Law Commons^™

Glenn Beck Bad News For Religious Conservatism, Nathan B. Oman

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Summary Of Berkson V. Lepome, 126 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 46, Cayla Witty

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

No abstract provided.

Michigan V. Bryant: Defining The “Testimonial Statement”, Hsien-Ying Shine Chen

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

No abstract provided.

Religion: How To Stay Out Of Court, Kenneth Akers, Sara Rotramel, Jorge Wellmann

Parameters of Law in Student Affairs and Higher Education (CNS 670)

In the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, it reads that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” This single sentence, the Establishment Clause, is the backbone of religious freedom in the United States, and with its several annotations it has given shape and breadth to the concept of religion in America, more specifically our topic, i.e. …

Presidential Succession: The Art Of The Possible, James E. Fleming

Faculty Scholarship

I am deeply honored that John D. Feerick invited me to come back to Fordham University School of Law and appear in this splendid conference. Yet I hasten to say that, when it comes to presidential succession, John Feerick and Joel K. Goldstein are tough acts to follow. Indeed, in an otherwise wonderfully organized conference, the line of succession here is flawed. I suppose I should declare myself unqualified to follow these experts on presidential succession! I shall bring the perspective of the constitutional theory generalist to bear on the questions framed for our panel.

Judges Playing Jury: Constitutional Conflicts In Deciding Fair Use On Summary Judgment, Ned Snow

Faculty Publications

Issues of fair use in copyright cases are usually decided at summary judgment. But it was not always so. For well over a century, juries routinely decided these issues. The law recognized that fair use issues were highly subjective and thereby inherently factual — unfit for summary disposition by a judge. Today, however, all this has been forgotten. Judges are characterizing factual issues as purely legal so that fair use may be decided at summary judgment. Even while judges acknowledge that reasonable minds may disagree on these issues, they characterize the issues as legal, preventing them from ever reaching a …

Impeachment And Assassination, Josh Chafetz

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

In 1998, the conservative provocateur Ann Coulter made waves when she wrote that President Clinton should be either impeached or assassinated. Coulter was roundly - and rightly - condemned for suggesting that the murder of the President might be justified, but her conceptual linking of presidential impeachment and assassination was not entirely unfounded. Indeed, Benjamin Franklin had made the same linkage over two hundred years earlier, when he noted at the Constitutional Convention that, historically, the removal of “obnoxious” chief executives had been accomplished by assassination. Franklin suggested that a proceduralized mechanism for removal - impeachment - would be preferable. …

Majoritarian Difficulty And Theories Of Constitutional Decision Making, Michael C. Dorf

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Recent scholarship in political science and law challenges the view that judicial review in the United States poses what Alexander Bickel famously called the "counter-majoritarian difficulty." Although courts do regularly invalidate state and federal action on constitutional grounds, they rarely depart substantially from the median of public opinion. When they do so depart, if public opinion does not eventually come in line with the judicial view, constitutional amendment, changes in judicial personnel, and/or changes in judicial doctrine typically bring judicial understandings closer to public opinion. But if the modesty of courts dissolves Bickel's worry, it raises a distinct one: Are …

The Constitutional Right To Informational Privacy: Nasa V. Nelson, Russell T. Gorkin

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

No abstract provided.

Rethinking The Order Of Battle In Constitutional Torts: A Reply To John Jeffries, Nancy Leong

NULR Online

The Supreme Court’s decision in Pearson v. Callahan ended an eight-year experiment in the adjudication of qualified immunity claims. That experiment began with Saucier v. Katz, in which the Court held that lower courts mustdecide whether a government officer violated a plaintiff’s constitutional rights before addressing the question of whether the government officer was entitled to immunity. The Court’s rationale for requiring lower courts to first address the merits was the need to clarify constitutional law for the benefit of both government actors (who could then better conform their behavior to constitutional standards) and future plaintiffs (who could then …

Judging Myopia In Hindsight: Bivens Actions, National Security Decisions, And The Rule Of Law, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

Liability in national security matters hinges on curbing both official myopia and hindsight bias. The Framers knew that officials could be short-sighted, prioritizing expedience over abiding values. Judicial review emerged as an antidote to myopia of this kind. However, the Framers recognized that ubiquitous second-guessing of government decisions would also breed instability. Balancing these conflicting impulses has produced judicial oscillation between intervention and deference. Recent decisions on Bivens claims in the war on terror have defined extremes of deference or intervention. Cases like Ashcroft v. Iqbal and Arar v. Ashcroft display a categorical deference that rewards officials' myopia. On the …

Teens, Porn, And Video Games: Is It Time To Rethink Ginsberg?, John A. Humbach

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

This term the Supreme Court will decide whether states can constitutionally ban sales of violent videogames to minors. In reaching its decision, the Court will inevitably be faced with how to deal with Ginsberg v. New York, the case that allowed states to forbid sales of non-obscene (constitutionally "protected") pornography to persons under age 17.

