Digital Commons Network^™

Policing’S Free-Speech Problem, G. Alex Sinha

Utah Law Review

The central claim of this Article is that a significant share of typical policing activity is wildly and egregiously unconstitutional. More precisely, police regularly, predictably, and systematically violate the hardest, most settled core of free-speech law under the First Amendment. We have grown to tolerate these violations—we have not even noticed them!—because they are difficult to litigate. But they are inescapable. Having seen them, we cannot abide these violations without entirely overturning the modern understanding of free-speech rights under the First Amendment.

It is well-settled that, under the First Amendment, the government generally may not discriminate against (or in favor …

Not Demented Enough: Dementia And Competency To Stand Trial, Rashmi Goel

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Justice Kavanaugh’S Tee: What Is The Court Brewing?, Elijah J. Miller

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

A Constitutional Mandate To Adopt Avs, Kevin Frazier

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

The rapid advancement of autonomous vehicle (“AV”) technology presents a unique opportunity to enhance public safety by drastically reducing road fatalities. Despite significant private sector investment and demonstrated improvements in AV performance, public adoption and integration remain hindered by regulatory gaps and societal skepticism. This Article argues that the federal government has an affirmative obligation, rooted in the doctrine of a right to effective government, to champion the adoption of technologies like AVs that meaningfully promote the general welfare.

Drawing on the Preamble’s mandate to advance the general welfare and lessons from the transition from the Articles of Confederation to …

Trespass To Chattel And The Fourth Amendment, Will Baskin

Texas A&M Journal of Property Law

Like an adolescent maturing into adulthood, Fourth Amendment search doctrine has gone through phases. Scholars may debate the underlying principles that have governed each phase, but they agree that two Supreme Court decisions dominate the doctrine as it stands today: Katz v. United States and United States v. Jones. The younger of these two rivals, Jones, has caused its share of consternation. Courts have struggled to consistently apply its trespass-based test, despite the test’s seemingly simple formulation. This Note considers the Jones test in the context of personal property, or chattel, making two arguments: first, careful adherence to common-law principles …

An Examination Of The Standard Of Judgment For Court–Ordered Electroshock Therapy, Anna Irving

University of Miami Race & Social Justice Law Review

No abstract provided.

Medicaid Unwinding: Due Process Violations And Impacts In Florida, Emma Page

University of Miami Race & Social Justice Law Review

No abstract provided.

In Defense Of The Major Questions Doctrine, Louis J. Capozzi Iii

Notre Dame Law Review

The major questions doctrine, which requires agencies claiming important powers to identify clear authority from Congress, is transforming administrative law. Breaking with recent practice, the doctrine prevents the executive branch from issuing laws addressing pressing, novel issues without Congress’s affirmative consent.

In response, scholars have generally criticized the doctrine and questioned its legitimacy. Critics have alleged that the doctrine was fabricated by the Supreme Court without proper justification, is incapable of principled application, frustrates the intent of past Congresses to delegate broad power to agencies, aggrandizes judicial power, and hinders desirable executive branch lawmaking.

This Article disagrees with those criticisms …

May Federal Courts Answer Questions When Not Deciding Cases?, Benjamin B. Johnson

Notre Dame Law Review

Conventional wisdom says that Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement prevents federal courts from answering legal questions when they are not deciding cases. This is only partially correct. This Article shows conditions under which a federal court may answer questions even when not deciding a case. To do so, it traces the appellate power back to its origins in English common law courts and through the early American judiciary. For centuries, common law judges have answered questions sent to them by lower courts when doing so would help those lower courts to decide pending cases. In England, the “case stated” procedure facilitated …

The Common Law Of Constitutional Conventions, David E. Pozen

Faculty Scholarship

Professor Jill Lepore’s Jorde Symposium lecture paints a rich portrait of state constitutional conventions as engines of democratization during the 1800s and issues a dire warning about the United States’ ongoing amendment drought. Citing their unfamiliarity, however, Lepore declines to consider federal constitutional conventions as a possible corrective. In this response Essay, I argue: first, that Lepore’s marginalization of Article V’s convention mechanism is in tension with her own historical and normative account; second, that while Lepore’s wariness of conventions is entirely understandable given the state of our politics — and entirely commonplace among progressives — it carries significant risks …

