Digital Commons Network^™

In Re Debra B.: The Best Interest Standard In Court-Authorized Sterilization Of The Mentally Retarded, Sheila M. Donahue

Maine Law Review

Pursuant to the Due Process in Sterilization Act of 1982, Maine courts may hear petitions for sterilization of the mentally retarded. In In re Debra B., a mother petitioned to have her mentally retarded daughter sterilized. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, vacated the order granting the petition. In a unanimous opinion, the court held that a finding of procreative capability is a sine qua non for determining whether sterilization is in an incompetent person's best interest. Through its holding, the court thereby extended the statute's clear and convincing standard of proof to a factor not …

The Provisional Application Of International Agreements, Martin A. Rogoff, Barbara E. Gauditz

Maine Law Review

The last few decades have seen a tremendous increase in the number of international agreements concluded by states and international organizations. The pace of concluding international agreements is accelerating and will most likely continue to accelerate at an increasing rate. The growing reliance on international agreements by the members of the world community is of course a response to rapidly expanding international interactions and interdependencies. Until the latter part of the nineteenth century, international agreements dealt primarily with political matters: peace treaties, treaties of alliance and friendship, neutrality treaties, and treaties settling territorial claims. Today, international agreements deal not only …

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 . . .

The Constitution Without Tears, Gene Carter

Maine Law Review

The coming plethora of Bicentennial speeches and activities are intended to provide occasions for public figures and private persons to say something helpful to a current and realistic understanding of the role of the Constitution in our daily lives; and, hopefully, something at least modestly expository of our duties as citizens of American constitutional democracy.

A Genealogy Of Founders, Frank M. Coffin

Maine Law Review

Two hundred years ago this spring George Washington wrote to our fellow Mainer, General Henry Knox, that because of the illness of his mother he would not be able to attend the Philadelphia Convention. If her health had not speedily improved, we might have had quite a different kind of Bicentennial, for both Washington and Benjamin Franklin, though largely silent in the debates, were palpable sources of strength. As it is, we have the happy occasion to celebrate what Everett Ladd has called "the expression of a nation-defining consensus on political values," our nationalizing principle, the one supreme bond linking …

Interstate Commerce And Personal Jurisdiction In Flux: A Critical Analysis Of Mallory V. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. And Its Effects On Business Litigation, Mairi Cooley

University of Miami Business Law Review

This Note examines the implications of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., advocating for legislative intervention by Congress to mitigate its adverse effects on interstate commerce. The Court revived a pre-International Shoe v. Washingtonprecedent, validating a Pennsylvania statute that imposes general personal jurisdiction on non-resident businesses registered in the state. Justice Gorsuch’s majority opinion, supported by a diverse coalition of Justices, underscored the constitutionality of the statute under the Due Process Clause, with Justice Jackson emphasizing the principle of jurisdictional waiver via business registration. Conversely, Justice Alito’s concurrence, while agreeing on …

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 …

The Trouble With Classifications, Aziz Z. Huq

Notre Dame Law Review

The Supreme Court relies increasingly on anticlassification rules to implement the Constitution’s various commands of evenhanded state treatment. These rules direct attention to whether an instance of a forbidden classification is present on the face of a challenged law. They contain two necessary steps. First, a court defines a general category of impermissible terms. Second, a court ascertains whether an instance of the category is found in enacted text—so triggering the familiar strict scrutiny analysis. So defined, anticlassification rules now dominate equal protection, free speech, “dormant” Commerce Clause, and even free exercise jurisprudence. The Roberts Court celebrates these doctrinal tests …

A Uniform Choice? Esas And The State Right To Education, Hadiah C. Mabry

Notre Dame Law Review

Education savings accounts (ESAs) are on the rise. Just since 2023, ESAs have been on the legislative docket in Alabama, Georgia, Iowa, Montana, Ohio, Texas, Tennessee, and Wyoming, with ESAs already active in eleven other states. These programs provide funds directly to parents on a per-child basis which can be used on any number of educational pursuits. While ESAs are relatively young in the world of school choice, they are also the natural outgrowth of a greater push toward educational freedom for parents. They join the ranks of more established programs like school vouchers, tax credits, and charter schools.

Unlike …

The Lost History Of Judicial Restraint, Derek A. Webb

Notre Dame Law Review

For over 125 years, jurists and scholars who have championed judicial restraint have looked back to James Bradley Thayer’s 1893 Harvard Law Review article, The Origin and Scope of the American Doctrine of Constitutional Law, as the seminal authority for the rule that courts should presume the constitutionality of a challenged law and only invalidate it if its unconstitutionality is “clear” and “beyond a reasonable doubt.” But Thayer presented those three rules (presumption of constitutionality, clear error rule, and reasonable doubt standard) as rooted in historical legal practice in America. And yet none of his twentieth or twenty-first century …

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 …

Teaching Constitutional Law In A Crisis Of Judicial Legitimacy, William Baude

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

On Teaching Constitutional Law: Challenges And Opportunities, Christopher W. Schmidt

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

Teaching Constitutional Change, Carolyn Shapiro

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

From Constitutional Law To Constitutional Change, Steven D. Schwinn

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

Power To The People: Finding Solutions To Partisan Gerrymandering In A Post-Rucho World Through Independent Redistricting Commissions, Paul T. Ansani

