Law Commons^™

Furman Fundamentals, Corinna Barrett Lain

Law Faculty Publications

For the first time in a long time, the Supreme Court's most important death penalty decisions all have gone the defendant's way. Is the Court's newfound willingness to protect capital defendants just a reflection of the times, or could it have come even without public support for those protections? At first glance, history allows for optimism. Furman v. Georgia, the 1972 landmark decision that invalidated the death penalty, provides a seemingly perfect example of the Court's ability and inclination to protect capital defendants when no one else will. Furman looks countermajoritarian, scholars have claimed it was countermajoritarian, and even …

An Expressive Jurisprudence Of The Establishment Clause, Ivan E. Bodensteiner, Alex Geisinger

Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Toward A Limited-Government Theory Of Extraterritorial Detention, Robert Knowles, Marc D. Falkoff

Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Deciding Death, Corinna Barrett Lain

Law Faculty Publications

When the Supreme Court is deciding death, how much does law matter? Scholars long have lamented the majoritarian nature of the Court's Eighth Amendment "evolving standards of decency" doctrine, but their criticism misses the mark. Majoritarian doctrine does not drive the Court's decisions in this area; majoritarian forces elsewhere do. To make my point, I first examine three sets of "evolving standards" death penalty decisions in which the Court implicitly or explicitly reversed itself, attacking the legal justification for the Court's change of position and offering an extralegal explanation for why those cases came out the way they did. I …

Dred Scott: Tiered Citizenship And Tiered Personhood, Henry L. Chambers, Jr.

Law Faculty Publications

Part I of this brief essay discusses Dred Scott and the Court's acceptance of tiered citizenship and tiered personhood. Part II discusses the Reconstruction Amendments as a response to tiered citizenship and tiered personhood. Part III notes two issues-felon disfranchisement and the treatment of detainees in the War on Terror-that help illuminate tiered citizenship and tiered personhood and help us evaluate the conditions under which citizenship and personhood rights may be restricted without creating tiers of citizenship and tiers of personhood.

The Process Due Indefinitely Detained Citizens, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

A very controversial feature of the "war on terror" is the scope of the power which Congress has granted President George W. Bush to designate suspected terrorists enemy combatants and indefinitely detain them. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has most fully, if not clearly, resolved this question.

The United States incarcerated two citizens with little process for more than a year in the Charleston and Norfolk naval brigs. The first litigated three habeas corpus petitions before the Fourth Circuit and a fourth to the Supreme Court before the government released him. The second convinced a …

Originalism, Popular Sovereignty And Reverse Stare Decisis, Kurt T. Lash

Law Faculty Publications

Although all interpretive methods must grapple with the issue of stare decisis, the issue is particularly acute for originalists due to the potentially radical discontinuity between original meaning and modern doctrine. An unmediated enforcement of original understanding of the Constitution would likely reverse countless precedents and impose unacceptably high costs in terms of the rule of law. On the other hand, upholding a precedent despite its variance with the original understanding undermines the very legitimacy of legal review according to most theories of originalism. Focusing on the most common normative basis for originalism, popular sovereignty, the article identifies those cases …

The Foreign Affairs Power: Does The Constitution Matter?, D. A. Jeremy Telman

Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Minority Report: John Marshall And The Defense Of The Alien And Sedition Acts, Kurt T. Lash

Law Faculty Publications

In 1799, the Federalist minority of the Virginia House of Delegates produced an extended defense of the Alien and Sedition Acts. This Minority Report responded to Madison's famous Virginia Resolutions and efforts by Virginia Republicans to tar the Adams Administration with having exceeded its powers under the federal Constitution. Originally attributed to John Marshall by biographer Albert Beveridge, recent biographies of Marshall have omitted the episode or rejected Beveridge's claim. The current editors of the Papers of John Marshall omitted the Minority Report from their multi-volume collection of Marshall's work and have successfully lobbied editors of similar collections to remove …