Law Commons^™

Rethinking The Order Of Battle In Constitutional Torts: A Reply To John Jeffries, Nancy Leong

NULR Online

The Supreme Court’s decision in Pearson v. Callahan ended an eight-year experiment in the adjudication of qualified immunity claims. That experiment began with Saucier v. Katz, in which the Court held that lower courts mustdecide whether a government officer violated a plaintiff’s constitutional rights before addressing the question of whether the government officer was entitled to immunity. The Court’s rationale for requiring lower courts to first address the merits was the need to clarify constitutional law for the benefit of both government actors (who could then better conform their behavior to constitutional standards) and future plaintiffs (who could then …

Mcdonald V. Chicago: Which Standard Of Scrutiny Should Apply To Gun-Control Laws?, Lawrence Rosenthal, Joyce Lee Malcolm

NULR Online

In this debate, Professors Rosenthal and Malcolm debate the standard of scrutiny that the Supreme Court should apply to restrictions on the Second Amendment in the wake of its recent decision, McDonald v. City of Chicago. Professor Rosenthal begins Part I by noting the importance of gun-control laws to police; he considers a lower standard of scrutiny necessary to allow law enforcement officials to protect the community. Turning to the practical consequences of Chicago and Washington, D.C.'s recent gun-control laws, which make owning a gun nearly impossible in those cities, Professor Malcolm argues for a standard of strict scrutiny …

Salazar V. Buono: The Perils Of Piecemeal Adjudication, Lisa Shaw Roy

NULR Online

The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Salazar v. Buono, a case involving a Latin cross placed on federal land in the Mojave Desert by the Veterans of Foreign Wars, approaches what many would assume to be the central issue in the case from an oblique. Does the Mojave Desert cross, sitting atop Sunrise Peak in a federal park preserve, violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment? Neither Justice Kennedy’s plurality opinion nor any of the concurring or dissenting opinions in Salazar answers that question. Salazar’s complicated web of facts and procedural history precluded the Court from …

Salazar V. Buono And The Future Of The Establishment Clause, Christopher C. Lund

NULR Online

Commentators often complain that Establishment Clause jurisprudence is incoherent and unprincipled. That accusation usually seems overwrought—perhaps we should not expect so much consistency from a Court that decides only the cases that come before it, holds multiple values, operates with continually changing personnel, and gives significant but unquantifiable weight to precedent. Yet of the areas of Establishment Clause litigation, this complaint carries the most force in the context of passive-display cases—cases where the government passively displays a religious symbol, like a cross or a crèche, a Ten Commandments monument, or an illuminated Bible. Here the critics have a point.

Salazar V. Buono: The Cross Between Endorsement And History, Mary Jean Dolan

NULR Online

The striking image of a white cross on stark rock, silhouetted against the desert sky, now symbolizes not only Christianity and, arguably, World War I military sacrifice, but also the equally dramatic, prolonged saga of the Salazar v. Buono litigation. The photos invoke the most recent Supreme Court battle in the legal and cultural war to define religion’s role in the public square. Competing approaches stress either preserving history or avoiding government endorsement of religion; this brief article analyzes a potential new synthesis suggested by Buono.

The original cross war memorial was erected in 1934 by a local group …

Salazar V. Buono: Sacred Symbolism And The Secular State, Ian Bartrum

NULR Online

After oral argument, Salazar v. Buono looked like it might be a dud. As Adam Liptak observed in the New York Times, the Justices spent most of their energy pressing then-Solicitor General Elena Kagan and her opponent, Peter Eliasberg of the ACLU, on the case’s tangled procedural history, and “only Justice Antonin Scalia appeared inclined to reach the Establishment Clause question” that gave rise to the legal controversy. But, in the intervening months, the case has gotten more and more interesting. First, most members of the Court did—in at least some way—reach the substantive merits in the decision; …

Procreation, Harm, And The Constitution, Carter Dillard

NULR Online

This Essay provides relatively novel answers to two related questions: First, are there moral reasons to limit the sorts of existences it is permissible to bring people into, such that one would be morally prohibited from procreating in certain circumstances? Second, can the state justify a legal prohibition on procreation in those circumstances using that moral reasoning, so that the law would likely be constitutional?

These questions are not new, but my answers to them are and add to the existing literature in several ways. First, I offer a possible resolution to a recent debate among legal scholars regarding what …

The Intersection Of Constitutional Law And Civil Procedure: Review Of Wholesale Justice—Constitutional Democracy And The Problem Of The Class Action Lawsuit (Part Ii), Douglas G. Smith

NULR Online

In the first portion of this Essay, I reviewed Professor Martin Redish’s theory that the application of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 in modern class action practice is unconstitutional. Professor Redish argues that modern class action procedures violate absent class members’ due process rights by sweeping large numbers of individual plaintiffs into litigation without their explicit consent. I then set forth Professor Redish’s proposals for reform, including increased scrutiny of class actions to weed out “faux” class actions that benefit lawyers but not class members, abandonment of the opt-out procedure under Rule 23 in favor of an opt-in procedure …

The Intersection Of Constitutional Law And Civil Procedure: Review Of Wholesale Justice—Constitutional Democracy And The Problem Of The Class Action Lawsuit, Douglas G. Smith

NULR Online

Much ink has been spilled over the class action device. Commentators have thoroughly analyzed both the plain language and intent behind the federal rules authorizing the aggregation of claims in a single lawsuit as well as the policy implications of the class action in both theory and practice. Seldom does a work break new ground in a field that has been plowed as often as that of class actions. Martin Redish’s Wholesale Justice: Constitutional Democracy and the Problem of the Class Action Lawsuit is the rare exception.

In Wholesale Justice, Professor Redish provides a thorough analysis of the constitutional …

Pleasant Grove City V. Summum: Monuments, Messages, And The Next Establishment Clause, Lisa Shaw Roy

NULR Online

The facts of Pleasant Grove City v. Summum are well known by now: Summum, a small religious group, argued that Pleasant Grove City violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment when it refused to display Summum’s monument in the city’s Pioneer Park, which already contained fifteen other monuments, including a Ten Commandments display. Summum’s unlikely claim won in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, a request for rehearing was denied, and the case ultimately was heard before the U.S. Supreme Court. During the oral arguments, the Justices (along with commentators, Court watchers, and, of course, the litigants themselves) …