Law Commons^™

Public Accommodations And The Right To Refrain From Expressing Oneself, Mark Strasser

Cleveland State Law Review

The United States Supreme Court has been unable to articulate a coherent position when addressing the right of individuals to refrain from expressing themselves. The Court has applied various tests inconsistently—emphasizing principles in some cases, ignoring them in subsequent cases, and then emphasizing them again in later cases as if those principles had always been applied. The Court’s approach is incoherent, offering little guidance to lower courts except to suggest that public accommodations laws may soon be found inconsistent with First Amendment guarantees.

Questioning The Legitimacy Of The Expedited Removal Process – The Tall Task Of Protecting The Constitutional Rights Of One Of America’S Most Marginalized Groups, Jacob J. Bourquin

Cleveland State Law Review

This Note explores the origin and development of 8 U.S.C. § 1225—a heavily debated facet of the United States’ immigration law. Section 1225, colloquially referred to as the “expedited removal process,” has been interpreted to permit low-level immigration officers to summarily remove certain “arriving” noncitizens from the United States without affording them the procedural due process protections guaranteed under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution to all individuals present in the United States. This Note posits that the current interpretation of § 1225, particularly the interpretation of “is arriving,” and application of the expedited removal process is inconsistent …

Privileges, Immunities, And Affirmative Action In Medical Education, Gregory Curfman

Journal of Law and Health

In Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina, the Supreme Court ruled that affirmative action in university admissions, in which an applicant of a particular race or ethnicity receives a plus factor, is unconstitutional. This ruling was based on both the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This article argues that a more natural fit as the basis for constitutional analysis would be a different clause in the Fourteenth Amendment, the Privileges or Immunities …

A Trigger Warning: Red Flag Laws Are Still Constitutionally Permissible And Could Reduce The Suicide Rates In The Country's Most Vulnerable States, Joseph C. Campbell

Journal of Law and Health

Montana, Alaska, and Wyoming lead the United States in a category coveted by no one: the suicide rate. Firearm ownership drives the rate to the disproportionate level it reaches year after year and the states are left with little recourse. This article argues the usefulness and constitutionality of narrowly tailored red-flag laws aimed exclusively at reducing the rate of suicide in these mountain states. The article follows Supreme Court jurisprudence leading up to New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen and offers an analysis that complies with the hyper textualist history and tradition test laid out by Scalia in …

California V. Texas: Avoiding An Antidemocratic Outcome, Jon Lucas

Journal of Law and Health

The Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) contains a section titled “Requirement to Maintain Essential Minimum Coverage.” Colloquially known as the Individual Mandate, this section of the Act initially established a monetary penalty for anyone who did not maintain health insurance in a given tax year. But with the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the monetary penalty was reset to zero, inducing opponents of the ACA to mount a legal challenge over the Individual Mandate’s constitutionality. As the third major legal challenge to the ACA, California v. Texas saw the Supreme Court punt on the merits and instead decide …

Secrets Clutched In A Dead Hand: Rethinking Posthumous Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege In The Light Of Reason And Experience With Other Evidentiary Privileges, Jason S. Sunshine

Journal of Law and Health

Attorney-client privilege was held by the Supreme Court to extend beyond death in 1996, albeit only ratifying centuries of accepted practice in the lower courts and England before them. But with the lawyer’s client dead, the natural outcome of such a rule is that privilege—the legal enforcement of secrecy—will persist forever, for only the dead client could ever have waived and thus end it. Perpetuity is not traditionally favored by the law for good reason, and yet a long and broad line of precedent endorses its application to privilege. The recent emergence of a novel species of privilege for psychotherapy, …

Distorted Burden Shifting & Barred Mitigation: Being A Stubborn 234 Years Old Ironically Hasn’T Helped The Supreme Court Mature, Noah Seabrook

Journal of Law and Health

This Note explores the intricate relationship between emerging adulthood, defined as the transitional phase between youth and adulthood (ages 18-25), and the legal implications of capital punishment. Contrary to a fixed age determining adulthood, research highlights the prolonged nature of the maturation process, especially for individuals impacted by Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs). The Note challenges the current legal framework that deems individuals aged 18 to 25 who experienced ACEs as eligible for capital punishment, highlighting the cognitive impact of ACEs on developmental trajectories. Examining cases like Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Billy Joe Wardlow, this Note argues that courts often bypass mitigating …

Without Due Process Of Law: The Dobbs Decision And Its Cataclysmic Impact On The Substantive Due Process And Privacy Rights Of Ohio Women, Jacob Wenner

