Law Commons^™

Regulatory Takings And The Constitutionality Of Commercial Rent Regulation In New York City, Henry Topper

Cornell Law Library Prize for Exemplary Student Research Papers

In recent years, the plight of small businesses in New York City has become a contentious topic. Although the city and its current mayoral administration share a long-standing commitment to affordable housing, the city’s small businesses—an integral and defining feature of the urban landscape—have suffered immensely. In the past decade, local establishments have largely given way to a homogeneous landscape of empty storefronts and national chain stores.The loss of local busi- ness occurs with such staggering frequency that there is an entire thriving blog subculture documenting their “vanishing” and the Center for an Urban Future publishes an annual report on …

Constitutional Maturity, Or Reading Weber In The Age Of Trump, Josh Chafetz

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Anxiety abounds about the state of American constitutional democracy in “the age of Trump.” A wide range of commentators have raised serious and profound questions about the resilience of our political institutions and the capacity of our current political leadership.

This Essay, written for a Constitutional Commentary symposium on “Constitutional Law in the Trump Era,” attempts to get a handle on that anxiety by taking a step back and viewing our contemporary situation through a broader lens—a lens crafted in a different time and place, but responsive to a related set of political questions.

In particular, this Essay turns to …

Regulatory Takings And The Constitutionality Of Commercial Rent Regulation In New York City, Henry Topper

Cornell Law Review

This Note surveys the current status of small businesses and commercial tenant law in New York City and discusses whether or not the Small Business Jobs Survival Act (SBJSA) and commercial rent control are constitutional in light of current regulatory takings jurisprudence. Part I surveys the history of land use regulations in the city, the introduction of residential rent control, and the city's brief flirtation with commercial rent control in the mid-20th century. Part II explains the decline and current state of small businesses and the commercial law regime in the city, including the SBJSA proposal. Part III describes the …

The Constitutional Politics Heller Launched, Michael C. Dorf

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Justiciability, Federalism, And The Administrative State, Zachary D. Clopton

Cornell Law Review

Article III provides that the judicial power of the United States extends to certain justiciable cases and controversies. So if a plaintiff bringing a federal claim lacks constitutional standing or her dispute is moot under Article III, then a federal court should dismiss. But this dismissal need not end the story. This Article suggests a simple, forward-looking reading of case-or-controversy dismissals: they should be understood as invitations to legislators to consider other pathways for adjudication. A case dismissed for lack of standing, for mootness, or for requesting an advisory opinion might be a candidate for resolution in a state court …

Don't Take Me Out To That Ballpark: State Action, Government Speech, And Chief Wahoo After Matal, Robert H. Hendricks

Cornell Law Review

Close your eyes and imagine yourself driving to a concert. On the way, you pass a car bearing a license plate with the image of a Confederate flag. You pause, and ask . . . Did the state approve that license plate? Does the state endorse the use of the Confederate flag? You keep driving. Eventually you reach the concert and walk in. To your surprise, an Asian- American band named “The Slants” is opening. You pause, and ask . . . I thought the government approves trademarks? Does the Patent and Trademark Office endorse derogatory slurs? These questions strike …

What Is Discriminatory Intent?, Aziz Z. Huq

Cornell Law Review

The Constitution’s protection of racial and religious groups is organized around the concept of discriminatory intent. But the Supreme Court has never provided a crisp, single definition of ‘discriminatory intent’ that applies across different institutions and public policy contexts. Instead, current jurisprudence tacks among numerous, competing conceptions of unconstitutional intent. Amplifying the doctrine’s complexity, the Court has also taken conflicting approaches to the question of how to go about substantiating impermissible motives with admissible evidence.

The Court’s pluralistic view of intent is in theory plausible, and perhaps even unavoidable. But its lack of any consistent approach in practice to the …

Law Association Of Zambia V. The Attorney General (Appeal No. 8/2014) [2016] Zmsc 243, Muna B. Ndulo, Samuel Ndungu

SAIPAR Case Review

No abstract provided.

Attorney General V Mutuna And Others (Appeal No. 088/2012) [2013] Zmsc 38, Muna B. Ndulo

SAIPAR Case Review

No abstract provided.

Milford Maambo And Others V The People 2016/Cc/R001 [2017], O'Brien Kaaba

SAIPAR Case Review

No abstract provided.

Raila Amolo Odinga And Another V Independent Electoral And Boundaries Commission And Others Presidential Petition No. 1 Of 2017, O'Brien Kaaba

SAIPAR Case Review

No abstract provided.

United Democratic Movement V Speaker Of The National Assembly And Others (Cct89/17) [2017] Zacc 21, Tinenenji Banda

SAIPAR Case Review

No abstract provided.

