Digital Commons Network^™

Liberty, Judicial Review, And The Rule Of Law At Guantanamo: A Battle Half Won, Douglass Cassel

Journal Articles

In Boumediene v. Bush, 128 S. Ct. 2229 (2008), five members of the Supreme Court held that foreign prisoners at Guantanamo enjoy the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus; that their imprisonment had lasted too long for the Court to await completion of statutory review by lower courts of military tribunal findings that the prisoners were "enemy combatants"; and that the statutory judicial review was too deficient to substitute for the Great Writ.

Four Justices vigorously dissented. On the surface they differed on the history of the reach of the common law writ of habeas corpus, and on the procedural …

Heller And Insurrectionism, Carl Bogus

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Overcoming Lochner In The Twenty-First Century: Taking Both Rights And Popular Sovereignty Seriously As We Seek To Secure Equal Citizenship And Promote The Public Good, Thomas B. Mcaffee

University of Richmond Law Review

Professor McAffee reviews substantive due process as the textual basis for modern fundamental rights constitutional decision-making. He contends that we should avoid both the undue literalism that rejects the idea of implied rights, as well as the attempt to substitute someone's preferred moral vision for the limits, and compromises, that are implicit in and intended by the Constitution's text. He argues, moreover, that we can largely harmonizethe variousgoals of our constitutionalsystem by taking rights se- riously and by understanding that securing rights does not ex-haustthe Constitution'spurposes.

Parker V. District Of Columbia: Putting The "I'S" In Milita, Katharine E. Kohm

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Taking Denial Seriously: Genocide Denial And Freedom Of Speech In French Law, Sévane Garibian

Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution

The French National Assembly's adoption of a bill penalizing the denial of the Armenian genocide (October 12, 2006), later followed by the German plan to outlaw genocide denial throughout European Union, stoked the vigorous French debate on the connection between genocide denial and law and, more generally, between history and law. The main criticism expressed by the detractors of laws against negationism - in particular historians - is the following: penalization of denial constitutes a violation of freedom of expression and, as such, represents a threat to democracy.

Boumediene V. Bush, The Great Writ, And The Power To “Say What The Law Is”, Emily Garcia Uhrig

McGeorge School of Law Scholarly Articles

No abstract provided.

The Measure Of Government Speech: Identifying Expression's Source, Helen Norton

Publications

States and other governmental bodies increasingly invoke the government speech defense to First Amendment challenges by private parties who seek to alter or join what the government contends is its own expression. These disputes involve competing claims to the same speech: a private party maintains that a certain means of expression reflects (or should be allowed to reflect) her own views, while a public entity claims that same speech as its own, along with the ability to control its content.

In suggesting a framework for approaching these problems, this Article starts by examining the theoretical and practical justifications for insulating …

Government Workers And Government Speech, Helen Norton

Publications

This essay, to be published in the First Amendment Law Review's forthcoming symposium issue on Public Citizens, Public Servants: Free Speech in the Post-Garcetti Workplace, critiques the Supreme Court's decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos as reflecting a distorted understanding of government speech that overstates government's own expressive interests while undermining the public's interest in transparent government.

In Garcetti, the Court held that the First Amendment does not protect public employees' speech made "pursuant to their official duties," concluding that a government employer should remain free to exercise "employer control over what the employer itself has commissioned or created." …

Why Protect Private Arms Possession? Nine Theories Of The Second Amendment, Michael S. Green

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Limiting Federal Agency Preemption: Recommendations For A New Federalism Executive Order, William Funk, Thomas Mcgarity, Nina A. Mendelson, Sidney Shapiro, David Vladeck, Matthew Shudtz, James Goodwin

Other Publications

The structure of the U.S. Constitution reflects a profound respect for the principles of federalism and state sovereignty. These principles require the federal government to recognize and encourage opportunities for state and local governments to exercise their authority, especially in areas of traditional state concern such as the protection of the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens. However, over the last six years there has been a coordinated Executive Branch effortto use the regulatory process to shield certain product manufacturers from state tort liability. The Food and Drug Administration, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and Consumer Product Safety Commission, …

A Shot Heard 'Round The District: The District Of Columbia Circuit Puts A Bullet In The Collective Right Theory Of The Second Amendment, Amanda C. Dupree

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

No abstract provided.

