Digital Commons Network^™

Penalty Box: The Eighth Amendment’S Role In The Fbar Penalties Game, Tessa B. Walter

Georgia State University Law Review

A sharp disagreement has emerged among federal circuit courts regarding the application of the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause to penalties for failing to file a Foreign Bank Account Report (FBAR). This has created legal uncertainty for individuals with foreign financial interests. The resulting circuit split leads to disparate outcomes, where the constitutionality of a penalty is dependent on the jurisdiction in which it is challenged.

The divergence in judicial opinion centers on a fundamental question: Whether the substantial civil penalties for willful FBAR violations constitute a punitive “fine” or a remedial measure intended to compensate the government. The statutory …

The Free Exercise Of Religion As A Privilege, Kyron Huigens

Georgia State University Law Review

In the span of a decade, the Supreme Court has restructured the Free Exercise Clause entirely. It has removed the counterweight of disestablishment; it has sought parity between religion and secularity by means of strict scrutiny analysis turning on a principle of nondiscrimination; and it has opened the way to a general exemption from secular law for the faithful by ceding the question of what counts as an exercise of religion to the faithful themselves. This Article proposes reading the free exercise of religion as a privilege in response to these changes. This privilege stands against secular law in the …

What Motivates Selectors To Pick A Woman Justice?, Maria C. Escobar-Lemmon, Alice J. Kang, Miki Caul Kittilson, Shan-Jan Sarah Liu

ConLawNOW

This article examines increases in women’s appointment to high courts around the world. It builds on research suggesting that movement by countries to appoint the first women to important benches often influenced neighboring countries. The same authors here look at the related feature that women in advanced industrial countries are appointed to constitutional and supreme courts sooner when subject to electoral pressure. They suggest that electoral pressure is not defined by the left-right ideological spectrum, but rather depends on a more specific support for gender equality.

The Federalism Canons As Ordinary Interpretation, Anthony J. Bellia Jr., Bradford R. Clark

Northwestern University Law Review

Scholars remain generally skeptical of substantive canons of statutory interpretation even as courts continue to employ such canons in important cases. Unlike semantic canons, which help judges discern the best meaning of statutory text in context, substantive canons provide tiebreakers when the text is unclear or require special clarity in order for the text to perform certain functions. Among the substantive canons, the so-called “federalism canons” have been singled out for special scrutiny. The federalism canons are a family of canons that require courts to avoid interpreting an act of Congress to divest states of certain sovereign rights or powers—including …

The Second American Republic: America's Near Century Of Reckoning With A Remade Constitution (1869-1953), Dominick J. Dalton

Masters Theses

The United States of America celebrates the writing of the Declaration of Independence, the country’s statement of sovereignty from her former colonizer, Great Britain, every fourth of July. France, nearly four-thousand eight hundred miles away, celebrates their own form of Independence Day, Bastille Day, every July fourteenth. Since July fourth, 1776, the United States has boasted a proud history of unity and continuity that was only interrupted by four bloody years, the American Civil War (1861-1865). However, France is unable to make such claims. Having five separate Republics, an Empire, and a Reich define their history since that fateful day …

From Dred Scott To Barbara: Birthright Citizenship, Racial Exclusion, And The Enduring Promise Of The Fourteenth Amendment, Jenna A. Milbrodt

CMC Senior Theses

The Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause has guaranteed birthright citizenship to all children born in the United States for hundreds of years. Yet, President Trump’s January 20, 2025, executive order threatens to strip that right from children born to parents unlawfully in the country and temporary visitors. This order, if permitted to stand, would change the definition of US citizenship and render countless children stateless persons without citizenship rights. This paper examines whether birthright citizenship in the US, properly understood, extends to children of unlawful immigrants and temporary visitors. To answer this question, three time periods of change in citizenship rights …

The Future Of Educational Equity In Post-Secondary Education: Student Loan Statutory Reforms Under The Big Beautiful Bill Act, Taylor Myers

Florida Atlantic University Undergraduate Law Journal

Significant reforms to federal student loans, as outlined in the Big Beautiful Bill Act, will have a substantial impact on students pursuing secondary education, including loan limits, income-based repayment plans, and the elimination of specific deferment plans. Subsequently, those most affected by these changes will be low-income borrowers, middle-income borrowers, and graduate students. Recent changes to federal higher education loan policies, such as borrowing limits, income-based repayment plans, and elimination of certain deferments, can leave greater economic barriers within education. Although the policy aims to provide debt relief to borrowers, it raises unresolved constitutional questions, particularly regarding the government's responsibility …

The Unitary Theorists' Appointments Clause Problems, Jed Handelsman Shugerman

Faculty Scholarship

The unitary executive theorists’ recent retreat to the Appointments Clause as a basis for unconditional presidential removal power is contradicted by the text and by overwhelming originalist evidence.

