Law Commons^™

Immigrant Laws, Obstacle Preemption And The Lost Legacy Of Mcculloch, Lauren Gilbert

Lauren Gilbert

Using Congress’ perceived failure to enforce the immigration laws as a backdrop, this paper will explore how the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Chamber of Commerce v.Whiting upholding the Legal Arizona Workers Act exposes some of the tensions and contradictions in modern preemption doctrine. Examining the relationship among express, field, impossibility and obstacle preemption, I explore three emerging trends, all evident in Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting. The first is an increasing reluctance of the Court to find implied obstacle preemption. The second related trend is an inclination to expand the scope of impossibility preemption beyond the physical impossibility cases. …

Counting Heads: Does The Existence Of A National Consensus Give Rise To A Substantive-Due-Process Right To A Particular Criminal Procedure?, Carrie Leonetti

Carrie Leonetti

Anomalousness in a state’s criminal procedure(s), standing alone, is sufficient (to constitute a violation of substantive due process and that the substantive process due to a criminal defendant in a state with an anomalous criminal procedure is the process that would be provided to a similarly situated defendant in a mainstream jurisdiction. This does not mean that the fact that a majority of jurisdictions fails to afford a particular beneficial procedure to a criminal defendant means that such procedure is not guaranteed by due process. Nor is the recognition of a right by a majority of jurisdictions dispositive of whether …

Counting Heads: Does The Existence Of A National Consensus Give Rise To A Substantive-Due-Process Right To A Particular Criminal Procedure?, Carrie Leonetti

Carrie Leonetti

Anomalousness in a state’s criminal procedure(s), standing alone, is sufficient (to constitute a violation of substantive due process and that the substantive process due to a criminal defendant in a state with an anomalous criminal procedure is the process that would be provided to a similarly situated defendant in a mainstream jurisdiction. This does not mean that the fact that a majority of jurisdictions fails to afford a particular beneficial procedure to a criminal defendant means that such procedure is not guaranteed by due process. Nor is the recognition of a right by a majority of jurisdictions dispositive of whether …

Counting Heads: Does The Existence Of A National Consensus Give Rise To A Substantive-Due-Process Right To A Particular Criminal Procedure?, Carrie Leonetti

Carrie Leonetti

Anomalousness in a state’s criminal procedure(s), standing alone, is sufficient (to constitute a violation of substantive due process and that the substantive process due to a criminal defendant in a state with an anomalous criminal procedure is the process that would be provided to a similarly situated defendant in a mainstream jurisdiction. This does not mean that the fact that a majority of jurisdictions fails to afford a particular beneficial procedure to a criminal defendant means that such procedure is not guaranteed by due process. Nor is the recognition of a right by a majority of jurisdictions dispositive of whether …

Counting Heads: Does The Existence Of A National Consensus Give Rise To A Substantive-Due-Process Right To A Particular Criminal Procedure?, Carrie Leonetti

Carrie Leonetti

Anomalousness in a state’s criminal procedure(s), standing alone, is sufficient (to constitute a violation of substantive due process and that the substantive process due to a criminal defendant in a state with an anomalous criminal procedure is the process that would be provided to a similarly situated defendant in a mainstream jurisdiction. This does not mean that the fact that a majority of jurisdictions fails to afford a particular beneficial procedure to a criminal defendant means that such procedure is not guaranteed by due process. Nor is the recognition of a right by a majority of jurisdictions dispositive of whether …

Counting Heads: Does The Existence Of A National Consensus Give Rise To A Substantive-Due-Process Right To A Particular Criminal Procedure?, Carrie Leonetti

Carrie Leonetti

Anomalousness in a state’s criminal procedure(s), standing alone, is sufficient (to constitute a violation of substantive due process and that the substantive process due to a criminal defendant in a state with an anomalous criminal procedure is the process that would be provided to a similarly situated defendant in a mainstream jurisdiction. This does not mean that the fact that a majority of jurisdictions fails to afford a particular beneficial procedure to a criminal defendant means that such procedure is not guaranteed by due process. Nor is the recognition of a right by a majority of jurisdictions dispositive of whether …

Counting Heads: Does The Existence Of A National Consensus Give Rise To A Substantive-Due-Process Right To A Particular Criminal Procedure?, Carrie Leonetti

Carrie Leonetti

Anomalousness in a state’s criminal procedure(s), standing alone, is sufficient (to constitute a violation of substantive due process and that the substantive process due to a criminal defendant in a state with an anomalous criminal procedure is the process that would be provided to a similarly situated defendant in a mainstream jurisdiction. This does not mean that the fact that a majority of jurisdictions fails to afford a particular beneficial procedure to a criminal defendant means that such procedure is not guaranteed by due process. Nor is the recognition of a right by a majority of jurisdictions dispositive of whether …

