Digital Commons Network^™

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

Scholarly Works

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 …

Facial Recognition Technology And The First Amendment, Joseph A. Tomain

Articles by Maurer Faculty

The growing ubiquity of facial recognition technology (FRT) is a problem. While much has been written on harmful government use of FRT, little has been written regarding harmful private actor use. This Article helps fill a gap in the literature by providing a detailed analysis of the First Amendment interests at stake when private actors use FRT. Specifically, this Article analyzes whether laws that limit the use of publicly available photographs to create faceprints for inclusion in FRT databases violate the First Amendment rights of private actors.

In May 2025, a multidistrict litigation against Clearview AI, an FRT company, offered …

Video Analytics And Fourth Amendment Vision, Andrew Guthrie Ferguson

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

What does the Fourth Amendment have to say about video analytics running on citywide camera systems? Video analytics (also known as computer vision) involves hardware and software in cameras that turns video surveillance streams into useful data, identifying, categorizing, matching, and alerting police about objects, people, and incidents. Video analytics can identify objects (e.g., hat, backpack, person, car) and track that person or thing back in time and through the streets using video surveillance footage. For police officers conducting virtual patrols or retrospective investigations, video analytics lets police scan thousands of linked cameras for suspicious behavior or a particular suspect, …

Loper Bright And The Great Writ, Anthony G. Amsterdam, James S. Liebman

Faculty Scholarship

Chevron deference is dead. The Court’s forty-year, seventy-decision experiment with Article-III-court deference to “reasonable” agency interpretations of ambiguous federal statutes failed, killed in part by concern that it unduly curbed the “judicial Power” to enforce the rule of law in the face of politics, partisanship, and mission-driven agency decision-making.

“AEDPA deference” lives. The Court’s twenty-five-year, seventy-two decision experiment with Article-III-court deference to “reasonable” state-court interpretations of the Constitution under the 1996 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act continues to relegate criminal defendants to prison or death, notwithstanding federal habeas judges’ independent judgment that the state courts have misread or misapplied …

Restoring Unanimity To The Alabama Death Penalty, Daniel Butler Friedman

Articles & Chapters

In Alabama, one of the jurisdictions most responsible for executions in the United States, the death penalty statute contains a very unusual provision: juries can sentence defendants to death even if they are not unanimous. This is a surprising fact to many people, including lawyers, who largely believe that the U.S. Supreme Court eliminated non-unanimous juries in 2020. That provision is enormously important to the capital punishment regime in Alabama, where 80% of people on death row were sentenced non-unanimously. The law's history, however, is poorly understood. This article lays out that history, showing it to be part of the …

A Constitutional Right To Exclude Evidence, Colin Miller

Texas A&M Law Review

The Supreme Court has held that criminal defendants have a constitutional right to introduce evidence and a constitutional right to receive evidence, but it has never recognized a constitutional right to exclude evidence. Specifically, the Supreme Court has issued numerous rulings finding that the Due Process Clause demands that (1) defendants have the right to present a defense that trumps the rules of evidence; (2) the prosecution must disclose material exculpatory evidence to the defense; (3) the State has certain duties to preserve evidence so that it can be disclosed to the defense; and (4) any discovery obligations on defendants …

A Conversation With Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Brett M. Kavanaugh, J. Joel Alicea

Catholic University Law Review

On Thursday, September 26th, 2024, the Center for the Constitution and the Catholic Intellectual Tradition at The Catholic University of America hosted a conversation between Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh and Professor J. Joel Alicea. This was the inaugural event of the new Center. The conversation covered topics such as constitutional interpretation, the separation of powers, religious liberty, and the Catholic intellectual tradition. This is a transcript of the conversation, and the text appears substantially as it was delivered. The video of the event may be found at this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sKvSwzkmqo.

Colliding Doctrines: How Sffa V. Harvard Impacts Public University Officials' Legal Protections, Christo Fosse

University of Cincinnati Law Review

No abstract provided.

