Digital Commons Network^™

Idea Manifestation Determination Review As Restorative Practice, Matt Saleh, Barbara J. Hickman, Angela M. T. Prince, Lawanda H. Cook, Jackie Bickford, Kristie Chu, Erika Kitsantas

Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity

This article examines the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which guarantees students with disabilities access to a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE). The IDEA aims to provide equal educational opportunities for students with disabilities, addressing inequitable exclusions from public schools. Despite its protections, including procedural safeguards like the Manifestation Determination Review (MDR), which prevents unjust removal due to disciplinary actions, students with disabilities remain disproportionately affected by suspensions, expulsions, and arrests, with these disparities exacerbated by race, poverty, and other intersectional factors. The essay highlights compliance concerns with the MDR, particularly its inconsistent …

Rethinking The Fundamentals: Applying The Evolving Standards Of Decency Test To The Court’S Evaluation Of Fundamental Rights, Nick Wolfram

Student Scholarship

In 1910, the Supreme Court recognized in Weems v. United States that a constitution “must be capable of wider application than the mischief which gave it birth.” This principle led to the creation of the Court’s two-pronged “evolving standards of decency,” test: (1) evidence of an objective indicia of a national consensus, and (2) the reviewing court’s own independent judgment. To this day the Court has yet to apply this test outside of the Eighth Amendment context. But can the “evolving standards of decency,” test identify and protect other fundamental rights? This Article explores how the Court could apply the …

"Exceedingly Unpersuasive” - Discrimination, Transgender Students, And School Bathrooms, Mark Dorosin

Journal Publications

This Article is organized chronologically, in an effort to more effectively reflect the nearly identical fact patterns, timelines, and intersecting opinions of these cases. Part I provides the factual background of both cases. Part II summarizes the substantial preliminary litigation in Grimm; Part III examines the district court ruling in Adams; Part IV analyzes the summary judgment ruling in Grimm. Part V covers Adams’ first appellate ruling; Part VI discusses the Fourth Circuit’s ruling in Grimm three weeks later, and Part VII considers the aftermath of that decision. Parts VIII and IX explore the second panel ruling in Adams and …

Constructing Confrontation: Between Constitutional And Evidence Theory, Michael S. Pardo

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The United States Supreme Court’s decision in Crawford v. Washington was significant as a matter of both constitutional and evidence law. From a constitutional perspective, the opinion was significant because of its “original public meaning” approach to interpreting the text of the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause. From an evidentiary perspective, the opinion was significant in recognizing a doctrinal rule that potentially excludes evidence in criminal trials that would otherwise be admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence as well as State evidence laws. This Essay explores Crawford and the subsequent Confrontation Clause cases from these distinct perspectives—illuminated by constitutional and …

“A Hot Day In Iqaluit”? Environmental Rights In Canada’S Constitutional Cul-De-Sac, Stepan Wood

All Faculty Publications

Proposals to include an explicit right to a healthy environment in Canada’s constitution have been advanced since the early 1970s, but Canada is stuck in a decades-long impasse that precludes substantial constitutional amendment. This article uses the metaphor of the cul-de-sac to explore the prospects for legal recognition of environmental rights in this situation. It canvasses past efforts to entrench general and Indigenous environmental rights in Canada’s constitution, introduces culs-de-sac metaphorical and real, and highlights the irony of one commentator’s 2005 quip that it will be “a hot day in Iqaluit” when Canada’s constitution undergoes significant amendment. It then surveys …

Cost Prohibitive Bonds As Denial Of Justice: Grassroots And Community Organizations’ Due Process Rights, Elizabeth Royal, Aletta Brady

Mitchell Hamline Law Journal of Public Policy and Practice

No abstract provided.

Can Policing Be Purged Of White Supremacy? A First Amendment Inquiry, Jessica Tilton

Mitchell Hamline Law Journal of Public Policy and Practice

No abstract provided.

