Law Commons^™

Preimplantation Genetic Testing: A Fundamental Right, Julianna S. Swann

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

Unlike many European countries of similar economic, social, scientific, and political advancement, there is virtually no regulation of preimplantation genetic testing in the United States. This Note will explore preimplantation genetic testing and demonstrate that potential parents in the United States have a right to conduct said testing under the umbrella of the fundamental right to privacy. This Note will demonstrate the need for the regulation for preimplantation genetic testing that will comply with the Undue Burden Test set out in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, while acknowledging and supporting the fundamental right of potential parents to conduct testing. This …

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 …

From Negative To Positive Algorithm Rights, Cary Coglianese, Kat Hefter

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

We consider this issue here and suggest that the current calls for a negative right to be free from AI could very well transform over time into positive claims that demand the use of algorithmic tools by government officials. In Part I, we begin by sketching the current landscape surrounding the adoption of AI by government. That landscape is characterized by strong activist and scholarly voices expressing a pronounced aversion to the use of digital algorithms—and taking a decidedly negative rights tone. In Part II, we show that, although aversion to complex technology might be understandable, that aversion is neither …

Limited Protection: The Impact Of Illegal Entry On Due Process Rights In Expedited Removal Proceedings, Sun Shen

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

[...] This Note argues that illegal entry often limits the scope of asylum seekers’ due process rights in court and negatively impacts the asylum process in a way that runs afoul with the spirit of due process and fairness. Asylum eligibility should not hinge on whether entry is legal, but whether applicants are able to meet the evidentiary burden. Conditioning asylum seekers’ procedural due process rights on the legality of entry creates arbitrary asylum results and carries high risks of sending back asylum seekers to danger, simply because they were not able to obtain valid travel documents from the governments …

The Price Of Democracy: Evaluating The Excessing Fines Clause In Light Of Florida Felon Disenfranchisement, Raven Peters

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Note aims to show how the current test of proportionality is insufficient in combatting excessive fines, especially considering the racist and discriminatory practices of felon disenfranchisement. In Part I, this Note evaluates the background of the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause and its recent incorporation against the states. Part II will provide insight into the history of felon disenfranchisement in Florida and the fight for voter restoration through the passage of Florida Amendment 4. This section will then tell of the subsequent implementation of Florida Statutes section 98.0751 requiring ex-felons to pay all fines and fees associated with their …

A Sixth Amendment Inclusionary Rule For Fourth Amendment Violations, Scott W. Howe

Connecticut Law Review

Early in the tenure of Chief Justice Roberts, a five-Justice majority of the Supreme Court signaled that it was ready to consider eliminating the exclusionary rule as a remedy for Fourth Amendment violations. The central concern was that, even after decades of limiting the rule through new exceptions, it purportedly lacked utility in balancing protections against the competing dangers of crime and police abuse, the only rationale on which it has been grounded in the modern era. That existential reappraisal never openly occurred, and the exclusionary rule, in further reduced form, still survives. Yet, given the Court’s recent conservative shift, …

The Intent Of The Framer: John Bingham’S Fourteenth Amendment, Michael Zuckert

Notre Dame Law Review

It is not often that a single individual is responsible for constitutional provisions as important as Sections 1 and 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. My project in this Essay is not to engage in a study of original intent, or original public meaning, or however we wish now to characterize the originalist project, but to engage in a quest for John Bingham’s Amendment, for understanding the Amendment as he understood it. Whether this gives us an authoritative reading of the Amendment for the purposes of constitutional interpretation and adjudication is a separate issue. I treat Bingham as an author and …

Freedom Seekers: The Transgressive Constitutionalism Of Fugitives From Slavery, Rebecca E. Zietlow

Notre Dame Law Review

In the years leading up to the Civil War, fugitives from slavery put their lives on the line to improve their own status and that of their families in their quest for freedom. Fugitives from slavery, or “freedom seekers,” engaged in civil disobedience, resisting laws that they believed to be unjust and inhumane. In the North, free black people and their white allies supported the freedom seekers by engaging in civil disobedience of their own. The transgressive actions of freedom seekers sparked constitutional controversy during the antebellum era over issues of interstate comity, federalism, citizenship rights, and fundamental human rights. …

How Favored, Exactly? An Analysis Of The Most Favored Nation Theory Of Religious Exemptions From Calvary Chapel To Tandon, Luray Buckner

Notre Dame Law Review

In this Note, I argue that Justice Kavanaugh’s most favored nation test for religious exemptions actually differs from the one employed by the majority of the Court in Tandon. The majority’s formulation of the test is vague and explicitly requires courts to engage in a fact-intensive comparability analysis. Practically, lower courts applying Tandon to religious exemption questions have exploited this comparability step to rule against religious claimants generally, but more specifically to deny them strict scrutiny. Because the Tandon test was formulated to apply to all free exercise claims, the test is necessarily framed in more general terms and …

Immigration Detention And Illusory Alternatives To Habeas, Fatma Marouf

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court has never directly addressed whether, or under what circumstances, a writ of habeas corpus may be used to challenge the conditions of detention, as opposed to the fact or duration of detention. Consequently, a circuit split exists on habeas jurisdiction over conditions claims. The COVID-19 pandemic brought this issue into the spotlight as detained individuals fearing infection, serious illness, and death requested release through habeas petitions around the country. One of the factors that courts considered in deciding whether to exercise habeas jurisdiction was whether alternative remedies exist, through a civil rights or tort-based action. This Article …

Constitutional Interpretation: Have The Methods Used By The Supreme Court Changed Over Time?, Morgan A. Matney

Chancellor’s Honors Program Projects

No abstract provided.