Deinstitutionalizing The Mentally Retarded In Maine: The Inevitable Face-Off With Zoning, Pamela D. Albee

Maine Law Review

In July 1978, agencies and officials of the State of Maine entered into a federal consent judgment which terminated a class action lawsuit that had dragged on for three years. The consent judgment in Wuori v. Zitnay detailed a comprehensive plan designed to bring about speedy and meaningful relief to the plaintiff class: mentally retarded citizens of Maine involuntarily confined to Pineland Center, Maine's principal institution for the mentally retarded, and certain others who were conditionally released from Pineland and in community placements. The relief granted was a right to be provided the least restrictive and most normal living conditions …

Constitutional Issues Raised By The Civil-Criminal Dichotomy Of The Maine Oui Law, Bruce W. Smith

Maine Law Review

Moving to the forefront of a national trend, the Maine Legislature undertook a thorough reform of its operating under the influence (OUI) law in 1981. The new statute was billed "the toughest in the nation," largely because of a provision for mandatory prison sentences. The statute's most radical provision is not the mandatory prison term, however, but a section which gives prosecutors the option to treat less egregious first offenses as civil infractions rather than crimes. The section generates the broad issue addressed by this Comment: may trial by jury and other constitutional protections formerly afforded OUI defendants be denied …

Stitch Incoming: Lindke V. Freed’S Impact On Social-Media-Blocking Litigation, Clare R. Norins, Mark L. Bailey

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

Since at least 2016, social-media-blocking litigation against government officials who censor their online critics has been an evolving battleground for First Amendment rights of free speech and petition. In 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued its first substantive opinion on social media blocking, holding that government officials’ social media activity, even on a personal account, constitutes state action triggering constitutional scrutiny if (1) the official possessed actual authority to speak on the State’s behalf, and (2) purported to exercise that authority when she spoke on social media.

In this Article, we explain the Court’s novel two-part test for determining …

Corpus Linguistics And The Original Meaning Of The Sixth Amendment, Wesley White

BYU Law Review

The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right of an accused to have the assistance of counsel in a criminal prosecution. Put simply, under the U.S. Supreme Court’s current framework, an accused does not enjoy this right until the government has brought a formal charge. Thus, an accused who engages in plea bargaining before being formally charged is not guaranteed the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Many critics of this framework focus on the purpose of the Sixth Amendment to argue that the right to counsel should be guaranteed in pre-charge plea bargaining. Others point to policy concerns.

This Note is among …

Hanover Insurance Co. V. Hayward: Imposition Of Punitive Damages In Addition To Criminal Sanctions, David P. Silk

Maine Law Review

In Hanover Insurance Co. v. Hayward, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, addressed the issue whether punitive damages may be awarded against a defendant who has been criminally convicted for the conduct giving rise to the punitive damages claim. Although it affirmed the superior court's decision not to allow the award of punitive damages, the Law Court concluded that the imposition of criminal sanctions did not by itself bar punitive damages. Instead, the court indicated that criminal punishment is merely one factor to consider in determining whether an award of punitive damages would serve a meaningful …

The Status Of Jury Trial Waivers In Maine's District Court, Robert M. Knight

Maine Law Review

The power of a defendant to waive jury trial in state and federal criminal prosecutions has long been recognized. At the same time, when the offense charged is serious, i.e., one which invokes a federal constitutional right to jury trial, the United States Supreme Court has required a careful examination of the validity of such a waiver. The waiver rule applicable in Maine's superior court fully appreciates this strict waiver standard. Exercising its rulemaking authority, however, Maine's Supreme Judicial Court adopted a rule (effective in 1982) for waiver of jury trial in the state's district court which seemingly obscured the …

Deadlocked Juries And The Allen Charge, Karen Pelletier O'Sullivan

Maine Law Review

Juries in cases requiring a unanimous verdict have three alternatives: a guilty verdict, a not guilty verdict, or no verdict for lack of unanimity. Deadlocked juries have long created a problem for efficient judicial administration. Early common law judges carried hung jurors around in oxcarts until a verdict "bounced out." More recent methods of forcing jurors to reach verdicts have included requiring them to deliberate all night and threatening to deprive them of water and heat. A more subtle method of encouraging jurors to reach verdicts is a trial judge's supplemental instruction to deadlocked jurors. A verdict-urging instruction is commonly …

Restraining The Prosecutor: Restrictions On Threatening Prosecution For Civil Ends, James A. Trowbridge