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

Whatcha Gonna Do When They Come For You? Assessing The Damage Associated With The Rise Of Reality Tv Policing And Proposing Avenues For Accountability And Reform, Danielle Taylor

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

Teaching Law Amidst Convulsive Doctrinal Change, Harold J. Krent

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Broken Shield: Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel Claims In Cases Of Racist Defense Attorneys, Sophia Sabet

Fordham Law Review

Defense attorneys are not immune to racism, and a defense attorney who holds racist beliefs about their client’s race fundamentally calls into question the representation received. Under the Sixth Amendment, all criminal defendants have the right to the effective assistance of counsel. To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Strickland v. Washington that a criminal defendant must prove that their counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficiency prejudiced the defense. The Supreme Court supplemented the Strickland standard in Cuyler v. Sullivan and United States v. Cronic, holding that a conflict …

The Ugly Rhetoric Of Dobbs, Or, Why Jack Balkin Is History, Andrew Koppelman

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Essay has three claims. First, I want to emphasize an underappreciated ethical virtue elicited by the practice of rhetoric: it demands that the speaker get out of his own head and focus on his audience and what they care about. History matters because it speaks to us. It tells us who we are and why we are doing what we are doing. The rhetorical deployment of historical narrative in political discourse can help to forge a collective identity in which we all can recognize ourselves, and so make the polity more inclusive. Second, if this aspect of rhetoric is …

Originalism's Selection Problem, Darrell A.H. Miller

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Essay examines the problem of selection with any originalist theory and what it means for constitutional adjudication. Part I surveys the major branches of originalism, explains how each share a commitment to the pursuit of objective, knowable, falsifiable fact, and then use that fact as a fixed point to constrain discretion. Part II discusses how each of these theories are vulnerable to methodological challenges familiar to all empirical projects. Part III explores the implications of these methodological challenges for originalism in particular and for constitutional doctrine and theory more generally.

This abstract has been taken from the author's introduction.

The Right To Inequality: Conservative Politics And Precedent Collide, Jonathan P. Feingold

Connecticut Law Review

The “end of affirmative action” is the beginning of this story. In Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (SFFA), the Supreme Court struck a near fatal blow to race-consciousness. Many institutions have since pivoted to “race neutral alternatives.” This is a natural turn. But one that faces immediate headwinds.

The same entities that demanded Harvard pursue racial diversity through colorblind means have sued public high schools for doing just that. These litigants assert a “right to inequality”—a theory that would pit the Equal Protection Clause against equality itself. Even if normatively jarring, a right to inequality might seem a natural …

Defining Law But Not Justice, Franciska Coleman

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

How Not To Teach Criminal Law, Evan D. Bernick

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Constitutional Case Against State-Controlled Fact-Checking: A Case Comment On Kunal Kamra V. Union Of India, Abhinav Ravi, Aravind Sundar

National Law School of India Review

The Bombay High Court in Kunal Kamra v Union of India struck down the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2023, which had established a centralised fact-checking unit to issue takedown orders against social media posts that were identified as “fake or false or misleading”. The Rules threatened the safe harbour protection of social media intermediaries for failing to adhere to such takedown orders. The Court held that the establishment of the fact-check unit violates the rights of free speech, profession and equality under the Indian Constitution. This article explores the free speech implications of …

Constitutionalism, Social Justice, And Social Contract: Unpacking The Debate On Scheduled Caste Reservation For Christian And Muslim Dalits, Arvind Kumar

National Law School Journal

This article examines the constitutional, historical, and political debates surrounding the demand for extending Scheduled Caste (SC) status to Christian and Muslim Dalits in India. Drawing on Constituent Assembly Debates, archival materials, judicial decisions, government affidavits, petitions, and my previous scholarship, it challenges the claim that SC reservation was originally conceived as religion-neutral. The article argues that SC reservation emerged as a specific pre-constitutional agreement rooted in the Poona Pact and designed to address the historical injustice of untouchability within Hindu society. Its provisions were subsequently extended to Sikh and Buddhist converts under particular historical and political circumstances but did …

In The Name Of Tradition: A Comparative Study On Nonestablishment, Sungmin Cho

Washington Law Review

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the government from establishing a state religion. The U.S. Supreme Court has developed different tests to determine whether a government action complies with this principle. Over the past few decades, the Court gradually turned to whether the challenged practice is consistent with the history and tradition of the nation.

Meanwhile, the separation of church and state is not a notion unique to the United States. After centuries of Confucian monarchy, Korea drafted a modern constitution with a similar provision. Nevertheless, the Constitutional Court of Korea has upheld …

We Are All Cafeteria Originalists Now (And We Always Have Been), Jack M. Balkin

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In Memory and Authority, I argue that Americans, both in politics and in constitutional culture, are "‘cafeteria originalists.’ They pick and choose when to follow the views of the founders, framers, or adopters (as they understand them) and often artfully recharacterize these principles to support contemporary political and legal arguments.” Like customers in a cafeteria who take the chocolate cake and leave the boiled kale, Americans pick the features of the framers they like to support their arguments, and leave other, less savory, features behind.

[...]

My central claim is that cafeteria originalism is not a pathology or a …