Digital Commons Network^™

Menyongsong Penyelenggaraan Bantuan Hukum Bagi Yang Tidak Mampu Dalam Pelita Iii, Tatang Suganda

Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan

Abstract

Perusahaan Daerah Dan Beberapa Permasalahannya, Felix Oentoeng Soebagjo

Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan

Abstract

The Double-Edged Sword Of Ai In Elections: Navigating Risks And Opportunities In Washington State, Payvand Khastkhodaei

Seattle Journal of Technology, Environmental, & Innovation Law

No abstract provided.

Communicative Legitimacy: The Supreme Court's Hidden Cultural Binaries In The U.S. Civil Sphere, Steven Arrigg Koh

Faculty Scholarship

How does the U.S. Supreme Court establish its legitimacy? Over the last two hundred years in U.S. society, the Court has interpreted the U.S. Constitution on watershed issues such as slavery, segregation, and marriage equality. And yet the Constitution is just 7,591 words. A puzzle thus emerges: how does the Court intelligibly interpret this short text for U.S. society? This article develops a new theoretical and empirical cultural sociological account of such Supreme Court decision-making, which it calls “communicative legitimacy.” According to this theory, which draws on Jeffrey Alexander’s civil sphere theory, the Court consistently and inevitably draws on a …

Under The Guardianship: Experiences Of Mothers In Egypt’S El Nayaba El Hesbaya, Hana Khayry

Theses and Dissertations

This thesis explores the intersectional lived experience of El Nayaba El Hesbaya in Egypt. El Nayaba El Hesbaya, operating under Law 119/1952, is the administrative and judicial body responsible for overseeing the financial and legal affairs of minors whose father or mother had passed. Hundreds of thousands of mothers in Egypt have (had) children under the guardianship of El Nayaba El Hesbaya. This research delves into the experience of mothers whose children are or were under the guardianship of El Nayaba El Hesbaya, examining how it shape(s/d) their everyday life as women, mothers, widows or ex-wives, citizens, and legal subjects. …

Emergency-Use Vaccine Mandates And Bodily Integrity: Assessing The Validity Of Proportionality Test In Legal Frameworks, Eman Hussien Khalil

Theses and Dissertations

Courts confronting emergency-use vaccine mandates during pandemics have revealed that existing legal frameworks are not equipped to handle the emergency context, as seen in their inconsistent description of government measures and their limited capacity to integrate evolving scientific developments on EUA vaccines into proportionality analysis. This thesis argues that when mandates concern Emergency Use Authorized COVID-19 vaccines, courts must abandon the formalistic distinction between “mandatory” and “compulsory” measures and instead focus on whether the practical consequences of non-compliance remove an individual’s genuine choice; where they do, the measure is coercive in substance and triggers the examination of proportionality. Drawing on …

The Mind Has A Firewall: An Attempt To Preserve Human Mind Integrity., Sayed G. Batran

Theses and Dissertations

This thesis argues for the recognition of mind integrity as a distinct human right. It contends that existing protections, such as bodily integrity, privacy, and freedom of thought, are no longer sufficient to shield an individual’s mental domain from new forms of external interference enabled by neurotechnology, artificial intelligence, and pervasive data-driven systems. Mind integrity is defined as the right to govern one’s own mental life—to form, revise, and hold thoughts, beliefs, and desires based on reasons one endorses—free from significant, non-consensual interference or manipulation, regardless of the method used. The thesis first identifies concrete risks and regulatory vacuums by …

The Fallacies Of Originalism: Why Treating History And Tradition Alone As Dispositive Is Not Superior To The Tiers Of Scrutiny, Gage A. Johnson

Cleveland State Law Review

The goal of this Article is to develop the current history and tradition standard. I argue that the Bruen use of history and tradition is not a more principled or better way of interpreting the Constitution than the infamous tiers of scrutiny. This argument is supported by analyzing the way the Court has used history and tradition in reviewing restrictions on the Second Amendment and the push for it to be used under the First Amendment. I argue that Justice Thomas’s rigid application of history and tradition is essentially an ends-justifying-the-means analysis that is no different than the so called …

The Second Amendment Right To Bear Arms, Or Lack Thereof: Assessing The Prohibition Of Unlawful Immigrants From Possessing Firearms, Anna Egensperger

