Digital Commons Network^™

The Needless Search For A Founding-Era "Hearsay" Definition, Jeffrey Bellin

Faculty Publications

Modern Confrontation Clause doctrine permits only unconfronted “out-of-court statements that would have been admissible in a criminal case at the time of the founding.” To operationalize this concept, the Supreme Court identifies “testimonial hearsay” as the Clause’s primary concern. Its opinions regularly dive into the historical record to refine what counts as “testimonial” but ignore that record in defining “hearsay.” This omission cannot last. Cases in the lower courts, and one on the Court’s recent docket, concern testimonial but (arguably) non-hearsay statements. And while confrontation jurisprudence is supposed to be tied to founding-era evidence law, the “hearsay” definition, casually referenced …

New Vision, Old Model: How The Ftc Exaggerated Harms When Rejecting Business Justifications For Noncompetes, Alan J. Meese

Faculty Publications

The Federal Trade Commission has rejected consumer welfare and the Rule of Reason—standards that drove antitrust for 50 years—in favor of a “NeoBrandeisian” vision. This approach seeks to enhance democracy by condemning abuses of corporate power that restrict the autonomy of employees and consumers, regardless of impact on prices or wages. Pursuing this agenda, the Commission has proposed banning all employee noncompete agreements (“NCAs”) as unfair methods of competition under Section 5 of the FTC Act.

The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) articulating the Commission’s rationale found that NCAs reduce aggregate wages, harm traditionally recognized by the Rule of Reason. …

Sec Enforcement: Balancing Deterrence With Due Process. Hearing Before The Committee On Financial Services Subcommittee On Capital Markets, House, One Hundred Eighteenth Congress, Second Session., Paul R. Eckert

Congressional Testimony

No abstract provided.

The Brief (Edition #33, May 2024), William & Mary Law School

The Brief

No abstract provided.

Waiting For Mahanoy: Examining The Still-Unsettled Jurisprudence Of Online Student Speech, Emily Erickson, Matthew D. Bunker

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article first explores the constitutional background of student speech rights, beginning with the Tinker decision and continuing through early court attempts to analyze online, off-campus cases. Next, it examines Mahanoy itself, unpacking the frustratingly murky majority opinion written by Justice Stephen Breyer. The Article then breaks new ground by exploring court decisions in the years since Mahanoy, as jurists continue trying to identify First Amendment boundaries in student speech cases involving bullying, threats, and otherwise offensive speech. A concluding section synthesizes the state of the law and offers perspectives on this vital area of constitutional concern.

This abstract …

303 Creative Llc, Public Accommodations Law, And The Many Possible Futures Of Rights, Jacob Eisler

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The unifying theme of the contributions to this Collection of Essays on 303 Creative LLC, which emerged from a panel held at the 2024 American Association of Law Schools meeting, is that while 303 Creative LLC may have brought these themes forward, their full expositions lie in the hands of Supreme Court jurisprudence that is yet to come...

In exploring these possibilities, this Collection seeks to anticipate what might come next for both the First Amendment and public accommodations law.

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

Table Of Contents (V. 32, No. 4)

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Law Office History And The Unrelenting Attack On Public Accommodations Law, James M. Oleske Jr.

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In recent years, the cause of commercial liberty has found new life in litigation challenging public accommodations laws that prohibit discrimination by businesses on the basis of sexual orientation. Considerable scholarly attention has been paid to the use of the First Amendment as a liability shield in these cases, which have primarily been litigated on the terrain of free speech and religious liberty. But in amicus briefs filed in both cases that have reached the Supreme Court—303 Creative LLC v. Elenis and Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission—scholars who are skeptical of commercial regulation have also …

The Limits Of Lochnerism, Lucien Ferguson

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The Lochnerism thesis is among the most influential constitutional theories to emerge in recent years. It argues that the judiciary increasingly protects private business from public regulation by enshrining and expanding liberty of contract rights under the First Amendment. Using 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis as a case study, this Essay explores the limits of Lochnerism as a theoretical framework. It argues that, while productively illuminating the judiciary’s attack on the administrative state and democratic processes, the theory may also displace concerns over the concrete harms experienced by vulnerable communities. To bring these harms back into view, this Essay suggests …