Counting Heads: Does The Existence Of A National Consensus Give Rise To A Substantive-Due-Process Right To A Particular Criminal Procedure?, Carrie Leonetti

Carrie Leonetti

Anomalousness in a state’s criminal procedure(s), standing alone, is sufficient (to constitute a violation of substantive due process and that the substantive process due to a criminal defendant in a state with an anomalous criminal procedure is the process that would be provided to a similarly situated defendant in a mainstream jurisdiction. This does not mean that the fact that a majority of jurisdictions fails to afford a particular beneficial procedure to a criminal defendant means that such procedure is not guaranteed by due process. Nor is the recognition of a right by a majority of jurisdictions dispositive of whether …

Counting Heads: Does The Existence Of A National Consensus Give Rise To A Substantive-Due-Process Right To A Particular Criminal Procedure?, Carrie Leonetti

Carrie Leonetti

Anomalousness in a state’s criminal procedure(s), standing alone, is sufficient (to constitute a violation of substantive due process and that the substantive process due to a criminal defendant in a state with an anomalous criminal procedure is the process that would be provided to a similarly situated defendant in a mainstream jurisdiction. This does not mean that the fact that a majority of jurisdictions fails to afford a particular beneficial procedure to a criminal defendant means that such procedure is not guaranteed by due process. Nor is the recognition of a right by a majority of jurisdictions dispositive of whether …

Delegating Supremacy?, David S. Rubenstein

David S Rubenstein

The Court has held that federal agencies may preempt state law in much the same way as Congress. While the Supremacy Clause clearly empowers Congress to displace state law, administrative preemption rests on the undertheorized assumption that Congress may “delegate supremacy” to agencies. This Article challenges the constitutionality of that premise and imagines an unfolding system where agencies are stripped of the power to create supreme federal law. My proposal will no doubt be controversial because of the significant implications it holds for federalism and the operation of modern government. Some of the more serious implications include the substantive displacement …

The Myth Of Church-State Separation, David E. Steinberg

David E. Steinberg

The Myth Of Church-State Separation

by David E. Steinberg

Abstract

This article asserts that the church-state separation interpretation of Establishment Clause history is simply wrong. When they enacted the First Amendment, the framers were focused on the first five words of the amendment, which read: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . .” The Establishment Clause guaranteed that the federal government would not interfere in state regulation of religion – whatever form that state regulation took. Rather than enacting the Establishment Clause to mandate a separation of church …

The Economics Of Horizontal Government Cooperation (Working Paper), Matthew R. Dalsanto Ph.D.

Matthew R. DalSanto, Ph.D.

This paper analyzes the ability of intrastate and interstate cooperative agreements to either minimize or capitalize on interjurisdictional externalities. These agreements are commonly referred to as compacts or joint powers agreements (intrastate compacts). The compact mechanism allows regional governments to enter into contractual agreements with one another to coordinate policy choices and to engage in cooperative endeavors. Given the inter-jurisdictional nature of the issues that affect horizontally situated governments, this mechanism is a powerful tool to achieve welfare-enhancing outcomes for citizens.

A review of the legal case law surrounding compacts is conducted to analyze the legal properties from an economic …

Jurisdiction, Abstention, And Finality: Articulating A Unique Role For The Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, Dustin Buehler

Dustin Buehler

Federal courts frequently confuse the Rooker-Feldman doctrine with Younger abstention and preclusion law, often using these doctrines interchangeably to dismiss actions that would interfere with state court proceedings. For years, scholars argued that the Supreme Court should alleviate this confusion by abolishing the Rooker-Feldman doctrine altogether. The Court recently refused to so, however. In Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp. and Lance v. Dennis, the Court reaffirmed Rooker-Feldman’s vitality, and held that the doctrine plays a unique role, completely separate from abstention and preclusion rules. And yet these decisions leave a key question unanswered: exactly how does Rooker-Feldman …

Immigration Policy Through The Lens Of Optimal Federalism, Dale B. Thompson

Dale Thompson

The controversial immigration bill S.B. 1070 enacted by the Arizona legislature utilizes local police to enforce Arizona's interpretations of immigration rules. Meanwhile, the "Utah Compact" suggests that all aspects of immigration policy should be handled by the federal government, not by states or localities. In the midst of this contentious debate, this article uses an "optimal federalism" framework to examine the appropriate locus for immigration policy. It compares economies and diseconomies of scale across enactment, implementation, and enforcement institutions, in order to determine the appropriate level of government for addressing these institutional aspects of immigration policy. It concludes that due …

Immigration Policy Through The Lens Of Optimal Federalism, Dale B. Thompson

Dale Thompson

No abstract provided.

