Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
-
- William & Mary Law School (27)
- Seattle University School of Law (8)
- Selected Works (8)
- Georgia State University College of Law (6)
- American University Washington College of Law (5)
-
- Pepperdine University (5)
- Washington University in St. Louis (4)
- Barry University School of Law (3)
- Georgetown University Law Center (3)
- University of Pittsburgh School of Law (3)
- Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School (2)
- Maurer School of Law: Indiana University (2)
- Notre Dame Law School (2)
- Penn State Dickinson Law (2)
- University of Washington School of Law (2)
- University of the District of Columbia School of Law (2)
- Claremont Colleges (1)
- New York Law School (1)
- SelectedWorks (1)
- St. John's University School of Law (1)
- The University of Akron (1)
- University of Georgia School of Law (1)
- University of Miami Law School (1)
- University of Nevada, Las Vegas -- William S. Boyd School of Law (1)
- University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School (1)
- Vanderbilt University Law School (1)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- Faculty Publications (11)
- Seattle University Law Review (8)
- Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals (5)
- Georgia State University Law Review (5)
- Pepperdine Law Review (5)
-
- Popular Media (4)
- Scholarship@WashULaw (4)
- Supreme Court Preview (4)
- Articles (3)
- Faculty Scholarship (3)
- Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works (3)
- William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal (3)
- Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present) (2)
- Journal Articles (2)
- Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review (2)
- Neal E. Devins (2)
- Washington Journal of Social & Environmental Justice (2)
- William & Mary Law Review (2)
- Akron Law Faculty Publications (1)
- All Faculty Scholarship (1)
- Articles & Chapters (1)
- Articles by Maurer Faculty (1)
- CMC Senior Theses (1)
- Corey A Ciocchetti (1)
- Court Briefs (1)
- Faculty Publications By Year (1)
- Georgia Law Review (1)
- Indiana Law Journal (1)
- Journal of Legislation (1)
- Katharine Van Tassel (1)
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 30 of 94
Full-Text Articles in Law
Forced To Bear The Burden And Now The Children: The Dobbs Decision And Environmental Justice Communities, Mia Petrucci
Forced To Bear The Burden And Now The Children: The Dobbs Decision And Environmental Justice Communities, Mia Petrucci
Washington Journal of Social & Environmental Justice
No abstract provided.
Navigating The First Amendment In School Choice: The Case For The Constitutionality Of Washington’S Charter School Act, Stephanie Smith
Navigating The First Amendment In School Choice: The Case For The Constitutionality Of Washington’S Charter School Act, Stephanie Smith
Washington Journal of Social & Environmental Justice
No abstract provided.
Judicial Fidelity, Caprice L. Roberts
Judicial Fidelity, Caprice L. Roberts
Pepperdine Law Review
Judicial critics abound. Some say the rule of law is dead across all three branches of government. Four are dead if you count the media as the fourth estate. All are in trouble, even if one approves of each branch’s headlines, but none of them are dead. Not yet. Pundits and scholars see the latest term of the Supreme Court as clear evidence of partisan politics and unbridled power. They decry an upheaval of laws and norms demonstrating the dire situation across the federal judiciary. Democracy is not dead even when the Court issues opinions that overturn precedent, upends long-standing …
On Traditionalism In Free Speech Law, R. George Wright
On Traditionalism In Free Speech Law, R. George Wright
Journal of Legislation
No abstract provided.
