Digital Commons Network^™

The Federal Government Cannot Prohibit The Exercise Of A Core State Sovereign Function: Haaland V. Brackeen And Expanding The Anticommandeering Doctrine, George Bach

UC Law Constitutional Quarterly

The Tenth Amendment’s anticommandeering doctrine limits the ability of the federal government to issue directives to state legislative bodies and executive officials. While the Supreme Court’s path through the Tenth Amendment has been less than direct, New York v. United States and United States v. Printz clarified that the federal government cannot “commandeer” state legislatures or executives to implement federal policy. While the core of the Court’s approach to anticommandeering remains focused on halting congressional efforts to press state agents into implementing federal regulatory programs, the Haaland v. Brackeen decision may be read to expand the anticommandeering principle. That is, …

Beyond Jarkesy: Rethinking The Role Of Administrative Law Judges In Sec Administrative Proceedings, Mark T. Uyeda, Jaime Marinaro

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

No abstract provided.

Pitching For Reform: Cangrejeros' Push To Level The Legal Playing Field By Challenging Baseball's Antitrust Exemption, Justin P. Chaljub

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

For over one-hundred years, professional baseball has enjoyed an antitrust exemption unique among American major sports leagues, stemming from Supreme Court decisions in Federal Baseball and its progeny. This exemption has significantly influenced the evolution and structure of Major League Baseball (MLB). Despite extensive criticism and challenges for judicial and legislative reform, the exemption persists today.

However, new efforts have emerged to comprehensively disrupt this framework. In 2023, Nostalgic Partners was brought and structured to reach the U.S. Supreme Court. Plaintiffs anticipated they would lose at the lower court levels and garnered widespread support for the Court to grant a …

Unpacking The 2024 Minnesota Era Language: A Litigator's Perspective, Jess Braverman

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Unconstitutionality Of Governor Youngkin's Felon Re-Enfranchisement Scheme (Or Lack Thereof): An Examination Of Hawkins V. Youngkin'S Challenge To Virginia's Current Felon Re-Enfranchisement Scheme, Olivia Rovin

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

This Note argues that Governor Youngkin’s felon re-enfranchisement “scheme” violates the Constitution. Ultimately, I will be evaluating the argument made in Hawkins v. Youngkin, formerly known as Nolef Turns v. Youngkin, noting its strengths and its weaknesses. Part I describes both American history and Virginia’s specific history of denying people convicted of felonies their right to vote. It also details the Supreme Court case, Richardson v. Ramirez, in which the Court held that denying people convicted of a felony the right to vote is constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. Part I also gives a brief history …

The Reedy Creek Improvement District: A Comparative Analysis Underscoring The Problems In Hampering Special Districts, J. Patrick Moll

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

In 2022, the Florida legislature passed a bill that removed the administration of the Reedy Creek Improvement District, the special district governing the Walt Disney World Resort. The bill replaced it with the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District. Governor Ron DeSantis hailed this legislation as a success in reigning in a corporation operating with unchecked and unprecedented levels of governmental authority. Since its inception, however, the replacement administration has contended with claims of ethical violations, inefficiency, and unconstitutional enactment. Before the repeal of the Walt Disney World special district, special districts themselves were not often present in the Nation’s everyday …

War Courts: Fdr, National Security, And The War On Terrorism, Harvey Gee

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

No abstract provided.

Lewd, Rude, Obscene, And… Violent? Analyzing Student Clothing Depicting Firearms Under The First Amendment’S Obscenity Test, Luke Gorman

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

Today’s national news and social media have repeatedly exposed our school-age children to the effects of shootings occurring within their schools and communities. Each shooting brings with it commentary, sometimes from the students themselves. While in-school student speech is more limited than speech levied in the outside world, students do not shed their speech rights at the “schoolhouse gate.” As a result, courts have failed to outline a consistent approach for when a student will be punished for wearing a shirt depicting a firearm to school. This Comment addresses this delicate balance by proposing a consistent three-part test framed by …

Internet Search Engines’ Privacy Violations And The Lack Of Federal Regulation To Protect Consumers Rights, Elsa M. G. Rodriguez Ogando

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

The United States’ current legal framework regarding internet search engines is disadvantageous to consumers. Federal privacy laws (although not encompassing search engines) grant businesses a strong legal basis in privacy claims and alibies for arbitrary behavior; these laws favor businesses over consumers. Moreover, state privacy laws empower nonspecific agencies to oversee privacy matters and enforce consumers’ rights. Thus, the U.S. privacy legal framework is in need of a new federal law that establishes consumers’ rights, as well as a federal agency dedicated solely to privacy matters. This Article proposes a federal law recommendation based on the standards of the California …

The Violence Of Bright Lines, Terrell Woolfolk, Kathryn E. Miller

Fordham Law Review

The U.S. Supreme Court interprets the Eighth Amendment to prohibit members of certain groups from serving extreme punishments, such as the death penalty and life without parole. For example, the Court has long banned death sentences for people with intellectual disability and for those who were under eighteen years old at the time of their crime. More recently, in Graham v. Florida and Miller v. Alabama, the Court extended this reasoning to sentences of life without parole for those under eighteen—prohibiting the sentence altogether for nonhomicide crimes and barring its mandatory imposition for homicides.