Et Cetera

This Note looks at the hot button issue of whether unlawful immigrants should have the constitutional right to bear arms. Thus far, the Circuit Courts have come to different conclusions which require the input of the United States Supreme Court. Although intertwined with political views, this Note attempts to take a non-partisan stance which prioritizes the application of case law and a consistent reading of the Constitution. To provide the full context of this issue, this Note begins by describing the facts and holding of Columbia v. Heller which creates the first test for establishing a right protected under the …

The Second Amendment, Illegal Aliens, And The Bruen Test: Defending The Constitutionality Of 18 U.S.C. § 922(G)(5), Ian Duncan

Cleveland State Law Review

This Note examines the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5), which prohibits unlawful aliens from possessing firearms, under the Supreme Court’s text-and-history framework announced in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen and developed further in United States v. Rahimi. In the wake of Bruen, lower courts have fractured over how strictly to demand historical analogues and how to treat longstanding status-based restrictions in § 922, including prohibitions on possession by felons, domestic-violence offenders, and noncitizens. Against that backdrop, this Note argues that § 922(g)(5) is constitutionally sound.

Part I traces the development of Second …

Book Review: We're All Traditionalists Now (Most Of The Time), Richard H. Fallon, Jr., The Changing Constitution: Constitutional Law In The Trump-Era Supreme Court, Michael Gentithes

ConLawNOW

This review highlights the scope and importance of Richard Fallon’s book, The Changing Constitution: Constitutional Law in the Trump-Era Supreme Court. Fallon, a giant of constitutional work, provides a comprehensive, accessible, and vitally important catalogue of the Court’s methodological changes in his posthumously published book. The book argues that while textualism and originalism “have achieved unparalleled prominence,” the Court is also “not consistently originalist” and often relies on a version of traditionalism, similar to but importantly distinct from originalism, that marks an important and undertheorized change. And in yet other areas, the Court eschews either originalism or traditionalism for …

Testimony Of Professor Zalman Rothschild Before The House Subcommittee On Early Childhood, Elementary, And Secondary Education Regarding Mahmoud V. Taylor, Zalman Rothschild

Testimony

On February 10, 2026, Professor Zalman Rothschild, Horn Family Distinguished Research Scholar in Law and Religion at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, testified before the House Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education of the House Committee on Education and Workforce. His testimony addressed the Supreme Court’s decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor and its implications for parental rights, religious liberty, public education, vaccination mandates, and compulsory schooling.

Professor Rothschild situates Mahmoud within the broader constitutional tradition shaped by Pierce v. Society of Sisters, West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, and Wisconsin v. Yoder …

Wildearth Guardians V. U.S. Dept. Of Agric. Animal And Plant Health Inspection Serv. Wildlife Services, Luke A. Zagar

Public Land & Resources Law Review

WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. Dept. of Agric. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Serv. Wildlife Services considers whether Predator Damage Management (“PDM”) programs in Wilderness Areas violate the Wilderness Act and whether the United States Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services (“Wildlife Services”) violated the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) in issuing its Final Environmental Assessment (“EA”) and Finding of No Significant Impact (“FONSI”). The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed its prior holding in Forest Guardians v. Naimal & Plant Health Inspection Serv., finding that “the Wilderness Act does not prohibit Wildlife Service …

Protecting Journalism From National Security In Contemporary India, Manish .

National Law School of India Review

Freedom of the press is an important element of a robust democracy. In India, press freedom lacks statutory protection, leaving constitutional protection under Article 19(1)(a) as the only remedy. In recent years, the use of anti-terror laws against journalists investigating alleged lapses or excesses by the state has posed a particular threat to press freedom, given the largely minimalist and statist interpretation that the Supreme Court of India has given to these laws. This has been compounded by the election and re-election of an autocratic populist government to Parliament, which has sought to use law as a means of ensuring …

Regulating Reader(S): Book People V. Wong, Compelled Speech, And Sexually Explicit Library Materials In The Fifth Circuit, Gray Wood

Texas A&M Law Review

This Note analyzes the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals’ recent holding in Book People, Inc. v. Wong, which struck down Texas Education Code Chapter 35. Passed under the 88th Texas Legislature’s READER Act in 2023, Chapter 35 instituted a mandatory rating system that required Texas book vendors to review the books they sold to district schools and open-enrollment charter schools for sexually explicit material. Book vendors banded together to oppose the law, arguing that it constituted compelled speech, a legal doctrine that has come to the forefront of First Amendment fights since the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in 303 …

