Digital Commons Network^™

Symposium: Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity & The Constitution: American Constitutions And Artificial Insemination Births, Jeffrey A. Parness

ConLawNOW

Childcare parentage issues arising from assisted reproduction births are subject to constitutional guidance, including due process, equal protection, and privacy dictates. Constitutional rights, however, sometimes go unrecognized in assisted reproduction laws, particularly for same sex couples, wed and unwed, as well as for single women. Upon a brief review of contemporary American state assisted reproduction laws, current and future constitutional precedents are explored. This analysis shows that constitutional, as well as public policy, reforms are particularly needed for same-sex female couples and single women employing assisted reproduction as intended parents.

Originalism's Implementation Problem, Michael L. Smith, Alexander S. Hiland

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Despite the vast body of theoretical work produced by originalist scholars, this literature fails to address how practicing judges and attorneys should apply originalist theories. All too often, academic originalists appear to write for an audience of other originalist scholars. This results in lengthy, technical, and heavily theoretical discussions. The question of how courts and judges are to apply these increasingly technical and theoretical originalist methods is left by the wayside. All too often, judges and attorneys cherry-pick from this body of scholarship to create a veneer of academic legitimacy for their own goal-oriented arguments.

We do not seek to …

The Demise Of The Bivens Remedy Is Rendering Enforcement Of Federal Constitutional Rights Inequitable But Congress Can Fix It, Henry Rose

Northern Illinois University Law Review

A federal statute allows a person whose federal constitutional rights are violated by state actors to sue for damages. There is no analogous federal statute that allows a person whose constitutional rights are violated by federal actors to sue for damages. In 1971, the United States Supreme Court allowed a suit for damages against federal law enforcement officials who allegedly violated Fourth Amendment rights to proceed directly under the Constitution, creating the Bivens remedy. Beginning in 1983, the Supreme Court reversed course and issued ten consecutive decisions in which it denied a Bivens remedy because no federal statute authorizes suits …

Fundamental First Amendment Principles, David L. Hudson Jr., Jacob David Glenn

Northern Illinois University Law Review

First Amendment law is highly complex, even labyrinthine. But, there are fundamental principles in First Amendment law that provide a baseline for a core understanding. These ten fundamental principles are: (1) the First Amendment protects the right to criticize the government; (2) the First Amendment abhors viewpoint discrimination and often content, or subject-matter discrimination; (3) the First Amendment protects a great deal of symbolic speech or expressive conduct; (4) the First Amendment protects a great deal of offensive and even repugnant speech; (5) the First Amendment does not protect all forms of speech; (6) the First Amendment often depends upon …

Qualified Immunity, Sovereign Immunity, And Systemic Reform, Katherine Mims Crocker

Faculty Scholarship

Qualified immunity has become a central target of the movement for police reform and racial justice since George Floyd’s murder. And rightly so. Qualified immunity, which shields government officials from damages for constitutional violations even in many egregious cases, should have no place in federal law. But in critical respects, qualified immunity has become too much a focus of the conversation about constitutional-enforcement reform. The recent reappraisal offers unique opportunities to explore deeper problems and seek deeper solutions.

This Article argues that the public and policymakers should reconsider other aspects of the constitutional-tort system—especially sovereign immunity and related protections for …

Symposium: Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, & The Constitution: Queer Black Trans Politics And Constitutional Originalsim, Marc Spindelman

ConLawNOW

Queer Black trans politics offer an important frame for understanding the current constitutional moment. This is a moment in which the Supreme Court’s newly enthroned constitutional originalist project is taking off in ways that have race, sex, sexuality, and trans equality rights in its sights. Thinking with queer Black trans politics—and, in particular, their demands for intersectionality and for centering Black trans lives—this Essay presents a distinctive topology of LGBTQ rights and their intersections with constitutional race and sex guarantees. It considers how a queer Black trans-focused intersectional thinking plays out, including in the context of reproductive rights, and traces …

Reckless Abandon: The Shadow Of Model Rule 8.4(G) And A Path Forward, Margaret Tarkington

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

In August 2016, the American Bar Association’s (“ABA”) Board of Governors approved Model Rule of Professional Conduct (“MRPC”) 8.4(g) as a model for state adoption. The Rule makes it professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in “harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status.” Curbing harassment and discrimination is a critically important goal. However, the actual Rule as promulgated reaches far beyond prohibiting sexual harassment and unlawful discrimination. Instead the comments to the Rule define discrimination and harassment broadly to prohibit speech …

Symposium: Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, & The Constitution: The Precarity Of Justice Kennedy's Queer Canon, Kyle C. Velte

