realities and treating the text as but one interpretive modality alongside purpose and context. The Supreme Court has rooted this living constitutionalism in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council’s judgment, Edwards v Attorney General of Canada, wherein Lord Sankey introduced the metaphor of the “living tree.” Justice Robert Sharpe and Professor Patricia McMahon have suggested that the “living tree metaphor remained a forgotten footnote until 1982.” Indeed, more formalist approaches towards …