Brief Of Notre Dame Education Law Project, Notre Dame Program On Church, State & Society, And Lindsay And Matt Moroun Religious Liberty Clinic Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioners, Richard W. Garnett, Nicole Stelle Garnett, John A. Meiser

Court Briefs

No. 25-802
Foothills Christian Ministries v. Kim Johnson

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

From the Summary of Argument

The First Amendment guarantees religious institutions the power to conduct their internal affairs. Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey- Berru, 591 U.S. 732, 746 (2020). See also Cath. Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Lab. & Indus. Review Comm'n, 605 U.S. 238, 249 (2025); id. at 255 (Thomas, J., concurring). This principle of self-governance, known as the church autonomy doctrine, is an essential feature of the Constitution’s …

Skrmetti And The Problem Of Incidental Intent, Martin J. Katz

Sturm College of Law: Faculty Scholarship

The modern Supreme Court has defined “discriminatory intent” as a strict-liability concept. It does not matter why the government sorts people by a protected characteristic, such as race or sex; it matters only that the government does sort people by such a characteristic. This principle is the key holding of affirmative-action cases, such as Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College. Yet, in the recent case United States v. Skrmetti, the Court seemed to focus not on the question of whether the government sorted people by sex (it did), but on the question …

Law School News: Roger Williams University Marks Fred Korematsu Day With Reflection On Rights And Responsibility 02-02-2026, Kelly Brinza, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

When Constitutional Protection For Religious Liberty Gets Lost In Translation: A Case Study From Washington State, Robert W. Gomulkiewicz

Articles

Protecting religious liberty can present difficult challenges when religious liberty conflicts with laws prohibiting discrimination. Balancing religious liberty and nondiscrimination requires courts to accurately apply the U.S. Supreme Court’s complex First Amendment jurisprudence, including cases that address compelled speech, expressive association, and church autonomy. Amidst all the complexity, protection for religious liberty can get lost in translation. One important venue where protection can get lost in translation is in religious liberty cases decided by state supreme courts. The decisions of state supreme courts are especially significant because they provide the authoritative construction for state statutes and the state constitution. In …

The Untold Story Of 150 Years Of Women In State Judiciaries, Elizabeth D. Katz

UF Law Faculty Publications

A focus on the U.S. Constitution and federal judges has obscured a longer and more complex history of women serving on state benches — and how state constitutions mattered in their rise.

The Exactions Illusion: Sheetz’S Missing Dissent, Lee Anne Fennell, Timothy M. Mulvaney

Faculty Scholarship

In April 2024, the Supreme Court unanimously handed down Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, a land use exactions case billed as narrow, inevitable, constitutionally compelled, and obviously correct.  It was none of those things. Sheetz instead ushered in an open-ended shift of policy control over the built environment from state and local legislatures to courts. By its terms, the holding extended the Court’s stringent “exactions” test—which requires the government to prove nexus and proportionality between development conditions and development impacts—beyond its original context of parcel-specific administrative bargains to reach an unspecified set of legislated property conditions. Yet the decision’s …

Is History Precedent?, Allison Orr Larsen

Faculty Publications

It has been just over three years since the Supreme Court instructed lower courts to evaluate Second Amendment challenges by examining history and tradition. And it is no secret that the courts have struggled. This Article tackles a phenomenon that is born of that struggle. Overwhelmed by the task of evaluating historical claims, lower courts instead are turning to other judges as authorities on history. They are using what I call in this Article “historical precedents”—meaning language about history from an older decision that the subsequent judge then treats as authority, not as part of a legal rule but for …

A Citizenship Model Of The Fourth Amendment, Danieli Evans

Articles

Fourth Amendment law is in disarray. In recent years, courts and scholars have questioned central aspects of Fourth Amendment doctrine—in particular, the reasonable expectations of privacy test that has governed since the 1960s. Scholars and judges have argued for abandoning this test and instead looking to private law (sub-constitutional rules governing private conduct, such as tort, property, and contract law) to determine Fourth Amendment protection.