ConLawNOW

This essay gives a brief overview of the legal and normative of impact of Justice Kennedy’s Queer Canon, a series of four LGBTQ cases written by Justice Kennedy over nearly two decades. The pro-LGBTQ outcomes in the Queer Canon cases made Justice Kennedy a hero to many LGBTQ people. It then explores Justice Kennedy’s fifth, and final, LGBTQ opinion, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. That case, which held that a traditional Christian baker would prevail on his First Amendment Free Exercise challenge to a state public accommodations law, was not the finale hoped for by the LGBTQ …

Symposium: Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, & The Constitution: Business Owners' Religious Objections To Same-Sex Marriage: The American Versus European Perspective, Lenka Křičková

ConLawNOW

This Article focuses on the Lee v. Ashers Baking Company case from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, a decision similar to that of the U.S. Supreme Court in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Both cases involved bakers whose religious objections to same-sex marriage led them to refuse to sell cakes to gay customers. The Article discusses several common ideas appearing in these cases, mainly the need to distinguish between the message and the messenger when applying antidiscrimination law and the role of fundamental rights in the assessment. Based on this analysis, the Article then suggests …

Deep-State Constitutionalism, Randy E. Barnett

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In this review, I explain how "Common Good Constitutionalism" taps into a deficiency of the conservative legal movement: namely, its exclusive focus on the law "as it is" at the expense of the underlying abstract normative principles that justify the positive law of our written Constitution. Due to this deficiency, the conservative legal movement gives short shrift to the Declaration of Independence and the Ninth Amendment and the natural rights to which both refer. This deficiency is in need of correction. But any such correction does not justify the jettisoning of originalism as Vermeule proposes. Nor does Vermeule defend his …

A Balancing Act: Overcoming Incommensurability In Rights Adjudication, Samantha Knutson Jex

Brigham Young University Prelaw Review

The Supreme Court's current system for rights adjudication is insufficient in cases where both sides feel that a fundamental right has been violated, such as Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. To overcome this insufficiency, I argue that the Court should implement a new test that is a modified combination of the Supreme Court's strict scrutiny and the test used internationally for rights adjudication--the proportionality test. I call this new test the "Incommensurability Test" and explain how it works and why it is beneficial for rights adjudication in the United States. Applying the "Incommensurability Test" would enable the Court …

The Ghost Of John Hart Ely, Ryan D. Doerfler, Samuel Moyn

Vanderbilt Law Review

The ghost of John Hart Ely haunts the American liberal constitutional imagination. Despite the failure long ago of any progressive constitutional vision in an increasingly conservative Supreme Court, Ely’s conjectures about the superiority of judges relative to legislatures in the protection of minorities and the policing of the democratic process remain second nature. Indeed, they have been credible enough among liberals to underwrite an anxious or even hostile attitude toward judicial reform. In order to exorcise Ely’s ghost and lay it to rest, this Article challenges his twin conjectures. First, the Article argues that there is little historical and no …

Second Amendment Realism, Michael Ulrich

Faculty Scholarship

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court declared a constitutionally protected individual right to keep and bear arms. Subsequently, the scope of the right has been hotly debated, resulting in circuit splits and lingering questions about what, exactly, the right entails. Despite these splits, the Court has denied certiorari to the myriad gun cases to land on its doorstep. But the balance of the Court has shifted, and likely, too, its willingness to hear these cases. Among the most pressing questions in Second Amendment jurisprudence is the constitutionality of public carry restrictions. With a constitutional challenge inevitable given …

Lochner's Revenge: Tiered Scrutiny And The Acceptance Of Judicial Subjectivity, Phillip J. Closius

University of Cincinnati Law Review

No abstract provided.

Symposium: Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, & The Constitution: Suspect Classifications, Immutability, And Moral Responsibility, Michael Gentithes

ConLawNOW

This essay argues that when LGBTQ advocates raise equal protection arguments, they should resist the temptation to make immutability claims. Instead, they should acknowledge greater flexibility in the continuum of sexual orientation and gender identity, thereby avoiding traditional and binary immutability theory, and emphasize the lack of moral responsibility as a ground for strict scrutiny. Such arguments offer more traction for future cases rather than repeated efforts to suggest that sexuality is biologically determined or unalterable. This approach shifts the legal focus to the moral responsibility logic that lies behind traditional immutability theory, which may ultimately be more persuasive to …

Symposium: Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity & The Constitution: The Public Accommodations Dilemma - Whose Right Prevails, Meg Penrose