Standpoint Epistemology, The First Amendment, And University Affirmative Action, Paul Gowder

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Egalitarian legal scholars understandably might have been troubled by the end of June 2023, when, on two successive days, the Supreme Court appeared to put an end to public as well as to private university affirmative action on a theory of race discrimination in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, then appeared to put an end to the application of anti-discrimination law to any private enterprise that could be characterized as “expressive” in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. Yet the June 30 case, I shall contend, has the potential to undermine the negative impact of the June 29 …

Blunt Speech Rights, Nicholas Almendares

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

There is a lot to be said about the Supreme Court’s decision in 303 Creative LLC. In the wake of the decision there will be a range of commentaries like those presented in this Issue. I want to draw attention to a particular aspect of the opinion, part of a broader trend in the Court’s First Amendment jurisprudence, towards blunt, sweeping rules. By a blunt rule, I mean a simple, coarse one that lacks nuance or distinctions. Blunt rules, by their nature, tend to be sweeping: nuance, that is, distinguishing cases based on various factors, limits the scope of …

Understanding 303 Creative Llc In A Polycentric Constitutional World, Meg Penrose

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The evolution of rights following Obergefell is not over. Creative 303 LLC marked a new phase in the ongoing legal challenges over the rights and ceremonies attending same-sex marriage. This Essay addresses the anticipated limits of 303 Creative LLC.

The Essay proceeds in three parts. First, how does 303 Creative LLC impact government employees? What rights, if any, should government employees be able to raise in light of 303 Creative LLC? Second, what does 303 Creative LLC mean for private marketplace vendors engaging in expressive commerce? Vendors, particularly wedding vendors, often create unique items for weddings. Will the …

First Amendment Defenses To Alien Transportation Crimes, Charquia Wright

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Florida law now prohibits the transportation of undocumented aliens into the state. Briefings characterize these laws as unconstitutionally preempting federal immigration law and federal due process rights. Despite this emphasis on due process, field, and conflict preemption unconstitutionality, few have addressed the First Amendment implications of human smuggling prosecutions of natural and some corporate persons. The Supreme Court’s Free Exercise precedent protects the religious freedoms of natural persons and some corporations. Under state alien transportation laws, these freedoms cease to exist. Because the Supreme Court has extended these religious protections to some corporations, they too are entitled to First Amendment …

Democratic Vibes, Jonathan Gingerich

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Who should decide who gets to say what on online social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube? American legal scholars have often thought that the private owners of these platforms should decide, in part because such an arrangement is thought to serve valuable free speech interests. This standard view has come under pressure with the enactment of statutes like Texas House Bill 20, which forbids certain platforms from “censoring” user content based on viewpoint. Such efforts to regulate the speech policies of online platforms have been challenged for undermining the editorial speech rights of these platforms and allowing the …

No Need To Wait: Congress Has The Power Under Section Five Of The Fourteenth Amendment To Abolish The Death Penalty In The States, Eric M. Freedman

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Reformers currently proposing the abolition of capital punishment by federal legislation have only targeted the federal death penalty. They are aiming too low. Concerns about the roughly 50 prisoners facing execution by the federal government should not cause advocates to ignore the approximately 2,400 on the combined Death Rows of the states. Congress has the authority to abolish the death penalty in the states, and good reason to exercise it.

This Article takes as a given the Supreme Court’s view that the death penalty is not itself unconstitutional.

But under existing law Congress would have no difficulty in compiling a …

Convening For (Climate) Change: The Constitutional Case For A U.S. Climate Assembly, Will Mccabe

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Note argues that a national U.S. Citizens’ Assembly for Climate would not violate the non-delegation doctrine which prevents Congress from improperly delegating its constitutional legislative power to another body. A climate assembly could potentially be authorized in several ways; this Note explores that of Congress convening a climate assembly through statute, either as an independent body or as a body under the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency. Part I examines the current state of American climate policy and the political debate surrounding it, putting forward a case for a novel approach, and also examines the concept of climate …

Immoderate Moderation: Chief Justice Roberts's Concurrence In Dobbs, Thomas J. Molony

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Chief Justice John Roberts attempted to chart a middle way in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. But there are times when you must choose a side. This was one of them.