Advancing America’S Emblematic Right: Doctrinal Bases For The Fundamental Constitutional Right To Vote Per Se, Susan H. Bitensky
Advancing America’S Emblematic Right: Doctrinal Bases For The Fundamental Constitutional Right To Vote Per Se, Susan H. Bitensky
University of Miami Law Review
This Article identifies and examines the Supreme Court’s longstanding unintelligibility with respect to recognition of a fundamental right to vote per se under the Constitution. In a host of equal protection cases, the Court’s refusal to “say what the law is” in this regard has produced a chaotic jurisprudence on the status of the right. Because ours is a constitutional schema consisting of multiple types of rights to vote, the refusal manifests as judicial reliance on and acclamation of some unspecified right to vote. It is refusal by lack of clarity. The unsorted right has led some scholars to conclude …
Using Bruen To Overturn New York Times V. Sullivan, Michael L. Smith, Alexander S. Hiland
Using Bruen To Overturn New York Times V. Sullivan, Michael L. Smith, Alexander S. Hiland
Pepperdine Law Review
While New York Times Co. v. Sullivan is a foundational, well-regarded First Amendment case, Justice Clarence Thomas has repeatedly called on the Court to revisit it. Sullivan, Thomas claims, is policy masquerading as constitutional law, and it makes almost no effort to ground itself in the original meaning of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Thomas argues that at the time of the founding, libelous statements were routinely subject to criminal prosecution—including libel of public figures and public officials. This Essay connects Justice Thomas’s calls to revisit Sullivan to his recent opinion for the Court in New York State Rifle & …
Jazz Improvisation And The Law: Constrained Choice, Sequence, And Strategic Movement Within Rules, William W. Buzbee
Jazz Improvisation And The Law: Constrained Choice, Sequence, And Strategic Movement Within Rules, William W. Buzbee
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
This Article argues that a richer understanding of the nature of law is possible through comparative, analogical examination of legal work and the art of jazz improvisation. This exploration illuminates a middle ground between rule of law aspirations emphasizing stability and determinate meanings and contrasting claims that the untenable alternative is pervasive discretionary or politicized law. In both the law and jazz improvisation settings, the work involves constraining rules, others’ unpredictable actions, and strategic choosing with attention to where a collective creation is going. One expects change and creativity in improvisation, but the many analogous characteristics of law illuminate why …
The New Insular Cases, Willie Santana
The New Insular Cases, Willie Santana
William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice
The Insular Cases is a name given to a series of cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court dealing with the status of the territories the United States acquired at the turn of the twentieth century. The Insular Cases rely on outmoded assumptions about the peoples who live in those islands, ninety-eight percent of whom belong to racial and ethnic minorities, and extend the extraconstitutional doctrine of territorial incorporation, a Plessy-style doctrine of separate governance for these territories that is different than the territories that preceded them. These cases, and the doctrine they announced, have been universally decried as …
The Ripple Effects Of Dobbs On Health Care Beyond Wanted Abortion, Maya Manian
The Ripple Effects Of Dobbs On Health Care Beyond Wanted Abortion, Maya Manian
Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals
The Supreme Court’s momentous decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization to overturn fifty years of precedent on the constitutional right to abortion represents a sea of change, not only in constitutional law, but also in the public health landscape. Although state laws on abortion are still evolving after Dobbs, the decision almost immediately wreaked havoc on the delivery of medical care for both patients seeking abortion care and those not actively seeking to terminate a pregnancy.