ConLawNOW

This essay gives a brief history of religious liberty-based objections to public accommodations law promoting societal integration and provides a potential solution. It argues there are parallels between LGBTQ discrimination and race discrimination, including the continued resistance to full integration and equality. The essay suggests a potential solution to the public accommodations dilemma between anti-discrimination and religious liberty in redefining the scope of religious liberty. Courts should protect religious services and activities—not secular services and activities. The status (religious or secular) of the person providing services should be irrelevant. The focus of public accommodations laws, and legal challenges to these …

Countering Gerrymandered Courts, Jed Handelsman Shugerman

Faculty Scholarship

The key insight in Professor Miriam Seifter's outstanding article Countermajoritarian Legislatures is that state legislatures are usually antidemocratic due to partisan gerrymandering, whereas state governors and judiciaries are insulated from gerrymandering by statewide elections (or selection), and thus they should have a more prominent role in framing election law and in enforcing the separation of powers.

This Piece offers afriendly amendment: These observations are true, so long as states do not gerrymander their state supreme courts into antidemocratic districts. The problem is that historically, judicial elections emerged generally as districted elections, and often with regional and partisan politics shaping those …

“Reverse” 404(B) Is Not An Evidence Law Issue: A Call To Revive The Compulsory Process Clause As A Vehicle For Evidence Admission, Clay Wilwol

New Mexico Law Review

In criminal cases, Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) is typically used by prosecutors seeking to introduce non-propensity “crimes, wrongs, or other acts” evidence against defendants. However, sometimes it is the defendant who seeks to use the Rule as a vehicle for evidence admissibility, either to provide such evidence to implicate the guilt of a third party or to help prove the intent or motive of alleged victims in violent crimes involving altercations. This latter defense-proffered use of Rule 404(b) has been termed “reverse” 404(b), and currently there is disagreement among courts (both federal and state) regarding how to assess the …

Hope Dies Last: The Progressive Potential And Regressive Reality Of The Antibalkanization Approach To Racial Equality, David Simson

Articles & Chapters

This Article relies on Critical Race Theory concepts and social science research to make an important and timely contribution to a debate in law and public policy that is both longstanding and of immense current importance: What is the relationship between social cohesion on the one hand, and racial equality progress on the other. Events over the last year have put this question into sharp relief. On the one hand, portions of the general public and at least some policymakers have signaled support for the demands of racial justice activists to reduce and eliminate systemic racism after too many tragedies …

Nonparty Jurisdiction, Aaron D. Simowitz, Linda J. Silberman

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

The Supreme Court's recent decisions on personal jurisdiction, including its 2021 decision in Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, have all focused on the adjudication of plenary claims. In seven years, the Court has decided six major cases on personal jurisdiction in that context. However, these precedents also appear to guide lower courts in areas outside the traditional focus of personal jurisdiction doctrine but where personal jurisdiction is nonetheless necessary. For example, a court must have personal jurisdiction over a nonparty witness in order to compel the witness to testify or to produce documents. A court must …

Answering The Call: A History Of The Emergency Power Doctrine In Texas And The United States, P. Elise Mclaren

St. Mary's Law Journal

During times of emergency, national and local government may be allowed to take otherwise impermissible action in the interest of health, safety, or national security. The prerequisites and limits to this power, however, are altogether unknown. Like the crises they aim to deflect, courts’ modern emergency power doctrines range from outright denial of any power of constitutional circumvention to their flagrant use. Concededly, courts’ approval of emergency powers has provided national and local government opportunities to quickly respond to emergency without pause for constituency approval, but how can one be sure the availability of autocratic power will not be abused? …

Impartial Justice: Restoring Integrity To Impeachment Trials, Justin D. Rattey

Pepperdine Law Review

In recent decades, we have witnessed the diminution of the impeachment process by various actors—especially political parties. But the Founders envisioned a vastly different process, one that was insulated from partisanship. In Alexander Hamilton’s words, impeachment trials were assigned to the Senate because the Senate is “a tribunal sufficiently dignified [and] sufficiently independent.” Examples from the most recent impeachment trials of President Donald J. Trump reflect the Senate’s loss of dignity and independence, with Senator McConnell pledging to work with the White House throughout the first impeachment process and senators from both parties conceding that they made up their minds …

Decoding Nondelegation After Gundy: What The Experience In State Courts Tells Us About What To Expect When We're Expecting, Daniel E. Walters

Faculty Scholarship

The nondelegation doctrine theoretically limits Congress’s ability to delegate legislative powers to the executive agencies that make up the modern administrative state. Yet, in practice, the U.S. Supreme Court has, since the New Deal, shied away from enforcing any limits on congressional delegation. That may change in the near future. In Gundy v. United States, the Court narrowly upheld a delegation, and a dissent signaled deep doubts about the Court’s longstanding “intelligible principle” standard and offered a new framework to replace it. Subsequent events strongly suggest that the Court is poised to move in the direction contemplated by the dissent …

