Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Constitutional Interpretation (10)
- Freedom of Speech (10)
- United States (9)
- United States Constitution 1st Amendment (9)
- Judicial Power (8)
-
- Commercial Speech Doctrine (7)
- United States Constitution 4th Amendment (5)
- Big Data (2)
- Electronic Surveillance (2)
- Law (2)
- Legislative Power (2)
- Privacy (2)
- Right of Privacy (2)
- Searches and Seizures (2)
- Separation of Powers (2)
- Standing (2)
- United States Constitution (2)
- United States Constitution 2nd Amendment (2)
- Wireless Telephones (2)
- 2014) (1)
- Administration of Criminal Justice (1)
- Amendments (1)
- Australia (1)
- Birth Certificates (1)
- Brazil (1)
- Charter Schools (1)
- Constitutional Law (1)
- Criminal Liability (1)
- Criminal Procedure (1)
- Delegation of powers (1)
Articles 1 - 30 of 45
Full-Text Articles in Law
Horizontal Cybersurveillance Through Sentiment Analysis, Margaret Hu
Horizontal Cybersurveillance Through Sentiment Analysis, Margaret Hu
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
This Essay describes emerging big data technologies that facilitate horizontal cybersurveillance. Horizontal cybersurveillance makes possible what has been termed as “sentiment analysis.” Sentiment analysis can be described as opinion mining and social movement forecasting. Through sentiment analysis, mass cybersurveillance technologies can be deployed to detect potential terrorism and state conflict, predict protest and civil unrest, and gauge the mood of populations and subpopulations. Horizontal cybersurveillance through sentiment analysis has the likely result of chilling expressive and associational freedoms, while at the same time risking mass data seizures and searches. These programs, therefore, must be assessed as adversely impacting a combination …
Carpenter V. United States And The Fourth Amendment: The Best Way Forward, Stephen E. Henderson
Carpenter V. United States And The Fourth Amendment: The Best Way Forward, Stephen E. Henderson
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
We finally have a federal ‘test case.’ In Carpenter v. United States, the Supreme Court is poised to set the direction of the Fourth Amendment in the digital age. The case squarely presents how the twentieth-century third party doctrine will fare in contemporary times, and the stakes could not be higher. This Article reviews the Carpenter case and how it fits within the greater discussion of the Fourth Amendment third party doctrine and location surveillance, and I express a hope that the Court will be both a bit ambitious and a good measure cautious.
As for ambition, the Court …
Protecting The Silence Of Speech: Academic Safe Spaces, The Free Speech Critique, And The Solution Of Free Association, Trevor N. Ward
Protecting The Silence Of Speech: Academic Safe Spaces, The Free Speech Critique, And The Solution Of Free Association, Trevor N. Ward
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
No abstract provided.
Feeding The Machine: Policing, Crime Data, & Algorithms, Elizabeth E. Joh
Feeding The Machine: Policing, Crime Data, & Algorithms, Elizabeth E. Joh
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
No abstract provided.
The Unreasonable Rise Of Reasonable Suspicion: Terrorist Watchlists And Terry V. Ohio, Jeffrey Kahn
The Unreasonable Rise Of Reasonable Suspicion: Terrorist Watchlists And Terry V. Ohio, Jeffrey Kahn
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
Terry v. Ohio’s “reasonable suspicion” test was created in the context of domestic law enforcement, but it did not remain there. This Essay examines the effect of transplanting this test into a new context: the world of terrorist watchlists. In this new context, reasonable suspicion is the standard used to authorize the infringement on liberty that often results from being watchlisted. But nothing else from the case that created that standard remains the same. The government official changes from a local police officer to an anonymous member of the intelligence community. The purpose changes from crime prevention to counterterrorism. …
The Fourth Amendment Disclosure Doctrines, Monu Bedi
The Fourth Amendment Disclosure Doctrines, Monu Bedi
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
The third party and public disclosure doctrines (together the “disclosure doctrines”) are long-standing hurdles to Fourth Amendment protection. These doctrines have become increasingly relevant to assessing the government’s use of recent technologies such as data mining, drone surveillance, and cell site location data. It is surprising then that both the Supreme Court and scholars, at times, have associated them together as expressing one principle. It turns out that each relies on unique foundational triggers and does not stand or fall with the other. This Article tackles this issue and provides a comprehensive topology for analyzing the respective contours of each …
Private Actors, Corporate Data And National Security: What Assistance Do Tech Companies Owe Law Enforcement?, Caren Morrison
Private Actors, Corporate Data And National Security: What Assistance Do Tech Companies Owe Law Enforcement?, Caren Morrison
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
When the government investigates a crime, do citizens have a duty to assist? This question was raised in the struggle between Apple and the FBI over whether the agency could compel Apple to defeat its own password protections on the iPhone of one of the San Bernardino shooters. That case was voluntarily dismissed as moot when the government found a way of accessing the data on the phone, but the issue remains unresolved.
