Digital Commons Network^™

The Use Of Federal Habeas Corpus In Child Custody Disputes, Maine Law Review

Maine Law Review

Inability to enforce child custody decrees on a nationwide basis has created an unfortunate and well-publicized anomaly in the law. A parent disappointed with one state's award of custody may remove the child to another jurisdiction, gambling that the second state's courts will decline to enforce the original decree. Of the several remedies that have been suggested to relieve this situation, federal habeas corpus remains among the least explored. The use of federal habeas corpus in child custody disputes raises two questions central to every federal jurisdictional controversy: Do the federal courts have power to entertain the action? If the …

A Peek Behind The Scenes Of Supreme Court Decision Making Concerning The Federal Ip System, Jonathan Band

Joint PIJIP/TLS Research Paper Series

In the 1970s and 80s, the Supreme Court decided three cases that continue to define the limits of the authority of the states within the federal intellectual property system: Goldstein v. California (1973); Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Oil Co. (1974); and Bonito Boats v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc. (1989). The papers of the Supreme Court Justices that decided these cases show the Court as a human institution wrestling with this complex issue. This issue has assumed new importance as state legislatures have rushed to enact laws on the use of generative artificial intelligence to replicate the voice …

Bakke, Lochner, And Law School: The Nobility Clause Versus A Republican Form Of Medicine, James E. Lobsenz

Maine Law Review

Alan Bakke, an unsuccessful medical school applicant, filed suit challenging the constitutionality of the minority admissions program administered by the Medical School of the University of California at Davis. The practice of reserving sixteen special places for minority students out of a total of 100 positions in the entering class, Bakke contended, constituted a denial of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution. Bakke's suit afforded the justices of both the California Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court a unique opportunity to examine the substantive nature of the "equality" …

Jarkesy, The Seventh Amendment, And Tax Penalties, Steve R. Johnson

University of Miami Law Review

In 2024, in the Jarkesy case, a divided Supreme Court held unconstitutional a provision of the Dodd-Frank Act that allowed the SEC to assert securities law anti-fraud penalties through administrative proceedings subject to judicial review. The Jarkesy majority concluded that the invalidated procedure violated the Seventh Amendment’s guarantee of jury trial in some civil cases.

The dissent predicted that the reasoning of Jarkesy could be applied outside of the securities law area, putting hundreds of other statutes at peril of constitutional invalidation. This Article examines one such possible “spillover.” The Article explores whether Jarkesy threatens the current procedures by which …

Beware Of The Dangers Of The State-Created Danger Doctrine: A Look At The Ninth Circuit's Approach, Julia Steiner

University of Miami Law Review

The Fourteenth Amendment applies to state, not private, actors. It, like the whole of our Constitution, operates as a negative restraint on government. The Due Process Clause thus forbids states from taking certain action—but it does not and cannot compel the state to act ab initio. These core concepts formed the basis of the Supreme Court’s decision in DeShaney v. Winnebago County, where the Court reaffirmed that the only instance where the state assumes an affirmative duty to provide safety and security is when the state itself restrains an individual from protecting themselves.

Yet, since DeShaney, the circuit …

Flaws In The Preemption Defense To Liability Claims Against Generic Drug Manufacturers, Lars Noah

University of Miami Law Review

More than a dozen years have passed since the U.S. Supreme Court decided that federal preemption protects manufacturers of generic (but not brand-name) drugs from most types of products liability claims. This seemingly arbitrary distinction sprang from a peculiarity in the regulations of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). That agency soon thereafter proposed to modify its rules in order to eliminate this asymmetry in how the implied preemption defense worked to bar inadequate warning claims, but its effort ultimately failed, while lower courts have confronted some creative efforts to circumvent the special protection enjoyed by generic drug manufacturers. …

"Fighting Words" And The First Amendment In Maine: State V. John W., Deborah J. Ross

Maine Law Review

On April 1, 1979, John W. was driving his car, accompanied by his sister Maria. The car was stopped by a police officer who requested John's license and registration. Maria asked the officer why they had been stopped. When the officer remained silent, Maria became abusive and was arrested for disorderly conduct. John demanded to know what was going on. Ordered to get back into his car, John began shouting at the police: "Hey, turn around and come back here;" "Hey, you fucking pig, you fuckin' kangaroo;" "Fuck you." John was arrested and convicted in a juvenile proceeding of disorderly …

The Development And Consequences Of The "Good Faith" Exception To The Exclusionary Rule And The Qualified "Good Faith" Immunity From Liability Under Section 1983, Philip M. Coffin Iii, Paul F. Driscoll