The Mad Hatter’S Quip: Looking For Logic In The Independent State Legislature Theory, Nicholas Maggio, Foreword By Brendan Buschi

Touro Law Review

The Supreme Court is set to hear a case that threatens the bedrock of America’s democracy, and it is not clear how it will shake out. The cumbersomely named “Independent State Legislature Theory” is at the heart of the case Moore v. Harper, which is before the Supreme Court this term. The theory holds that state legislatures should be free from the ordinary bounds of state judicial review when engaged in matters that concern federal elections. Despite being defeated a myriad of times at the Supreme Court, the latest challenge stems from a legal battle over North Carolina’s redistricting maps. …

Mental Health In Prison: The Unintended But Catastrophic Effects Of Deinstitutionalization, Felicia Mulholland

Touro Law Review

Prisons and jails are not adequately equipped to manage the ever-growing population of mentally ill inmates. Despite deinstitutionalization efforts, prisons have steadily become the new psychiatric hospitals and unfortunately, because of the lack of treatment and the ability to properly supervise this population of inmates, these individuals are dying by their own hands at an alarming rate. This Note argues that the lack of proper care for mentally ill inmates is a violation of their constitutional right, despite their incarcerated status. The Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) should incorporate more concrete and universal rules and regulations for the …

Lost In The Thicket, Brad Snyder

Touro Law Review

As part of a symposium on his biography of Felix Frankfurter, Democratic Justice, Brad Snyder revisits Baker v. Carr and explores the contrasts between Justice William Brennan’s judicially supremacist majority opinion and Frankfurter’s departmentalist dissent and unheeded warnings about empowering the judiciary. As Frankfurter wrote in his Baker dissent, he placed more faith in the U.S. Congress, as opposed to the judiciary, to protect democracy.

Pandemics Of Limitation Of Rights, Rinat Kitai-Sangero

Touro Law Review

This Article discusses the limitation of rights due to pandemics. It analyzes from a constitutional standpoint the holding of the German Federal Constitutional Court (Das BUNDESVERFASSUNGSGERICHT) from April 2022 as a symptom of moral panic disguised through an analytical process. Though it focuses on this case, it sheds light on the moral panic that characterized many countries’ approaches during the COVID-19 pandemic. On April 27, 2022, the German Federal Constitutional Court held that a provision to provide proof of vaccination against COVID-19, recovery from COVID-19, or a medical exemption to COVID-19 vaccination as a condition of employment in the health …

Revocation At The Founding, Jacob Schuman

Michigan Law Review

The Supreme Court is divided over the constitutional law of community supervision. The justices disagree about the nature of a defendant’s liberty under supervision, the rights that apply when the government punishes violations, and the relationship between parole, probation, and supervised release. These divisions came to a head in 2019’s United States v. Haymond, where the justices split 4–1–4 on whether the right to a jury trial applies to revocation of supervised release. Their opinions focused on the original understanding of the jury right at the time the Constitution was ratified.

This Article aims to settle the debate over …

The Consumer’S Choice To Boycott, Agnes Bresee

Seattle University Law Review

In the wake of employees losing their jobs upon voicing their political opinions concerning Israel, Harvard and Columbia law students’ job offers being rescinded upon expressing support for Palestine, and the names and social media profiles of individuals who support Palestine being collected and listed on Canary Mission, such backlash may leave many Americans wondering what form of resistance to settler-colonialist apartheid is acceptable in the twenty-first century. Recently, the movement to collectively boycott brands like Starbucks, which sued its Worker’s Union for a tweet expressing support for Palestine; Disney, which donated money to Israel; and McDonald’s, where a location …

A Different Approach To Agency Theory And Implications For Esg, Jonathan Bonham, Amoray Riggs-Cragun

Seattle University Law Review

In conventional agency theory, the agent is modeled as exerting unobservable “effort” that influences the distribution over outcomes the principal cares about. Recent papers instead allow the agent to choose the entire distribution, an assumption that better describes the extensive and flexible control that CEOs have over firm outcomes. Under this assumption, the optimal contract rewards the agent directly for outcomes the principal cares about, rather than for what those outcomes reveal about the agent’s effort. This article briefly summarizes this new agency model and discusses its implications for contracting on ESG activities.

Overseeing The Administrative State, Jill E. Fisch

Seattle University Law Review

In a series of recent cases, the Supreme Court has reduced the regulatory power of the Administrative State. Pending cases offer vehicles for the Court to go still further. Although the Court’s skepticism of administrative agencies may be rooted in Constitutional principles or political expediency, this Article explores another possible explanation—a shift in the nature of agencies and their regulatory role. As Pritchard and Thompson detail in their important book, A History of Securities Law in the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court was initially skeptical of agency power, jeopardizing Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR)’s ambitious New Deal plan. The Court’s acceptance …

The Sec, The Supreme Court, And The Administrative State, Paul G. Mahoney

Seattle University Law Review

Pritchard and Thompson have given those of us who study the SEC and the securities laws much food for thought. Their methodological focus is on the internal dynamics of the Court’s deliberations, on which they have done detailed and valuable work. The Court did not, however, operate in a vacuum. Intellectual trends in economics and law over the past century can also help us understand the SEC’s fortunes in the federal courts and make predictions about its future.