Because of advances in technology, software providers and device makers have been able to develop almost impenetrable protection for their customers’ information, effectively locking law enforcement out …
Notice And Standing In The Fourth Amendment: Searches Of Personal Data, Jennifer Daskal
Notice And Standing In The Fourth Amendment: Searches Of Personal Data, Jennifer Daskal
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
In at least two recent cases, courts have rejected service providers’ capacity to raise Fourth Amendment claims on behalf of their customers. These holdings rely on longstanding Supreme Court doctrine establishing a general rule against third parties asserting the Fourth Amendment rights of others. However, there is a key difference between these two recent cases and those cases on which the doctrine rests. The relevant Supreme Court doctrine stems from situations in which someone could take action to raise the Fourth Amendment claim, even if the particular third-party litigant could not. In the situations presented by the recent cases, by …
There And Back Again? Police Reforms Through The Prism Of The Recruitment Decisions In The High Court And The Court Of Appeal, Festus M. Kinoti
There And Back Again? Police Reforms Through The Prism Of The Recruitment Decisions In The High Court And The Court Of Appeal, Festus M. Kinoti
William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice
No abstract provided.
Striding Out Of Babel: Originalism, Its Critics, And The Promise Of Our American Constitution, André Leduc
Striding Out Of Babel: Originalism, Its Critics, And The Promise Of Our American Constitution, André Leduc
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
This Article pursues a therapeutic approach to end the debate over constitutional originalism. For almost fifty years that debate has wrestled with the question whether constitutional interpretations and decisions should look to the original intentions, expectations, and understandings with respect to the constitutional text, and if not, what. Building on a series of prior articles exploring the jurisprudential foundations of the debate, this Article characterizes the debate over originalism as pathological. The Article begins by describing what a constitutional therapy is.
The debate about originalism has been and remains sterile and unproductive, and the lack of progress argues powerfully for …
All Employers Must Wash Their Speech Before Returning To Work: The First Amendment & Compelled Use Of Employees’ Preferred Gender Pronouns, Tyler Sherman
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
No abstract provided.
Hiding In Plain View: A Path Around Sovereign Immunity For State Government Employees, William J. Rich
Hiding In Plain View: A Path Around Sovereign Immunity For State Government Employees, William J. Rich
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
No abstract provided.
“Time Enough” For Scrutiny: The Second Amendment, Mental Health, And The Case For Intermediate Scrutiny, Benjamin A. Ellis
“Time Enough” For Scrutiny: The Second Amendment, Mental Health, And The Case For Intermediate Scrutiny, Benjamin A. Ellis
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
No abstract provided.
The Government Speech Doctrine In Walker’S Wake: Early Rifts And Reverberations On Free Speech, Viewpoint Discrimination, And Offensive Expression, Clay Calvert
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
This Article examines the immediate effects on free expression of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling in Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc. involving the government speech doctrine. In Walker, a sharply—and largely partisanly—divided Court upheld, in the face of a First Amendment challenge, Texas’s decision denying a private organization’s application for a specialty license plate featuring Confederate battle flag imagery. This Article initially reviews the government speech doctrine and Walker. It then analyzes Walker’s impact on cases that, like it, involve specialty license plate programs. Next, this Article explores lower court efforts stretching …
Excessively Unconstitutional: Civil Asset Forfeiture And The Excessive Fines Clause In Virginia, Rachel Jones
Excessively Unconstitutional: Civil Asset Forfeiture And The Excessive Fines Clause In Virginia, Rachel Jones
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
No abstract provided.
Semantic Vagueness And Extrajudicial Constitutional Decisionmaking, Anthony O'Rourke
Semantic Vagueness And Extrajudicial Constitutional Decisionmaking, Anthony O'Rourke
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
This Article integrates two scholarly conversations to shed light on the divergent ways in which courts and legislatures implement constitutional texts. First, there is a vast literature examining the different ways in which courts and extrajudicial institutions, including legislatures, implement the Constitution’s textually vague expressions. Second, in recent years legal philosophers have begun to use philosophy of language to elucidate the relationship between vague legal texts and the content of laws. There is little scholarship, however, that uses philosophy of language to analyze the divergent ways in which legislatures and courts implement vague constitutional provisions. This Article argues that many …
Combating Thieves Of Valor: The Stolen Valor Act Of 2013 Is Constitutional Yet Unenforced, Mary E. Johnston
Combating Thieves Of Valor: The Stolen Valor Act Of 2013 Is Constitutional Yet Unenforced, Mary E. Johnston
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
No abstract provided.