The Chief Justice has been a consistent proponent of judicial restraint since he joined the United States Supreme Court in 2005. For him, one of the key characteristics of restraint is deciding no more than necessary to resolve a case. In Dobbs, he insisted that the Court did not need to overrule Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey in full to uphold Mississippi’s fifteen-week …

Federalism, Rebellion, And The Rule Of Law In Northern Syria And Western Kurdistan: Constitutions Against The Nation-State, Robert Woehrle

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Note will be examining the way in which this social contract, the “Social Contract of the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria,” and the social order it proposes, “Democratic Confederalism,” represents a significant departure from the constitutional order of ethnic nation-states that arose in the postcolonial, and particularly the post-Ottoman, Middle East.

[...]

This Note then contrasts the “Social Contract of the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria” with the Syrian constitutions, first the 1973 Constitution that had been in effect until the outbreak of the Syrian Civil War, followed by a brief look at the changes represented by the 2012 …

Constitutional Rights And Remedial Consistency, Katherine Mims Crocker

Faculty Publications

When the Supreme Court declined definitively to block Texas’s S.B. 8, which effectively eliminated pre-enforcement federal remedies for what was then a plainly unconstitutional restriction on abortion rights, a prominent criticism was that the majority would have never tolerated the similar treatment of preferred legal protections—like gun rights. This refrain reemerged when California enacted a copycat regime for firearms regulation. This theme sounds in the deep-rooted idea that judge-made law should adhere to generality and neutrality values requiring doctrines to derive justification from controlling a meaningful class of cases ascertained by objective legal criteria.

This Article is about consistency, and …

Eliminating Rule 609 To Provide A Fair Opportunity To Defend Against Criminal Charges: A Proposal To The Advisory Committee On The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Jeffrey Bellin

Faculty Publications

Federal Rule of Evidence 609 authorizes the admission of prior convictions to impeach criminal defendants who testify. And in this important and uniquely damaging application, the [r]ule’s logic fails, distorting American trials and depriving defendants of a fair opportunity to defend against the charges. The Advisory Committee [on Evidence Rules (the “Advisory Committee”)] should propose the elimination of Rule 609 and prohibit cross-examination with specific instances of a criminal defendant’s past conduct when those instances are unrelated to the defendant’s testimony and unconnected to the case.

This short essay begins by setting out the proposed rule change alongside a proposed …

The Anti-Innovation Supreme Court: Major Questions, Delegation, Chevron, And More, Jack M. Beermann

William & Mary Law Review

The Supreme Court of the United States has generally been a very aggressive enforcer of legal limitations on governmental power. In various periods in its history, the Court has gone far beyond enforcing clearly expressed and easily ascertainable constitutional and statutory provisions and has suppressed innovation by the other branches that do not necessarily transgress widely held social norms. Novel assertions of legislative power, novel interpretations of federal statutes, statutes that are in tension with well-established common law rules, and state laws adopted by only a few states are suspect simply because they are novel or rub up against tradition. …

Rage Rhetoric And The Revival Of American Sedition, Jonathan Turley

William & Mary Law Review

We are living in what Professor Jonathan Turley calls an age of rage. However, it is not the first such period. Professor Turley explores how the United States was formed (and the Constitution was written) in precisely such a period. Throughout that history, sedition has been used as the vehicle for criminalizing political speech. This Article explores how seditious libel has evolved as a crime and how it is experiencing a type of American revival. The crime of sedition can be traced back to the infamous trials of the Star Chamber and the flawed view of free speech articulated by …

Unreasonable Traffic Stops, Sam Kamin

William & Mary Law Review

In 1996, the Supreme Court announced in Whren v. United States that a traffic stop is constitutional if there is probable cause to believe a traffic infraction has occurred. So long as the officers who stop an individual can point—even after the fact—to any violation of the traffic laws, their actual, subjective motivations for initiating a stop are legally irrelevant. Case-by-case determination of reasonableness is unnecessary in the traffic stop context, the Court concluded, because the balancing of interests has already been done. Unlike warrantless entries into homes, the use of deadly force, or unannounced warranted entries, a traffic stop …

