Law Commons^™

Democracy, Federalism, And The Guarantee Clause, Carolyn Shapiro

All Faculty Scholarship

The Guarantee Clause of the Constitution promises that “[t]he United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government . . . .” The Supreme Court has long held this Clause to be nonjusticiable, and as a result, many see the Clause as purely vestigial. But nonjusticiable does not mean toothless, and this view fails to recognize the Clause’s grant of power to Congress. The Guarantee Clause provides Congress with the authority to ensure that each state’s internal governance meets a minimum standard of republicanism. The Framers included this promise because they feared that some …

Docket Control, Mandatory Jurisdiction, And The Supreme Court's Failure In Rucho V. Common Cause, Carolyn Shapiro

All Faculty Scholarship

This paper, part of a Symposium on Andrew Coan's book, Rationing the Constitution: How Judicial Capacity Shapes Supreme Court Decision-Making, traces congressional changes to Supreme Court jurisdiction over more than a century, noting that those changes were regularly made in response to concerns about the Court's caseload. To the extent that Coan, and the Court, turn to doctrinal methods of controlling caseloads, such as deferential standards of review, they are overlooking the important congressional role in setting the Court's jurisdiction. The paper concludes by criticizing the recent decision of Rucho v. Common Cause in which the Court held that extreme …

The Special Norms Thesis: Why Congress's Constitutional Decision-Making Should Be Disciplined By More Than The Usual Norms Of Politics, Mark Rosen

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Quacking Like A Duck? Functional Parenthood Doctrine And Same-Sex Parents, Katharine Baker

All Faculty Scholarship

Part I of this article introduces the tension between constitutionally protected parental autonomy rights and functional parent doctrine by examining the constitutional rights of parents. This examination demonstrates how the marital status of a parent has a substantial impact on the strength of that parent's constitutional rights. In cases in which there are two unmarried (never married or divorced) parents, neither parent has particularly robust constitutionally protected autonomy rights because both parents have competing constitutional rights that must be balanced against each other. Each parent has the right to invoke a court's jurisdiction in vindication of his or her own …

Creating Precedents Through Words And Deeds, Harold Krent

All Faculty Scholarship

Book review: Untrodden ground: how presidents interpret the Constitution. By Harold H. Bruff. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2015. 557 pages. Reviewed by Harold J. Krent

The Conservative-Libertarian Turn In First Amendment Jurisprudence, Steven J. Heyman

All Faculty Scholarship

Conservative constitutional jurisprudence in the United States has an important libertarian dimension. In recent years, a conservative majority of the Supreme Court has strengthened the constitutional protections for property rights, recognized an individual right to own firearms, imposed limits on the welfare state and the powers of the federal government, cut back on affirmative action, and held that closely held corporations have a right to religious liberty that permits them to deny contraceptive coverage to their female employees. This libertarian streak also can be seen in decisions on freedom of speech and association. In several leading cases, conservative judges have …

The Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Divide, Christopher W. Schmidt

All Faculty Scholarship

Contemporary legal discourse differentiates “civil rights” from “civil liberties.” The former are generally understood as protections against discriminatory treatment, the latter as freedom from oppressive government authority. This Essay explains how this differentiation arose and considers its consequences.

Although there is a certain inherent logic to the civil rights-civil liberties divide, it in fact is the product of the unique circumstances of a particular moment in history. In the early years of the Cold War, liberal anticommunists sought to distinguish their incipient interest in the cause of racial equality from their belief that national security required limitations on the speech …

Religious Institutions, Liberal States, And The Political Architecture Of Overlapping Spheres, Mark D. Rosen

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Section 1983 Is Born: The Interlocking Supreme Court Stories Of Tenney And Monroe, Sheldon Nahmod

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Why Broccoli? Limiting Principles And Popular Constitutionalism In The Health Care Case, Mark D. Rosen, Christopher W. Schmidt

All Faculty Scholarship

Crucial to the Court’s disposition in the constitutional challenge to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was a hypothetical mandate to purchase broccoli, which Congress never had considered and nobody thought would ever be enacted. For the five Justices who concluded the ACA exceeded Congress’s commerce power, a fatal flaw in the government’s case was its inability to offer an adequate explanation for why upholding that mandate would not entail also upholding a federal requirement that all citizens purchase broccoli. The minority insisted the broccoli mandate was distinguishable. This Article argues that the fact that all the Justices insisted on providing …

Fisher's Fishing Expedition, Vinay Harpalani

All Faculty Scholarship

This Essay delves into the Supreme Court oral arguments in Fisher v. Texas, which occurred on October 10, 2012. It examines the exchanges between the advocates and Justices, focusing on the meaning of 'critical mass' and the quest for total race neutrality in UT admissions. It argues that both of these are futile endeavors and unnecessary to decide Fisher. The entire Fisher case is a fishing expedition - albeit one that might reel in race-conscious admissions.