The Power Canons, Lisa Heinzerling
The Power Canons, Lisa Heinzerling
William & Mary Law Review
With three recent decisions—Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, King v. Burwell, and Michigan v. EPA—the Supreme Court has embraced a new trio of canons of statutory interpretation. When an agency charged with administering a long-existing statute asserts regulatory authority it has not previously used, in a matter having large economic and political significance, its interpretation will be met with skepticism. When an agency charged with administering an ambiguous statutory provision answers a question of large economic and political significance, one central to the statutory regime, and the Court believes the agency is not an expert …
The Commercial Difference, Felix T. Wu
The Commercial Difference, Felix T. Wu
William & Mary Law Review
When it comes to the First Amendment, commerciality does, and should, matter. This Article develops the view that the key distinguishing characteristic of corporate or commercial speech is that the interest at stake is “derivative,” in the sense that we care about the speech interest for reasons other than caring about the rights of the entity directly asserting a claim under the First Amendment. To say that the interest is derivative is not to say that it is unimportant, and one could find corporate and commercial speech interests to be both derivative and strong enough to apply heightened scrutiny to …
Standing, Politics, And Exhaustion: A Response To Legislative Exhaustion, Heather Elliott
Standing, Politics, And Exhaustion: A Response To Legislative Exhaustion, Heather Elliott
William & Mary Law Review Online
Professor Michael Sant’Ambrogio’s article, Legislative Exhaustion, usefully approaches the problem of “legislative standing” by abandoning the typical Article III standing analysis and making instead a separation-of-powers argument. His theory—that Congress may sue the President only when it has no legislative avenue for addressing its problems—provides both a workable account of and a limiting principle for suits by the legislative branch against the executive. His analysis, however, raises questions regarding the effect of legislative lawsuits on the constitutional balance of powers. This Essay suggests that these questions should be more fully explored before Professor Sant’Ambrogio’s approach can be adopted. It concludes …
The “True Man” And His Gun: On The Masculine Mystique Of Second Amendment Jurisprudence, C. D. Christensen
The “True Man” And His Gun: On The Masculine Mystique Of Second Amendment Jurisprudence, C. D. Christensen
William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice
The Supreme Court’s recent Second Amendment jurisprudence raises serious normative questions for the use of self-defense with a firearm. This jurisprudence also implicates our prevailing social norms with respect to socially constructed and structurally pervasive gender roles. I argue that a peculiarly American conception of masculinity underpins the judicial construction of the Second Amendment’s core purpose as guaranteeing the right to armed defense of one’s self and one’s home. The Court’s recent Second Amendment rulings create an individual protection for gun ownership and incorporate the same against the States. But the Court’s reasoning entangles this protection with an implicit valuation …
Judicial Supremacy And Taking Conflicting Rights Seriously, Rebecca L. Brown
Judicial Supremacy And Taking Conflicting Rights Seriously, Rebecca L. Brown
William & Mary Law Review
The best arguments in favor of judicial supremacy rely on its essential role of protecting rights in a democracy. The doctrinal technique of strict scrutiny, developed to do the work of judicial supremacy, has been an important tool in our constitutional jurisprudence in the service of rights protection. When the Supreme Court reviews laws that themselves seek to enhance or preserve constitutional rights, however, strict scrutiny does not provide the right approach. Rather, the Court should consider very carefully the rights claims in favor of the statute as well as those launched by a challenger. In such cases of conflicting …
Soft Supremacy, Corinna Barrett Lain
Soft Supremacy, Corinna Barrett Lain
William & Mary Law Review
The debate over judicial supremacy has raged for more than a decade now, yet the conception of what it is we are arguing about remains grossly oversimplified and formalistic. My aim in this symposium contribution is to push the conversation in a more realistic direction; I want those who claim that judicial supremacy is antidemocratic to take on the concept as it actually exists. The stark truth is that judicial supremacy has remarkably little of the strength and hard edges that dominate the discourse in judicial supremacy debates. It is porous, contingent—soft. And the upshot of soft supremacy is this: …
Why Congress Does Not Challenge Judicial Supremacy, Neal Devins
Why Congress Does Not Challenge Judicial Supremacy, Neal Devins
William & Mary Law Review