Section 898: Targeting The Companies Behind Gun Violence In New York With Public Nuisance Doctrine, Mara Kravitz

William & Mary Law Review

On July 6, 2021, the New York State Legislature enacted sections 898-a to -e of the New York General Business Law (section 898), creating a clear path for public entities and private gun violence victims to sue gun industry members for their role in the gun violence public nuisance in New York. This Note explores why the legislature took a public nuisance approach to curbing gun violence, framing section 898 within public nuisance doctrine’s broader common law history and legal elements.

To unpack how and why New York took this approach, the first Part of this Note traces the history …

Inequitable Infrastructure: An Empirical Assessment Of Federalism, Climate Change, And Environmental Racism, Lev E. Breydo

Faculty Publications

This Article explains a critical, yet unexplored issue: How are some communities like Jackson—the 80% Black capital of Mississippi—often left without water or electricity, while their mostly white neighbors are not? The Article maps uncharted territory by interrogating the underlying causes of this disparity, untangling how three seemingly unrelated factors interplay with the accelerating effects of climate change to perpetuate systemic inequities.

First, and somewhat uniquely, the U.S. federalist construct allocates infrastructure responsibility to the states, which, under the guise of autonomy, subdelegate to often under-resourced local authorities. Second, this capital mismatch requires governmental units to borrow using complex municipal …

What's Past Is Prologue: Enforcing The Federal Securities Laws In The Age Of Crypto, Gurbir S. Grewal

William & Mary Business Law Review

No abstract provided.

What We Pretend To Be: Codifying A Right To A Religious Advisor In The Execution Chamber, Claire R. Jenkins

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

Over the last fifty years, the Supreme Court has moved the pendulum both toward religious accommodation and away from it. After a decade of oscillating Court decisions, multiple attempts at corrective action by Congress, and widespread social activism, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person’s Act, or RLUIPA, was passed in 2000. RLUIPA was designed to fortify the rights of incarcerated persons and provide clarification to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. As of 2024, the Supreme Court has granted certiorari in only a few RLUIPA cases—and has decided even less about the application of the law to death row inmates. …

Mother Vs. Father: The Right To The Naming Of Children In The United States And Australia, Deborah Anthony

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

In England, surname use was at one time quite variable and individualized. This was particularly true for women, who historically held individualized surnames reflecting their specific traits, occupations, statuses, or family relations. Women sometimes retained their birth names at marriage and passed those names on to their husbands and children. But these diverse surname practices eventually disappeared from practice and from collective social memory in England. The new restrictive inherited practice then became highly entrenched in both Australia and the United States, with the latter seeing not only social but legal forces arising to enforce it. Legal battles eventually arose …

Cherry-Picking History: Witchcraft, The Common Law, And The Weaponization Of Substantive Due Process, Sarah E. Bradley

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

In 2021, the Supreme Court sharply altered its substantive due process analysis in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, reversing the 49-year-old decision in Roe v. Wade to establish abortion access as a constitutional right. The Court reframed its substantive due process analysis as a two-step test, requiring a right to be narrowly framed and “deeply rooted in history and tradition” before it could be analyzed as “implicit in the concept of liberty,” instead of its previous balancing test that involved a broad description of the right. In the Dobbs majority opinion, the Court cherry-picked elements of common law …

Accessing The Arts: The Use Of Reproductive Justice In The Fight For Lgbt+ Rights, Leila Y. Vicinelli

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

Procreation has long been an integral component within the family structure. While the ability to produce offspring was once a privilege reserved for fertile, heterosexual pairings, modern advancements in Assisted Reproduction Technology (ART) have made same-sex procreation possible. Although ART makes it possible for same-sex couples to biologically produce offspring , accessibility to treatment is often hindered by financial, legal, and social impediments. This Note will explore the current limitations on LGBT+ accessibility to ART treatments and provide much needed solutions for these challenges. In a post-Obergefell world, the prominence of and rights owed to same-sex households can no …