Drunk Driving, Blood, And Breath: The Impact Of Birchfield V. North Dakota, Simon Bord

Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy

Birchfield v. North Dakota is a landmark decision that will influence criminal procedure jurisprudence for years to come. Birchfield drew a distinction between the level of intrusiveness inherent in a breath test versus a blood test, upholding warrantless searches incident to a DUI arrest involving the former, but not the latter. In addition, the Court ruled that criminal penalties for refusing to consent to a blood draw were unconstitutional, but such penalties were an acceptable punishment for motorists who refused to undergo a breath test. Because Birchfield failed to establish a clear rule regarding the permissible scope of implied consent …

The Partiality Norm: Systematic Deference In The Office Of Legal Counsel, Adoree Kim

Cornell Law Review

This study shows that the Office of Legal Counsel does not offer "detached, apolitical legal advice" in practice. Rather, the OLC is deeply and systematically deferential to the President. The implications are grave considering the OLC's de facto lawmaking power, a result of its position as legal adviser for the executive-- "the judgment of [the OLC] . . . becomes the law." Moreover, the OLC "is frequently asked to opine on issues of first impression that are unlikely to be resolved by the courts--a circumstance in which OLC's advice may effectively be the final word on the controlling law." Whether …

The Rights Of Marriage: Obergefell, Din, And The Future Of Constitutional Family Law, Kerry Abrams

Cornell Law Review

In the summer of 2015 the United States Supreme Court handed down two groundbreaking constitutional family law decisions. One decision became famous overnight Obergefell v. Hodges declared that same-sex couples have the constitutional right to marry. The other, Kerry v. Din, went largely overlooked. That later case concerned not the right to marry but the rights of marriage. In particular, it asked whether a person has a constitutional liberty interest in living with his or her spouse. This case is suddenly of paramount importance: executive orders targeting particular groups of immigrants implicate directly this right to family reunification.

This Article …

A First Amendment Right To Corrupt Your Politician, Eugene Temchenko

Cornell Law Review

Are you dealing with state or federal agencies, to no avail? Do you need someone on top to advocate for you? You may have a right to buy your Governor’s help. It is well-established that the Constitution protects the right of political association, which includes contributions to candidates in return for ingratiation and access. Nonetheless, courts and scholars have generally limited this right to contributions to campaigns for public office. After McDonnell v. United States, that may change. Reading the McDonnell opinion in light of McCutcheon, this Note and other commentators conclude that the Supreme Court may have inadvertently created …

How Constitutional Norms Break Down, Josh Chafetz, David E. Pozen

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

From the moment Donald Trump was elected President, critics have anguished over a breakdown in constitutional norms. History demonstrates, however, that constitutional norms are perpetually in flux. The principal source of instability is not that these unwritten rules can be destroyed by politicians who deny their legitimacy, their validity, or their value. Rather, the principal source of instability is that constitutional norms can be decomposed—dynamically interpreted and applied in ways that are held out as compliant but end up limiting their capacity to constrain the conduct of government officials.

This Article calls attention to that latent instability and, in so …

Legal Vs. Factual Normative Questions & The True Scope Of Ring, Emad H. Atiq

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

When is a normative question a question of law rather than a question offact? The short answer, based on common law and constitutional rulings, is: it depends. For example, if the question concerns the fairness of contractual terms, it is a question of law. If it concerns the reasonableness of dangerous risk-taking in a negligence suit, it is a question of fact. If it concerns the obscenity of speech, it was a question of fact prior to the Supreme Court's seminal cases on free speech during the 1970s, but is now treated as law-like. This variance in the case law …

The Brennan Lecture: The Separation Of Powers And The Public, Josh Chafetz

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Convictions Of Innocent People With Intellectual Disability, Sheri Johnson, John H. Blume, Amelia Courtney Hritz

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

In Atkins v. Virginia, the Supreme Court held that executing individuals with intellectual disability violates the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment. In addition to concerns over culpability and deterrence, the Court’s judgment in Atkins was informed by the heightened “risk of wrongful execution” faced by persons with intellectual disability. This essay explores that question both anecdotally and quantitatively, hoping to illuminate the causes of wrongful conviction of persons with intellectual disability. We provide examples from our experiences in the Cornell Death Penalty Clinic and cases brought to our attention by defense attorneys. We also present data …

The Constitutional Law Of Incarceration, Reconfigured, Margo Schlanger

Cornell Law Review

As American incarcerated populations grew starting in the 1970s, so too did court oversight of prisons. In the late 1980s, however, as incarceration continued to boom, federal court oversight shrank. This Article addresses the most central doctrinal limit on oversight of jails and prisons, the Supreme Court’s restrictive reading of the constitutional provisions governing treatment of prisoners — the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause and the Due Process Clause, which regulate, respectively, post-conviction imprisonment and pretrial detention. The Court’s interpretation of the Eighth Amendment’s ban of cruel and unusual punishment, in particular, radically undermined prison officials’ accountability for tragedies behind …