Many scholars and advocates have …

"A Plain Denial”: Reclaiming Equal Protection In American Juvenile Law, Addie C. Rolnick, David S. Tanenhaus, Justin Iverson, Danielle L. Silvestri

Scholarly Works

Juvenile courts are based on the premise that children are different from adults and should therefore be treated differently. Children may be treated more informally by courts, punished for different purposes, and brought before the court for different behaviors. Since In re Gault, the Supreme Court has been clear that there are limits to how different juvenile courts can be. Juveniles are entitled to many of the same procedural protections as adult criminal defendants, although the Court has preserved some procedural differences where it has determined that their benefit is outweighed by the need to preserve the informality, flexibility, …

Structuring The President’S Removal Power: An Agency-Specific Approach, Peter Margulies

American University Law Review

Recent Supreme Court decisions have taken a broad view of the President’s power to remove executive branch officials. According to the Court, the President’s Article II obligation to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” generally requires that the President have authority to remove officials at will. The Court has thus far declined to overrule Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, a 1935 decision upholding “forcause” restrictions on removal for multi-member “quasi-judicial” bodies such as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Nonetheless, recent Court decisions have eroded the rationale in the earlier case, which has received additional attention because of efforts …

Minor V. Happersett, Dobbs V. Jackson Women's Health Organization, And The Supreme Court's Refusal To Reconstruct America, Henry L. Chambers, Jr.

Law Faculty Publications

One hundred and fifty years ago, in the wake of the ratification of the Reconstruction Amendments, the United States Supreme Court decided Minor v. Happersett. In Minor, the Court ruled Missouri could continue to deny women the right to vote based on their sex. The decision was simply reasoned. In the absence of clear constitutional text requiring Missouri to provide the right to vote to women or proof that the right to vote was a right of citizenship, Missouri had no obligation to allow women to vote. Some states had banned women citizens from voting since the country’s founding. Missouri …

State V. Brown, 314 A.3d 576 (R.I. 2024), Sarah Egan

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Integration Over Institutionalization: Addressing Rhode Island’S Institutionalization Of Developmentally Disabled Children Through An Olmstead Compliance Framework, Anna Macgillivray

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Miserly Message Of Grants Pass, Meghan J. Ryan

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

The Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Grants Pass v. Johnson condoned states’ attempts to police homeless encampments. This was a significant blow to unhoused individuals and their allies. But the Court’s opinion also continued its march away from the longstanding evolving-standards-of-decency approach in Eighth Amendment cases. Grants Pass was something of an odd case in which to grant certiorari, but it served as an opportunity for the Court to send a quiet message that it would continue narrowing the Eighth Amendment’s scope. As in other recent cases, the Court applied a more historical approach than the one traditionally used in …

Rethinking Juror Impartiality, Anna Offit

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

Jury impartiality in the contemporary court often justifies the perpetuation

of exclusionary selection practices that make juries more—not less—biased.

This Article calls for a rethinking of this important but flawed concept. Constitutional

interpretations and conceptions of “impartiality” frame it as a transient

orientation toward particular evidence or parties. Yet, during voir dire, the prevailing

conception of jury impartiality is that it is an immutable character trait

that must be discovered—if not created—by professional legal actors. What voir

dire creates is not an impartial jury, but precisely the opposite: a venire shaped

by the strategic biases of lawyers.

This Article offers …

Fear And Free Speech, Helen Norton

Publications

No abstract provided.

Takings Doctrinalization, Gerald S. Dickinson

Washington and Lee Law Review

The U.S. Supreme Court’s takings jurisprudence is shaped by an unusually strong reliance on doctrinalist methods of interpretation and reasoning. From Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon to Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York to Kelo v. City of New London, the Court heavily consults its past takings decisions or refers to the tests, principles, or standards from those decisions as epistemic guides to draw meaning from the Takings Clause. This long history of takings doctrinalization, however, was abruptly disturbed in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard. There, Justices Scalia and …

Is Federal Question Jurisdiction Arising Or Setting, Lumen N. Mulligan

Faculty Works

In this essay, I respond to Professor Arthur D. Hellman. Hellman argues that "there is reason to be concerned that the [federal] judicial system falls short of the Framers' expectations--primarily by denying many litigants in cases presenting federal questions 'their real day in an Article III court,' but also by fostering 'balkanization' rather than uniformity in the interpretation of federal law." It is a privilege to comment upon Hellman's thoughtful piece. In doing so, I begin by questioning the value of originalist interpretations of Article III jurisdiction both descriptively and normatively. I then turn to an intra-originalist critique that paints …

Standing On Slippery Ground: Pfas Products, Article Iii Standing, And The Case For Legislative Action, Bren J. Chaisson