Maine Law Review

The remedies fashioned to redress violations of the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution continue to be the subject of much judicial, legislative, and scholarly inquiry. In striking the balance between the need to protect individual freedom and the need to protect society from criminal activity, the Supreme Court and Congress have developed two principal remedies for fourth amendment violations: the exclusionary rule and civil actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or under theories of constitutional tort. on the development of both of these remedies it is assumed that their effectiveness is the true measure of fourth amendment liberties. …

Disagreement And Historical Argument Or How Not To Think About Removal, Andrea Scoseria Katz, Noah A. Rosenblum, Jane Manners

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Scholars have debated the reach of the President’s power to remove government officers for over one hundred years. This old fight is now suddenly urgent as President Trump asserts far-reaching powers to control the federal bureaucracy and the Supreme Court transforms Unitary Executive Theory into caselaw. Yet the scholarly case for an indefeasible presidential removal power has never been weaker.

This Essay continues an ongoing conversation about how to read some critical early republic evidence about removal. It briefly recapitulates the stakes of the disagreement before offering in-depth analyses of developments in Pennsylvania removal practice, including a reading of the …

The Misuse Of Ratification-Era Sources By Unitary Executive Theorists, Jed Handelsman Shugerman

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This symposium essay suggests that, given an ostensibly originalist Supreme Court, the future depends on getting the past right. The unitary executive theory is approaching its political and doctrinal zenith in 2025, at the very moment it is approaching an evidentiary crisis. This essay details that crisis: a subset of misuses and misrepresentations of sources in the unitary executive scholarship. This subset focuses on serious misrepresentations of the Ratifications debates.

The Ratification debates appropriately have become the primary source of evidence for original public meaning, the dominant theory of originalism. The Ratification debates have always been a significant problem for …

James Baldwin And What U.S. Governments Owe Every American, Randall K. Johnson

Faculty Works

This book review looks at the life, work and impact of James Baldwin, a famous writer and civil rights activist that was born one hundred (100) years ago. It does so, for one of the first times in the field of law, by examining Baldwin’s influence on the legal system. The book review carries out its work by identifying Baldwin’s impacts upon U.S. law: before, during and after his public service career. In the process, this book review describes how governments can build on Baldwin's writings and advocacy work.

Hate Groups And The Charitable Tax Exemption, Miriam Galston

UC Law Constitutional Quarterly

No abstract provided.

Originalism’S Stare Decisis Problem: The Place Of Precedent In Theories Of Interpretation, Arjan S. Heir

UC Law Constitutional Quarterly

Originalism is a prevalent approach to legal interpretation, and stare decisis is a prevalent legal doctrine. Yet, the two do not happily coexist. This article explores the role that stare decisis plays in originalism and living constitutionalism, with a focus on the doctrine’s impact on each theory’s integrity in both academic and lay circles.

Originalism runs into trouble on two levels. First, it is self-defeating in theoretical terms, as it treats stare decisis as a “pragmatic exception” to an interpretive theory premised on excluding policy considerations from legal analysis. Second, it undermines judicial legitimacy by failing to provide the public …

Familial Fairness: Guaranteeing The Right To Counsel For Indigent Parents In Juvenile Dependency Proceedings, Jake Toth

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

Fairness principles enumerated in the seminal case Gideon v. Wainwright stand for the proposition that fundamental fairness and due process require appointment of counsel for indigent litigants. However, this principle has been constrained to criminal contexts. Many other types of litigation are just as impactful as a criminal proceeding, including juvenile dependency proceedings. Nevertheless, indigent parents do not enjoy an unqualified representation right.

This Comment traces the history of the representation right and how it has been treated in a juvenile dependency context, beginning with Gideon itself and examining other cases such as Eldridge and Lassiter. It then examines …

Big Business As Gun Control, David B. Kopel, George A. Mocsary, Bhav Ninder Singh

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

Gun control increasingly bypasses direct legislative enactments by co-opting the commercial marketplace. Financial institutions and insurers often face regulatory pressures, frequently articulated through vague notions of “reputational risk,” to terminate or restrict services for lawful firearms businesses and advocacy groups. The debanking tactic, seen in initiatives such as Operation Choke Point, can deny essential financial products to firearm owners, merchants, and organizations, curtailing the practical exercise of constitutionally protected rights. Simultaneously, government agencies sometimes pursue warrantless data collection from bank records and merchant category codes, building profiles of lawful purchasers and eroding privacy and due-process norms.