It is a surprising argument for a power of presidential removal, because the text of the Appointments Clause plainly requires both the President and Senate to appoint. The noncommon sense reading, that the president alone appoints, and thus the president can remove, was not in any of the Trump Administration’s briefs, but it was in a single amicus brief, and it was picked up in oral argument and the mainstream media.

This …

The Missing Constitutional Law Of Executive Conditions, Nicole Huberfeld, Matthew B. Lawrence

Faculty Scholarship

This Article contributes to development of the constitutional law of executive conditions. Courts are wrestling with the constitutionality of federal efforts to encourage what the federal government cannot mandate—speech on particular subjects, participation in cooperative federalism programs, and so on—but have failed to appreciate an important distinction. Binding statutory conditions articulated by Congress or an executive branch delegee (statutory conditions) and non-binding executive conditions articulated by executive branch actors engaged in regulation by deal (executive conditions) are different in constitutionally salient ways that can and should inform the development of workable doctrine. Yet courts, advocates, and scholars have only begun …

Let Them Hear It: Peaceful Protests Near The Homes Of Supreme Court Justices, Srikanth Reddy

Lewis & Clark Law Review

All of us—not just attorneys and politicians—need to be more critical and skeptical of the Supreme Court. Criticism by ordinary people is good and appropriate, even if it hurts the Justices’ feelings. That includes public protests. When a case matters enough to them, members of the public can and should criticize the Court and its Justices, including by peacefully gathering and protesting near a Justice’s home, or when a Justice appears out in the world.

Foreword, Patricia B. Barnett

Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity

No abstract provided.

Private Rights Of Action For Election Litigation In The Federal Courts, Derek T. Muller

Journal Articles

Election litigation is surging. But just as litigants pursue more election claims in federal courts than ever before, federal courts are growing more skeptical about their authority to hear them. This Essay, a contribution to the 2025 Arnold Lecture at the University of Arkansas Little Rock, William H. Bowen School of Law, examines the narrowing landscape of private rights of action in election law with a particular focus on claims brought ahead of the 2024 election. It traces the Supreme Court's shift toward formalism, the heavy emphasis on remedies found in federal statutes, and the diminishing avenues for private enforcement …

Pretrial Publicity In A Modern World: Exploration Of Defense Attorney Experiences And Perspectives, Giray Uzen

Honors Undergraduate Theses

This research examined how pretrial publicity, like statements made by law enforcement and prosecutors, affects criminal defense strategy. Using a qualitative, phenomenological design, interviews were held with practicing defense attorneys to understand how they deal with media coverage, protect their clients’ rights, and adjust their strategy when a case starts getting attention. The project identifies common themes, including attorney concerns about biased jurors, distorted narratives, and pressure created by public commentary. Findings work towards reforming policy discussions to respect free speech while protecting the constitutional right to an impartial jury in our modern media environment.

Disconsents, Daryl J. Levinson, David E. Pozen

Faculty Scholarship

Consent is an indispensable standard and organizing principle in any liberal legal order that prizes self-directed autonomy, self-identified preferences, and collective agreement. Yet consent’s capacity to advance those values has become increasingly uncertain in a society beset by power imbalances, information asymmetries, and multiple forms of polarization. In this Article, we document how the rise of neoliberalism has led to greater reliance on consent throughout U.S. law, while at the same time leading to greater doubts about its moral efficacy and empirical feasibility. Connecting and generalizing pathologies of consent-based regulation that have been identified within myriad domains, the Article identifies …

Presidential Immunity: Before And After Trump, Thomas P. Schmidt

Vanderbilt Law Review

'All the officers of government," the Supreme Court said long ago, "from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law, and are bound to obey it." Despite that ringing and categorical language, however, the Court has held that the President-the "highest" and most powerful of all government officers-is "immune" from judicial oversight in several respects. Indeed, when the Court held last Term that former presidents are presumptively immune from criminal prosecution for officials acts, the dissenters warned: '`n every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law."