Grand Jury Discretion And Constitutional Design, Roger Fairfax

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

The grand jury possesses an unqualified power to decline to indict - despite probable cause that alleged criminal conduct has occurred. A grand jury might exercise this power, for example, to disagree with the wisdom of a criminal law or its application to a particular defendant. A grand jury might also use its discretionary power to send a message of disapproval regarding biased or unwise prosecutorial decisions or inefficient allocation of law enforcement resources in the community. This ability to exercise discretion on bases beyond the sufficiency of the evidence has been characterized pejoratively as grand jury nullification. The dominant …

The Assumptions Behind The Assumptions In The War On Terror: Risk Assessment As An Example Of Foundational Disagreement In Counterterrorism Policy, Kenneth Anderson

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

This 2007 article (based around an invited conference talk at Wayne State in early 2007) addresses risk assessment and cost benefit analysis as mechanisms in counterterrorism policy. It argues that although policy is often best pursued by agreeing to set aside deep foundational differences, in order to obtain a strategic plan for an activity such as counterterrorism, foundational differences must be addressed in order that policy not merely devolve into a policy minimalism that is always and damagingly tactical, never strategic, in order to avoid domestic democratic political conflict. The article takes risk assessment in counterterrorism, using cost benefit analysis, …

The Outrageous God: Emotional Distress, Tort Liability, And The Limits Of Religious Advocacy, Jeffrey Shulman

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

When Matthew Snyder died fighting for his country, his memory was celebrated, and his loss mourned. The Westboro Baptist Church conducted a celebration of a different kind by picketing near Matthew’s funeral service. The church held signs that read, “You are going to hell,” “God hates you,” “Thank God for dead soldiers,” and “Semper fi fags.” In the weeks following the funeral, the church posted on its website, godhatesfags.com, an “epic” entitled “The Burden of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder.” Matthew’s burden, as the church saw it, was that he had been “raised for the devil” and “taught to defy …

What Yoder Wrought: Religious Disparagement, Parental Alienation And The Best Interests Of The Child, Jeffrey Shulman

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Despite its grounding in a specific and peculiar set of facts, the strict scrutiny mandate of Wisconsin v. Yoder (decided in 1972) has changed the constitutional landscape of custody cases - - and it has done so in a way that is unsound both as a matter of law and policy. Following Yoder, most courts require a showing of harm to the child, or a substantial threat of harm to the child, before placing any restrictions on exposure to a parent’s religious beliefs and practices. This harm standard leaves children in an untenable position when parents compete for “spiritual custody,” …

Risky Business: Massachusetts V. Epa, Risk-Based Harm, And Standing In The D.C. Circuit, Amanda Leiter

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Overview Of Post-9/11 Barriers To Free Speech And A Free Press, Nadine Strossen

Articles & Chapters

No abstract provided.

"The Perpetuation Of Our Political Institutions": Lincoln, The Powers Of The Commander In Chief, And The Constitution, Michael Les Benedict

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Imagining Gun Control In America: Understanding The Remainder Problem Article And Essay, Nicholas J. Johnson

Faculty Scholarship

Gun control in the United States generally has meant some type of supply regulation. Supply restrictions ranging from one-gun-a-month schemes to flat gun bans cannot work without a willingness and ability to reduce total inventory to levels approaching zero ("the supply-side ideal"). This is an impossible feat in a country that already has 300 million guns tightly held by people who think they are uniquely important tools. The average defiance ratio in places that have attempted gun confiscation and registration is 2.6 illegal guns for every legal one. In many countries defiance is far higher. None of those countries has …

Summary Of Douglas Disposal, Inc. V. Wee Haul, Llc, 123 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 51, Nevada Law Journal

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

No abstract provided.

