Digital Commons Network^™

Iqbal And Supervisory Immunity, Kit Kinports

Faculty Scholarship

Prior to the Supreme Court’s 2009 decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, the federal courts generally acknowledged that high-ranking government officials could be held liable for the constitutional injuries inflicted by their subordinates, though they differed on the appropriate standard of supervisory liability. In Iqbal, the Supreme Court called this case law into question, holding that constitutional tort liability hinges on proof that each defendant, “through the official’s own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.” The Court’s cursory treatment of this issue, without the benefit of briefing or oral argument, was based entirely on the misguided assumption that the doctrine of …

On The Constitutionality Of Health Care Reform, Barak D. Richman

Faculty Scholarship

This commentary describes the legal challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Keeping The Commitment: Why California Should Maintain Consideration Of The Commitment Offense In Determining Parole For Life Inmates, Kathleen Noone

UC Law Constitutional Quarterly

The California prison system is currently in federal receivership because of overcrowding and failing to provide prisoners with sufficient medical care. The prison system is a mess, and the miniscule number of life inmates receiving parole each year is disheartening. In the California Supreme Court case In re Lawrence, the court took a step towards increasing the rate of parole for line inmates when it clarified that an inmate cannot be denied parole based solely on the severity of his or her commitment offense. Of course, a future court might go a step further and hold that the commitment offense …

Connecticut Yankee Speech In Europe's Court: An Alternative Vision Of Constitutional Defamation Law To "New York Times Co. V. Sullivan?, Allen E. Shoenberger

Faculty Publications & Other Works

Equitable Balancing In The Age Of Statutes, Jared Goldstein

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Introduction: Challenging The School-To-Prison Pipeline, Deborah N. Archer

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

What Does Graham Mean In Michigan?, Kimberly A. Thomas

Articles

In Graham v. Florida, the United States Supreme Court held that life without parole could not be imposed on a juvenile offender for a nonhomicide crime.1 In this context, the Graham Court extensively discussed the diminished culpability of juvenile criminal defendants, as compared to adults. The Court relied on current scientific research regarding adolescent development and neuroscience. While the narrowest holding of Graham has little impact in Michigan, the science it relies on, and the potential broader implications for adolescents in Michigan, are significant.

The Supreme Court's Post-Racial Turn Towards A Zero-Sum Understanding Of Equality, Helen Norton

Publications

The Supreme Court--along with the rest of the country--has long divided over the question whether the United States has yet achieved a 'post-racial" society in which race no longer matters in significant ways. How, if at all, this debate is resolved carries enormous implications for constitutional and statutory antidiscrimination law. Indeed, a post-racial discomfort with noticing and acting upon race supports a zero-sum approach to equality: if race no longer matters to the distribution of life opportunities, a decision maker's concern for the disparities experienced by members of one racial group may be seen as inextricable from its intent to …

Summum, The Vocality Of Public Places, And The Public Forum, Timothy Zick

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

What Are We Doing To The Children?: An Essay On Juvenile (In)Justice, Michael E. Tigar

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Innocence Commissions And The Future Of Post-Conviction Review, David Wolitz

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In the fall of 2006, North Carolina became the first state to establish an innocence commission – a state institution with the power to review and investigate individual post-conviction claims of actual innocence. And on February 17, 2010, after spending seventeen years in prison for a murder he did not commit, Greg Taylor became the first person exonerated through the innocence commission process. This article argues that the innocence commission model pioneered by North Carolina has proven itself to be a major institutional improvement over conventional post-conviction review. The article explains why existing court-based procedures are inadequate to address collateral …

Rising Seas And Common Law Baselines: A Comment On Regulatory Takings Discourse Concerning Climate Change, J. Peter Byrne

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In several recent cases considering claims that regulatory measures addressing rising sea levels violate the Takings Clause, courts have given significant normative weight to traditional common law rules, even when such rules have long been superseded by statutory provisions. This essay argues that giving analytic precedence to such common law baselines lacks justification and can pose serious obstacles to reasonable measures to adapt to climate change.

Panacea Or Pathetic Fallacy? The Swiss Ban On Minarets, Lorenz Langer

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

On November 29, 2009, Swiss voters adopted a ballot initiative introducing a constitutional ban on the construction of minarets. This Article provides a thick description of the minaret vote's context. A legal analysis addresses the implications of the ban under national, regional, and international normative frameworks. The Article argues that the ban is irreconcilable with the Swiss constitutional bill of rights and several international human right provisions. In Switzerland, however, respect for the vox populi potentially trumps any concern over conflicting international obligations, and there is no effective judicial review of initiatives. This lack of judicial review is partly a …

A Social Movement History Of Title Vii Disparate Impact Analysis, Susan Carle

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Ricci v. DeStefano suggests trouble ahead for disparate impact analysis under Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1991. Commentators, too, have begun to question the policy bases for this doctrine. Part of the current tenuousness surrounding disparate impact analysis, which the Court first approved in its 1971 opinion in Griggs v. Duke Power Company, stems from assumptions that the EEOC pursued this theory as a last-minute, ill-conceived afterthought that was not in keeping with Congress’s intent when it passed Title VII in 1964. In this Article I use the …

Leaps And Bounds, Nestor M. Davidson

Michigan Law Review

Imagine how stunted our understanding of the federal government would be without any detailed scholarly examination of the U.S. Constitution itself. As remarkable as that sounds, that is essentially the problem that Gerald Frug and David Barron have set out to remedy for local governments in their superb City Bound. In the book, Frug and Barron take a comprehensive, empirical look at the legal frameworks under which cities and other local governments operate, providing an invaluable roadmap for understanding the hidden architecture of legal constraints that-largely without notice-are shaping America's urban future. Why this kind of analysis has rarely been …