This Article unpacks the various presidential …

From Myers To Slaughter: A Brief Theory Of The Constitutionalization Of Secondary Sources, Dana Neacsu, Paul D. Callister

Faculty Works

For more than two centuries, American constitutional adjudication has relied upon secondary sources. Yet constitutional theory has almost entirely ignored them. Originalism debates constitutional text. Living constitutionalism debates constitutional evolution. Theories of precedent debate judicial authority. None asks a more fundamental question: What role do secondary sources play in constitutional adjudication? This Article argues that the answer has fundamentally changed in the last 100 of years. Chief Justice William Howard Taft's opinion in Myers v. United States (1926) marked a constitutional revolution by transforming secondary authorities from explanatory materials into evidence of constitutional continuity. Exactly one century later, Chief Justice …

Applying History As Law: The Role Of Historical Facts In Implementing Constitutional Doctrine, Joseph Blocher, Brandon L. Garrett

Faculty Scholarship

The U.S. Supreme Court has long relied on historical evidence in constitutional cases, but recent years have seen a major change in how it does so: not only to interpret the meaning of constitutional text, but to establish doctrinal tests that call for historical evidence to be used in the application of those tests going forward. Broadly speaking, originalism has moved from the realm of legal interpretation to that of law declaration and then to law application. This transformation in the legal significance of history raises important questions for originalism as a practice of constitutional adjudication, not simply a theory …

Justifying The Fourth Amendment, Daniel Epps

Vanderbilt Law Review

Why does the Fourth Amendment belong in the Constitution? This question is not whether society should impose some legal restraints on government searches and seizures. Rather, why should such protections reside in our national charter, superior to other forms of law and insulated from change via ordinary majoritarian political processes? Despite major disputes about the Fourth Amendment's content, Fourth Amendment theorists rarely ask this question. Almost all agree that the Fourth Amendment's constitutional protections are critically important-even if no one can agree exactly what those protections are.
This Article seeks a justification for the Fourth Amendment-the reason why search-and-seizure protections …

Creation And The Republican Revival, William M. Treanor

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Gordon Wood's classic book Creation of the American Republic has long influenced legal thought and originalist scholarship in particular. It played a central role in the Republican Revival movement, an effort by leading scholars such as Cass Sunstein and Frank Michelman to recover a progressive originalism at the same time as conservative originalism was starting to shape constitutional jurisprudence. But, while the Republican Revival nominally relied on Wood, it misread central elements of his book - his concept of virtue and his belief that republicanism had largely been displaced at the time of the drafting of the Constitution.

The time …

Abandoning Press Freedom, Ronnell Andersen Jones, Sonja R. West

Scholarly Works

Among elected officials and the broader public, attitudes toward the press are deeply polarized along ideological lines. Polling shows that most liberals favor the press, while conservatives view it more negatively— a partisan divide that has widened significantly over the past decade. Conventional wisdom suggests that the same ideological split is also at work at the Supreme Court, with liberal Justices championing the work of the press while their conservative colleagues express more skepticism. This perception is reinforced by historical examples of liberal Justices advancing press rights alongside broader democracy-engagement and social-justice issues. Recent calls from some conservative Justices to …

Adequate Representation In Group Litigation, Elizabeth Chamblee Burch

Scholarly Works

This article examines the inherent tension between the legal system's desire for "global peace" (finality) and the constitutional requirement for adequate representation in collective lawsuits. While Rule 23 class actions provide structural safeguards—such as judicial oversight of counsel and settlement, and opt-out rights—alternative mechanisms like multidistrict litigation (MDL) and parens patriae suits often lack these protections . Using the In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation as a primary case study, the article illustrates how informal, "backroom" leadership selection in MDLs empowers a small circle of elite "repeat players" at the expense of marginalized groups, such as Native American tribes and …

Gienapp's Big Book: Conceptual Rupture, Modernism, And The End Of Originalism, Logan E. Sawyer Iii

Scholarly Works

For decades, we have lived in an age of partisan jurisprudence, in which nearly every Republican has embraced originalism, and nearly every Democrat has rejected it. One can mark the start of that era in multiple places, but one good choice is November 11th, 1977. That day, in the pages of National Review, William F. Buckley previewed Government by Judiciary, Raoul Berger’s originalist critique of the Warren Court’s rights revolution. The review, entitled “Berger’s Big Book,” was highly complimentary. Berger’s rebuke of Warren Court activism was, Buckley thought, “devastating.” And he was not alone. Following the publication of Government by …

Five Lessons From Ken Kersch’S Conservatives And The Constitution For The Present Moment, James E. Fleming, Linda C. Mcclain

Faculty Scholarship

Timothy Snyder’s On Tyranny, a New York Times bestseller, has the subtitle, “Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century.” Ken Kersch’s Conservatives and the Constitution: Imagining Constitutional Restoration in the Heyday of American Liberalism (2019) provides at least twenty lessons from the second half of the Twentieth Century about the development of conservative constitutional thought and activism. Although conservatism has changed in many ways since the 1954-1980 period on which Kersch’s book focuses, these lessons are relevant for understanding the present political moment, filled with concerns that the U.S., during the second Trump Administration, is lurching toward tyranny, authoritarianism, and …

Memory Warriors, Pluralists, And Abnegators In Constitutional Interpretation: An Essay On Jack Balkin's Pluralist Originalism In Memory And Authority, Jed Handelsman Shugerman, Zachary Shugerman Handelsman

Faculty Scholarship

Jack Balkin’s Memory and Authority: The Uses of History in Constitutional Interpretation brings into conversation the scholarly insights of constitutional theory, history, and the growing field of “the politics of memory,” especially the concept of the “memory entrepreneur.”