Immigration Policy Through The Lens Of Optimal Federalism, Dale B. Thompson

Dale Thompson

The controversial immigration bill S.B. 1070 enacted by the Arizona legislature utilizes local police to enforce Arizona's interpretations of immigration rules. Meanwhile, the "Utah Compact" suggests that all aspects of immigration policy should be handled by the federal government, not by states or localities. In the midst of this contentious debate, this article uses an "optimal federalism" framework to examine the appropriate locus for immigration policy. It compares economies and diseconomies of scale across enactment, implementation, and enforcement institutions, in order to determine the appropriate level of government for addressing these institutional aspects of immigration policy. It concludes that due …

Immigration Policy Through The Lens Of Optimal Federalism, Dale B. Thompson

Dale Thompson

The controversial immigration bill S.B. 1070 enacted by the Arizona legislature utilizes local police to enforce Arizona's interpretations of immigration rules. Meanwhile, the "Utah Compact" suggests that all aspects of immigration policy should be handled by the federal government, not by states or localities. In the midst of this contentious debate, this article uses an "optimal federalism" framework to examine the appropriate locus for immigration policy. It compares economies and diseconomies of scale across enactment, implementation, and enforcement institutions, in order to determine the appropriate level of government for addressing these institutional aspects of immigration policy. It concludes that due …

Immigration Policy Through The Lens Of Optimal Federalism, Dale B. Thompson

Dale Thompson

The controversial immigration bill S.B. 1070 enacted by the Arizona legislature utilizes local police to enforce Arizona's interpretations of immigration rules. Meanwhile, the "Utah Compact" suggests that all aspects of immigration policy should be handled by the federal government, not by states or localities. In the midst of this contentious debate, this article uses an "optimal federalism" framework to examine the appropriate locus for immigration policy. It compares economies and diseconomies of scale across enactment, implementation, and enforcement institutions, in order to determine the appropriate level of government for addressing these institutional aspects of immigration policy. It concludes that due …

Handshake Deals: The Future Of Informal State Agreements And The Interstate Compacts Clause, Todd J. Hartley

Todd J Hartley

On January 1, 2012, the Western Climate Initiative (“WCI”) will begin regulating businesses in twenty-seven different North American states and provinces when it implements a cap and trade program to control greenhouse gas emissions. Though the WCI will regulate almost a third of the North American economy, it was formed with little more than a handshake in 2007 by five state governors. Neither Congress nor any other federal entity has approved the organization. States increasingly use informal agreements like the WCI to enact social policies; however, these agreements often are unconstitutional under the Interstate Compacts Clause (“ICC”). The ICC states …

The False Promise Of The Converse-1983 Action, John F. Preis

John F. Preis

The federal government is out of control. At least that’s what many states will tell you. Not only is the federal government passing patently unconstitutional legislation, but its street-level officers are ignoring citizens’ constitutional rights. How can states stop this federal juggernaut? Many are advocating a “repeal amendment,” whereby two-thirds of the states could vote to repeal federal legislation. But the repeal amendment will only address unconstitutional legislation, not unconstitutional actions. States can’t repeal a stop-and-frisk that occurred last Thursday. States might, however, enact a so-called “converse-1983” action. The idea for converse-1983 laws has been around for some time but …

Climate Change Adaptation: A Collective Action Perspective On Federalism Considerations, Robert L. Glicksman

Robert L. Glicksman

The buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the likely growth in future emissions due to increased energy consumption in developing nations have convinced many scientists and policymakers of the need to develop policies that will allow adaptation to minimize the adverse effects of climate change. Climate change adaptation is designed to increase the resilience of natural and human ecosystems to the threats posed by a changing environment. Although an extensive literature concerning the federalism implications of climate change mitigation policy has developed, less has been written about the federalism issues arising from climate change adaptation policy. This article …

Freedom Of Reincorporation And The Scope Of Corporate Law In The U.S. And The E.U., Federico Mucciarelli

Federico M. Mucciarelli

In the U.S. corporations can be incorporated in any of the 50 states and can “reincorporate” afterwards in any other state. In the E.U. such freedoms are a recent achievement: In the last decade, first the European Court of Justice has liberalized initial incorporations and only in 2005 the cross-border directive has open the doors to freedom of midstream reincorporation from one member state to another. Midstream reincorporations, however, in the E.U. have a much different impact than on the other side of the Atlantic. In the U.S., indeed, the competence of the state where a company is incorporated is …

An Empirical Study Of Obstacle Preemption In The Supreme Court, Gregory M. Dickinson

Gregory M Dickinson

The Supreme Court’s federal preemption decisions are notoriously unpredictable. Traditional left-right voting alignments break down in the face of competing ideological pulls. The breakdown of predictable voting blocs leaves the business interests most affected by federal preemption uncertain of the scope of potential liability to injured third parties and unsure even of whether state or federal law will be applied to future claims.

This empirical analysis of the Court’s decisions over the last fifteen years sheds light on the Court’s unique voting alignments in obstacle preemption cases. A surprising anti–obstacle preemption coalition is forming as Justice Thomas gradually positions himself …