Prescription For Failure: Public Nuisance Claims Against The Opioid Industry, Francis A. Citera, Julia Steiner

University of Miami Law Review

Opioids have been used both medicinally and recreationally since ancient times. While their recreational functions have long since been denounced, their medicinal value remains legitimate. Yet, since the pain management revolution began in the mid-1990s, many Americans have become opioid-dependent—fueling an illicit drug market and costing many lives. The tragedy that is today’s opioid epidemic has prompted robust federal and state legislative and regulatory interventions in both the legal and illicit opioid markets—albeit with mixed success. As these initiatives have been slow to quell the opioid crisis, public nuisance claims have taken center stage. After the Big Tobacco litigation invoked …

Perttu V. Richards: Brief Of Law Professors As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondent, Margo Schlanger

Appellate Briefs

Amici are professors of law who have studied, taught, and written about prisoner litigation and about rights to jury trials. They submit this brief to share their views, based on that experience, on the proper interpretation of the Prison Litigation Reform Act) in light of the important jury trial rights at stake and the practical realities of prisoner litigation.

Peeping Town: Drone Surveillance And The Exclusionary Rule In Long Lake Township V. Maxon, Stuart Massa

Northwestern University Law Review

For years, legal commentators have pondered the effect of the Fourth Amendment on drones, but purely as an academic exercise. No court had ever considered drone surveillance under the Fourth Amendment––until now. In Long Lake Township v. Maxon, a northern Michigan township flew a drone over a local resident’s home to gather photographic evidence of an alleged zoning violation. Relying on that evidence, the township sued to enforce its zoning ordinance. The resident moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the drone’s warrantless surveillance violated the Fourth Amendment. The case made it all the way up to the Michigan …

Brief Of Criminal Law Professors Andrea Roth And J.D. King As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioner, Lesh V. United States, U.S. Supreme Court Docket No. 24-654, David B. Owens

Court Briefs

QUESTION PRESENTED

Article III of the Constitution provides that “[t]he Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury.” And the Sixth Amendment provides that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions,” the accused shall enjoy the right to trial by jury.

The question presented is: Whether the Constitution’s dual guarantee of trial by jury contains an unstated exception for “petty” offenses.

First In Time Since Time Immemorial: Tribal Instream Rights Undercut Water Taking Claims, Paul Stanton Kibel, L. Victoria Wang

American Indian Law Journal

Courts have held that American Indian tribal fishery rights can give rise to tribal instream flow rights. They have also held that the curtailment of rights of diversion to protect fisheries under the Federal Endangered Species Act may give rise to potential takings claims under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. In its 2019 decision in Baley v. United States the federal circuit court of appeals held that minimum instream flows under the ESA were needed to fulfill American Indian tribal fishery rights, and these rights carried a priority date of “time immemorial” that was senior to any …

The Navajo Nation And The Colorado River: Their Current Statuses And The Tribe's Path Forward, Colton Gregg

American Indian Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Untenability Of Justice Clarence Thomas's Indian Law Jurisprudence: Confronting The Indian Commerce Clause To Address The Problem Of Historical Change In Federal Indian Law, Skylar Logan Wiseman

American Indian Law Journal

By viewing the Indian Commerce Clause as conferring only a modest grant of federal power over Indian affairs—a power limited solely to trade in the economic sense of the word—Justice Clarence Thomas has subjected the Court’s Indian law jurisprudence to a wide-ranging originalist critique that, if successful, would invalidate nearly all of federal Indian law. Justice Thomas’s efforts to locate plenary power within the metes and bounds of the Indian Commerce Clause are here revealed for what they really are: attempts at tenability and coherence in a field of law which simultaneously bolsters tribal sovereignty while restricting it in ways …

The Compact Clause And Cyberwar, Josie Laing

Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts

This article seeks to bring attention to the potential modern utility of Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3: the Compact Clause. This section of the Constitution has historically been archived. However, given cyberspace’s ever-growing prominence, the Compact Clause should be reconsidered as cyber warfare presents a novel opportunity for states to exercise their sovereign rights.

