Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Shelby County v. Holder (2)
- States (2)
- Abortion (1)
- Absentee ballots (1)
- Accessibility (1)
-
- Actions (1)
- Administrative Procedure Act (1)
- Admission conditions (1)
- Amendment rules (1)
- Anticommandeering (1)
- Arizona v. United States (1)
- Article V (1)
- Authority (1)
- Backlash (1)
- Black-Box Immigration Federalism (1)
- Bribery (1)
- Congressional power (1)
- Constitutional federalism (1)
- Corruption (1)
- Countermajoritarian (1)
- Crimes (1)
- Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (1)
- Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (1)
- Doctrinal expansion (1)
- Due process precedents (1)
- Election law federalism (1)
- Electoral process (1)
- Equal protection (1)
- Equal soverignty (1)
- Equal states (1)
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Law
Private Actors And Public Corruption: Why Courts Should Adopt A Broad Interpretation Of The Hobbs Act, Megan Demarco
Private Actors And Public Corruption: Why Courts Should Adopt A Broad Interpretation Of The Hobbs Act, Megan Demarco
Michigan Law Review
Federal prosecutors routinely charge public officials with “extortion under color of official right” under a public-corruption statute called the Hobbs Act. To be prosecuted under the Hobbs Act, a public official must promise official action in return for a bribe or kickback. The public official, however, does not need to have actual authority over that official action. As long as the victim reasonably believed that the public official could deliver or influence government action, the public official violated the Hobbs Act. Private citizens also solicit bribes in return for influencing official action. Yet most courts do not think the Hobbs …
Amendment Creep, Jonathan L. Marshfield
Amendment Creep, Jonathan L. Marshfield
Michigan Law Review
To most lawyers and judges, constitutional amendment rules are nothing more than the technical guidelines for changing a constitution’s text. But amendment rules contain a great deal of substance that can be relevant to deciding myriad constitutional issues. Indeed, judges have explicitly drawn on amendment rules when deciding issues as far afield as immigration, criminal procedure, free speech, and education policy. The Supreme Court, for example, has reasoned that, because Article V of the U.S. Constitution places no substantive limitations on formal amendment, the First Amendment must protect even the most revolutionary political viewpoints. At the state level, courts have …
Inventing Equal Sovereignty, Leah M. Litman
Inventing Equal Sovereignty, Leah M. Litman
Michigan Law Review
The Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder relied on the “fundamental principle” and “historic tradition” of equal sovereignty to hold one of the Voting Rights Act’s key provisions unconstitutional. Yet almost three years after Shelby County, and despite a recent wave of equal sovereignty challenges to major federal programs, the equal sovereignty principle remains largely unexamined. This Article seeks to provide some clarity—both to establish the contours of the equal sovereignty doctrine and to evaluate whether it is a sound rule of constitutional federalism. The principle of equal sovereignty, as initially articulated by courts and subsequently …
Election Law Federalism, Justin Weinstein-Tull
Election Law Federalism, Justin Weinstein-Tull
Michigan Law Review
This Article provides the first comprehensive account of non-Voting Rights Act federal voting laws. Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act—long the most effective voting rights law in American history—was disabled by the Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is in the crosshairs. As the Supreme Court becomes more hostile to race-based antidiscrimination laws like the Voting Rights Act, Congress will turn to race-neutral, election administration-based reforms to strengthen the right to vote. Indeed, many proposals for reform post-Shelby County have taken this form. The federal laws this Article examines—the National Voter …
Black-Box Immigration Federalism, David S. Rubenstein
Black-Box Immigration Federalism, David S. Rubenstein
Michigan Law Review
In Immigration Outside the Law, Hiroshi Motomura confronts the three hardest questions in immigration today: what to do about our undocumented population, who should decide, and by what legal process. Motomura’s treatment is characteristically visionary, analytically rich, and eminently fair to competing views. The book’s intellectual arc begins with its title: “Immigration Outside the Law.” As the narrative unfolds, however, Motomura explains that undocumented immigrants are “Americans in waiting,” with moral and legal claims to societal integration.
Roe As We Know It, Cary Franklin
Roe As We Know It, Cary Franklin
Michigan Law Review
The petitioners in last year’s historic same-sex marriage case cited most of the Supreme Court’s canonical substantive due process precedents. They argued that the right of same-sex couples to marry, like the right to use birth control and the right to guide the upbringing of one’s children, was among the liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court in Obergefell v. Hodges agreed, citing many of the same cases. Not once, however, did the petitioners or the majority in Obergefell cite the Court’s most famous substantive due process decision. It was the dissenters in Obergefell who invoked Roe v. Wade.