A Hard Pill To Swallow: The Abysmal Mental Health Standards Of Detained Immigrant Children In The United States, Rama Bankesly

Seattle University Law Review

After setting foot into the U.S., unaccompanied children must learn to navigate academic and legal systems while receiving little support and carrying the heavy burden of effects of trauma on their mental health. They need access to mental health care from qualified professionals, but as this Comment will explain, they systematically fail to receive care, as can be seen in cases like Doe v. Shenandoah Valley Juv. Ctr. Comm’n. In Shenandoah, an unaccompanied child arrived in the U.S. and was placed in a facility that failed to provide remotely adequate mental health care and in fact was subjected …

The Harlan Court: A Constitutional Alternate History, H. Jefferson Powell

Faculty Scholarship

Walter Dellinger shared the widespread perception that the Burger Court was characterized by “rootless activism” rather than principled constitutional adjudication, and for him this put in question the legitimacy even of decisions that reached outcomes he thought politically or morally desirable. To explain what was wrong with such decisions, he often imagined the Court as it might have been if Justice John Marshall Harlan, who died in 1971, had lived another decade, and inspired an era of constitutional decisions deeply rooted in constitutional tradition and characterized by careful adherence to legal method. This Essay seeks to explain Dellinger’s idea and …

Sieving Silence: The Communal Question And The Archive Of Indian Constitutional History, Kanika Gauba

National Law School Journal

This paper shows how the archive of Indian constitutional history limits access to constitutional disagreement. It attempts an alternative framing of the issue of political safeguards for religious minorities (‘the communal question’) as a triangle of disagreement among the Sikhs, the Anglo‑Indians, and Sardar Vallabhbhai Jhaverbhai Patel. However, the task is complicated by the silence in the official archives on all three actors. If, as critical historians argue, silence is the very condition of the archive and the writing of history, this paper argues that the historian must ‘sieve’ the inevitably silent archives of Indian constitutional history for perturbations, follow …

Legitimacy And The Major Questions Doctrine, Ronald M. Levin

Scholarship@WashULaw

Questions about the legitimacy of recent Supreme Court decisions are occupying an increasingly prominent place in public law discourse. Last February, a widely discussed feature in the New York Times quoted several well-known law professors' laments that multiple decision by the newly empowered conservative majority of the Court have departed so far from accepted constitutional premises that the professor could not figure out how to teach them to their students

...

With due respect to the Chief Justice, I will explain here why the MQD is itself among the few legal developments that I would describe as giving rise to …

The Riddle Of Race-Based Redistricting, Travis Crum

Scholarship@WashULaw

The Supreme Court has adopted divergent interpretations of the Equal Protection Clause as applied to race and redistricting. Vote dilution doctrine requires mapmakers to consider race to ensure that racial minorities are not packed or cracked. Congress, moreover, has embraced vote dilution doctrine in Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. By contrast, racial gerrymandering doctrine triggers strict scrutiny if mapmakers subordinate traditional redistricting principles to race, thereby threatening Section 2’s constitutionality.

To resolve this doctrinal riddle, this Essay examines whether, as originally understood, the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendment governed the use of race during redistricting. The Equal Protection Clause …

Washu Expert: Can Trump Bypass Senate Approval Of Controversial Cabinet Nominees?, Andrea Scoseria Katz, Neil Schoenherr

Scholarship@WashULaw

Andrea Katz, an associate professor of law at Washington University in St. Louis, is an expert on constitutional law, with a focus on presidential power. Here, she discusses how Cabinet members are traditionally appointed and whether the Senate or the Supreme Court could stop Trump from doing an end-around on tradition.

Police Diversity Theory, Trevor George Gardner

Scholarship@WashULaw

In light of both the tragic death of Tyre Nichols in Memphis at the hands of Black police officers and the mixed results of studies of Black same-race policing, this Article proposes a conceptual framework by which to better understand the utility of police diversity. The framework maps the relational possibilities among three factors: (i) the Black officer’s approach to same-race policing; (ii) the Black officer’s performance in the context of same-race policing; and (iii) the policing priorities of the Black communities the Black officer is taken to represent.