Fundamental Rights Not So Fundamental? Critique Of The Supreme Court Judgment In Law Association Of Zambia V. The Attorney General, Muna B. Ndulo, Samuel Ngure Ndungu

Southern African Journal of Policy and Development

The article discusses the constitutionality of sections 5 and 6 of the Public Order Act of Zambia. The Law Association of Zambia had unsuccessfully argued in the High Court of Zambia that the sections violated section 20 (Freedom of expression) and 21 (Freedom of assembly) of the Zambian Constitution. The Supreme Court of Zambia upheld the decision of the High Court and held that the sections did not violate sections 20 and 21 of the constitution and were constitutional. This article argues that the Supreme Court decision is wrong and falls short of effectively protecting citizen’s rights of peaceful assembly …

Unprecedented? Judicial Confirmation Battles And The Search For A Usable Past, Josh Chafetz

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Recent years have seen intense conflicts over federal judicial appointments, culminating in Senate Republicans' 2016 refusal to consider the nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, Senate Democrats' 2017 filibuster of Neil Gorsuch's nomination to the same seat, and Republicans' triggering of the "nuclear option" to confirm Gorsuch. At every stage in this process, political actors on both sides have accused one another of "unprecedented" behavior.

This Essay, written for the 2017 Supreme Court issue of the Harvard Law Review, examines these disputes and their histories, with an eye toward understanding the ways in which discussions of (un)precedentedness …

Debate, Richard Primus, Kevin M. Stack, Christopher Serkin, Nelson Tebbe

Cornell Law Review

No abstract provided.

Katuka V Electoral Commission Of Zambia (2016/Cc/0025) [2016] Zmcc 2 (9 August 2016), Chanda Chungu

SAIPAR Case Review

No abstract provided.

Katuka And Law Association Of Zambia Vs Inonge Wina And Others (2016/Cc/0010/2016/Cc/0011) [2016] Zmcc 1, Tinenenji Banda

SAIPAR Case Review

The discrete legal issue to be decided by the Court was whether the continued stay in office by the Vice President, Cabinet Ministers, Provisional Ministers and Deputy Ministers – after the dissolution of Parliament on 11th May, 2016, and after the enactment of the Constitution of Zambia Amendment Act No. 2 of 2016, was ultra vires the constitution and therefore unconstitutional. If unconstitutional, a follow up issue was whether the salaries, allowances, and emoluments drawn by the above officials during their unlawful stay in office should be repaid. The case was filed as three separate causes, but by consent of …

Hichilema And Another V Lungu And Another (2016/Cc/0031) [2016] Zmcc 4 (5 September 2016), Minority Judgement, Dunia P. Zongwe

SAIPAR Case Review

On September 5th 2016, there was tension in the packed Constitutional Court. Three out of five Constitutional Court judges (i.e., Anne Mwewa-Sitali, Mugeni Mulenga and Palan Mulonda) dismissed the election petition of Presidential candidate Hakainde Hichilema and his running mate Geoffrey Mwamba, on the grounds that the time for hearing the petition had lapsed. The President of the Court Justice Hildah Chibomba, and Justice Margaret Munalula dissented.

Dividing the Court was the interpretation and effect of Articles 101(5) and 103(2) of the Constitution of Zambia. Articles 101 (5) and 103 (2) provide that the Constitutional Court must hear a Presidential …

Hichilema And Another V Lungu And Another (2016/Cc/0031) [2016] Zmcc 4 (5 September 2016), Majority Judgment, Muna Ndulo

SAIPAR Case Review

No abstract provided.

Four Unconstitutional Constitutions And Their Democratic Foundations, Richard Albert

Cornell International Law Journal

The present fascination with the global phenomenon of an unconstitutional constitutional amendment has left open the question whether a constitution can be unconstitutional. To declare an entire constitution unconstitutional seems different in both kind and degree from invalidating a single amendment for violating the architectural core of a constitution, itself undoubtedly an extraordinary action. In this Article, I illustrate and evaluate four different conceptions of an unconstitutional constitution. Each conception draws from a different constitution currently in force around the world, specifically the Constitutions of Canada, Mexico, South Africa and the United States. Despite their unconstitutionality in different senses of …

The Dignity Canon, Noah B. Lindell

Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy

Human dignity is not a freestanding constitutional right, but it is a strongly held constitutional value. To this point, however, human dignity has had no place in statutory interpretation. This Article argues that courts should create a dignity canon of interpretation, which would operate as a clear statement rule. If laws are to be construed to limit individual dignity, the legislature must expressly this plainly. By conducting re-dos of three Supreme Court cases in the areas of civil rights, criminal procedure, and personal health, the Article shows the promise of the dignity canon.