At a moment when judges and scholars are questioning core aspects of Fourth Amendment doctrine, the time is ripe to reconsider the values Fourth Amendment law ought to serve. I advance a novel vision for …

Originalism, Official History, And Perspectives Versus Methodologies, Keith N. Hylton

Faculty Scholarship

This paper addresses a well-worn topic: originalism, the theory that judges should interpret the U.S. Constitution in a manner consistent with the intent of its framers. I am interested in the real-world effects of originalism. The primary effect advanced by originalists is the tendency of the approach to constrain the discretion of judges. However, I identify another effect of originalism: the creation of official histories, a practice that imposes a hidden tax on society. Another question I consider is whether originalism should be considered a methodology of analyzing the law or a perspective on the law; I argue that originalism …

Comparative Authoritarian Law, Madhav Khosla, Benjamin L. Liebman

Faculty Scholarship

In recent years, comparative constitutional lawyers have turned their attention to the study of democratic backsliding. However, such scholarship is yet to draw on the now extensive literature on traditional authoritarian systems. The bifurcation of regime type that has structured comparative legal research for decades — for comparative constitutional lawyers and for scholars of specific authoritarian regions — is now under strain. With the global rise of authoritarianism and the growing use of law by authoritarian states, the world is harder to neatly separate into two camps than it once might have been. This Article reflects on how we might …

Finding Luis: A Creative Nonfiction Account Of Law & Society, Jason M. Leggett

Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects

This essay explores the contradictions in legal theory and human experience through creative nonfiction. Its main purpose is to argue that a truly just society requires acknowledging the profound influence of individual narratives on the law. This is supported by blending personal narratives, critical analysis, and philosophical inquiry to reveal the gap between codified law and lived realities for marginalized individuals. This unique Legal Poetics methodology employs a series of six vignettes, such as the author's and Luis's shared experiences with traumatic brain injury and the denial of justice, as data. By integrating autoethnography, law as narrative, and performativity theories, …

Drug Scheduling As Institutional Design, Matthew B. Lawrence, David E. Pozen

Faculty Scholarship

Controlled Substances Act (CSA), U.S. drug law has simultaneously fueled mass incarceration, inhibited needed access, and enabled an opioid crisis. To make better choices, this Article argues that the CSA’s institutional design must account for three distinctive features of psychoactive drugs: the prohibition problem (drug bans tend to backfire when demand is inelastic), the pharma problem (drug companies have supercharged incentives to manipulate markets and exploit consumers), and the pluralism problem (drug policy involves irreducibly political questions that no expert discipline can answer). On their own, each of these problems calls for reform to the CSA. Taken together, they call …

Constitutional Interpretation As Problem Solving: How The Modalities Work, Jack M. Balkin

Texas A&M Law Review

The standard forms of constitutional argument—the modalities—are central to one of the most important approaches to constitutional interpretation: constitutional pluralism. Both originalists and non-originalists use the modalities. This Essay explains how they work. The modalities of constitutional argument are shared cultural tools for thinking about the Constitution, analyzing legal problems, and formulating arguments to resolve them. Constitutional interpretation is a kind of problem solving, and the modalities are our legal culture’s toolkit for analyzing and solving constitutional problems.

Our use of the modalities presumes that at any point in time, some arguments are better than others. This assumption is central …

Originalist Arguments In Free Speech History, Samantha Barbas

Texas A&M Law Review

Contrary to what historians and legal scholars have often assumed, originalism has played an important role in American free speech history. During the 1950s, originalist interpretations of the First Amendment as prohibiting the crime of seditious libel became popular in legal argumentation, court rulings, and in popular culture more generally. The reason for the popularity of these arguments was the Red Scare. Liberal lawyers, judges, and scholars deployed originalist arguments in their battles against government anti-Communist measures. They argued that the original meaning and purpose of the First Amendment was the ban on punishment for criticism of the government, and …

Race, Memory, And Authority In Constitutional Interpretation, Henry L. Chambers, Jr.

Texas A&M Law Review

This Essay considers how America’s history and memory regarding race complicate constitutional interpretation. If scholars interpreted the Constitution merely to determine what the majority view of the Constitution may have been when it was ratified—its original public meaning (“OPM”)—the loose use of history and memory to interpret the Constitution might be acceptable. What the People—whose membership is contested—thought the Constitution meant when it was framed is interesting, so long as it does not bind us today. However, as Jack Balkin notes in Memory and Authority: The Uses of History in Constitutional Interpretation, lawyers and judges attempt to use history …