Maine Law Review

Prosecutors in some cases agree to dismiss criminal charges, admit a defendant to a diversion program, or enter a nolle prosequi in exchange for the defendant signing a waiver of any civil claims against law enforcement agents, governments, or private persons. The practice of a prosecutor bargaining for the release of law enforcement personnel or others from civil liability raises serious questions concerning the independence of the prosecutorial function, the relationship of prosecutors to other legal institutions, and the application of rules of professional responsibility. Generally, courts have been critical of these arrangements. The Model Code of Professional Responsibility (Code) …

In Re Daniel C.: Reunification Efforts And The Termination Of Parental Rights, James W. Claus

Maine Law Review

In In re Daniel C., the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, affirmed an order terminating a father's parental rights pursuant to title 22, section 4055 of the Maine Revised Statutes. The issue on appeal concerned the effect of a failure by the Department of Human Services (DHS) to make efforts toward family reunification. The appellant, Daniel C.'s father, Everett Co., argued that the DHS failed to make adequate reunification efforts as required by title 22, section 4041 of the Maine Revised Statutes and that this failure precluded the termination of his parental rights. The Law Court …

In Re Caulk: A Prisoner's Right To Die—The Factor Of Intent, Laurence H. Leavitt

Maine Law Review

In prisons throughout the United States, prisoners commonly use hunger strikes as an avenue of protest to make personal demands, to call attention to poor prison conditions, or to make various political statements. Prisoners typically choose this route because they view their own bodies as one of the few things over which they actually have control and because the extreme slowness of a hunger strike gives others the chance to meet their political or personal demands. When confronted with such attempts at starvation, prison officials almost invariably have resorted to force-feeding the hunger strikers, although in recent years some prison …

State V. Durepo: Toward A Principled Maine Version Of The Impeachment Exception To The Exclusionary Rule, Andre D. Bouffard

Maine Law Review

As one might have anticipated, the broad substantive mandates of the major Warren Court exclusionary rule decisions have not been left completely intact by later Supreme Court decisions. Instead, the scope of the evidentiary exclusionary doctrine established by the Warren Court has been significantly narrowed by later Supreme Court decisions that have created numerous exceptions to the general command of the exclusionary rule that evidence obtained through unconstitutional means is inadmissible in a criminal trial. Although some members of the present Court argue that the exceptions to the exclusionary rule are consistent with the purposes of the rule, and therefore …

State V. Farnham: The Defendant's Exercise Of The Right To Stand Trial As Negative Character Evidence, Richard F. Buckley

Maine Law Review

A defendant in a criminal case may not receive a more severe sentence because he exercised his sixth amendment right to stand trial. However, determining when a court has more severely sentenced a defendant for exercising his constitutional right to a jury trial is a difficult task. Some argue that a defendant's choice to stand trial is relevant to the sentencing process as character evidence. The decision to stand trial, the argument goes, indicates a defendant's lack of remorse and an unwillingness to take the first step toward redemption by admitting his guilt. Others take the position that consideration in …

Public School Integration Of Children With Handicaps After Smith V. Robinson: "Separate But Equal" Revisited?, Robert J. Goodwin

Maine Law Review

Under the direction of Chief Justice Burger the United States Supreme Court has issued several opinions limiting the availability of federal causes of action. While one benefit of this trend may be a reduction in the volume of federal litigation, the costs may include the limitation of substantive federal rights. The recent Supreme Court decision in Smith v. Robinson narrowly construed the availability of certain federal causes of action, and it illustrates how such a ruling, although procedural on its surface, in reality can operate to erode substantive rights. In Smith the Court concluded that a handicapped child could not …

State V. Boilard: Are Jury Instructions On Statutory Defenses Essential To A Fair Trial?, Kristin A. Gustafson

Maine Law Review

In State v. Boilard, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, recently addressed the question of when the failure to instruct the jury regarding a defense available under the Maine Criminal Code constitutes error. The court held that the trial court's failure to give an instruction on the defense of justification did not rise to the level of obvious error. The court reasoned that because the instruction conflicted with the defendant's theory of defense, and because counsel for the defendant did not claim error at trial or on appeal, any argument that the defendant had been prejudiced …

The Primacy Method Of State Constitutional Decisionmaking: Interpreting The Maine Constitution, Glen S. Goodnough

