Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Our Principled Constitution, Mitchell N. Berman
Our Principled Constitution, Mitchell N. Berman
All Faculty Scholarship
Suppose that one of us contends, and the other denies, that transgender persons have constitutional rights to be treated in accord with their gender identity. It appears that we are disagreeing about “what the law is.” And, most probably, we disagree about what the law is on this matter because we disagree about what generally makes it the case that our constitutional law is this rather than that.
Constitutional theory should provide guidance. It should endeavor to explain what gives our constitutional rules the contents that they have, or what makes true constitutional propositions true. Call any such account a …
“Spooky Action At A Distance”: Intangible Injury In Fact In The Information Age, Seth F. Kreimer
“Spooky Action At A Distance”: Intangible Injury In Fact In The Information Age, Seth F. Kreimer
All Faculty Scholarship
Two decades after Justice Douglas coined “injury in fact” as the token of admission to federal court under Article III, Justice Scalia sealed it into the constitutional canon in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife. In the two decades since Lujan, Justice Scalia has thrown increasingly pointed barbs at the permissive standing doctrine of the Warren Court, maintaining it is founded on impermissible recognition of “Psychic Injury.” Justice Scalia and his acolytes take the position that Article III requires a tough minded, common sense and practical approach. Injuries in fact must be "tangible" "direct" "concrete" "de facto" realities in time and …
Originalism And Formalism In Criminal Procedure: The Triumph Of Justice Scalia, The Unlikely Friend Of Criminal Defendants?, Stephanos Bibas
Originalism And Formalism In Criminal Procedure: The Triumph Of Justice Scalia, The Unlikely Friend Of Criminal Defendants?, Stephanos Bibas
All Faculty Scholarship
In Crawford v. Washington, Justice Scalia's majority opinion reinterpreted the Confrontation Clause to exclude otherwise reliable testimonial hearsay unless the defendant has been able to cross-examine it. In Blakely v. Washington, Justice Scalia's majority opinion required that juries, not judges, find beyond a reasonable doubt all facts that trigger sentences above ordinary sentencing-guidelines ranges. Crawford and Blakely are prime case studies in the strengths, weaknesses, and influence of originalism and formalism in criminal procedure. Crawford succeeded because it cleared away muddled case law, laid a strong foundation in the historical record, and erected a simple, solid, workable rule. …