Law Commons^™

A Historical Reassessment Of Congress's "Power To Dispose Of" The Public Lands, Jeffrey M. Schmitt

School of Law Faculty Publications

The Property Clause of the Constitution grants Congress the “Power to Dispose” of federal land. Congress uses this Clause to justify permanent federal land ownership of approximately one-third of the land within the United States. Legal scholars, however, are divided as to whether the original understanding of the Clause supports this practice. While many scholars argue that the text and intent of the framers show that Congress has the power to permanently own land within the states, others contend that these sources demonstrate that Congress has a duty to dispose of all federal land not held pursuant to another enumerated …

In Defense Of Shelby County’S Principle Of Equal State Sovereignty, Jeffrey M. Schmitt

School of Law Faculty Publications

In Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court struck down a key aspect of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 based on “the principle that all States enjoy equal sovereignty.” Legal scholars have exhaustively attacked Shelby County’s equal sovereignty principle with a surprising degree of unanimity and contempt. These critics argue that the principle is theoretically unworkable, finds no support in the Supreme Court’s precedent, is inconsistent with constitutional history, undermines individual rights, and is tainted by its association with slavery and Jim Crow. This Article responds to such criticism by arguing that the principle of equal sovereignty is a …

The Federal Right To Recover Fugitive Slaves: An Absolute But Self-Defeating Property Right, Jeffrey M. Schmitt

School of Law Faculty Publications

A key insight of modern property scholarship is that property rights are limited by the rights of others. In the antebellum era, slave owners’ property rights in fugitive slaves who escaped into the North existed in tension with the rights of free blacks who might be wrongfully claimed. At first, the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793, as supplemented by the law in most Northern states, limited a slave owner’s property rights by providing limited legal protections to free blacks against being erroneously claimed as slaves. As attitudes towards slavery changed, however, state laws in the North became increasingly protective of …

“Liking” The Social Media Revolution, Thaddeus A. Hoffmeister

School of Law Faculty Publications

As in other areas of society, social media has significantly influenced the law. Currently, civil and criminal cases can, and often do, turn on an attorney's understanding and use of social media. In the realm of family law, most practitioners view social media as an essential tool-one that could serve as grounds for malpractice if ignored. Even in legal academia-an area long resistant to change-law schools are starting to understand the impact of social media on the law and offer courses like Social Media and Criminal Law and Law and Social Media.

The goal of this essay is not to …

Rethinking Ableman V. Booth And States’ Rights In Wisconsin, Jeffrey M. Schmitt

School of Law Faculty Publications

Ableman v. Booth occupies a significant place in constitutional history for upholding the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and presenting the antebellum Supreme Court’s theory of federalism. This note presents a new interpretation of the states’ rights movement in Wisconsin that necessitated the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ableman and argues that, viewed in this historical context, the decision was a complete failure. When a fugitive slave was captured in Milwaukee, Wisconsonites wished to reject the principles of the Fugitive Slave Act in response to the Kansas-Nebraska Act but were not yet willing to violate the law.

The Supreme Court of …