Diversity’S Distractions Revisited: The Case Of Latinx In Higher Education, Rachel F. Moran

Faculty Scholarship

As the United States Supreme Court considers the future of affirmative action in higher education, this Article reflects on a 2003 essay by Professor Derrick Bell, which provocatively argued that diversity is a distraction from other pressing problems of access to a bachelor’s degree. The Article evaluates his claims with a focus on Latinx students, a rapidly growing segment of the college-going population. Bell believed that diversity is a less compelling justification for the use of race in admissions than corrective justice is. As a result, he predicted persistent litigation over the constitutionality of affirmative action programs. That prediction certainly …

Roe V. Wade Under Attack: Choosing Procedural Doctrines Over Fundamental Constitutional Rights, Simona Grossi

ConLawNOW

This Article details the Texas litigation on abortion rights in and out of the U.S. Supreme Court in 2021 and its implications for the future of constitutional rights. The litigation focused primarily on procedural issues like standing and sovereign immunity that prevented the plaintiffs’ claims of violation of fundamental constitutional rights to proceed to their merits. Such procedural doctrines have become a powerful tool in the hands of the Supreme Court used to control social and economic development. Thus procedure, originally conceived as the handmaid of justice, has become one of its main antagonists. This Article argues against such abuses …

How A Shuttered Bathroom At A Pgh Grocery Store Explains Structural Racism, Bruce Ledewitz

Newspaper Columns

Collected biweekly contributions to the Pennsylvania Capital-Star, a nonpartisan, nonprofit news site.

Administrative Apparition: Resurrecting The Modern Administrative State’S Legitimacy Crisis With Agency Law Analysis, Tabitha Kempf

Catholic University Law Review

There is an enduring discord among academic and political pundits over the state of modern American government, with much focus on the ever-expanding host of federal agencies and their increasing regulatory, investigative, enforcement, and adjudicatory authority. The growing conglomerate of federal agencies, often unfavorably regarded as the “administrative state,” has invited decades of debate over the validity and proper scope of this current mode of government. Advocates for and against the administrative state are numerous, with most making traditional constitutional arguments to justify or delegitimize the current establishment. Others make philosophical, moral, or practical arguments in support or opposition. Though …

Heirs Of An Administration: Unlawful Executive Actions, Jerome Perez

Catholic University Law Review

The Supreme Court of the United States in DHS v. Regents on June 18, 2020, decided to stall the Trump administration from rescinding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy that the Obama administration created contrary to the Administrative Procedures Act (APA)––even though in 2016 the Supreme Court affirmed a preliminary injunction on the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) policy, which mirrors DACA. This blunder offhandedly sacrifices the Supreme Court’s reputation as nonpartisan by enlisting itself as the future arbiter of administrative issues with self-evident resolutions and deciding contrary to those resolutions to endorse a political agenda. …

Neither Trumps Nor Interests: Rights, Pluralism, And The Recovery Of Constitutional Judgment, Paul Linden-Retek

Cleveland State Law Review

This Article develops a novel framework for the adjudication of rights in an age of partisan and societal polarization. In so doing, it defends judicial review in a divided polity on new grounds. The Article makes two broad interventions.

First, the Article cautions against recent calls to shift rights adjudication in the United States from Dworkinian categoricalism toward proportionality analysis. Such calls correctly identify how categoricalism, by embracing the absolute nature of rights as “trumps,” pits citizens harshly against one another. The problem, however, is that proportionality’s proponents fail to see how it imposes a rights absolutism of its own. …

Implications Of Non-Exclusive Choice Of Forum Clauses In Determining The Competent Dispute Resolution Forum In Indonesia, Alvansa Vickya, Tiurma M.P. Allagan

Indonesia Law Review

This research aims to analyze the implications of a non-exclusive choice of forum clause in determining the competent dispute resolution forum in Indonesia based on theories related to Private International Law, International Contract Law, and International Civil Procedure Law. Based on the results of this research, the implications of the non-exclusive choice of forum clause in determining the competent dispute resolution forum in Indonesia have not been fully regulated by Indonesian laws and regulations. This can be seen from the use of the doctrines of forum non conveniens, lis pendens, and res judicata, the three of which are still not …

Neither Trumps Nor Interests: Rights, Pluralism, And The Recovery Of Constitutional Judgment Of Constitutional Judgment, Paul Linden-Retek

Journal Articles

This Article develops a novel framework for the adjudication of rights in an age of partisan and societal polarization. In so doing, it defends judicial review in a divided polity on new grounds. The Article makes two broad interventions.