Journal of Law and Health

Since the overturning of prior abortion precedents in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, there has been a question on the minds of many women in this country: how will this decision affect me and my rights? As we have seen in the aftermath of Dobbs, many states have pushed for stringent anti-abortion measures seeking to undermine the foundation on which women’s reproductive freedom had been grounded on for decades. This includes right here in Ohio, where Republican lawmakers have advocated on numerous occasions for implementing laws seeking to limit abortion rights, including a 6-week abortion ban advocated …

The Ninth Amendment: An Underutilized Protection For Reproductive Choice, Layne Huff

Journal of Law and Health

Concern about individual rights and the desire to protect them has been part of our nation since its founding, and continues to be so today. The Ninth Amendment was created to assuage the Framers’ concerns that enumerating some rights in the Bill of Rights would leave unenumerated rights unrecognized and unprotected, affirming that those rights are not disparaged or denied by their lack of textual support. The Ninth Amendment has appeared infrequently in our jurisprudence, and Courts initially construed it rather narrowly. But starting in the 1960s, the Ninth Amendment emerged as a powerful tool not just for recognizing unanticipated …

Free Exercise, The Respect For Marriage Act, And Some Potential Surprises, Mark Strasser

Cleveland State Law Review

Congress recently passed the Respect for Marriage Act to assure that certain marriages would remain valid even if the Supreme Court were to overrule past precedent and hold that the Constitution does not protect the right to marry a partner of the same sex or of a different race. However, the Act, as written, may not offer protection for certain same-sex or interracial marriages and may open the door to the federal protection of plural marriages, congressional intent notwithstanding, because of the Court’s increasingly robust free exercise jurisprudence.

Assessing The Future Of “Offended Observer” Standing In Establishment Clause Cases, Larry J. Obhof

Cleveland State Law Review

This Article looks at the anomaly of “offended observer” standing in Establishment Clause challenges. It calls for greater consistency in the courts’ application of constitutional standing requirements.

Under Article III, Plaintiffs seeking to raise claims in federal court must allege a concrete and particularized injury in fact in order to support federal jurisdiction. Likewise, plaintiffs seeking to challenge a government policy must allege a unique injury that is separate from the interests of the public at large. The notable exception is where plaintiffs claim personal offense at alleged government entanglement in religion. These “offended observers” are frequently given access to …

Filling The Potholes Of Pretextual Traffic Stops: A Better Road Forward For Ohio, Jordan Weeks

Cleveland State Law Review

The Fourth Amendment was one of the driving forces behind the United States Revolution. This Amendment generally protects individuals against “unreasonable” searches and seizures. But what does “reasonable” mean in the context of a traffic stop?

In 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court in Whren v. United States tried answering this question. In so doing, the Court determined that pretextual traffic stops are “reasonable.” Pretextual traffic stops occur where an officer stops a vehicle and cites a lawful reason for the stop, yet the underlying reason is unlawful. The Whren Court determined that an officer’s intent is completely irrelevant to whether …

“I Wish I Knew How It Would Feel To Be Free”: A Lamentation On Dobbs V. Jackson’S Pernicious Impact On The Lives And Liberty Of Women, April L. Cherry

Cleveland State Law Review

On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court overturned nearly fifty years of precedent when it declared in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that abortion was not a fundamental right, and therefore it was not protected by the Fourteenth Amendment and substantive due process. In law school corridors and legal scholar circles, discussion of the Court’s evisceration of abortion rights focused on the corresponding changes in Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence and the Court’s outright dismissal of stare decisis. But in homes, hospitals, community centers, and workplaces, different conversations were happening. Conversations, mostly had by women, concerned the real-life consequences of overturning …

Revisiting Compassionate Release: The Sentencing Commission’S Compassionate Changes To The 2023 Compassionate Release Policy Statement, Rachel Wilson

Cleveland State Law Review

Compassionate release is a well-established exception to the Sentencing Reform Act’s requirement that a defendant’s sentence not be reduced after its final imposition. The Act requires the Sentencing Commission, through policy statement, to describe “extraordinary and compelling reasons” warranting compassionate release. However, the Sentencing Commission’s failure to convene as a quorum for nearly four years precluded any policy statement updates. In that time, the COVID-19 pandemic and the Bureau of Prisons’ internal issues further complicated the compassionate release process. This Note analyzes the 2023 amendment to the compassionate release policy statement, its potential implications, and suggests additional steps to be …

Supreme Court Overreach Through Broad Discretionary Consideration Of Ameliorative Measures In International Child Abduction, Lauren Mayell

Global Business Law Review

This Note provides a critical analysis of the United States Supreme Court's recent decision in Golan v. Saada--a case setting precedent in the area of international child abduction by biological parents. It argues that the Supreme Court oversteps the presiding law in the field through the use of discretionary ameliorative measures. These ameliorative measures do not show evidence of protecting children from grave risk, directly usurp underlying custody proceedings, and hinder expeditious procedures, all of which are required by law in international child abduction cases. Additionally, this Note compares the European Union's approach to ameliorate analysis. Lastly this Note …