Members of Congress largely acquiesce to judicial supremacy both on constitutional and statutory interpretation questions. Lawmakers, however, do not formally embrace judicial supremacy; they rarely think about the courts when enacting legislation. This Article explains why this is so, focusing on why lawmakers have both strong incentive to acquiesce to judicial power and little incentive to advance a coherent view of congressional power. In particular, lawmakers are interested in advancing favored policies, winning reelection, and gaining personal power within Congress. Abstract questions of institutional power do not interest lawmakers and judicial defeats are seen as opportunities to find some other …
The Annoying Constitution: Implications For The Allocation Of Interpretive Authority, Frederick Schauer
The Annoying Constitution: Implications For The Allocation Of Interpretive Authority, Frederick Schauer
William & Mary Law Review
Constitutional constraints often restrict unwise or immoral official policies and actions, but also often invalidate laws and other official acts that are sound as a matter of both morality and policy. These second-order side constraints—or trumps—on even official acts that are sound as a matter of first-order policy reflect deeper or longerterm values, and they are central to understanding the very idea of constitutionalism. Moreover, once we see the Constitution as restricting not only the unsound and the unwise but also the sound and the wise, we can understand why expecting those whose sound ideas and policies are nevertheless unconstitutional …
In Defense Of Judicial Supremacy, Erwin Chemerinsky
In Defense Of Judicial Supremacy, Erwin Chemerinsky
William & Mary Law Review
“Judicial supremacy” is the idea that the Supreme Court should be viewed as the authoritative interpreter of the Constitution and that we should deem its decisions as binding on the other branches and levels of government, until and unless constitutional amendment or subsequent decision overrules them. This is desirable because we want to have an authoritative interpreter of the Constitution and the Court is best suited to play this role. Under this view, doctrines which keep federal courts from enforcing constitutional provisions—such as denying standing for generalized grievances, the political question doctrine, and the state secrets doctrine—are misguided and should …
Judicial Supremacy Revisited: Independent Constitutional Authority In American Constitutional Law And Practice, Mark A. Graber
Judicial Supremacy Revisited: Independent Constitutional Authority In American Constitutional Law And Practice, Mark A. Graber
William & Mary Law Review
The Supreme Court exercises far less constitutional authority in American law and practice than one would gather from reading judicial opinions, presidential speeches, or the standard tomes for and against judicial supremacy. Lower federal court judges, state court justices, federal and state elected officials, persons charged with administering the law, and ordinary citizens often have the final say on particular constitutional controversies or exercise temporary constitutional authority in ways that have more influence on the parties to that controversy than the eventual Supreme Court decision. In many instances, Supreme Court doctrine sanctions or facilitates the exercise of independent constitutional authority …
Judicial Departmentalism: An Introduction, Kevin C. Walsh
Judicial Departmentalism: An Introduction, Kevin C. Walsh
William & Mary Law Review
This Article introduces the idea of judicial departmentalism and argues for its superiority to judicial supremacy. Judicial supremacy is the idea that the Constitution means for everybody what the Supreme Court says it means in deciding a case. Judicial departmentalism, by contrast, is the idea that the Constitution means in the judicial department what the Supreme Court says it means in deciding a case. Within the judicial department, the law of judgments, the law of remedies, and the law of precedent combine to enable resolutions by the judicial department to achieve certain kinds of settlements. Judicial departmentalism holds that these …
Much Ado About Nothing: Signing Statements, Vetoes, And Presidential Constitutional Interpretation, Keith E. Whittington
Much Ado About Nothing: Signing Statements, Vetoes, And Presidential Constitutional Interpretation, Keith E. Whittington
William & Mary Law Review
During the Bush presidency, presidential signing statements became briefly controversial. The controversy has faded, but the White House continues to issue statements when signing legislation. Those statements frequently point out constitutional difficulties in new statutes and sometimes warn that the executive branch will administer the statutes so as to avoid those constitutional difficulties. This Article argues that the criticisms of signing statements were mostly misguided. Signing statements as such present few problems and offer some benefits to the workings of the American political system. While there might be reason to object to the substantive constitutional positions adopted in any given …
A Reverent Reflection Of The Splendid Scholarship Of Martin Redish—Does Reexamining Commercial Speech Shed Light On The Regrettable Reliance Upon Lie & Insult In Political Campaigns?, Douglas W. Kmiec
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
No abstract provided.