Social media platforms compound …

Dangerous And Unusual: How Heller’S Ahistorical Assumption Violates The Founders’ Original Intent, Oliver Krawczyk, Gilbert Ambler

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

When the U.S. Supreme Court ended its generational silence on the Second Amendment in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court held that “a prohibition of an entire class of ‘arms’ that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society” is “invalid.” In so holding, the Court suggested that the Constitution protects only those weapons “in common use at the time,” a limitation thought to be “fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’” The Court defined none of these terms then, and it has not since.

Over a decade of constitutional infidelity ensued. …

Just To Be Safe, Let’S Keep Ignoring What “Arms” Meant In 1791, Jack Thorlin

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

The Supreme Court held in District of Columbia v. Heller and reaffirmed in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen that “arms,” referred to in the Second Amendment, are common weapons useful for lawful purposes. The majority argued that militiamen fought with whatever common weapons they had on hand for civilian purposes, such as self-defense and hunting. Therefore, under Heller, only those weapons are covered by the Second Amendment. However, Heller did little to ground the “self-defense” theory of “arms” in original public meaning or even actual history. Commonality and lawful purpose have proved difficult for lower …

Exorcising Hobbes’S Ghost: A Future For Constitutional And International Law, Monica Hakimi

Michigan Law Review

A review of Law for Leviathan: Constitutional Law, International Law, and the State. By Daryl Levinson.

Lessons For The Trump Administration From The Biden U.S. National Strategy To Counter Antisemitism, Lili Levi

Articles

In May 2023, the Biden Administration issued the first-ever U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism [hereinafter National Strategy] with a goal of hindering further normalization of antisemitism by increasing public awareness of antisemitism and highlighting positive Jewish contributions to America. Recent events, however-particularly the social and political upheaval over protests of the war in Gaza-have led to public contestation over Israel, increased instances of antisemitism, and the partisan politicization of Jewish issues. Now, the Trump Administration explicitly purports to fight antisemitism by widespread attacks on universities over antisemitism on campus. Does this mean that the National Strategy has become anachronistic, …

Put Me In, Coach: Constitutional Concerns Of Judicial Activism And Legislating From The Bench, Jacob M. Elliott

Senior Honors Theses

Unrestrained judicial activism and legislating from the bench at the Supreme Court level place federalism and freedom in jeopardy. By ignoring crucial doctrines like jurisdiction, deference, and independence, the Supreme Court has demonstrated a tendency toward reinterpreting existing Constitutional precedent as they see fit, basing judgments on extra-legal influences, and supplanting Constitutional principles with their own personal policy preferences.

Numerous cases demonstrate the looming threat of judicial overreach; these cases are often considered some of the most damaging and injurious decisions in the history of the American federal judiciary. One potential solution is to appoint justices who will operate …

Constitutional Failure, Erwin Chemerinsky

Michigan Law Review

A review of The Constitution of the War on Drugs. By David Pozen.

Exorcising Hobbes's Ghost: A Future For Constitutional And International Law, Monica Hakimi

Faculty Scholarship

Daryl Levinson wants to liberate constitutional law from the ghost of Thomas Hobbes. More than 350 years ago, Hobbes advanced a conception of law that, for all the efforts to move past it, continues to resonate. In the strictest iteration of the Hobbesian conception, law cannot exist apart from Leviathan, a sovereign state that is the “sole source of legal authority” in a defined territory. As the only possible source of law, Leviathan cannot itself be subject to law. “[I]t exercise[s] legally limitless power over its citizens and interact[s] with other Leviathans in a lawless international arena”. It is also …

Conservative Caution V. Progressive Originalism: How Justices Barrett And Jackson Are Paving Their Own Paths On The Court, David Rudenstine, Michael Waldman, Eric Freedman, Haiyun Damon-Feng, William D. Araiza, Mark Anthony Frassetto, Jake Meiseles, Michael Pollack, Linda Greenhouse, Earl M. Maltz

Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights & Social Justice

The Conservative Caution v. Progressive Originalism symposium, hosted by the Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights and Social Justice on March 7, 2025, brings together leading constitutional scholars to examine the emerging judicial philosophies of Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Through three expert panels—presidential immunity, gun rights, and judicial ideology—the symposium analyzes how both Justices are shaping contemporary originalist discourse from opposing ends of the ideological spectrum. Panelists explore the Supreme Court’s watershed decision in Trump v. United States (2024), emphasizing its unprecedented expansion of presidential immunity and its implications for separation of powers and democratic accountability. Discussions …