Methodological Gerrymandering, David Simson

Cleveland State Law Review

The U.S. Supreme Court has come to decide many of the most consequential and contentious aspects of social policy via its interpretations of the U.S. Constitution. Institutional features of the Court create significant pressure on the Justices to justify their decisions as applications of “law” rather than the practice of “politics.” Their perceived failure to do so calls forth criticism sounding in a variety of registers—ranging from allegations of a lack of neutrality, lack of impartiality, or lack of “principle,” to allegations of opportunism, disingenuousness, and hypocrisy. Analyzing the Justices’ choices in relation to interpretational “methodology”—choosing one lens through which …

R.E.S.P.E.C.T.: The Court's Forgotten Virtue, Camille Pollutro

Cleveland State Law Review

This Article recommends a shift in constitutional interpretation that requires the existence of respect for the class at issue when a fundamental right is being considered under the narrow, historical deeply rooted test of the Fourteenth Amendment. By focusing on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, this Article highlights that the class at issue—women—are having their fundamental rights decided for them by the legal sources of 1868. In applying this strict and narrow historical deeply rooted test, the Court fails to consider the lack of respect and autonomy that women had in 1868. To the Court, if twenty-eight out …

Can Superman Save The Supreme Court After Dobbs? Using Analogical Reasoning To Teach The American People The Superpower Of Stare Decisis, Brandon Stump

Cleveland State Law Review

In this Article, I propose that in this post-Dobbs America, if Americans are ever able to believe in, or even understand the magnitude of the Supreme Court’s power, practitioners, scholars, and educators should rely on the power of analogical reasoning, something attorneys are taught beginning their first weeks of law school. Using the power of analogy, we should take the simple story of Superman to explain the magnitude of the power held by the Supreme Court and the critical role that stare decisis must play in the Court’s decision-making. Perhaps if we explain legal principles and the judiciary by …

The Anti-Constitutionality Of The Deeply Rooted Test In Dobbs V. Jackson, Reginald Oh

Cleveland State Law Review

The deeply rooted in history test used by Justice Alito in Dobbs v. Jackson to overturn Roe v. Wade is anti-constitutional. In Dobbs, Alito concluded that, because a majority of states in 1868 criminalized abortion, abortion is not deeply rooted in history, and is therefore not a fundamental liberty under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. However, relying on state laws in 1868 to interpret constitutional text not only has no basis in the Constitution, it goes against the fundamental nature of the Constitution as an integrated whole. What I call the Integrated Constitution is based on Chief Justice John …

Putting The Brakes On California's Emissions Standards: An Analysis Of The Legal Challenges California's Advanced Clean Cars Ii Standards Will Face, Michael Maloof

Cleveland State Law Review

This Note discusses the legal implications of California’s Advanced Clean Cars II vehicle-emissions standards. These standards, which would affect vehicle model years 2026 through 2035, seek to eliminate the sale of new gasoline-powered vehicles in favor of only selling electric, zero-emission vehicles. In light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in West Virginia v. EPA, this type of “generation-shifting” plan stands on broken ground due to the applicability of the Major Questions Doctrine. The agency action here—EPA approval of a Clean Air Act §7543 waiver—is exactly the type of “extraordinary case” that the Court must strike down in order …

Legal And Health Risks Of Abortion Criminalization: State Policy Responses In The Immediate Aftermath Of Dobbs, Adrienne R. Ghorashi, Deanna Baumle

Journal of Law and Health

Major changes to the landscape of abortion law and service delivery have rapidly proliferated since the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs, in some cases overnight. Using legal epidemiology methods, the authors of this Article and a team of researchers created a legal dataset that identifies and tracks state laws impacting abortion access in the months immediately following the Dobbs ruling. This Article explores the dataset's findings, detailing changes in abortion laws including abortion bans and related penalties, interstate shield laws, and data privacy protections, from June 1, 2022 through January 1, 2023. While several states moved quickly to restrict …

The New Dread, Part Ii: The Judicial Overthrow Of The Reasonableness Standard In Police Shooting, Kindaka J. Sanders

Cleveland State Law Review

This Article series argues that the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on excessive force from Graham v. Connor to the present has undermined the objectivity of the reasonableness standard. In its place, the Court has erected a standard that reflects modern conservative political ideology, including race conservatism, law and order, increased police discretion, and the deconstruction of the Warren Court’s expansion of civil rights and civil liberties. Indeed, the Court, dominated by law-and-order conservatives, is one of the greatest triumphs of conservatism. Modern conservatism developed as a backlash against various social movements like the Civil Rights Movement and spontaneous urban rebellions during …

