Digital Commons Network^™

Legalization Without Disruption: Why Congress Should Let States Restrict Interstate Commerce In Marijuana, Scott P. Bloomberg

Faculty Publications

Over the past twenty-five years, states have developed elaborate regulatory systems to govern lawful marijuana markets. In designing these systems, states have assumed that the Dormant Commerce Clause (“DCC”) does not apply; Congress, after all, has banned all commerce in marijuana. However, the states’ reprieve from the doctrine may soon come to an end. Congress is on the verge of legalizing marijuana federally, and once it does, it will unleash the DCC, with dire consequences for the states and the markets they now regulate. This Article serves as a wake-up call. It provides the most extensive analysis to date of …

Termination Of Parental Rights As A Private Remedy: Rationales, Realities, And Remedies, Deirdre M. Smith

Faculty Publications

Terminating a parent’s rights—a drastic measure—is commonly associated with public child welfare proceedings, where a state or county child protective services agency has removed a child from their home based on findings of abuse or neglect. In fact, state laws across the country also permit private individuals to petition a court to terminate another person’s parental rights. While private termination actions are not uncommon, there has been scant scholarly examination of these matters, their underlying purposes, and their role in contemporary family law. Termination of parental rights orders in any context interfere with parents’ fundamental constitutional rights, but parents in …

The False Allure Of The Anti-Accumulation Principle, Kevin Stack, Michael Herz

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Today the executive branch is generally seen as the most dangerous branch. Many worry that the executive branch now defies or subsumes the separation of powers. In response, several Supreme Court Justices and prominent scholars assert that the very separation-of-powers principles that determine the structure of the federal government as a whole apply with full force within the executive branch. In particular, they argue that constitutional law prohibits the accumulation of more than one type of power-—legislative, executive, and judicial—-in the same executive official or government entity. We refer to this as the anti-accumulation principle. The consequences of this principle, …

Taking Justification Seriously: Proportionality, Strict Scrutiny, And The Substance Of Religious Liberty, Stephanie H. Barclay, Justin Collings

Journal Articles

Last term, five Justices on the Supreme Court flirted with the possibility of revisiting the Court’s First Amendment test for when governments must provide an exemption to a religious objector. But Justice Barrett raised an obvious, yet all-important question: If the received test were to be revised, what new test should take its place? The competing interests behind this question have be-come even more acute in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. In a moment rife with lofty rhetoric about religious liberty but riven by fierce debates about what it means in practice, this Article revisits a fundamental question common to …

Fragility, Not Superiority? Assessing The Fairness Of Special Religious Protections, Sherif Girgis

Journal Articles

Is it fair to grant exemptions from neutral laws to protect religion but not other deep commitments and pursuits, like secular conscience or care-giving bonds? The 30-year scholarly debate on this question now has legal import, as the Supreme Court stands poised to reverse precedent and restore free exercise exemptions from neutral laws. Whether it should, under stare decisis, turns partly on moral considerations like the fairness issue. And the debate is worth revisiting. Almost everyone has assumed that special religious protections are fair if and only if religion matters more than other interests. Yet protections for religion might be …

What Does Effective Government Have To Do With The Constitution?, Gillian E. Metzger

Faculty Scholarship

Nearly a million people dead and counting. More than 77 million infected, a little less than one-fifth of the total infections worldwide. The United States has had more deaths than any other country, and its COVID-19 death rate of 276 per 100,000 people is the highest among the world’s wealthiest nations. Blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans are hospitalized and die at significantly higher rates than whites. Some bright lights exist too, one being the speedy development of vaccines and their deployment in 2021 – although there, too, both the national government and the states have sometimes stumbled. Another is legislative …

Appealable Tros, Bernadette Bollas Genetin

Con Law Center Articles and Publications

It’s textbook law that temporary restraining orders (TROs) are not appealable. That bright-line rule, however, has never told the whole story. Today, a majority of circuit courts permit appeal of TROs in narrow instances when, for instance, the TRO has the practical effect of an injunction, threatens serious or irreparable injury, and can only be reviewed effectively by immediate appeal. This accords with the Supreme Court’s conclusion in Carson v. American Brands, Inc., which permitted limited appeal of orders that, like TROs, are not express injunctions but may threaten the same irreparable injury as an injunction. The Carson Court emphasized …

An Expanded Version Of Oira Can Ensure Democratic Accountability In The Administrative State, Richard J. Pierce Jr

GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works

In this contribution to a symposium, Professor Pierce argues that the most promising way of ensuring democratic accountability in the administrative state is to combine an expanded version of OIRA with complementary doctrines.