Concrete Reliance On Stare Decisis In A Post-Dobbs World, Michael Gentithes

Con Law Center Articles and Publications

The Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization will be remembered primarily for its destabilizing effect on abortion rights across the country; in its wake, the legality of abortions performed in various states and at various stages of pregnancy was thrown into turmoil that will take years to resolve. In Dobbs’s immediate aftermath, substantive due process jurisprudence has been at least destabilized, if not prepared for greater limitation in the terms to come. But the Court’s approach to that line of cases has also turned stare decisis doctrine into an unclear jumble that may be considered …

El Juicio Político O Impeachment En Los Estados Unidos, Robert S. Barker

Barker Papers

SUMARIO: I. El origen ingles - II. La constitucion de los estados unidos.- 111. El primer caso: el caso Blount.- IV. El caso Chase. - V. El caso Johnson. - VI. El caso Belknap. - VII. La controversia Watergate, 1972-197 4. - VIII. Los casos Clinton y Trump. - IX. Los ca sos contra jueces de tribunales federales inferiores, 1873-2010. - X. El caso Walter Nixon. - XI. Cuestiones no resueltas. - XII. Conclusion. - XIII. Bibliografia.

SUMMARY: I. The English origin - II. The Constitution of the United States.- 111. The first case: the Blount case.- IV. The Chase …

A Call For Transparency In Sports To The Government Of Puerto Rico, Karla V. Aponte

St. Thomas Law Review

Much like a state, Puerto Rico is self-governed, but cannot interfere with federal law. However, sports federations in Puerto Rico are not governed by the existing applicable federal law. Sports federations are avoiding most of the strict regulations imposed by federal acts, mainly because Puerto Rico has its own Olympic identity, and is recognized by the International Olympic Committee as a separate country. As a result, the language on the federal acts has been interpreted to only apply to those organizations representing the United States. Because of this, federations avoid strict auditing procedures, and other regulations, which consequently have deterred …

The Constitutional Issues Of Publishing Mugshots In The Age Of Screenshots And Digital Media, Ryan J. Mcelhose

St. Thomas Law Review

This paper takes the position that American people’s Due Process rights are violated when their mugshots are digitally disseminated prior to a conviction. The press’s First Amendment rights are not violated by not having access to pre-conviction booking photos because the press can report on other publicly accessible information. The same conclusion can be made relating to private citizens and private companies who assert that their Freedom of Speech rights are violated by not having access to obtain, publish, and disseminate pre-conviction mugshots. Existing scholarship has addressed the issue of publishing mugshots with privacy arguments related to the Freedom of …

Are The Federal Rules Of Evidence Unconstitutional?, Ethan J. Leib

American University Law Review

The Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) rest on an unacceptably shaky constitutional foundation. Unlike other regimes of federal rulemaking—for Civil Procedure, for Criminal Procedure, and for Appellate Procedure—the FRE rulemaking process contemplated by the Rules Enabling Act is both formally and functionally defective because Congress enacted the FRE as a statute first but purports to permit the Supreme Court to revise, repeal, and amend those laws over time, operating as a kind of supercharged administrative agency with the authority to countermand congressional statutes. Formally, this system violates the constitutionally-delineated separation of powers as announced in Chadha, Clinton, and the non-delegation …

First Amendment Challenges To State Vaccine Mandats: Why The U.S. Supreme Court Should Hold That The Free Exercise Clause Does Not Require Religious Exemptions, Donna M. Gitter

American University Law Review

The U.S. Supreme Court has never issued a judicial opinion on the merits declaring that the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause permits states to mandate vaccinations without offering religious exemptions. However, in two recent cases, the Court in brief orders declined applications for emergency relief to block state vaccine mandates, and the petitioners have vowed to continue to pursue these cases.

This Article explores how the seemingly sudden onset of the coronavirus pandemic, coupled with its protracted duration, has occasioned both emergency and enduring state regulation of religious behavior in a way that exposes deep divides in our society’s views …

State Rejection Of Federal Law, Thomas B. Bennett

Faculty Publications

Sometimes the United States Supreme Court speaks, and states do not follow. For example, in 2003, the Arizona Supreme Court agreed to "reject" a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, because no "sound reasons justif[ied] following" it. Similarly, in 2006, Michigan voters approved a ballot initiative that, according to the legislature that drafted it, sought "at the very least to freeze' the state's ... law to prevent" state courts from following a ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court. Surprising though this language may be, there is nothing nefarious about these cases. Cooper v. Aaron this is not. Unlike more notorious …