Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

State and Local Government Law

Constitutional law

Institution
Publication Year
Publication
Publication Type

Articles 1 - 30 of 121

Full-Text Articles in Law

The City’S Second Amendment, Dave Fagundes, Darrell A. H. Miller Jan 2021

The City’S Second Amendment, Dave Fagundes, Darrell A. H. Miller

Faculty Scholarship

Cities are increasingly common sites of contestation over the scope and meaning of the Second Amendment. Some municipalities have announced their opposition to firearm restrictions by declaring themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries. Others have sought to curtail gun violence by passing restrictive local regulations. Still others have responded to police violence by moving to demilitarize, disarm, or even disband their police forces. The burgeoning post-Heller legal literature, though, has largely overlooked the relationship between cities, collective arms bearing, and the Second Amendment. In sum, to what extent do cities themselves have a right to keep and bear arms? This Article tackles ...


The Democracy Principle In State Constitutions, Jessica Bulman-Pozen, Miriam Seifter Jan 2021

The Democracy Principle In State Constitutions, Jessica Bulman-Pozen, Miriam Seifter

Faculty Scholarship

In recent years, antidemocratic behavior has rippled across the nation. Lame-duck state legislatures have stripped popularly elected governors of their powers; extreme partisan gerrymanders have warped representative institutions; state officials have nullified popularly adopted initiatives. The federal constitution offers few resources to address these problems, and ballot-box solutions cannot work when antidemocratic actions undermine elections themselves. Commentators increasingly decry the rule of the many by the few.

This Article argues that a vital response has been neglected. State constitutions embody a deep commitment to democracy. Unlike the federal constitution, they were drafted – and have been repeatedly rewritten and amended – to ...


Mccleary V. State And The Washington State Supreme Court's Retention Of Jurisdiction—A Success Story For Washington Public Schools?, Jessica R. Burns Jul 2020

Mccleary V. State And The Washington State Supreme Court's Retention Of Jurisdiction—A Success Story For Washington Public Schools?, Jessica R. Burns

Seattle University Law Review SUpra

No abstract provided.


Associations And Cities As (Forbidden) Pure Private Attorneys General, Heather Elliott Apr 2020

Associations And Cities As (Forbidden) Pure Private Attorneys General, Heather Elliott

William & Mary Law Review

The Supreme Court interprets Article III’s case-or-controversy language to require a plaintiff to show injury in fact, causation, and redressability. A plaintiff who meets that tripartite test has standing to sue and thus a personal stake in pursuing the litigation. Accordingly, in Sierra Club v. Morton, the Supreme Court prohibited pure private attorneys general: litigants who would sue without the requisite personal stake. This limitation extends to organizations. They, too, must show standing on their own account or, under Hunt v. Washington Apple Advertising Commission, identify a member with Article III standing and show how the lawsuit is germane ...


The Opioid Litigation: The Fda Is Mia, Catherine M. Sharkey Apr 2020

The Opioid Litigation: The Fda Is Mia, Catherine M. Sharkey

Dickinson Law Review

It is readily agreed that federal preemption of state tort law alters the balance between federal and state power. Federal preemption is a high-profile defense in almost all modern products liability cases. It is thus surprising to see how little attention has been given to federal preemption by courts and commentators in the opioid litigation. Opioid litigation provides a lens through which I explore the role of state and federal courts and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in striking the right balance of power. My purpose here is not to resolve the divide among the few courts that have ...


Steiner V. Utah: Designing A Constitutional Remedy, Michael S. Knoll, Ruth Mason Mar 2020

Steiner V. Utah: Designing A Constitutional Remedy, Michael S. Knoll, Ruth Mason

Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law

In an earlier article, we argued that the Utah Supreme Court failed to follow and correctly apply clear U.S. Supreme Court precedent in Steiner v. Utah when the Utah high court held that an internally inconsistent and discriminatory state tax regime did not violate the dormant commerce clause. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court recently declined certiorari in Steiner, but the issue is unlikely to go away. Not every state high court will defy the U.S. Supreme Court by refusing to apply the dormant commerce clause, and so the Court will sooner or later likely find itself facing conflicting interpretations ...