Maine Law Review

The past fifteen years have witnessed the steady growth of both the theory and practice of state constitutional law. Initial inquiry focused on whether state supreme courts should provide their residents more expansive substantive and procedural rights under their state constitutions than required by United States Supreme Court interpretations of the federal Constitution. Given the plethora of state constitutional decisions expanding rights beyond the federally required minimum, or "floor," it is apparent that a large number of state supreme courts have settled the question of whether they will in fact interpret their state constitutions in such a manner. Nevertheless, lingering …

Federal Agency Nonacquiescence: Defining And Enforcing Constitutional Limitations On Bad Faith Agency Adjudication, Christopher C. Taintor

Maine Law Review

A leading authority in the field of administrative law has posited that "[t]he availability of judicial review is the necessary condition, psychologically if not logically, of a system of administrative power which purports to be legitimate, or legally valid." There is no question that judicial review is an imperfect check on agency action: it is susceptible to criticism for, on the one hand, the excessive limitations on its exercise, and on the other for the arguably inferior level of understanding from which courts must approach matters uniquely within the competence of particular administrators. Nonetheless, the courts remain "the acknowledged architects …

State V. Harding: Municipal Police Authority And The Fresh Pursuit Statute, David S. Schuman

Maine Law Review

As early as 1551, during the reign of King Edward VI, courts held at common law that, except in cases of fresh pursuit, the power of a sheriff or justice of the peace does not extend beyond his jurisdiction. Recognizing the importance of jurisdictional boundaries as limits on a sheriff's authority, the Barons of the Exchequer denounced the possibility of "two several sheriffs in one same county," observing that "in this realm there are divers authorities, and none may exceed his limits or bounds." Modern state statutes setting forth the powers of local police continue to limit the extra-jurisdictional authority …

The Denial Of Bail Under Maine's "Proof Evident Or Presumption Great" Standard, Maureen Dea

Maine Law Review

When the framers of the Maine Constitution gathered in Portland in the fall of 1819, they decided that the document, unlike the Massachusetts Constitution on which it was based, should guarantee a right to bail pending trial. The convention adopted, apparently without debate or dissent, the following provision as part of the Declaration of Rights in article I . . .

Venality: A Strangely Practical History Of Unremovable Offices And Limited Executive Power, Jed Handelsman Shugerman

Notre Dame Law Review

The Roberts Court has asserted that Article II’s “executive power” implied an “indefeasible” or unconditional presidential removal power. In response to counterevidence from the Founding era, unitary executive theorists have claimed a “British Backdrop” of a general removal power under the English Crown and European “executive power.” These assumptions are incorrect.

This Article shows that many powerful executive officers through the late eighteenth century, especially high English Treasury offices and even “department heads” in the cabinet, were unremovable. A long common law tradition protected many English offices as freehold property rights. Moreover, this Article explains why it was widely understood …

Roving Extraterritoriality: The Murky Doctrine On State Laws Regulating Absent Citizens, Leo Schlueter

Notre Dame Law Review

It is generally agreed that sovereigns have the power to punish the crimes of their citizens abroad, at least in some situations. But sovereigns rarely exercise this power, and its contours are not well understood. This is especially true in the context of American federalism. It is unclear to what degree states have retained their sovereign extraterritorial powers, and the Supreme Court has never had occasion to fully explain their limits. Recent political developments, however, make it plausible that the question will soon arise. This Note attempts to provide some insight into the future debate over state criminal extraterritorial jurisdiction …

Teaching Dobbs: On The Role Of Ideology In Constitutional Interpretation, Steven J. Heyman

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

Imperfect Protection Against Perfect Enforcement: When Procedure Is Not Enough, William S. Fallon

Connecticut Law Review

Government technology that exclusively detects illegal conduct is per se constitutional. Today, the Fourth Amendment provides no protection—zero—against government technology that identifies illegality without also revealing private, innocent behavior.

Meanwhile, alarmingly, government is rapidly developing—and deploying— technology that bypasses the need to examine private, innocent behavior in its detection of wrongdoing. Government can know there is contraband in your bedroom drawer without the need to rummage through that drawer, your home, or any of your private information and possessions. Government can know there is illegal content on your phone without the need to search through that phone or any of …