Administering The Second Amendment: Law, Politics, And Taxonomy , Nicholas J. Johnson

Faculty Scholarship

This article anticipates the post-McDonald landscape by assessing the right to arms in the context of several state regulations and the arguments that might be employed as challenges to them unfold. So far, the core test for determining the scope of the individual right to arms is the common use standard articulated in District of Columbia v. Heller. Measured against that, standard firearm regulations fit into three categories. The first category contains laws that are easily administered under the common use standard. The second category – and the primary focus of this article – consists of laws that can be …

The Right To Bear Arms: A Uniquely American Entitlement, Lawrence O. Gostin

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In District of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court held that individuals have a constitutional right to own firearms, notably to keep a loaded handgun at home for self-protection. The historic shift announced by Heller was the recognition of a personal right, rather than a collective right tied to state militias. In McDonald v. Chicago, the Supreme Court – in a familiar 5-4 ideological split – held that the 2nd Amendment applies not only to the federal government, but also to state and local gun control laws. In his dissent, Justice Stevens predicted that “the consequences could prove far more …

Carr V. United States: Brief Of Law Professors As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioner, J. J. Prescott

Appellate Briefs

Amici curiae are law professors who specialize in constitutional law, substantive criminal law, and criminal procedure. As law professors, amici have a particular interest in ensuring that the Ex Post Facto Clause of Article I of the United States Constitution is enforced in a manner consistent with its core historic goals and principles. The judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit violated these goals and principles, and it prescribed a peculiar new test for application of the Clause that significantly deviates from this Court's settled jurisprudence.

In this brief, amici explore the critical structural role of …

Replacing The Exclusionary Rule: Fourth Amendment Violations As Direct Criminal Contempt, Ronald J. Rychlak

Chicago-Kent Law Review

The exclusionary rule, which bars from admission evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures, is a bedrock of American law. It is highly controversial, but there seems to be no equally effective way to protect citizens' rights. This paper proposes that an admissibility standard be adopted that is in keeping with virtually every jurisdiction around the world other than the United States. Thus, before ruling evidence inadmissible, the court would consider the level of the constitutional violation, the seriousness of the crime, whether the violation casts substantial doubt on the reliability of the …

Fair Presentation And Exhaustion: The Search For Identical Standards, Jonah Wexler

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Police Paternalism: Community Caretaking, Assistance Searches, And Fourth Amendment Reasonableness, Michael R. Dimino, Sr.

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

States Of Resistance: The Real Id Act And The Limits Of Federal Deputization Of State Agencies In The Regulation Of Non-Citizens, Shirley Lin

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

The goal of this Article is to discuss the justiciability of issues arising under immigration federalism by examining the constitutionality of the REAL ID Act. Part I discusses states' authority over non-citizens and the history of "immigration federalism" jurisprudence. Part II explores key provisions of the REAL ID Act, the WHTI, and similar attempts by the federal government to deputize states to engage in citizenship-policing and immigration enforcement. It describes the acute social and economic segregation that the denial of driver's licenses to non-citizens engenders, and examines a number of theories that attempt to capture the impact of the current …

Foreword: Freedom Of Expression: "Precious Right" In Europe, "Sacred Right" In The United States?, Elisabeth Zoller

Indiana Law Journal

Symposium: An Ocean Apart? Freedom of Expression in Europe and the United States. This Article was originally written in French and delivered as a conference paper at a symposium held by the Center for American Law of the University of Paris II (Panthèon-Assas) on January 18-19, 2008.

Free Speech And National Security, Geoffrey R. Stone

Indiana Law Journal

Symposium: An Ocean Apart? Freedom of Expression in Europe and the United States. This Article was originally written in French and delivered as a conference paper at a symposium held by the Center for American Law of the University of Paris II (Panthèon-Assas) on January 18-19, 2008.

Freedom Of Expression In The United Kingdom Under The Human Rights Act 1998, Eric Barendt

Indiana Law Journal

Symposium: An Ocean Apart? Freedom of Expression in Europe and the United States. This Article was originally written in French and delivered as a conference paper at a symposium held by the Center for American Law of the University of Paris II (Panthèon-Assas) on January 18-19, 2008.

The United States Supreme Court And The Freedom Of Expression, Elisabeth Zoller

Indiana Law Journal

Symposium: An Ocean Apart? Freedom of Expression in Europe and the United States. This Article was originally written in French and delivered as a conference paper at a symposium held by the Center for American Law of the University of Paris II (Panthèon-Assas) on January 18-19, 2008.

A Comparison Of The Freedom Of Speech Of Workers In French And American Law, Patrick Morvan

Indiana Law Journal

Symposium: An Ocean Apart? Freedom of Expression in Europe and the United States. This Article was originally written in French and delivered as a conference paper at a symposium held by the Center for American Law of the University of Paris II (Panthèon-Assas) on January 18-19, 2008.

Boumediene’S Quiet Theory: Access To Courts And The Separation Of Powers., Stephen I. Vladeck

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

At the core of Justice Kennedy's majority opinion in Boumediene v. Bush are his repeated suggestions that habeas corpus is an integral aspect of the separation of powers, and that, as such, the writ remains relevant even when the individual rights of those who would seek its protections are unclear. And whereas some might view these passages as little more than rhetorical flourishes, it is difficult to understand the crux of Kennedy's analysis - of why the review available to the Guantanamo detainees failed to provide an adequate alternative to habeas corpus - without understanding the significance of his separation-of-powers …

The European Convention On Human Rights And Church-State Relations: Pluralism Vs. Pluralism, Françoise Tulkens

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Why The French Laïcité Is Liberal, Patrick Weil

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.