Law Commons^™

Montana Is Trying To Ban Tiktok. What Does The First Amendment Have To Say?, Deborah Pearlstein, John Dellamore

Online Publications

Last month, Montana became the first U.S. state to pass a bill banning TikTok from operating within its borders. If Governor Greg Gianforte signs some version of the bill, it will become the first statewide ban in the country to take direct aim at the popular social media app, which various U.S. government officials have warned poses a serious national security threat. But while Montana may be the first to act, significant gaps remain in the public debate surrounding both the nature of the threat that TikTok presents, and the constitutional questions that trying to regulate it might create.

A More Perfect Union For Whom?, Emmanuel Hiram Arnaud

Articles

Amending the federal Constitution has been instrumental in creating and developing the North American constitutional project. The difficult process embedded in Article V has been used by “The People” to expand rights and democracy, fix procedural deficiencies, and even overturn Supreme Court precedent. Yet, it is no secret that the amendment process has fallen to the wayside and that a constitutional amendment in our present age of extreme political polarization feels impossible.

Our nation’s history suggests otherwise. In John F. Kowal and Wilfred U. Codrington III’s exciting and inspirational new book, they explain that interest in constitutional amendments has coincided …

Dual Sovereignty In The U.S. Territories, Emmanuel Hiram Arnaud

Articles

This Essay examines the emergence and application of the “ultimate source” test and sheds light on the dual sovereign doctrine’s patently colonial framework, particularly highlighting the paternalistic relationship it has produced between federal and territorial prosecutorial authorities.

Asymmetric Review Of Qualified Immunity Appeals, Alexander A. Reinert

Articles

This article presents results from the most comprehensive study to date of the resolution of qualified immunity in the federal courts of appeals and the US Supreme Court. By analyzing more than 4000 appellate decisions issued between 2004 and 2015, this study provides novel insights into how courts of appeals resolve arguments for qualified immunity. Moreover, by conducting an unprecedented analysis of certiorari practice, this study reveals how the US Supreme Court has exercised its discretionary jurisdiction in the area of qualified immunity. The data presented here have significant implications for civil rights enforcement and the uniformity of federal law. …

No Sense Of Decency, Kathryn E. Miller

Articles

For nearly seventy years, the Court has assessed Eighth Amendment claims by evaluating “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” In this Article, I examine the evolving standards of decency test, which has long been a punching bag for critics on both the right and the left. Criticism of the doctrine has been fierce, but largely academic until recent years. Some fault the test for being too majoritarian, while others argue that it provides few constraints on the Justices’ discretion, permitting their personal predilections to rule the day. For many, the test is seen …

Qualified Immunity’S Flawed Foundation, Alexander A. Reinert

Articles

Qualified immunity has faced trenchant criticism for decades, but recent events have renewed focus on this powerful defense to liability for constitutional violations. This Article takes aim at the roots of the doctrine—fundamental errors that have never been excavated. First, this Article demonstrates that the Supreme Court’s qualified immunity jurisprudence is premised on a flawed application of a dubious canon of statutory construction—namely, that statutes in “derogation” of the common law should be strictly construed. Applying the Derogation Canon, the Court has held that 42 U.S.C. § 1983’s silence regarding immunity should be taken as an implicit adoption of common …

Brief Of Legal Scholars As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioners, Pamela Foohey

Amicus Briefs

Amici curiae are professors at law schools throughout the United States. Amici’s expertise encompasses student-financial-assistance programs under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, consumer finance, administrative and constitutional law, modes of statutory interpretation, and the development of the major questions doctrine. Amici have a strong interest in assisting this Court in resolving questions of law that go to the core of their professional expertise and scholarship, namely, the scope of the Department of Education’s authority to provide relief to borrowers and the development of this Court’s statutory interpretation methodology, particularly in the context of its precedent …