The Long And Winding Road From Monroe To Connick, Sheldon Nahmod

All Faculty Scholarship

In this article, I address the historical and doctrinal development of § 1983 local government liability, beginning with Monroe v. Pape in 1961 and culminating in the Supreme Court’s controversial 2011 failure to train decision in Connick v. Thompson. Connick has made it exceptionally difficult for § 1983 plaintiffs to prevail against local governments in failure to train cases. In the course of my analysis, I also consider the oral argument and opinions in Connick as well as various aspects of § 1983 doctrine. I ultimately situate Connick in the Court’s federalism jurisprudence which doubles back to Justice Frankfurter’s view …

The Structural Constitutional Principle Of Republican Legitimacy, Mark D. Rosen

All Faculty Scholarship

Representative democracy does not spontaneously occur by citizens gathering to choose laws. Instead, republicanism takes place within an extensive legal framework that determines who gets to vote, how campaigns are conducted, what conditions must be met for representatives to make valid law, and many other things. Many of the “rules-of-the-road” that operationalize republicanism have been subject to constitutional challenges in recent decades. For example, lawsuits have been brought against “partisan gerrymandering” (which has led to most congressional districts not being party-competitive, but instead being safely Republican or Democratic) and against onerous voter identification requirements (which reduce the voting rates of …

Prosecution Appeals Of Court-Ordered Midtrial Acquittals: Permissible Under The Double Jeopardy Clause?, David S. Rudstein

All Faculty Scholarship

This article considers whether a statute or rule of court allowing the prosecution to appeal a directed verdict of not guilty, or its equivalent, would be constitutional under the Double Jeopardy Clause.

The Tea Party And The Constitution, Christopher W. Schmidt

All Faculty Scholarship

This Article considers the Tea Party as a constitutional movement. I explore the Tea Party’s ambitious effort to transform the role of the Constitution in American life, examining both the substance of the Tea Party’s constitutional claims and the tactics movement leaders have embraced for advancing these claims. No major social movement in modern American history has so explicitly tied its reform agenda to the Constitution. From the time when the Tea Party burst onto the American political scene in early 2009, its supporters claimed in no uncertain terms that much recent federal government action overstepped constitutionally defined limitations. A …

Popular Constitutionalism On The Right: Lessons From The Tea Party, Christopher W. Schmidt

All Faculty Scholarship

In this Article, I consider the lessons that the Tea Party offers for scholars of popular constitutionalism. Specifically, I argue that the experience of the Tea Party should spark a reconsideration of some assumptions that tend to drive much of the interest in popular constitutionalism. Some who have embraced popular constitutionalism seem to assume that popular constitutional mobilization is a vehicle particularly well suited for advancing progressive constitutional claims. Alternately, some have assumed that popular constitutionalism has no particular ideological or partisan valence - that it is basically a neutral vehicle for advancing constitution claims of all kinds. But the …

Oral Dissenting On The Supreme Court, Christopher W. Schmidt, Carolyn Shapiro

All Faculty Scholarship

In this Article we offer the first comprehensive evaluation of oral dissenting on the Supreme Court. We examine the practice in both historical and contemporary perspective, take stock of the emerging academic literature on the subject, and suggest a new framework for analysis of oral dissenting. Specifically, we put forth several claims. Contrary to the common assumption of scholarship and media coverage, oral dissents are nothing new. Oral dissenting has a long tradition, and its history provides valuable lessons for understanding the potential and limits of oral dissents today. Furthermore, not all oral dissents are alike. Dissenting Justices may have …

Constitutional Torts, Over-Deterrence And Supervisory Liability After Iqbal (2010) (Symposium), Sheldon Nahmod

All Faculty Scholarship

My forthcoming Article is divided into the following parts. In Part I, I survey relevant aspects of the law of § 1983 and Bivens. Painting with a broad brush and for the most part descriptively, I maintain that the Court’s concern with over-deterrence has increasingly dominated constitutional torts. In Part II, I address the relevance of that concern for supervisory liability, set out what the Court said about supervisory liability in Iqbal and very briefly summarize the pre-Iqbal circuit consensus on supervisory liability. In Part III, I delve more deeply into the nature of supervisory liability and conclude that the …