Responsive to the conceptual framework for police diversity theory, the Article …

The Major Questions Doctrine: Unfounded, Unbounded, And Confounded, Ronald M. Levin

Scholarship@WashULaw

As explicated by the Supreme Court in West Virginia v. EPA in 2022, and reaffirmed in Biden v. Nebraska in 2023, the “major questions doctrine” provides that an administrative agency’s rule in a “major” case must rest on “clear congressional authorization.” Many commentators have deplored the major questions doctrine on the basis of its policy consequences. This Article offers a critique of the doctrine from a different angle. It primarily contends that the reasons the Court has given for enforcing the doctrine do not withstand scrutiny, even on their own terms.

In West Virginia and Nebraska, the Court relied heavily …

A Health Justice Approach To Abortion, Maya Manian

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

The Supreme Court’s watershed decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, overturning fifty years of precedent protecting abortion rights, has led to chaos in both the legal and public health landscapes. With Roe v. Wade eliminated, reproductive rights and justice advocates urgently need new frameworks to help regain access to comprehensive reproductive health care in the long term. Recently, a number of legal scholars have argued in favor of medicalizing civil rights—adopting the framework of health justice to talk about civil rights issues. Scholars argue that the health justice framework could be used to advance civil rights in the …

Committed To Copyright's Constitutional Role, Michael W. Carroll

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

Who is Pam Samuelson? She is many things to many people: scholar, teacher, mentor, leader, advocate, and friend, to name a few. One could easily add “force of nature” to the list. This Article suggests adding the term “loyalist” to argue that an important through-line in Pam’s work has been an unwavering commitment to understanding and promoting copyright law’s ability to serve its purpose in our constitutional order.

Revising The Indian Plenary Power Doctrine, M. Henry Ishitani, Alexandra Fay

Michigan Journal of Race and Law

The federal Indian law doctrine of Congressional plenary power is long overdue for an overhaul. Since its troubling nineteenth-century origins in Kagama v. United States (1886), plenary power has justified invasive Congressional interventions and undermined Tribal sovereignty. The doctrine's legal basis remains a constitutional conundrum. This Article considers the Court's recent engagement with plenary power in Haaland v. Brackeen (2023). It argues that the Brackeen opinions may signal judicial readiness to reevaluate the doctrine. The Article takes ahold of Justice Gorsuch's critical assessment and runs with it, ultimately proposing a method for cleaning up this destructive and constitutionally dubious line …

Lest We Be Lemmings, Claire Wright

Faculty Articles

Lest We Be Lemmings concerns global warming, which is the most grave threat facing humanity today. In this article, I first: (1) discuss how the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Executive Branch, for decades, have been aware of the existence of global warming and its main cause – the burning of fossil fuels and emission of CO₂ - but have consistently failed to regulate the fossil fuel industry, reduce the lucrative subsidies that they provide to the fossil fuel industry, and hold the fossil fuel industry responsible for global warming; (2) explain how the fossil fuel industry, for decades, …

The Ersatz Of The Plain-Meaning Rule Of Statutory Construction In Sackett V. Epa (Ii), Dana Neacsu

Law Faculty Publications

This essay uses the United States Supreme Court second decision in Sackett v. EPA, or Sackett (II), to stress the obvious: judges are tasked with decoding the nation’s laws for everyone’s understanding. This judiciary duty is heightened when judges encounter ordinary sounding words, such as “water” or “wetlands,” especially if they are used in technical statutes like the Clean Water Act (CWA). Moreover, it is this author’s opinion that when in doubt, rather than be afraid of acknowledging ignorance, as some comedians do, judges should aspire to incorporate scientific expertise in their legal reasoning, and avoid the fiction …

Enhancing Fairness And Compassion In Military Disciplinary Proceedings, Rinat Kitai-Sangero

Cardozo International & Comparative Law Review

This Article critically assesses the disciplinary proceedings carried out by judicial officers within the military, shedding light on the absence of crucial procedural guarantees, such as the right to legal representation and an impartial judge. After comparing the Israeli disciplinary proceedings with the Summary Court-Martial system in the United States and considering arguments used to justify the lack of procedural guarantees, the Article emphasizes the emotional distress experienced by soldiers who feel powerless due to power imbalances with their commanders and the severity ofprison sentences they may face. While the Article primarily focuses on the Israeli army, its main arguments …