Student Competition & Published Writings

Can implementing a new statute fix the standing obstacle that many cases involving per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) face? PFAS are a classification of thousands of common chemicals that cause a variety of adverse health effects. Hardwick v. 3M Co. highlighted the issue plaintiffs have with establishing standing when bringing forth a case. The plaintiff’s alleged injury was the presence of five specific PFAS in his bloodwork. The 6 th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff, a firefighter who often used PFAS-contaminated foam, was unable to demonstrate that the defendants, several PFAS manufacturers, were responsible for the PFAS …

Severability And Liberty, Randy J. Kozel

Journal Articles

In US federal courts and the courts of many states, the presumption of statutory severability leads judges to separate a statute’s unlawful elements from its lawful ones. This article contends that the presumption becomes problematic when the effect of severing is to restrict the constitutional rights of a group whom the legislature exempted from regulation. Presumptive severability draws on a conception of judicial review that aspires to minimize interference with enacted legislation. But there is a countervailing constitutional interest in protecting exempted groups from restrictions on their liberty unless and until the legislature directs otherwise. It is these competing strands …

What Is Trump Immunity?, Carlos Manuel Vázquez

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In Trump v. United States, the Supreme Court held that a former President is entitled to an immunity in criminal cases in certain circumstances. The decision has been heavily criticized, with many commentators saying it places the President above the law. Exactly how it does so depends on what type of immunity a former President enjoys. Is the immunity enjoyed by former Presidents in criminal cases an immunity from the operation of the primary obligations imposed by the criminal laws in question? Or is it an immunity from being subjected to certain types of sanctions for having violated validly …

Defeating Antisemitism In The World’S First Democratic Republic: The American Revolution And Jewish Legal And Political Equality, Paul Finkelman, Lance J. Sussman

Touro Law Review

At a moment when antisemitism is on the rise in the United States, we believe it is useful to consider how the American Revolution led to the first nation in the world where antisemitism was fundamentally contrary to the national constitution and Jews were entitled to full rights as citizens of the national government. As we explain in this article, during and after the Revolution, Jews were free to participate in all professions and general civic life, naturalize (if immigrants), vote, serve on juries, become lawyers and judges, become military officers, and attend universities. Jews had almost none of these …

“Digital Integrity”: Defending The Judicial Integrity In The Digital Age, Guy Alon, Doron Menashe, Guy Itzhak Sender

Touro Law Review

Recent revelations have shown that the protection of the Fourth Amendment in the digital age is inadequate. Despite well-known exclusionary rules regarding evidence obtained by illegal search and seizure, current trends in the digital age and the law of evidence resulted in courts that tend to include such evidence, and by doing so, create significant risk of both substantive and procedural errors and hence increase the potential for wrongful convictions. To address the matter and try to empower and modernize the protection given by the Fourth Amendment, this article suggests performing a revolution in the law of evidence in the …

Variable Standards: How Many Uninjured Class Members Are Acceptable?, Tom Flesher

Touro Law Review

Purchasers of canned tuna filed a class action against tuna producers after a price-fixing scheme raised prices above competitive levels. To be certified, a class must include only members who have suffered an injury, in this case by paying a higher price than they would have in the absence of price-fixing, but it was difficult to identify which plaintiffs were uninjured and should be excluded. Dueling statistical models failed to resolve this uncertainty, with one model suggesting up to one in every three class members was not injured at all. The Ninth Circuit nonetheless allowed this class to be certified, …

On Guido Calabresi, Roger K. Newman

Touro Law Review

Few individuals have had as long and as influential a career in law as Guido Calabresi. Cofounder of the field of law and economics, teacher, dean, and judge, he has inspired (and infuriated) multitudes. On the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, where he has served for thirty years (while continuing to teach until recently), his creativity and doctrinal innovations continue apace. He has urged the academy, legislature, and bench alike to engage in continuing conversation to improve the law and its effect upon those to whom it acts. One of these areas is certification—the practice of …

Unboxing The Box: A Deep Dive Into Solitary Confinement And When It May Violate The First And Eighth Amendments, Madison Scarfaro

Touro Law Review

Solitary confinement has been a practice used for those who are incarcerated in our criminal justice system for hundreds of years. Our nation, as well as our society have evolved and continue to evolve over the course of hundreds of years. However, the use of solitary confinement has not. Even with all of the research and literature surrounding the monstrosities that come about from solitary confinement, it is still used in most of our jails and prisons to this day. The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel …

The Problematic Nature Of Punishment For Secret Taping, Carol M. Bast

University of San Francisco Law Review

No abstract provided.

What Is The Standard Of Review For (Mixed) Constitutional Questions?, Anthony R. Sangiuliano, Mark Friedman

All Papers

According to the framework for selecting the standard of review in civil appeals developed in Housen v Nikolaisen, questions of mixed fact and law are reviewed on a standard of palpable and overriding error. This framework applies to allegations that a statute is constitutionally invalid. However, in Société des casinos du Québec inc v Association des cadres de la Société des casinos du Québec, the Supreme Court held that when a statute is challenged as unconstitutional before an administrative tribunal, questions of mixed fact and law are subject to a correctness standard on judicial review as an exception to the …