Law Commons^™

The Fiduciary Foundations Of Federal Equal Protection, Gary S. Lawson, Guy Seidman, Robert Natelson

Faculty Scholarship

In Bolling v. Sharpe, the Supreme Court invalidated school segregation in the District of Columbia by inferring a broad “federal equal protection” principle from the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. It is often assumed that this principle is inconsistent with the Constitution’s original meaning and with “originalist” interpretation.

This Article demonstrates, however, that a federal equal protection principle is not only consistent with the Constitution’s original meaning, but inherent in it. The Constitution was crafted as a fiduciary document of the kind that, under contemporaneous law, imposed on agents acting for more than one beneficiary – and on …

Against Agnosticism: Why The Liberal State Isn't Just One (Authority) Among The Many, Linda C. Mcclain

Faculty Scholarship

This article takes up the gauntlet thrown down by Professor Abner Greene’s recent book, Against Obligation: The Multiple Sources of Authority in a Liberal Democracy, to those scholars, politicians, and activists who believe that realizing the ideal of e pluribus unum (out of many, one) as well as constitutional principles of liberty and equality require a robust role for government. Government, Greene argues, is just one source of authority among many others, and citizens – or even public officials – have no general moral duty to obey the law. The political and constitutional order of the United States, he contends, …

Night Of The Living Dead Hand: The Individual Mandate And The Zombie Constitution, Gary S. Lawson

Faculty Scholarship

If someone had told me on June 27, 2012, that five Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court were about to hold in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius 1 (NFIB) that the individual mandate provision in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 2 (PPACA) was not constitutionally authorized either by the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause, 3 I would have popped a cork. I don't even drink, but I would have popped the cork on principle just to hear the sound (and also to irritate my colleagues, most of whom revere the PPACA the way …

Maryland V. King: Terry V. Ohio Redux, Tracey Maclin

Faculty Scholarship

In Maryland v. King, the Supreme Court addressed whether forensic testing of DNA samples taken from persons arrested for violent felonies violated the Fourth Amendment. The purpose behind DNA testing laws is obvious: collecting and analyzing DNA samples advances the capacity of law enforcement to solve both "cold cases" and future crimes when the government has evidence of the perpetrator's DNA from the crime scene.

In a 5-4 decision, the Court, in an opinion by Justice Kennedy, upheld Maryland's DNA testing statute, and presumably the similar laws of twenty-seven other states and the federal government.

Although Justice Kennedy's opinion suggests …