In Pursuit Of A Modern Standard: The Constitutional Proportions Of Collateral Harm From Pursuits And Police High-Speed Driving, Julian Gilbert

Cleveland State Law Review

Police chases and high-speed driving are common practices that pose a substantial amount of harm and are often unjustified. The benefits of such chases are questionable, and rapid police action at all costs is often unnecessary. When bystanders are injured as a result of police high-speed driving, there are few avenues to have their rights vindicated, and federal court cases require plaintiffs to meet an almost impossible burden. However, under the United States Supreme Court case of County of Sacramento v. Lewis, a plaintiff can put forth evidence that their substantive due process right to life under the Fourteenth …

#Nofilter: How Discovery Filter Teams Breach Privilege Rights And Why They Require Stricter Regulation, Kelly Murray

Global Business Law Review

This note examines the Supreme Court’s substantial need to weigh in on how filter teams should be used given current circuit splits and identifies several best practices to remedy the issues they currently present. Part I discusses the principal issues for which filter teams are scrutinized. Namely, numerous district courts hold that filter teams provide the government with the unfair advantage of determining which materials from their opposing counsel are privileged. This often leads to an overly broad inclusion of privileged documents, which can violate defendants’ Sixth Amendment rights to a fair and complete trial. Some courts even go so …

Alexander Hamilton And Administrative Law: How America's First Great Public Administrator Informs And Challenges Our Understanding Of Contemporary Administrative Law, Rodger D. Citron

Cleveland State Law Review

Alexander Hamilton’s recognition and reputation have soared since the premiere of "Hamilton," Lin-Manuel Miranda’s musical about him in 2015. For lawyers, Hamilton’s work on the Federalist Papers and service as the nation’s first Treasury Secretary likely stand out more than other aspects of his extraordinary life. Politics and economics were fundamental concerns addressed by the Framers in a number of ways, including what we now refer to as administrative law—the laws and procedures that guide government departments (or, as we say today, agencies). Indeed, "Hamilton" reminds us that questions of administration and administrative law have been with us since the …

The Fugazi Second Amendment: Bruen's Text, History, And Tradition Problem And How To Fix It, Patrick J. Charles

Cleveland State Law Review

This Article critiques the Supreme Court’s use of text, history, and tradition in New York Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen. In doing so, not only is the Supreme Court’s approach to history-in-law in Bruen called into question, but also the Article provides the courts with an historically objective and even-keeled ‘way-ahead’ for future Second Amendment cases and controversies.

Death By Detox: Substance Withdrawal, A Possible Death Row For Individuals In Custody, Dorothea R. Carleton

Journal of Law and Health

Suffering through substance withdrawal is a major problem for the majority of individuals in custody, yet there are no guidelines or standards to ensure their safety. Instead, individuals in custody are having their Constitutional rights violated and many die at the hands of the justice system. When their families seek accountability for the lack of adequate care provided by correctional facilities and employees, families are faced with a lack of consistency from one circuit to the next for knowing as to the correct standard to have a successful claim. Strain v. Regalado was a chance for the Supreme Court to …

False Claims: The Coordinated Exploitation Of The United States Government By The Healthcare Industry, Grady Mcmichen

Journal of Law and Health

The False Claims Act (FCA) has a long-standing history of protecting the United States government from being defrauded by merchants and other parties submitting claims for repayment. Affording Americans who have enrolled in Medicaid and Medicare expansion plans the same protection afforded to the federal government will allow for action to be brought to prevent large hospital networks from engaging in price-fixing behaviors. Implementing this change will have the effect of reducing healthcare prices for all Americans.

Applying the False Claims Act at the price-fixing level will have the largest affect; however, it is still important to iron out procedures …

Rethinking Patent Law's Exclusive Appellate Jurisdiction, Christa Laser

Cleveland State Law Review

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was created in 1982 to unify and clarify patent law, inter alia. It was built from political compromise after the Hruska Commission, which studied the caseload crisis in the federal appellate courts in the 1970s, initially recommended creation of a new National Court of Appeals that would exist between the regional federal appellate circuits and the Supreme Court. The Federal Circuit judges admirably implemented these functions for four decades.

However, the initial function of the Federal Circuit might no longer be as needed in the current judicial climate. The environment …

Brief Of Patent Law Professors As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioners, Christa J. Laser

Law Faculty Briefs and Court Documents

This Court should reverse the Federal Circuit and hold that IPR estoppel extends only to grounds that were raised or could have been raised during the IPR proceeding. Estoppel would therefore extend to instituted grounds, whether raised during the proceeding or not. Estoppel would not extend to uninstituted grounds, such as grounds which might have been challenged in the petition for review but were not.