“Second-Class" Rhetoric, Ideology, And Doctrinal Change, Eric Ruben, Joseph Blocher

Faculty Scholarship

A common refrain in current constitutional discourse is that lawmakers and judges are systematically disfavoring certain rights. This allegation has been made about the rights to free speech and free exercise of religion, but it is most prominent in debates about the right to keep and bear arms. Such “second-class” treatment, the argument goes, signals that the Supreme Court must intervene aggressively to police the disrespected rights. Past empirical work casts doubt on the descriptive claim that judges and policymakers are disrespecting the Second Amendment, but that simply highlights how little we know about how the second-class argument functions as …

Are Constitutional Rights Enough? An Empirical Assessment Of Racial Bias In Police Stops, Michael Frakes, Rohit Asirvatham

Faculty Scholarship

This Article empirically tests the conventional wisdom that a permissive constitutional standard bearing on pretextual traffic stops—such as the one announced by the Supreme Court in Whren v. United States—contributes to racial disparities in traffic stops. To gain empirical traction on this question, we look to state constitutional law. In particular, we consider a natural experiment afforded by changes in the State of Washington’s rules regarding traffic stops. Following Whren, the Washington Supreme Court first took a more restrictive stance than the U.S. Supreme Court, prohibiting pretextual stops by police officers, but later reversed course and instituted a laxer standard, …

Violence And Nondelegation, Jacob D. Charles, Darrell A. H. Miller

Faculty Scholarship

Debates over delegation are experiencing a renaissance. These debates presuppose an initial distribution of constitutional authority between actors that cannot be redistributed, or that can be redistributed only according to some clear ex ante set of rules. Nondelegation in this sense often arises in debates about separation of powers and intergovernmental delegation, although scholars have begun applying the concept to delegations to private corporations and other private actors. The public delegation doctrine restricts one branch of government from transferring its constitutional authority to another branch, while the private delegation doctrine limits transfer of government power to private entities. In this …

Interpretation, Remedy, And The Rule Of Law: Why Courts Should Have The Courage Of Their Convictions, Ronald A. Cass, Jack M. Beermann

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Arthrex opens a window on a set of issues debated in different contexts for decades. These issues—how to interpret statutes and constitutional provisions, what sources to look to, whether so far as possible to adopt interpretations that avoid declaring actions of coordinate branches unconstitutional, and where such actions are deemed to have been unconstitutional whether to provide remedies that cabin the most significant implications of such a declaration—go to the heart of the judicial role and the division of responsibilities among the branches of government.

Our principal focus, however, is on the …

Why Judges Can't Save Democracy, Robert L. Tsai

Faculty Scholarship

In The Specter of Dictatorship,¹ David Driesen has written a learned, lively book about the dangers of autocracy, weaving together incisive observations about democratic backsliding in other countries with a piercing critique of American teetering on the brink of executive authoritarianism at home. Driesen draws deeply and faithfully on the extant literature on comparative constitutionalism and democracy studies. He also builds on the work of scholars of the American political system who have documented the largely one-way transfer of power over foreign affairs to the executive branch. Driesen's thesis has a slight originalist cast, holding that "the Founders aimed …

Removal Of Context: Blackstone, Limited Monarchy, And The Limits Of Unitary Originalism, Jed Handelsman Shugerman

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court's recent decisions that the President has an unconditional or indefeasible removal power rely on textual and historical assumptions and a "removal of context." This article focuses on the "executive power" part of the Vesting Clause and particularly the unitary theorists' misuse of Blackstone. Unitary executive theorists overlook the problems of relying on England's limited monarchy: the era's rise of Parliamentary supremacy over the Crown and its power to eliminate or regulate (i.e., make defeasible) royal prerogatives. Unitary theorists provide no evidence that executive removal was ever identified as a "royal prerogative" or a default royal power. The …

Revitalizing The Ban On Conversion Therapy: An Affirmation Of The Constitutionality Of Conversion Therapy Bans, Logan Kline

University of Cincinnati Law Review

No abstract provided.

