Law Commons^™

The Constitutional Right To (Keep Your) Same-Sex Marriage, Steve Sanders

Michigan Law Review

Same-sex marriage is now legal in six states, and tens of thousands of same-sex couples have already gotten married. Yet the vast majority of other states have adopted statutes or constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. These mini-defense of marriage acts not only forbid the creation of same-sex marriages; they also purport to void or deny recognition to the perfectly valid same-sex marriages of couples who migrate from states where such marriages are legal. These nonrecognition laws effectively transform the marital parties into legal strangers, causing significant harms: property rights are potentially altered, spouses disinherited, children put at risk, and financial, …

The Racial Origins Of Modern Criminal Procedure, Michael J. Klarman

Michigan Law Review

The constitutional law of state criminal procedure was born between the First and Second World Wars. Prior to 1920, the Supreme Court had upset the results of the state criminal justice system in just a handful of cases, all involving race discrimination in jury selection. By 1940, however, the Court had interpreted the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to invalidate state criminal convictions in a wide variety of settings: mob-dominated trials, violation of the right to counsel, coerced confessions, financially-biased judges, and knowingly perjured testimony by prosecution witnesses. In addition, the Court had broadened its earlier decisions forbidding …

Ultra Vires Takings, Matthew D. Zinn

Michigan Law Review

When does legislative or administrative regulatory action "go[] too far" and effectively amount to an .appropriation of private property for which the Fifth Amendment requires just compensation? This question has turned out to be one of the thorniest in American constitutional law. The Supreme Court has identified several circumstances in which one can expect to find a regulatory taking, but its numerous pronouncements on the subject give no clear rule to distinguish compensable takings from noncompensable interference with property rights. Notwithstanding its volume, the commentary on the Takings Clause by and large addresses only proper governmental action that rises to …

Determining Ripeness Of Substantive Due Process Claims Brought By Landowners Against Local Governments, David S. Mendel

Michigan Law Review

Landowners who sustain economic harm from arbitrary and capricious applications of land use regulations may sue the local government entities responsible for applying those regulations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the local government entities deprived them of substantive due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. A landowner who brings this claim - an "as-applied arbitrary and capricious substantive due process" claim - may in appropriate cases seek declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, and attorney's fees. Despite controversy among courts and commentators over both the definition of property interests protected by the Due Process Clause and the standard …

The Line Between Federal And State Court Jurisdiction, Leslie A. Anderson

Michigan Law Review

From the beginning of this nation, there have been controversies involving the division of jurisdiction between federal and state courts. Often, these controversies have centered on the diversity of citizenship provision of the federal constitution. Today, however, the more poignant question is whether any division of jurisdiction between the federal and state systems retains logical bases.

Although myriad developments have relevancy with respect to this question, I have here focused upon two of the more important ones: the increasing overlap of subject matter being litigated in federal and state courts and the growing uniformity of standards to be applied in …

Child Custody In A Federal System, Leonard G. Ratner

Michigan Law Review

Among the most difficult of judicial functions is the determination of a child's custody after its parents have separated. The difficulties are acute enough when all the parties remain in the same place; when the parties are in different states, an additional perplexing problem arises as to which state should have authority to make the custody decision. This broad question can be resolved into three distinct though interrelated issues: (1) what state may initially determine custody; (2) what state may later modify that determination; (3) to what extent is such a determination binding on other states.

Constitutional Law - Substantive Due Process - Statute Prohibiting Use Of Contraceptives, Erik J. Stapper S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

A Connecticut statute prohibits the use of contraceptives to prevent conception. Plaintiff-doctor sought a declaratory judgment to have the statute declared unconstitutional as an unreasonable restraint on his right to practice his profession inasmuch as his advice would render him an accessory to a violation of the statute. Three companion cases were also brought, one by a patient to whom another pregnancy would present serious danger, and two by married couples who could not give birth to normal children. The patients claimed that the statute deprived them of the doctor's best medical advice which would relieve them of a dangerous …