This Article also argues that focusing the public’s attention on the deleterious consequences of abortion bans for health care beyond wanted abortion …
A Theory Of Federalization Doctrine, Gerald S. Dickinson
A Theory Of Federalization Doctrine, Gerald S. Dickinson
Articles
The doctrine of federalization—the practice of the U.S. Supreme Court consulting state laws or adopting state court doctrines to guide and inform federal constitutional law—is an underappreciated field of study within American constitutional law. Compared to the vast collection of scholarly literature and judicial rulings addressing the outsized influence Supreme Court doctrine and federal constitutional law exert over state court doctrines and state legislative enactments, the opposite phenomenon of the states shaping Supreme Court doctrine and federal constitutional law has been under-addressed. This lack of attention to such a singular feature of American federalism is striking and has resulted in …
Judicial Federalization Doctrine, Gerald S. Dickinson
Judicial Federalization Doctrine, Gerald S. Dickinson
Articles
This Article explores the concept of “judicial federalization doctrine.” The doctrine emanates from well-documented areas of federal constitutional law, including exactions, racially motivated peremptory challenges, the exclusionary rule, same-sex sodomy, marriage, and freedom of speech and press. The origin and development of these federal doctrines, however, is anything but federal. The U.S. Supreme Court has, on rare occasions, heavily consulted with or borrowed from state court doctrines to create a new federal jurisprudence. While the literature addressing the Court’s occasional vertical dependence on state court doctrine is sparse, there is a complete absence of scholarly attention studying the Court’s reluctance …
A New Takings Clause? The Implications Of Cedar Point Nursery V. Hassid For Property Rights And Moratoria, Benjamin Alexander Mogren
A New Takings Clause? The Implications Of Cedar Point Nursery V. Hassid For Property Rights And Moratoria, Benjamin Alexander Mogren
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
In part, the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution holds that “no person . . . shall [have their] private property . . . taken for public use, without just compensation.” In Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that “a California regulation that permits union organizers to enter the property of agricultural business to talk with employees about supporting a union is unconstitutional.” The purpose of this Note is to discuss what Cedar Point Nursery means generally for the future of Takings Clause analysis and will argue that Cedar Point Nursery should be seen as a …
The Next Fight Over Guns In America, Timothy Zick, Diana Palmer
The Next Fight Over Guns In America, Timothy Zick, Diana Palmer
Popular Media
With Thursday’s Supreme Court decision [in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen], the only real remaining question is not whether Americans can carry firearms, but where.
Most Favored Racial Hierarchy: The Ever-Evolving Ways Of The Supreme Court's Superordination Of Whiteness, David Simson
Most Favored Racial Hierarchy: The Ever-Evolving Ways Of The Supreme Court's Superordination Of Whiteness, David Simson
Articles & Chapters
This Article engages in a critical comparative analysis of the recent history and likely future trajectory of the Supreme Court’s constitutional jurisprudence in matters of race and religion to uncover new aspects of the racial project that Reggie Oh has recently called the “racial superordination” of whiteness—the reinforcing of the superior status of whites in American society by, among other things, prioritizing their interests in structuring constitutional doctrine. This analysis shows that the Court is increasingly widening the gap between conceptions of, and levels of protection provided for, equality in the contexts of race and religion in ways that prioritize …
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Seattle University Law Review
Table of Contents
Hernández V. Mesa: A Case For A More Meaningful Partnership With The Inter-American Commission On Human Rights, Peyton Jacobsen
Hernández V. Mesa: A Case For A More Meaningful Partnership With The Inter-American Commission On Human Rights, Peyton Jacobsen
Seattle University Law Review
Through an in-depth examination of Hernández, the Inter-American Human Rights System, and the success of Mexico’s partnership with said system, this Note will make a case for embracing human rights bodies— specifically, the Inter-American System on Human Rights—as an appropriate and necessary check on the structures that form the United States government. Part I will look closely at the reasoning and judicially created doctrine that guided the decision in Hernández, with the goal of providing a better understanding of the complicated path through the courts that led to a seemingly straightforward yet unsatisfying result. Part II will illustrate the scope …
Evolving Standards Of Irrelevancy?, Joanmarie Davoli
Evolving Standards Of Irrelevancy?, Joanmarie Davoli
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
First Comes Love. Then Comes Marriage. Then Comes A Baby In A Baby Carriage: An Application Of Protective Surrogacy Laws To The Tarheel State, Justin Lo
Seattle University Law Review
Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) and determining parentage have a common feature: each is governed by state law or the lack of such laws. This lack of statutory regulations presents significant legal challenges to gay men who wish to start a family. Because same-sex male couples seeking to become fathers through ART and surrogacy are the most likely demographic to be impacted when determining parentage, laws that influence the direction of surrogacy will undeniably facilitate whether both males will be deemed a father. To provide same-sex male couples with a pathway to parenthood, North Carolina should (1) develop robust, protective surrogacy …
Putting The Bar Exam On Constitutional Notice: Cut Scores, Race & Ethnicity, And The Public Good, Scott Johns
Putting The Bar Exam On Constitutional Notice: Cut Scores, Race & Ethnicity, And The Public Good, Scott Johns
Seattle University Law Review
Nothing to see here. Season in and season out, bar examiners, experts, supreme courts, and bar associations seem nonplussed, trapped by what they see as the facts, namely, that the bar exam has no possible weaknesses, at least when it comes to alternative licensure mechanisms, that the bar exam is not to blame for disparate racial impacts that spring from administration of this ritualistic process, and that there are no viable alternatives in the harsh cold world of determining minimal competency for the noble purpose of protecting the public from legal harms. All a lie, of course.