Balkin appropriately connects the memory wars in American constitutional law back to Eastern

European memory wars during the World Wars and their aftermath. Prompted by Balkin, we turn to Jan Kubik and Michael Bernhard edited volume Twenty Years After Communism (2014), which has become even more widely influential after Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and a new round of Eastern European memory wars. …

Splitting The Statute: Severability As A Canon Of Construction Or Constitutional Concern?, Amy L. Moore

Catholic University Law Review

Severability doctrine stands at the crossroads of statutory interpretation and constitutional structure. This Article traces how the Supreme Court has struggled to define whether severability is merely an interpretive presumption designed to preserve as much of Congress’ work as possible, or a constitutional limit on judicial power that forbids courts from reconstructing statutes Congress never enacted. Beginning with Marbury v. Madison and running through cases like Alaska Airlines, Booker, Ayotte, Seila Law, and Loper Bright, this Article charts the Court’s shifting rationales from legislative intent and functional operability to structural separation-of-powers concerns. It distinguishes between …

Self-Determination Through Children's Rights: Resisting The Paradoxical Pretext Of Parents' Rights Legislation, Jeremiah Chin

Washington Law Review

Washington state law balances the interests of parents and the state in education, healthcare, and the general wellbeing of children. Despite the fact that children are at the center of emerging controversies, children’s rights are rarely discussed in state legislation debating the obligations and relationships between the state of Washington and parents. In education, for example, RCW 28A.605.005 finds “[p]arents are the primary stakeholders in their children’s upbringing.” While this may be true relative to the state, it overlooks the fact that children are the primary actors, agents, and rights bearers in their own personhood. This Article therefore considers ongoing …

The Value Of Jury Rights, Philip A. Hamburger

Faculty Scholarship

The right to a civil jury trial is often dismissed as an inefficient anachronism ill suited to the complexities of modern litigation, and these efficiency concerns have long overshadowed any serious defense of the Seventh Amendment. This Article argues that such skepticism profoundly misunderstands the constitutional function and enduring value of civil jury rights. The Article observes that the Seventh Amendment’s jury right was adopted with the understanding that it would come with some inefficiencies and that contemporary concerns about its inefficiencies tend to be overstated. Ultimately, the Article finds that civil juries are essential for structural reasons such as …

Presidential Removal As Article I, Not Article Ii, Gary Lawson, Jed Handelsman Shugerman

Faculty Scholarship

As a matter of original public meaning, Article I’s Necessary and Proper clause is the starting point for both Congress’s power to create offices and the limits on that power.

We believe that many legal scholars have demonstrated that, as a matter of original public meaning, the term “executive power” did not imply a presidential removal power, and Article II did not imply an indefeasible (unconditional) presidential removal power. By contrast, Article I’s Necessary and Proper Clause is a basis for limiting congressional power that is more historically grounded in original public meaning and in early practice. Tenure protections and …

Reckoning With Antisemitism In History And Tradition, Nathaniel Shaw Hay, Isaac Barnes May

Pepperdine Law Review

“History and tradition” has become a watchword of modern constitutional interpretation, shaping Supreme Court jurisprudence and framing ongoing debates over the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. Yet this interpretive framework remains under-theorized in one critical respect: how should it grapple with the prejudices embedded in the very traditions it invokes? This Article examines that question through the lens of anti-Jewish discrimination in Anglo-American law, using this history as a case study to examine both the perils and promise of relying on history as a source of constitutional authority. For centuries, the common law excluded Jews from full civic participation in …

Skrmetti Beyond Scrutiny, Kate Redburn

Faculty Scholarship

In United States v. Skrmetti, the Supreme Court upheld Tennessee Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), a state law that prohibits transgender minors from accessing gender-affirming care. For the first time, the Court considered a fundamental question in civil rights law: How does the Fourteenth Amendment regard transgender people? The Court gave little guidance. It did not sort out principles for deciding when anti-transgender discrimination classifies by sex, nor whether transgender people are a suspect class. Instead, the Court held that “[i]n the medical context, the mere use of sex-based language does not sweep a statute within the reach of …