First, the Article cautions against recent calls to shift rights adjudication in the United States from Dworkinian categoricalism toward proportionality analysis. Such calls correctly identify how categoricalism, by embracing the absolute nature of rights as “trumps,” pits citizens harshly against one another. The problem, however, is that proportionality’s proponents fail to see how it imposes a rights absolutism of its own. …

“Rap Music On Trial”: Examining The Consequences Of Rap Lyrics Being Admissible At Trial, Malik Stewart

SLU Law Journal Online

Rap lyrics are being deemed admissible in court to convict criminal defendants. In this article, Malik Stewart considers the consequences of admitting rap lyrics to evidence to prove a defendant’s guilt, possible First Amendment violations, the efforts to prevent prosecutors from using rap lyrics as evidence, and the ways in which rap music is being targeted by prosecutors. The article also considers the emergence of Drill music and what to expect moving forward.

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 …

Law School News: Welcome, Professor Bernard Freamon 04-20-2022, Michael M. Bowden

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

The Next Small Step, Samiya Henry

Undergraduate Research and Scholarship Symposium

As of right now, NASA and other space programs are estimating that by 2026, there will be people living in Space. Whether it be the Moon or Mars, one cannot have a functional society without a proper source of laws, especially since no one country has ownership over space. "One Small Step" will produce this source of laws, called the “Space Bill of Rights,” that will outline important matters like the trade of resources, medical care, government officials, and will ensure the preservation of our physical and figurative footsteps in space. This Space Bill of Rights is made up of …

The Shurtleff Conundrum: Resolving The Conflict In Government-Speech And Public Forum Analysis, James Walraven

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Shurtleff v. Boston is the Supreme Court's latest opportunity to clarify the murky line between the "government-speech" and "public forum" doctrines. The Court will decide whether the City of Boston violated the Free Speech Clause by refusing to fly a flag with Christian imagery in front of City Hall. The City had previously allowed the flying of numerous national and cultural flags by various organizations, but refused to fly a conservative social organization's "Christian flag" because of the City's fear of appearing to endorse a particular religion.

Under the public forum doctrine, private citizens' free speech is protected to varying …

The Incomprehensibility Of Nevada's Capable-Of-Repetition-Yet-Evading-Review Doctrine, Tom Stewart

Nevada Law Journal Forum

Nevada appellate courts recognize and apply an exception to the mootness doctrine that exists in federal court but does not currently have any basis in any state court rule or statute and, thus, should not be applied by Nevada’s appellate courts. Indeed, because no statute or court rule authorizes the Nevada appellate courts to hear cases that have been rendered moot but may be capable of repetition, yet evade review, Nevada’s appellate courts have no authority to do so. Thus, the appellate courts’ decisions entered on that basis are void. However, the solution to this problem is simple: the Nevada …

Protecting A Woman’S Right To Abortion During A Public Health Crisis, San Juanita Gonzalez

The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice

As COVID-19 infected our nation, states were quick to issue executive orders restricting various aspects of daily life under the pretense of public safety. It was clear at the outset that certain civil liberties were going to be tested. Among them, the constitutional right to an abortion.

This comment explores Texas’ response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the limitations it imposed on abortion access. It will attempt to address the legitimacy of the “public health concerns” listed in executive orders issued throughout numerous states and will discuss the pertinent legal framework and judicial scrutiny to apply.

According to the Fifth …

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

Northwestern University Law Review

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 …

Xiaomi Corporation V. U.S. Department Of Defense: Defending The International Emergency Economic Powers Act, Bailey Williams

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) provides the Executive with emergency authority to act in the realm of foreign affairs and national security. As global power struggles increasingly play out in financial markets as opposed to battle fields, the United States is leveraging global capital markets, banking, and financial systems to effectuate national security goals – and is relying on IEEPA to do so. However, critics argue IEEPA lacks appropriate procedural safeguards given the courts' general deference to the Executive acting pursuant to national security and the corresponding lack of Congressional oversight.

After assessing various criticisms of IEEPA, this …

Noncitizens' Rights In The Face Of Prolonged Detention: Johnson V. Arteaga-Martinez, Samantha L. Fawcett

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (the "INA"), codified in part at 8 U.S.C. § 1231, the federal government generally has ninety days to successfully deport a detained noncitizen who has reentered illegally after being removed once before. While exceptions to this time limit exist, the United States Supreme Court determined in 2001 that detention under Section 1231 cannot be indefinite.[1]

Now, more than two decades later, the Court must elaborate further. In Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez, the Court must decide how long a detainment can last beyond the ninety-day statutory limit while a detainee seeks relief from deportation through …

Toomey’S Vote Against Ketanji Brown Jackson Set A Dangerous Precedent. Here's Why, Bruce Ledewitz

Newspaper Columns

Collected biweekly contributions to the Pennsylvania Capital-Star, a nonpartisan, nonprofit news site.