The opinion in Ginsberg, if not the result, is an odd duck in First Amendment jurisprudence. It is a case that applied "rational basis" review in an area where the Supreme Court now insists on strict scrutiny. But the Court predicated its use of rational …

Uncertainties Remain For Judicial Takings Theory, Timothy M. Mulvaney

Faculty Scholarship

The U.S. Supreme Court waded into the waters of judicial takings last summer with a divided opinion that effectively carries no precedential value but is likely to have lower courts and property scholars trying to decipher its meaning for many years to come.

In Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environment Protection, 130 S. Ct. 2592 (2010), the Court decided that some Florida gulf-front property owners are not entitled to compensation under the federal Constitution’s Takings Clause when a state beach restoration project separates their private property from the water’s edge. Although the state prevailed in this …

Reconceptualizing The Fifth Amendment Prohibition Of Adverse Comment On Criminal Defendants' Trial Sentence, Jeffrey Bellin

Faculty Publications

Griffin v. California holds that the Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination prohibits a prosecutor from arguing that a defendant’s failure to testify supports an inference of guilt. In the four decades since Griffin was decided, Griffin’s doctrinal underpinnings have been strongly criticized by prominent jurists and commentators, and even Griffin’s contemporary defenders struggle to place the constitutional prohibition of adverse comment on defendant silence within a coherent doctrinal framework.

In light of these largely unanswered criticisms, this Article posits that the current Fifth Amendment-based prohibition of adverse comment is untenable and must be recast in a more narrowly tailored …

"The People" Of The Second Amendment: Citizenship And The Right To Bear Arms, Pratheepan Gulasekaram

Faculty Publications

The Supreme Court's recent Second Amendment decision, District of Columbia v. Heller asserts that the Constitution's right to bear arms is an individual right to armed self-defense held by law-abiding “citizens.” This Article examines the implications of this description, concluding that the Second Amendment cannot concurrently be a right of armed self-defense and restricted to citizens. The Article proceeds in three parts. First, it analyzes the term "the people" as it has been interpreted in recent Court cases. The Article concludes that constitutional text and Supreme Court jurisprudence provide no sustainable basis to believe the Second Amendment is limited …

Mcdonald V. Chicago: Which Standard Of Scrutiny Should Apply To Gun-Control Laws?, Lawrence Rosenthal, Joyce Lee Malcolm

NULR Online

In this debate, Professors Rosenthal and Malcolm debate the standard of scrutiny that the Supreme Court should apply to restrictions on the Second Amendment in the wake of its recent decision, McDonald v. City of Chicago. Professor Rosenthal begins Part I by noting the importance of gun-control laws to police; he considers a lower standard of scrutiny necessary to allow law enforcement officials to protect the community. Turning to the practical consequences of Chicago and Washington, D.C.'s recent gun-control laws, which make owning a gun nearly impossible in those cities, Professor Malcolm argues for a standard of strict scrutiny …

Privacy Torts: Unreliable Remedies For Lgbt Plaintiffs, Anita L. Allen

Faculty Scholarship at Penn Carey Law

In the United States, both constitutional law and tort law recognize the right to privacy, understood as legal entitlement to an intimate life of one’s own free from undue interference by others and the state. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (“LGBT”) persons have defended their interests in dignity, equality, autonomy, and intimate relationships in the courts by appealing to that right. In the constitutional arena, LGBT Americans have claimed the protection of state and federal privacy rights with a modicum of well-known success. Holding that homosexuals have the same right to sexual privacy as heterosexuals, Lawrence v. Texas symbolizes the …

Can Congress Ban People From Threatening To Burn The Quran? Yes: No Rights Are Absolute, Especially Amid Legitimate Safety Issues, Jessica D. Gabel

Faculty Publications By Year

No abstract provided.

A Modest Appeal For Decent Respect, Jessica Olive, David C. Gray

Faculty Scholarship

In Graham v. Florida, the Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment prohibits imposing a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of release for nonhomicide crimes if the perpetrator was under the age of eighteen at the time of his offense. In so holding, Justice Kennedy cited foreign and international law to confirm the Court’s independent judgment. In his dissent, Justice Thomas recited now-familiar objections to the Court’s reliance on these sources. Those objections are grounded in his originalist jurisprudence. In this short invited essay, which expands on prior work, we argue that Justice Thomas should abandon these …

Framing Change: Cause Lawyering, Constitutional Decisions, And Social Change, Mary Ziegler

Scholarly Publications

This article contends that current critics of change-oriented litigation assume a particular model of the relationship between law and social change: law is argued to mirror popular mores, and judicial decisions are thought at most to suppress unusual or outlying laws. This model is incomplete, because judicial decisions may help to change how a social cause is defined and labeled. In presenting a supplementary model, I argue that judicial decisions reframe debates, privileging some arguments, marginalizing others, altering the coalitions on either side and influencing the types of legal reform those coalitions are able to pursue.