Legislators On Executive-Branch Boards Are Unconstitutional, Period, Douglas Laycock Jan 2020

Legislators On Executive-Branch Boards Are Unconstitutional, Period, Douglas Laycock

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Virginia statute makes legislators categorically “ineligible to serve on boards, commissions, and councils within the executive branch of state government who are responsible for administering programs established by the General Assembly.” But with increasing frequency, the General Assembly has enacted exceptions to this policy. There is a general exception for bodies “engaged solely in policy studies or commemorative activities,” and perhaps such bodies need not be in the executive branch at all. But the Assembly has also enacted exceptions for twenty-one specific boards and commissions, many of which clearly have executive authority. This list of exceptions is a miscellany with ...


Narrowly Tailoring The Covid-19 Response, Craig Konnoth Jan 2020

Narrowly Tailoring The Covid-19 Response, Craig Konnoth

Articles

No abstract provided.


How Do Judges Decide School Finance Cases?, Ethan Hutt, Daniel Klasik, Aaron Tang Jan 2020

How Do Judges Decide School Finance Cases?, Ethan Hutt, Daniel Klasik, Aaron Tang

Washington University Law Review

There is an old riddle that asks, what do constitutional school funding lawsuits and birds have in common?

The answer: every state has its own. Yet while almost every state has experienced hotly-contested school funding litigation, the results of these suits have been nearly impossible to predict. Scholars and advocates have struggled for decades to explain why some state courts rule for plaintiff school children—often resulting in billions of dollars in additional school spending—while others do not.

If there is rough agreement on anything, it is that “the law” is not the answer: variation in the strength of ...


Disuniformity Of Federal Constitutional Rights, Joseph Blocher Jan 2020

Disuniformity Of Federal Constitutional Rights, Joseph Blocher

Faculty Scholarship

Judge Jeffrey Sutton’s 51 Imperfect Solutions describes and celebrates the crucial role of state constitutional law in “making” American constitutional law. The fact that states do not speak with one voice in doing so is, in Sutton’s account, a feature rather than a bug. The diversity in their approaches permits experimentation and tailoring, and ultimately produces a stronger and more supple constitutional fabric.

Sutton’s enthusiasm for the diversity and dynamism of state constitutional law is entirely convincing. But is the federal alternative quite so flat? Although federal constitutional rights are undoubtedly more uniform than those of states ...


Forgotten Limits On The Power To Amend State Constitutions, Jonathan L. Marshfield Sep 2019

Forgotten Limits On The Power To Amend State Constitutions, Jonathan L. Marshfield

Northwestern University Law Review

There seem to be no limits on what can pass through state constitutional amendment procedures. State amendments have targeted vulnerable minorities, deeply entrenched specific fiscal strategies, and profoundly restructured institutions. The malleability of state constitutions is significant because in many states there are legitimate fears that special interests dominate amendment politics, and that fundamental change is occurring with minimal opportunities for constructive deliberation or inclusive participation. The state doctrine of “referendum sovereignty” is a key condition fueling this dynamic. The doctrine holds that there are no substantive limits on any state amendment processes so long as amendments comply with federal ...


Establishment Of Religion Supreme Court Appellate Division Third Department Jul 2019

Establishment Of Religion Supreme Court Appellate Division Third Department

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


Due Process Supreme Court Rockland County Jul 2019

Due Process Supreme Court Rockland County

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


Due Process Supreme Court Appellate Division Third Department Jul 2019

Due Process Supreme Court Appellate Division Third Department

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


Due Process Supreme Court Appellate Division Second Department Jul 2019

Due Process Supreme Court Appellate Division Second Department

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


Due Process Supreme Court Appellate Division Jul 2019

Due Process Supreme Court Appellate Division

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


Due Process Pringle V. Wolfe (Decided 28, 1996) Jul 2019

Due Process Pringle V. Wolfe (Decided 28, 1996)

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


Due Process People V. Scott (Decided June 5, 1996) Jul 2019

Due Process People V. Scott (Decided June 5, 1996)

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


Supreme Court Queens County Jul 2019

Supreme Court Queens County

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


Double Jeopardy Jul 2019

Double Jeopardy

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


Double Jeopardy Supreme Court Appellate Division Second Department Jul 2019

Double Jeopardy Supreme Court Appellate Division Second Department

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


Double Jeopardy Jul 2019

Double Jeopardy

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


The Single-Subject Rule: A State Constitutional Dilemma, Richard Briffault Jan 2019