Equal, But Only Conceptually: Explaining The Phenomenon Of Religious Losses In Contemporary Canadian Constitutional Cases Involving Conflicting Rights, Mike Madden

Dalhousie Law Journal

If there is no hierarchy of rights in Canada, then why does freedom of religion so often seem to lose in cases of conflicts with other rights? This article discusses five recent Canadian cases (involving same-sex marriages, controversial medical practices, the wearing of a niqab, and a Christian university’s sexual conduct policy) in order to expose how the courts regularly characterize freedom of religion as being conceptually equal to other rights, before ruling against freedom of religion on the facts of the particular cases. This phenomenon within Canadian rights jurisprudence is then justified within the article by reference to a …

Textual Gerrymandering: The Eclipse Of Republican Government In An Era Of Statutory Populism, William N. Eskridge, Victoria Frances Nourse

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

We have entered the era dominated by a dogmatic textualism—albeit one that is fracturing, as illustrated by the three warring original public meaning opinions in the blockbuster sexual orientation case, Bostock v. Clayton County. This Article provides conceptual tools that allow lawyers and students to understand the deep analytical problems faced and created by the new textualism advanced by Justice Scalia and his heirs. The key is to think about choice of text—why one piece of text rather than another—and choice of context—what materials are relevant to confirm or clarify textual meaning. Professors Eskridge and Nourse apply these concepts …

Appendix: Board Gender Diversity: A Path To Achieving Substantive Equality In The United States, Kimberly A. Houser, Jamillah Bowman Williams

William & Mary Law Review Online

Appendix to article in William & Mary Law Review vol. 63, no. 2 (2021), "Board Gender Diversity: A Path to Achieving Substantive Equality in the United States" by Kimberly A. Houser and Jamillah Bowen Williams.

Board Gender Diversity: A Path To Achieving Substantive Equality In The United States, Kimberly A. Houser, Jamillah Bowen Williams

William & Mary Law Review

While the European Union (EU) was founded on the concept of equality as a fundamental value in 1993, the United States was created at a time when women were considered legally inferior to men. This has had the lasting effect of preventing women in the United States from making inroads into positions of power. While legislated board gender diversity (BGD) mandates have been instituted in some EU countries, the United States has been loath to take that route, relying instead on the goodwill of corporate boards, with little progress. On September 30, 2018, however, California enacted a law that has …

Reconsidering Section 1983'S Nonabrogation Of Sovereign Immunity, Katherine Mims Crocker

Faculty Scholarship

Motivated by civil unrest and the police conduct that prompted it, Americans have embarked on a major reexamination of how constitutional enforcement works. One important component is 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows civil suits against any “person” who violates federal rights. The U.S. Supreme Court has long held that “person” excludes states because Section 1983 flunks a condition of crystal clarity.

This Article reconsiders that conclusion—in legalese, Section 1983’s nonabrogation of sovereign immunity—along multiple dimensions. Beginning with a negative critique, this Article argues that because the Court invented the crystal-clarity standard so long after Section 1983’s enactment, the caselaw …

Menstrual Dignity And The Bar Exam, Margaret E. Johnson, Marcy L. Karin, Elizabeth Cooper

All Faculty Scholarship

This Article examines the issue of menstruation and the administration of the bar exam. Although such problems are not new, over the summer and fall of 2020, test takers and commentators took to social media to critique state board of law examiners’ (“BOLE”) policies regarding menstruation. These problems persist. Menstruators worry that if they unexpectedly bleed during the exam, they may not have access to appropriately sized and constructed menstrual products or may be prohibited from accessing the bathroom. Personal products that are permitted often must be carried in a clear, plastic bag. Some express privacy concerns that the see-through …

Reviving The Poll Tax: Voter Id And Debt Laws, Cynthia Boyer

ConLawNOW

In the United States, disenfranchisement is deeply rooted in history as a form of punishment—a dual penalty. In the late nineteenth century, the poll tax first emerged to restrict voting and limit the expansion of suffrage to Black men. Primarily aimed at minorities, these laws on disenfranchisement became a significant barrier to U.S. ballot boxes. Even though the poll tax was finally outlawed in federal elections in 1964, nowadays it takes another subtle form through the prism of voter identification laws. Thirty-five states currently have voter ID laws, with varying criteria and accepted forms of documentation, thus requesting or requiring …

Book Talk: The Cult Of The Constitution, Mary Anne Franks

ConLawNOW

In this essay based on remarks delivered as the 2020 Constitution Day lecture at the Center for Constitutional Law, Professor Franks previews her book, The Cult of the Constitution. It addresses Franks’ key thesis about fundamentalist approaches to legal texts and Constitution, which read texts in selective and self-interested ways that verify a particular world view and ignore interpretations or passages that complicate it. Her work highlights debates over guns and the Second Amendment and Black Lives Matter protests and the First Amendment as examples of this problematic constitutional fundamentalism. Instead, the book and essay point to the Fourteenth …