Suspension And The Extrajudicial Constitution, Trevor W. Morrison

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

What happens when Congress suspends the writ of habeas corpus? Everyone agrees that suspending habeas makes that particular - and particularly important - judicial remedy unavailable for those detained by the government. But does suspension also affect the underlying legality of the detention? That is, in addition to making the habeas remedy unavailable, does suspension convert an otherwise unlawful detention into a lawful one? Some, including Justice Scalia in the 2004 case Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Professor David Shapiro in an important recent article, answer yes.

This Article answers no. I previously offered that same answer in a symposium essay; …

Japanese Prefectural Scapegoats In The Constitutional Landscape: Protecting Children From Violent Video Games In The Name Of Public Welfare, Susan Minamizono

San Diego International Law Journal

Part I of this comment will examine the history and application of freedom of expression in Japanese case law and the evolution of the public welfare concept and its circumscribing effect on individual freedoms. Part II will explore the recent local regulatory efforts and the historical underpinnings for these laws that place restrictions on materials to children. Part III will compare the Japanese legislative endeavors with their American counterparts and highlight the reasons why United States laws will continue to be struck down by courts. Part IV will analyze the response of the video game industry to the onslaught of …

The Glass Half Full: Envisioning The Future Of Race Preference Policies, Leslie Yalof Garfield

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

Justice Breyer's concern that the Court's June 2007 ruling in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District. No. 1 "is a decision the Court and nation will come to regret" is not well founded. Far from limiting the constitutionally permissible use of race in education from its present restriction to higher education, the case may allow governmental entities to consider race as a factor to achieve diversity in grades K-12. In Parents Involved, which the Court decided with its companion case, McFarland v. Jefferson County Public Schools four justices concluded that school boards may never consider race when …

The Constitutional Right To Watch Television: Analyzing The Digital Switchover In The Context Of The First Amendment , Eugene Ho

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Regulatory Preemption: Hearing Before The S. Comm. On The Judiciary, 110th Cong., Sept. 12, 2007 (Statement Of David C. Vladeck, Geo. U. L. Center), David C. Vladeck

Testimony Before Congress

No abstract provided.

Responsible Freedom Under The Religion Clauses: Exemptions, Legal Pluralism, And The Common Good, Angela C. Carmella

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Asset Freezing Of Islamic Charities Under The International Economic Emergency Powers Act: A Fourth Amendment Analysis, David Klass

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Rule Of Law Conference: Global Issues And The Rule Of Law, Lord Chief Justice Nicholas Phillips Of Worth Matravers

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Adding Colors To The Chameleon: Why The Supreme Court Should Adopt A New Compelling Governmental Interest Test For Race-Preference Student Assignment Plans, Leslie Yalof Garfield

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

When the Supreme Court ordered the City of Birmingham to desegregate its schools in 1954, it failed to consider the long range implications of its mandate. School districts across the country responded to the Court’s order by adopting race-preference school assignment plans, created to designate the particular public elementary or secondary school a student should attend. Now that these plans have successfully achieved their goals of desegregating classrooms, the question has become whether the continuation of the very programs that helped achieve those goals remain legal? In other words, as Justice Ginsburg recently said in arguments before the Supreme Court, …

Abu-Madigam V. Israel Land Administration, Salim Joubran, Edna Arbel, Miriam Naor

Translated Opinions

Facts: In response to large scale incursions onto state land in the Negev by Bedouins and their planting of agricultural crops on that land, the respondents decided to destroy the crops by spraying herbicide from the air. The petitioners challenged this policy on the grounds that the spraying of herbicide was done ultra vires and also endangered the health and dignity of Bedouins in the vicinity of the spraying. The respondents denied that the herbicide used presented any risks to health.

Held: (Justice Joubran) The respondents have no power under the law to spray herbicide in order to prevent incursions …