But rather than …
The Stubborn Survival Of The Central Hudson Test For Commercial Speech, Nat Stern
The Stubborn Survival Of The Central Hudson Test For Commercial Speech, Nat Stern
Seattle University Law Review
This Article examines the persistence of the Central Hudson standard in the face of multiple challenges as well as larger implications of its survival. Part I provides a brief overview of the Court’s commercial speech doctrine and the spectrum of criticism of Central Hudson for its allegedly excessive or inadequate protection of expression. Part II surveys a series of developments, especially in the last decade, that threaten to supersede Central Hudson’s “intermediate” standard of scrutiny for commercial speech restrictions. In response, Part III explains how none of these phenomena have resulted in the abandonment of the Central Hudson regime. …
The Lost History Of Delegation At The Founding, Christine Chabot
The Lost History Of Delegation At The Founding, Christine Chabot
Georgia Law Review
The new Supreme Court is poised to bring the administrative state to a grinding halt. Five Justices have endorsed Justice Gorsuch’s dissent in Gundy v. United States—an opinion that threatens to invalidate countless regulatory statutes in which Congress has delegated significant policymaking authority to the Executive Branch. Justice Gorsuch claimed that the “text and history” of the Constitution required the Court to replace a longstanding constitutional doctrine that permits broad delegations with a more restrictive one. But the supposedly originalist arguments advanced by Justice Gorsuch and like-minded scholars run counter to the understandings of delegation that prevailed in the Founding …
Reconsidering Section 1983'S Nonabrogation Of Sovereign Immunity, Katherine Mims Crocker
Reconsidering Section 1983'S Nonabrogation Of Sovereign Immunity, Katherine Mims Crocker
Faculty Publications
Motivated by civil unrest and the police conduct that prompted it, Americans have embarked on a major reexamination of how constitutional enforcement works. One important component is 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows civil suits against any "person" who violates federal rights. The U.S. Supreme Court has long held that "person" excludes states because Section 1983 flunks a condition of crystal clarity.
This Article reconsiders that conclusion--in legalese, Section 1983's nonabrogation of sovereign immunity--along multiple dimensions. Beginning with a negative critique, this Article argues that because the Court invented the crystal-clarity standard so long after Section 1983's enactment, the caselaw …
Unduly Burdening Abortion Jurisprudence, Mark Strasser
Unduly Burdening Abortion Jurisprudence, Mark Strasser
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
The undue burden standard is the current test to determine whether abortion regulations pass constitutional muster. But the function, meaning, and application of that test have varied over time, which undercuts the test’s usefulness and the ability of legislatures to know which regulations pass constitutional muster. Even more confusing, the Court has refused to apply the test in light of its express terms, which cannot fail to yield surprising conclusions and undercut confidence in the Court. The Court must not only clarify what the test means and how it is to be used, but must also formulate that test so …
Divided Court Issues Bright-Line Ruling On Fourth Amendment Seizures, Jeffrey Bellin
Divided Court Issues Bright-Line Ruling On Fourth Amendment Seizures, Jeffrey Bellin
Popular Media
No abstract provided.