Springboard To Article V (Or Electoral Democracy And The End Of Constitutional Amendment In The Nation And States), Wilfred U. Codrington Iii

Articles

Drafted in exceedingly sparing terms and notoriously difficult to amend, the U S. Constitution is falling short in one of the most important functions of a government charter: establishing and maintaining a fair and just electoral framework-marked by rules that promote the values of equality, participation, competition, and transparency in elections. That is, the Constitution increasingly fails to preserve electoral democracy even as the nation's systems for voting and elections are plagued by a cascade of problems. State constitutions, though not uniform, are uniformly easier to amend than the national charter and tend to be better stewards of electoral democracy. …

The Misuse Of Ratification-Era Sources By Unitary Executive Theorists, Jed Handelsman Shugerman

Faculty Scholarship

This symposium essay suggests that, given an ostensibly originalist Supreme Court, the future depends on getting the past right. The unitary executive theory is approaching its political and doctrinal zenith in 2025, at the very moment it is approaching an evidentiary crisis. This essay details that crisis: a subset of misuses and misrepresentations of sources in the unitary executive scholarship. This subset focuses on serious misrepresentations of the Ratifications debates.

The Ratification debates appropriately have become the primary source of evidence for original public meaning, the dominant theory of originalism. The Ratification debates have always been a significant problem for …

Making Their Mark: Women Judges On The U.S. Courts Of Appeals, Laura P. Moyer, John Szmer, Susan Haire, Robert Christensen

ConLawNOW

Women who reach the bench in the U.S. Courts of Appeals have endured the gauntlet of law school, legal practice, and Senate confirmation to secure their prestigious place in the federal judiciary. How do these exceptional individuals approach their role in shaping judicial policy—and how do their colleagues receive their work? In this paper, we will draw on findings from an original dataset of published decisions from 2009-2016 that suggests that women judges invest more time and effort in crafting majority opinions than their male counterparts, but that this investment has a comparatively lower yield in influencing the development of …

From Civic Duties To Democratic Mandates: The Theoretical Framework Of Mill And Tocqueville On Compulsory Voting In The U.S., Olivia Claire Luttrell

Undergraduate Honors Theses

This thesis examines the treatment of jury duty and voting in the United States through the philosophical framework of John Stuart Mill and Alexis de Tocqueville. While jury duty is legally mandated, voting remains optional, despite both civic responsibilities being foundational to democratic participation. This research explores the historical, theoretical, and practical implications of voting becoming compulsory in the United States, as it is in other democratic nations. The analysis includes a comparative case study of the impact of Australia’s mandatory voting to evaluate whether it could become compulsory in the U.S. Both philosophers offer insightful knowledge on the role …

Criminal Contempt In Maine: Constitutionally Protected Or Neglected?, Christopher D. Hardy

Maine Law Review

The power to punish contempt of court is an ancient power justified as inherent and necessary for the effective administration of justice. Because criminal contempts are willful challenges to the power of a court to maintain control over its proceedings, contempts are acts which serve to lessen the dignity and authority of the court. Certainly, the maintenance of decorum in the courtrooms is of paramount importance. Absent the ability to sanction willful disobedience, a court is powerless to enforce its decrees or control its proceedings. Yet it is a power readily open to abuse; application of this power must be …

Presumptions Against Criminal Defendants, Affirmative Defenses, And A Substantive Due Process Interpretation Of County Court Of Ulster V. Allen, John C. Sheldon

Maine Law Review

In County Court of Ulster County v. Allen, the Supreme Court stated: "inferences and presumptions are a staple of our adversary system of factfinding." Because Allen concerned the constitutionality of the use against criminal defendants of such deductive devices as statutory inferences and presumptions, it appeared that the decision would ultimately favor their unrestricted use in criminal cases by the prosecution. Further, that expectation was buttressed by the ruling in Patterson v. New York, in which the Court awarded constitutional sanction to state use of affirmative defenses against criminal defendants. These facts suggested that the Court would refrain from imposing …

Ecarrots: Prison Control And Profits From Correctional Tablets, Justin Iverson

Nebraska Journal on Advancing Justice

In recent years, tablets have gained tremendous popularity behind bars for their ability to expand access to educational and rehabilitative services for people in prison. However, there are downsides to tablet implementation, including high costs at the expense of a captive population and shifting power dynamics resulting in possible volatility. This Article examines the use of correctional tablets in jails and prisons as mechanisms for administrative control and profit-making in an era of beleaguered correctional budgets. It also considers legal and policy implications related to the disproportionately negative impact of the introduction of tablets on people in poverty, increased dependency …