Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Federalism (2)
- Actions and defenses (1)
- Anti-commandeering (1)
- Bond Hearing for Criminal Aliens (1)
- Civil procedure (1)
-
- Complex litigation (1)
- Cyber-bullying; free speech; first amendment (1)
- Education (1)
- Equal protection (1)
- Fourth Amendment; unreasonable search; probable cause (1)
- Gambling (1)
- Immigration (1)
- Jurisdiction (1)
- LGBT rights; gay marriage; First Amendment; expressive conduct (1)
- Mandatory Detention (1)
- Segregation (1)
- Seperation of powers; jurisdiction; Article III powers (1)
- Voter registration (1)
- Voting Rights Act (1)
Articles 1 - 9 of 9
Full-Text Articles in Law
Racing On Two Different Tracks: Using Substantive Due Process To Challenge Tracking In Schools, Katarina Wong
Racing On Two Different Tracks: Using Substantive Due Process To Challenge Tracking In Schools, Katarina Wong
Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar
Tracking is a widespread educational practice where secondary schools divide students into different classes or “tracks” based on their previous achievements and perceived abilities. Tracking produces different levels of classes, from low ability to high ability, based on the theory that students learn better when grouped with others at their own level. However, tracking often segregates students of color and low socioeconomic status into low-tracked classes and these students do not receive the same educational opportunities as white and/or wealthier students. Students and parents have historically challenged tracking structures in their schools using an Equal Protection Clause framework. However, this …
Compelled Speech, Expressive Conduct, And Wedding Cakes: A Commentary On Masterpiece Cakeshop V. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Andrew Jensen
Compelled Speech, Expressive Conduct, And Wedding Cakes: A Commentary On Masterpiece Cakeshop V. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Andrew Jensen
Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission is the most important same-sex rights case since Obergefell v. Hodges and will determine if businesses and individuals have a First Amendment right to refuse serving gay weddings against their conscience. In this case, Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, refused to create a custom cake for Charlie Craig and David Mullins to celebrate their wedding because it was against his Christian beliefs. The Supreme Court will decide whether the First Amendment gave Phillips this right of refusal or whether Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws will compel him to serve same-sex weddings. This commentary argues …
Third Circuit Confusion: Ncaa V. Christie And An Opportunity To Defend Federalism, Zachary Buckheit
Third Circuit Confusion: Ncaa V. Christie And An Opportunity To Defend Federalism, Zachary Buckheit
Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar
NCAA v. Christie will determine whether a federal statute that prevents a state legislature from repealing a previously enacted state law violates the anti-commandeering doctrine. In 2014, New Jersey passed a state law repealing state prohibitions against sports wagering in Atlantic City. Five sports leagues sued New Jersey in federal court. The leagues asserted that the new state law violated the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (“PASPA”), a federal law. New Jersey claimed PASPA violated the anti-commandeering doctrine and was accordingly unconstitutional. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that PASPA does not violate the anti-commandeering doctrine because it …
Husted V. A. Philip Randolph Institute: How Can States Maintain Their Voter Rolls?, Chris Smith
Husted V. A. Philip Randolph Institute: How Can States Maintain Their Voter Rolls?, Chris Smith
Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar
In Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, the Supreme Court will decide whether the Ohio’s Supplemental Process for maintaining its voter rolls violates the requirements of the National Voter Registration Act (“NVRA”) and the Help America Vote Act (“HAVA”). The Court’s opinion will shape the landscape of voting rights, as many states are struggling to meet the dual mandates of election sanctity and increased voter access. This commentary argues that the Supreme Court can give states a guideline for what is an acceptable process that complies with the conflicting federal policies in the NVRA and HAVA. The Court should …
Patchak V. Zinke, Separation Of Powers, And The Pitfalls Of Form Over Substance, Michael Fisher
Patchak V. Zinke, Separation Of Powers, And The Pitfalls Of Form Over Substance, Michael Fisher
Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar
Mr. Patchak was a concerned citizen with standing to bring a suit against the federal government. A previous Supreme Court decision, Carcieri v. Salazar, made it clear that Mr. Patchak would win his case. Congress, however, did not want him to do so. Congress passed, and President Obama signed, the Gun Lake Act, which effectively ordered Mr. Patchak’s suit to be dismissed. Mr. Patchak’s suit was subsequently dismissed, and he appealed on the grounds that the Gun Lake Act violated separation of powers principles.
Carpenter V. United States: How Many Cell Phone Location Points Constitute A Search Under The Fourth Amendment?, Douglas Harris
Carpenter V. United States: How Many Cell Phone Location Points Constitute A Search Under The Fourth Amendment?, Douglas Harris
Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar
In Carpenter v. United States, the Supreme Court will decide whether the government’s acquisition of a suspect’s cell site location information (“CSLI”) during an ongoing criminal investigation is a “search” under the Fourth Amendment, and thus requires a showing of probable cause to obtain a warrant. This opinion will have future consequences for Americans and their privacy interests as cell sites continue to be built and CSLI records increasingly contain more private information about cell phone users. This commentary argues that that the necessity of owning and using cell phones renders past tests obsolete. With wavering, subjective expectations of …
Preserving The ‘Jewel Of Their Souls’: How North Carolina’S Common Law Could Save Cyber-Bullying Statutes, Nick Mcguire
Preserving The ‘Jewel Of Their Souls’: How North Carolina’S Common Law Could Save Cyber-Bullying Statutes, Nick Mcguire
Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar
In State v. Bishop, the North Carolina Supreme Court struck down the state’s cyber-bullying statute on the grounds that it violated the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. Cyber-bullying, bullying that occurs through electronic technology, has become more prevalent in recent years as much of adolescent life shifts to social media and digital communications. Increasing evidence of cyber-bullying’s negative effects on children has prompted numerous state legislatures to take action. Many states have enacted generic policies for school personnel to take reasonable action to combat cyber-bullying during school hours. This note, however, argues for an alternative approach to …
Chance To Change: Jennings V. Rodriguez As A Chance To Bring Due Process To A Broken Detention System, Joe Bianco
Chance To Change: Jennings V. Rodriguez As A Chance To Bring Due Process To A Broken Detention System, Joe Bianco
Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar
Jennings v. Rodriguez will determine whether specific classes of detained noncitizens will be entitled to bond hearings before Immigration Judges moving forward. The challenge comes from the Ninth Circuit, which, with the Second Circuit, mandates bond hearings for some detainees automatically after six months. Those Circuits found that after that point, the detention was arbitrary without a showing by the Government of why the noncitizen needed continued detention. The Government seeks to retain the current system, where the noncitizen’s detention release is entirely at the Government’s discretion. This commentary sets out the case and argues that the better route is …
A New Guard At The Courthouse Door: Corporate Personal Jurisdiction In Complex Litigation After The Supreme Court’S Decision Quartet, David W. Ichel
A New Guard At The Courthouse Door: Corporate Personal Jurisdiction In Complex Litigation After The Supreme Court’S Decision Quartet, David W. Ichel
Faculty Scholarship
In a quartet of recent decisions, the Supreme Court substantially reshaped the analysis of due process limits for a state's exercise of personal jurisdiction over corporations for the first time since its groundbreaking 1945 decision in International Shoe Co. v. Washington. The Court's decision quartet recasts the International Shoe continuum of corporate contacts for which it would be "reasonable" for the state to exercise jurisdiction based on "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice" into a more rigid bright-line dichotomy between "general" and "specific" jurisdiction: for a state to exercise general (or all-purpose) jurisdiction over any suit, regardless of …