Justice Souter On Government Speech, Sheldon Nahmod

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

State Extraterritorial Powers Reconsidered, Mark D. Rosen

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Sit-Ins And The State Action Doctrine, Christopher W. Schmidt

All Faculty Scholarship

By taking their seats at “whites only” lunch counters across the South in the spring of 1960, African American students not only launched a dramatic new stage in the civil rights movement, they also sparked a national reconsideration of the scope of the constitutional equal protection requirement. The critical constitutional question raised by the sit-in movement was whether the Fourteenth Amendment, which after Brown v. Board of Education (1954) prohibited racial segregation in schools and other state-operated facilities, applied to privately owned accommodations open to the general public. From the perspective of the student protesters, the lunch counter operators, and …

Hard Or Soft Pluralism?: Positive, Normative, And Institutional Considerations Of States’ Extraterritorial Powers, Mark D. Rosen

All Faculty Scholarship

This article is an invited commentary to an extremely thought-provoking address delivered by Richard H. Fallon, Jr., that addressed unexpected consequences that would follow a reversal of Roe v. Wade. The article addresses the question of states’ extraterritorial powers, and asks whether Mary, a citizen of a state that prohibited abortions (let’s say Utah), could be barred from obtaining abortions in a state (let’s say California) in which abortions were legal.

The Article makes seven points in relation to this question. Its observations are relevant not only to the unlikely event of Roe’s demise, but also to a non-trivial class …

Retrying The Acquitted In England, Part I: The Exception To The Rule Against Double Jeopardy For "New And Compelling Evidence", David S. Rudstein

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Revisiting Youngstown: Against The View That Jackson's Concurrence Resolves The Relation Between Congress And The Commander-In-Chief, Mark D. Rosen

All Faculty Scholarship

Virtually all legal analysts believe that the tripartite framework from Justice Jackson’s Youngstown concurrence provides the correct framework for resolving contests between Congress (when it regulates pursuant to its powers to make rules and regulations for the land and naval forces, for instance) and the president when he acts pursuant to his commander-in-chief powers. This Article identifies a core assumption of the tripartite framework that, up to now, has not been recognized and that consequently has not been adequately analyzed or justified. While Jackson’s framework importantly recognizes that Congress’s regulatory powers may overlap with the president’s commander-in-chief powers, the framework …

Was Shelley V. Kraemer Incorrectly Decided? Some New Answers (Winner Of The 2006 Outstanding Scholarly Paper Award From The Association Of American Law Schools), Mark D. Rosen

All Faculty Scholarship

Shelley v. Kraemer, the 1948 decision that famously forbade state courts from enforcing racially restrictive covenants, has proven to be immensely difficult to justify. Under Shelley's attribution rationale, a contract's substantive provisions are to be attributed to the state when a court enforces the contract. Thus although Shelley ruled that racially restrictive covenants themselves were perfectly legal, it held that judicial enforcement of the covenants constituted state action that violated the Equal Protection Clause.

Shelley's attribution rationale meant that courts could not enforce contracts with provisions that could not have been constitutionally enacted by a legislature. This Article shows, however, …

Why The Defense Of Marriage Act Is Not (Yet?) Unconstitutional: Lawrence, Full Faith And Credit, And The Many Societal Actors That Determine What The Constitution Requires, Mark D. Rosen

All Faculty Scholarship

This Article argues that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is not unconstitutional - at least not yet. DOMA provides that States need not recognize same-sex marriages (or judgments in connection with such marriages) performed in sister States. The Article first shows that the Supreme Court's recent opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down as unconstitutional state laws that criminalized sodomy, has not invalidated the DOMA. Lawrence is best understood as having left undecided the constitutional status of same-sex marriage, and the Article explains the benefits of the Court's having held back its constitutional judgment on this subject at …

Constitutional Education For The People Themselves, Sheldon Nahmod

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

A Brief History Of The Fifth Amendment Guarantee Against Double Jeopardy, David S. Rudstein

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Belton Redux: Re-Evaluating Belton's Per Se Rule Governing The Search Of An Automobile Incident To An Arrest, David S. Rudstein

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Surprisingly Strong Case For Tailoring Constitutional Principles, Mark D. Rosen

All Faculty Scholarship

Many constitutional principles apply to more than one level of government. This is true not only of Bill of Rights guarantees that have been incorporated against the States, but of many constitutional principles whose source lies outside of the Bill of Rights. The conventional wisdom is that such multi-level constitutional principles apply identically to all levels of government. The Article's thesis is that this One-Size-Fits-All approach is problematic because the different levels of government - federal, state, and local - sometimes are sufficiently different that a given constitutional principle may apply differently to each level. This Article critically examines an …