The Single-Subject Rule: A State Constitutional Dilemma, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

Critics of the proliferation of omnibus legislation in Congress have suggested that state constitutions offer a potential solution. Forty-three state constitutions include some sort of “single-subject” rule, that is, the requirement that each act of the legislature be limited to a single subject. Many of these provisions date back to the early and mid-nineteenth century, and, collectively, they have been the subject of literally thousands of court decisions. Nor is the rule a relic from a bygone era. In the last two decades, state courts have used single-subject rules to invalidate laws dealing with, inter alia, firearms regulation, abortion, tort ...


Still Living After Fifty Years: A Census Of Judicial Review Under The Pennsylvania Constitution Of 1968, Seth F. Kreimer Jan 2018

Still Living After Fifty Years: A Census Of Judicial Review Under The Pennsylvania Constitution Of 1968, Seth F. Kreimer

Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law

The year 2018 marked the fiftieth anniversary of the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1968. The time seems ripe, therefore, to explore the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s exercise of judicial review under the 1968 Pennsylvania Constitution. This Article constitutes the first such comprehensive exploration.

The Article begins with an historical overview of the evolution of the Pennsylvania Constitution, culminating in the Constitution of 1968. It then presents a census of the 372 cases in which the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has vindicated distinctive Pennsylvania Constitutional rights under the Constitution of 1968.

Analysis of these cases leads to three conclusions:

1. Exercise of independent ...


Artis V. District Of Columbia—What Did The Court Actually Say?, Doron M. Kalir Jan 2018

Artis V. District Of Columbia—What Did The Court Actually Say?, Doron M. Kalir

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

On January 22, 2018, the Supreme Court issued Artis v. District of Columbia. A true "clash of the titans," this 5-4 decision featured colorful comments on both sides, claims of "absurdities," uncited use of Alice in Wonderland vocabulary ("curiouser," anyone?), and an especially harsh accusation by the dissent that "we’ve wandered so far from the idea of a federal government of limited and enumerated powers that we’ve begun to lose sight of what it looked like in the first place."

One might assume that the issue in question was a complex constitutional provision, or a dense, technical federal ...


Procedural Due Process Claims, Erwin Chemerinsky Jun 2017

Procedural Due Process Claims, Erwin Chemerinsky

Erwin Chemerinsky

No abstract provided.


The House Advantage: How The Professional And Amateur Sports Protection Act Undermines Concepts Of Federalism, And Severely Impacts New Jersey's Gambling-Feuled Economy, Anthony D'Alessandro Apr 2017

The House Advantage: How The Professional And Amateur Sports Protection Act Undermines Concepts Of Federalism, And Severely Impacts New Jersey's Gambling-Feuled Economy, Anthony D'Alessandro

Seton Hall Circuit Review

No abstract provided.


Agricultural And Food Law—Food Labeling And Biotechnology—The Food Fight Over Labeling Genetically Engineered Foods And A Natural Solution To Protect Agricultural Biotechnology In The Natural State, Katie W. Branscum Apr 2017

Agricultural And Food Law—Food Labeling And Biotechnology—The Food Fight Over Labeling Genetically Engineered Foods And A Natural Solution To Protect Agricultural Biotechnology In The Natural State, Katie W. Branscum

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.


Hearsay And The Confrontation Clause, Lynn Mclain Oct 2016

Hearsay And The Confrontation Clause, Lynn Mclain

All Faculty Scholarship

This speech was delivered to the Wicomico Co. Bar Association on October 28th, 2016. It is an updated version of the 2012 speech, available at http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/all_fac/924/ .

Overview: Only an out-of-court statement ("OCS") offered for the truth of the matter that was being asserted by the out-of-court declarant ("declarant") at the time when s/he made the OCS ("TOMA") = hearsay ("HS"). If evidence is not HS, the HS rule cannot exclude it. The Confrontation Clause also applies only to HS, but even then, only to its subcategory comprising "testimonial hearsay." Cross-references to "MD-EV" are to ...


Procedural Due Process Claims, Erwin Chemerinsky Apr 2016

Procedural Due Process Claims, Erwin Chemerinsky

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.