A series of state …

Oral Dissenting On The Supreme Court, Christopher W. Schmidt, Carolyn Shapiro

All Faculty Scholarship

In this Article we offer the first comprehensive evaluation of oral dissenting on the Supreme Court. We examine the practice in both historical and contemporary perspective, take stock of the emerging academic literature on the subject, and suggest a new framework for analysis of oral dissenting. Specifically, we put forth several claims. Contrary to the common assumption of scholarship and media coverage, oral dissents are nothing new. Oral dissenting has a long tradition, and its history provides valuable lessons for understanding the potential and limits of oral dissents today. Furthermore, not all oral dissents are alike. Dissenting Justices may have …

Religious Exemption Or Exceptionalism? Exploring The Tension Of First Amendment Religion Protections & Civil Rights Progress Within The Employment Non-Discrimination Act, Richael Faithful

Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

The District of Columbia (D.C.) marked a landmark civil rights achievement in December 2009 when the city passed the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act. The law’s enactment allowed D.C. to become the sixth jurisdiction to sanction same-sex marriage in the United States. Supporters hailed the law as a victory for lesbian and gay equality, while detractors vowed that their efforts to traditionally define marriage would continue.

Among the most public opponents of the law was the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington, which operates Catholic Charities, a leading service provider to low-income residents in the metropolitan area. The Catholic …

The Inconvenience Of A “Constitution [That] Follows The Flag … But Doesn’T Quite Catch Up With It”: From Downes V. Bidwell To Boumediene V. Bush, Pedro A. Malavet

UF Law Faculty Publications

Boumediene v. Bush, resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court in June of 2008, granted habeas corpus rights, at least for the time being, to the persons detained at Guantanamo Bay Naval Station. The majority partially based its ruling on the doctrine of the Insular Cases, first set forth in the 1901 decision in Downes v. Bidwell. Additionally, the four dissenting justices agreed with the five in the majority that the plurality opinion of Justice Edward Douglass White in Downes – as affirmed by a unanimous court in 1922 in Balzac v. People of Porto Rico – is still the dominant …

Constitutional Fiats: Presidential Legislation In India's Parliamentary Democracy, Shubhankar Dam

Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law

The article presents information on the presidential legislation of the parliamentary democracies, India and Pakistan. It discusses the role of the President acting as the Council of Ministers for the enactment of legislations as ordinances without the consent of the Parliament. Information on the legal interpretation of the ordinances and its interaction with the principles of the parliamentary system of the government is also presented.

Justice John Paul Stevens - His Take On Takings, Alan C. Weinstein

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

This commentary reviews and analyzes Justice John Paul Stevens's role in shaping the Court's views on the takings issue in land use regulation.

Aliens On The Bench: Lessons In Identity, Race And Politics From The First "Modern" Supreme Court, Lori A. Ringhand

Scholarly Works

Every time a Supreme Court vacancy is announced, the media and the legal academy snap to attention. Even the general public takes note; in contrast to most of the decisions issued by the Court, a majority of Americans are aware of and have opinions about the men and women who are nominated to sit on it. Moreover, public opinion about the nominee has a strong influence on a senator's vote for or against the candidate. If the confirmation hearing held before the Senate Judiciary Committee is largely an empty ritual, why do so many people seem so enthralled by it? …

Salazar V. Buono: The Perils Of Piecemeal Adjudication, Lisa Shaw Roy

NULR Online

The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Salazar v. Buono, a case involving a Latin cross placed on federal land in the Mojave Desert by the Veterans of Foreign Wars, approaches what many would assume to be the central issue in the case from an oblique. Does the Mojave Desert cross, sitting atop Sunrise Peak in a federal park preserve, violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment? Neither Justice Kennedy’s plurality opinion nor any of the concurring or dissenting opinions in Salazar answers that question. Salazar’s complicated web of facts and procedural history precluded the Court from …

Section 7: Individual Rights, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law At The William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Section 8: Federalism, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law At The William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

The Holocaust Insurance Accountability Act Of 2010: Hearing Before The United States House Of Representatives, Committee On The Judiciary, Subcommittee On Commercial And Administrative Law. 111th Congress, 2nd Session, Michael P. Van Alstine

Congressional Testimony

The testimony explores the essential legal issue of the extent to which executive agreements related to H.R. 4596 have any force as law in the United States. The agreements made it clear that they did not, by themselves, “provide an independent legal basis for dismissal” of claims of Holocaust victims filed in any courts of the United States. Instead, the executive branch simply agreed to file a “statement of interest” in such lawsuits to the effect “that U.S. policy interests favor dismissal on any valid legal ground.” Some lower courts have nonetheless given the statements of interest preemptive effect as …