With Unanimity And Justice For All: The Case For Retroactive Application Of The Unanimous Jury Verdict Requirement, Kara Kurland

Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy

Until the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Ramos v. Louisiana, non-unanimous jury verdicts were constitutional and utilized in two states: Louisiana and Oregon. The Ramos decision not only declared the practice of non-unanimous jury verdicts unconstitutional, but it also emphasized the essential nature of jury verdict unanimity in criminal trials throughout American history and legal jurisprudence. A year later, in Edwards v. Vannoy, the Court considered retroactive application of Ramos. Utilizing the test created in Teague v. Lane that assessed the retroactivity of new rules of criminal procedure, the Court announced that, despite the essential nature of the unanimous jury …

Removing Police From Schools Using State Law Heightened Scrutiny, Christina Payne-Tsoupros

Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy

This Article argues that school police, often called school resource officers, interfere with the state law right to education and proposes using the constitutional right to education under state law as a mechanism to remove police from schools.

Disparities in school discipline for Black and brown children are well-known. After discussing the legal structures of school policing, this Article uses the Disability Critical Race Theory (DisCrit) theoretical framework developed by Subini Annamma, David Connor, and Beth Ferri to explain why police are unacceptable in schools. Operating under the premise that school police are unacceptable, this Article then analyzes mechanisms to …

The Jury Trial Reinvented, Christopher Robertson, Michael Shammas

Faculty Scholarship

The Framers of the Sixth and Seventh Amendments to the United States Constitution recognized that jury trials were essential for maintaining democratic legitimacy and avoiding epistemic crises. As an institution, the jury trial is purpose-built to engage citizens in the process of deliberative, participatory democracy with ground rules. The jury trial provides a carefully constructed setting aimed at sorting truth from falsehood.
/="/">
/="/">Despite its value, the jury trial has been under assault for decades. Concededly, jury trials can sometimes be inefficient, unreliable, unpredictable, and impractical. The COVID–19 pandemic rendered most physical jury trials unworkable but spurred some courts …

Education, Antidomination, And The Republican Guarantee, Kip M. Hustace

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article offers a new interpretation of the United States Constitution’s republican guarantee and theorizes its protection of a fundamental right to education. Courts and education law scholars have identified the republican guarantee as a plausible source of educational rights but have not detailed how. Drawing on recent work by legal scholars, historians, political scientists, and philosophers, this Article reinterprets the guarantee as the federal government’s obligation to secure freedom as nondomination, and it argues that excellent, equitable public education is necessary to fulfilling this duty. Nondomination, a robust conception of freedom, is freedom from subjection to the will of …

How Chevron Deference Fits Into Article Iii, Kent H. Barnett

Scholarly Works

U.S. Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, along with Professor Philip Hamburger, assert that Chevron deference-under which courts defer to reasonable agency statutory interpretations-violates Article III. Chevron does so because, they argue, it either permits agencies, not courts, "to say what the law is" or requires judges to forgo independent judgment by favoring the government's position. If they are correct, Congress could not require courts to accept reasonable agency statutory interpretations under any circumstances. This Article does what these critics, perhaps surprisingly, do not do-situates challenges to Chevron within the broad landscape of the Court's current Article III …

Long Overdue: Fifth Amendment Protection For Corporate Officers, Tracey Maclin

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court has extended to corporations many of the same constitutional rights that were originally intended to protect people.One notable exception, however, is the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition on compulsory self-incrimination.

“Corporations may not take the Fifth.” There is a long line of cases dating back to the start of the twentieth century stating—but never directly holding— that corporations are not protected by the Self-Incrimination Clause.

But the fact that a corporation cannot invoke the Fifth Amendment does not explain why a person who works for a corporation cannot. As a matter of text, the Fifth Amendment draws no distinction …

The Supreme Court's Reticent Qualified Immunity Retreat, Katherine Mims Crocker

Faculty Scholarship

The recent outcry against qualified immunity, a doctrine that disallows damages actions against government officials for a wide swath of constitutional claims, has been deafening. But when the Supreme Court in November 2020 and February 2021 invalidated grants of qualified immunity based on reasoning at the heart of the doctrine for the first time since John Roberts became Chief Justice, the response was muted. With initial evaluations and competing understandings coming from legal commentators in the months since, this Essay explores what these cases appear to say about qualified immunity for today and tomorrow.

The Essay traces idealistic, pessimistic, and …