Law Commons^™

Using Bruen To Overturn New York Times V. Sullivan, Michael L. Smith, Alexander S. Hiland

Faculty Articles

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 …

Universities As Constitutional Law Makers (And Other Hidden Actors In Our Constitutional Orders), Adam J. Macleod

Faculty Articles

In the stories told by opinion makers and many law professors, American constitutional law is concerned with two things-individual rights and the powers of government-and it is settled by the Court, which was established by Article III of our national Constitution. In those now-familiar tales, the United States Supreme Court creates constitutional law when heroic individuals assert their fundamental rights against an overreaching state and when Congress, state legislatures, and executive agencies are called upon to justify their expert enactments to an overreaching judiciary. To settle these constitutional disputes the Court looks either to the text of the written Constitution …

Involuntary Treatment Of The Mentally Ill: Autonomy Is Asking The Wrong Question, Dora W. Klein

Faculty Articles

When determining if involuntary treatment is appropriate, the proper question for courts to ask is not whether autonomy is preferable to involuntary treatment, but whether no treatment at all is preferable to involuntary treatment. When legislatures develop and courts apply statutes governing civil commitment, the interests at stake should be considered not at the abstract level of "freedom" or "autonomy," but rather at the concrete level of the consequences that are likely to result from providing or not providing involuntary treatment. Only by examining the particular interests that are likely to be affected can informed decisions be made about when …

Constitutional Law And The Myth Of The Great Judge, Michael S. Ariens

Faculty Articles

One of the enduring myths of American history, including constitutional history, is that of the “Great Man” or “Great Woman.” The idea is that, to understand the history of America, one needs to understand the impact made by Great Men and Women whose actions affected the course of history. In political history, one assays the development of the United States through the lives of great Americans, from the “Founders” to Abraham Lincoln to John F. Kennedy. Similarly, in constitutional history, the story is told through key figures, the “Great Judges,” from John Marshall to Oliver Wendell Holmes to Earl Warren. …

The Parent-Child Privilege: A Response To Calls For Adoption, David A. Schlueter

Faculty Articles

A popular move to recognize and codify a parent-child privilege has surfaced, despite rejection by a majority of the courts that have considered the issue. Reminded of the horrors accompanying totalitarian systems that require children to testify against their parents, some commentators have asserted that adoption of such a privilege will promote the success of the family relationship in this country and avoid the trauma of family members testifying against each other at trial.

The momentum for adopting a parent-child privilege seems to have been generated by a few courts and a number of commentators who see the privilege as …

Do We Need A Parent-Child Privilege, David A. Schlueter

Faculty Articles

This article addresses proposals to adopt a parent-child privilege, and notes that currently incriminating statements made between parents and children are admissible as evidence. However, there is a popular move to urge codification of a parent-child privilege that would protect any statements made or actions observed within the parent-child relationship. Evidentiary privileges are generally disfavored because they potentially block otherwise relevant evidence, but some relationships, such as the parent-child relationship, deserve assurance that shared confidences will be protected.

To overcome the reluctance to adopt yet another privilege, proponents of the parent-child privilege typically offer a number of justifications. These include …

Judicial Reasoning And Social Change, David A. Dittfurth

Faculty Articles

Some have begun to doubt whether courts adequately respond to recent social problems. Formulated rules, principles, and statutes govern a case in court, and these commanding communications addressed to judges theoretically guide and control the decision-making process. Rules, although often imprecise, are subjected to the scrutiny of the legal profession, which is trained to interpret their meaning and possible application in different fact situations. This, in turn, promotes a high degree of social and political stability since there is less ambiguity as to what constitutes permissible or required behavior.

Attitudes, social institutions, language, and critical decision making are all factors …