No, The Firing Squad Is Not Better Than Lethal Injection: A Response To Stephanie Moran’S A Modest Proposal, Michael Conklin
No, The Firing Squad Is Not Better Than Lethal Injection: A Response To Stephanie Moran’S A Modest Proposal, Michael Conklin
Seattle University Law Review
In the article A Modest Proposal: The Federal Government Should Use Firing Squads to Execute Federal Death Row Inmates, Stephanie Moran argues that the firing squad is the only execution method that meets the requirements of the Eighth Amendment. In order to make her case, Moran unjustifiably overstates the negative aspects of lethal injection while understating the negative aspects of firing squads. The entire piece is predicated upon assumptions that are not only unsupported by the evidence but often directly refuted by the evidence. This Essay critically analyzes Moran’s claims regarding the alleged advantages of the firing squad over …
The Lost Promise Of Progressive Formalism, Andrea Scoseria Katz
The Lost Promise Of Progressive Formalism, Andrea Scoseria Katz
Scholarship@WashULaw
Today, any number of troubling government pathologies—a lawless presidency, a bloated and unaccountable administrative state, the growth of an activist bench—are associated with the emergence of a judicial philosophy that disregards the “plain meaning” of the Constitution for a loose, unprincipled “living constitutionalism.” Many trace its origins to the Progressive Era
(1890–1920), a time when Americans turned en masse to government as the solution to emerging problems of economic modernity—financial panics, industrial concentration, worsening workplace conditions, and skyrocketing unemployment and inequality—and, the argument goes, concocted a flexible, new constitutional philosophy to allow the federal government to take on vast, new …
Why A Federal Wealth Tax Is Constitutional, Ari Glogower, David Gamage, Kitty Richards
Why A Federal Wealth Tax Is Constitutional, Ari Glogower, David Gamage, Kitty Richards
Articles by Maurer Faculty
The 2020 Democratic presidential primaries brought national attention to a new direction for the tax system: a federal wealth tax for the wealthiest taxpayers. During their campaigns, Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT) both introduced proposals to tax the wealth of multimillionaires and billionaires, and to use the revenue for public investments, including in health care and education. These reforms generated broad public support—even among many Republicans—and broadened the conversation over the future of progressive tax reform.
A well-designed, high-end wealth tax can level the playing field in an unequal society and promote shared economic prosperity.
Critics have …
Bivens And The Ancien Régime, Carlos Manuel Vázquez
Bivens And The Ancien Régime, Carlos Manuel Vázquez
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
In its most recent decision narrowly construing Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, the Supreme Court derided Bivens as the product of an “‘ancien regime,’ ... [in which] the Court assumed it to be a proper judicial function to ‘provide such remedies as are necessary to make effective’ a statute’s purpose.” This Essay considers the relevance for Bivens claims of the Court’s shift to a nouveau régime to address the implication of private rights of action under statutes. It first describes and assesses the Court’s reasons for shifting to the nouveau r …
Justice Sonia Sotomayor: The Court’S Premier Defender Of The Fourth Amendment, David L. Hudson Jr.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor: The Court’S Premier Defender Of The Fourth Amendment, David L. Hudson Jr.
Seattle University Law Review
This essay posits that Justice Sotomayor is the Court’s chief defender of the Fourth Amendment and the cherished values it protects. She has consistently defended Fourth Amendment freedoms—in majority, concurring, and especially in dissenting opinions. Part I recounts a few of her majority opinions in Fourth Amendment cases. Part II examines her concurring opinion in United States v. Jones. Part III examines several of her dissenting opinions in Fourth Amendment cases. A review of these opinions demonstrates what should be clear to any observer of the Supreme Court: Justice Sotomayor consistently defends Fourth Amendment principles and values.
Case Preview: When Is A Fleeing Suspect “Seized”?, Jeffrey Bellin
Case Preview: When Is A Fleeing Suspect “Seized”?, Jeffrey Bellin
Popular Media
The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable “searches” and “seizures.” On Wednesday, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral argument in Torres v. Madrid, a case that will provide important guidance on what constitutes a Fourth Amendment seizure. Here’s a rundown of the case starting with the relevant facts and procedural history, followed by a discussion of the legal issues and finally a couple of things to watch for at the argument.