Section 10 restricts states’ powers to engage with foreign entities. Without the consent of Congress, states cannot enter into agreements with foreign powers or engage in war. These restrictions on states were necessary when the Constitution was drafted. To navigate foreign affairs nimbly, the United …

To Save Democracy From Juristocracy: J.B. Thayer And Congressional Power After The Civil War, Samuel Moyn, Rephael G. Stern

Faculty Scholarship

As many Americans once again worry that their democracy is hostage to judicial power, this Article is an archival reconstruction of how famed Harvard law professor James Bradley Thayer set out on a mission to stave off the syndrome before it stuck—though he failed in the end.

The Article shows how Thayer (1831–1902) arrived at his epoch-making theory of judicial deference to safeguard Congress’s power after the democratic revolutions of the Civil War and Reconstruction. Indeed, he hoped to see America transformed in the direction of British legislative supremacy, in which Parliament—and not the courts—reigned supreme. Scandalized by growing ventures …

Injunctive Restraint, Cassandra Burke Robertson

Faculty Publications

Preliminary injunctions against government action have evolved from extraordinary remedies into routine instruments of political contestation, with both Republican and Democratic administrations finding their initiatives halted by nationwide judicial orders. These injunctions serve vital functions in our constitutional system—preventing irreparable harm to fundamental rights and providing necessary checks on executive power in an era of congressional gridlock. Yet their increasing use has generated legitimate institutional concerns, particularly when a single district judge, often selected through strategic forum shopping, can unilaterally suspend national policies of significant importance. This Article examines this tension between the necessary role of nationwide injunctions in protecting …

The Eighth Amendment’S Paper Tiger: Pain, Executions, And The Cruel And Unusual Punishment Clause, Alexandra L. Klein

Scholarly Articles

The Eighth Amendment prohibits “cruel and unusual punishments.” This prohibition applies to the way states carry out executions: states may impose capital punishment but may not do so in a way that is unconstitutionally cruel. Over a trilogy of cases that began with Baze v. Rees in 2008, the Court developed a test for analyzing whether a state’s proposed method of execution violated the Eighth Amendment. Under Baze/Glossip/Bucklew, a person challenging a state’s method of execution must show that the method of execution poses a severe risk of “superadded” pain and suffering that can be alleviated by a readily …

Policing As General Warrants, Warren Buff, Brandon Hasbrouck

Scholarly Articles

The drafters of the Bill of Rights and its proponents envisioned a document constitutionalizing protections against some of the worst abuses they had experienced under English rule. Prominent businessmen—many of them engaged in smuggling— found their homes ransacked in search of contraband on flimsy evidence and without any reason given for the disruption of their business and consequent enrichment of government agents. The Fourth Amendment addressed the use of general warrants and writs of assistance to allow government agents to conduct broad searches with limited scrutiny. In the early years of the Constitution, this had little practical effect, because public …

Dobbs And The New Doctrine Of Stare Decisis, Russell A. Miller

Scholarly Articles

Alongside the historic and troubling annulment of the half-century-old Substantive Due Process right to abortion, Dobbs produced another significant outcome. To get its substantive constitutional law result, the Court’s majority also had to reconceive—and significantly weaken—the doctrine of stare decisis. This was necessary because, following Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, the constitutional right to abortion largely depended on respect for precedent as the basis for its survival. To overturn Roe, the Dobbs majority had to blast through the established practice of precedent and articulate a new doctrine of stare decisis. It seems that precedent was meant to …

Kennedy V. Louisiana And The Future Of The Eighth Amendment, Alexandra L. Klein

Scholarly Articles

In 2023, Florida passed a law permitting the imposition of the death penalty for the rape of a child under twelve. Tennessee enacted a similar law in 2024. These laws conflict with Kennedy v. Louisiana, a 2008 decision in which the Supreme Court held that imposing the death penalty for the rape of a child violated the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause because it was inconsistent with the evolving standards of decency. Legislators in Florida and Tennessee have expressed their hope that the Supreme Court will overrule Kennedy v. Louisiana. These laws, which resemble state attempts …

Book Review The Making Of A Justice: Reflections On My First 94 Years By John Paul Stevens, Stephen Wermiel

Book Reviews

The autobiography of Justice John Paul Stevens, published just a few months before he died, is an enticing travelogue for Supreme Court nerds. Other travelers may want to pick a different landscape.

In The Making of a Justice: Reflections on My First 94 Years, Stevens who died in July 2019, at age 99, spent 130 pages on his life before he joined the Supreme Court and then 394 pages describing the decisions during his thirty-four year as a Justice. Stevens was an agile writer and did as good a job as anyone can of making the narrative accessible, but it …

Through A Glass Darkly: How Securities Disclosures Give A Distorted View Of The Economy, Gerald F. Davis

Seattle University Law Review

Our understanding of the American economy often relies on stylized facts derived from mandatory disclosures by listed corporations. Data vendors like Standard & Poor’s vacuum up 10Ks and proxy statements into databases, and scholars distill these into tentative maps. This may have been adequate for a postwar economy centered on asset-heavy manufacturers, but it is increasingly out of step with an information-based economy. Companies listed on the stock market are fewer in number and less representative than they were, light in tangible assets and people, and heavy on IP. Basic facts such as what industry they are in are increasingly …

The Tenth Anniversary Of Marriage Equality: How Traditional Marriage Law Led To Constitutional Protection For Same-Sex Marriage, Joanna L. Grossman

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

This essay explores how the history of interstate marriage recognition law was central to the Supreme Court’s recognition of constitutional protection for the right of same-sex couples to marry. Prior to the 1990s, there were essentially no laws on same-sex marriage in the United States. That changed in the 1990s, when the Hawaii Supreme Court issued a ruling in Baehr v. Lewin that made authorization of same-sex marriage seem inevitable in that state. The threat fueled the adoption first of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996 and then mini-DOMAs in most states. Those laws were broad and …

Constitutional Theory And The Problem Of Disagreement, J. Joel Alicea

Scholarly Articles

For decades, constitutional theory has been haunted by the problem of disagreement: the reality that we are deeply divided on fundamental questions of justice and the good society. Theorists have generally responded to the problem of disagreement in one of two ways. One approach minimizes the extent to which constitutional theories rely on controversial moral premises and instead grounds constitutional theories in widely endorsed social practices. The other generally discards any social practices that reflect disagreement with the controversial moral views that the theorist holds.

Neither approach is sound. Constitutional theory requires both controversial moral claims and attention to social …

The Natural Law Moment In Constitutional Theory, J. Joel Alicea

Scholarly Articles

Something new is happening in American constitutional theory. Never before have so many legal scholars sought to ground constitutional theory in the natural-law tradition. Indeed, we can truly say that we are living through a natural-law moment in constitutional theory, a period of unprecedented interest in natural law among constitutional theorists. This immediately calls to mind three questions. First: how, if at all, are the theorists of this moment different from prior theorists who sought to ground constitutional theory in natural law? Second: what explains the rise of natural law in American constitutional theory? Third: what are the implications for …

Originalism And Truth-Telling: A Reply To Stephen Sachs, J. Joel Alicea

Scholarly Articles

Sachs focuses on my claim that a theory of constitutional adjudication needs to make a moral argument that justifies telling judges why they ought to decide constitutional disputes in a particular way rather than in some other way. Why be an originalist, for example, rather than a common-law constitutionalist? In answering that question, a theory of constitutional adjudication cannot depend exclusively on a positivist, descriptive account of what the law is—even if Sachs correctly identifies originalism as the law— because knowing that originalism is the “law” (in a positivist sense of “law”) does not tell us why anyone ought to …