Law Commons^™

Friends With Benefits: Redefining Personal Gain In Insider Trading Under Salman V. United States, Wendy R. Becker

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Since Congress has not enacted a statute outlawing insider trading, or the trading of securities based on non-public information, outright, courts have struggled to define what constitutes insider trading. The Supreme Court held that a fiduciary duty was breached when the insider privy to the information receives a “personal benefit.” This Commentary analyzes a pending Supreme Court case, Salman v. United States, which addresses whether pecuniary gain is needed to constitute the personal benefit necessary for insider trading, or if certain relationships are enough for the tip to inherently create a personal benefit for the insider. The author argues …

The Choice Between Right And Easy: Pena-Rodriguez V. Colorado And The Necessity Of A Racial Bias Exception To Rule 606(B), Kevin Zhao

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Traditionally, under Rule 606(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, jurors are barred from testifying towards matters within juror deliberations. However, many jurisdictions in the United States have adopted an exception to this rule for racial prejudice. That is, if a juror comes forward post-verdict to testify that another juror made racially charged comments within the jury room, then the verdict may be overturned. The Supreme Court will address this issue in its upcoming decision in Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado. This commentary will argue that a racial bias exception is necessary to protect defendants' rights to a fair trial and …

Further Punishing The Wrongfully Accused: Manuel V. City Of Joliet, The Fourth Amendment, And Malicious Prosecution, James R. Holley

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Manuel v. City of Joliet is before the Supreme Court to determine whether detention before trial without probable cause is a violation of the Fourth Amendment, or whether it is merely a violation of the Due Process Clause. Every circuit except the Seventh Circuit treats this type of detention as being a violation of the Fourth Amendment; only the Seventh Circuit considers this question under the Due Process Clause. This commentary argues that the Supreme Court should look to its precedent, which clearly treats pretrial detention without probable cause as being a Fourth Amendment issue, and reverse the Seventh Circuit. …

Mississippi V. Tennessee: Resolving An Interstate Groundwater Dispute, Peter G. Berris

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

This commentary explores the legal background and potential ramifications of Mississippi v. Tennessee: an original jurisdiction case involving a dispute over aquifer groundwater. Although the Supreme Court has addressed water disputes between states in the past, Mississippi v. Tennessee is the first such case to center exclusively on groundwater. As a result the Court has the opportunity to resolve a question of great relevance in an era where access to water is a recurring news story; is aquifer groundwater an interstate resource subject to equitable apportionment, or an intrastate resource subject to state sovereign ownership.

Ring Around The Jury: Reviewing Florida's Capital Sentencing Framework In Hurst V. Florida, Richard Guyer

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

This commentary discusses Hurst v. Florida, a case in which the Supreme court will review Florida's death sentencing scheme to determine whether it violates the Sixth of Eighth Amendments. The author argues that Florida's capital sentencing framework violates the Sixth Amendment. A jury, rather than a judge, better reflects society's moral views, which are critical to weigh when deciding whether to impose the death penalty.

Utah V. Strieff And The Future Of The Exceptions To The Exclusionary Rule, Zack Gong

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

In the recent case State v. Strieff, the Supreme Court of Utah held that police’s discovery of a lawful outstanding warrant during an unlawful investigatory stop cannot save the evidence obtained during that arrest from suppression under the attenuation doctrine. To reach that decision, the court reasoned that the inevitable discovery doctrine, instead of the attenuation doctrine, is appropriate for this situation. However, the court failed to address whether the inevitable discovery doctrine can ultimately save the evidence from suppression.

The theoretical foundation of how the Fourth Amendment guaranty gives rise to the exclusionary rule has never been steadfast; …

Gutting Public Sector Unions: Friedrichs V. California Teachers Association, Jake Wasserman

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

In Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, public-sector unions face a constitutional challenge that could lead to their demise. In California, all public school employees are represented by a union--whether or not they are union members--and are required to pay an agency fee. This requirement seems to run contrary to the First Amendment, which generally prohibits the government from compelling citizens to support the speech and expressive activities of a private organization. This commentary argues that the Court should not overrule its decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education and uphold the validity of agency-shop agreements.

Asking The Right Federal Questions: Merrill Lynch V. Manning And The Exclusive Jurisdiction Provisions Of The Securities Exchange Act, Seth Taylor

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Suppose you run a small corporation in the business of auctioneering stamps, coins, and other collectibles. Sensing that your corporation’s financial prospects are on the decline, large financial institutions drive the price of the company’s stock down. Your shareholders sue in state court alleging a breach of state law in manipulating stock prices while also referencing breaches of federal securities law.

Can the defendant financial institutions remove the case to federal court? This question is set to be answered by the Supreme Court in Manning v. Merrill Lynch, which deals specifically with whether section 27 of the Securities Exchange …

Ocasio V. United States: The Scope Of A Conspiracy To Commit Hobbs Act Extortion, Benjamin Ludewig

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Ocasio v. United States presents the question of whether a conviction under the general federal conspiracy statute may be based on Hobbs Act extortion when a public official defendant has formed an agreement to obtain property from someone within the conspiracy. There is currently a circuit split on the question presented in Ocasio v. United States, which the Supreme Court will address. This commentary argues that the Court should allow a conviction under the general federal conspiracy statute to be based on Hobbs Act extortion when the property is obtained from someone within the conspiracy. This holding is consistent …

Going To Hell In A Hhs Notice: The Contraceptive Mandate's Next Impermissible Burden On Religious Freedom, Trey O'Callaghan

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that eligible religious organizations submit a notice objecting to providing their employees contraceptive coverage if they religiously object to contraception or abortifacients is as simple as filing a piece of paper. But to a collection of Catholic petitioners, complying with this requirement gives rise to “scandal” and causes them to “materially cooperate” with sin. Filing a piece of paper may seem far outside any exercise of religion, but these groups sincerely believe that the one page notice burdens their religious beliefs.

Zubik v. Burwell, like Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, presents a conflict between …

Districtly Speaking: Evenwel V. Abbott And The Apportionment Population Debate, Joey Herman

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, promises substantial equality of population within state legislative districts under the “one-person, one-vote” rule. Most frequently, total population is the basis for state reapportionament, but state citizenship and voter registration populations have also been acceptable bases in certain situations. The case of Evenwel v. Abbott, provides the Court with the opportunity to resolve the permissible population basis for reapportionment of state legislative districts. This Commentary argues that a state may rely upon total population as the basis for apportionment because such an approach is consistent …

Of All The Gin Joints: Harris And The Supreme Court’S Reluctant Jurisprudence On Partisanship In Redistricting, Andrew Bellis

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

As interpreted by the Supreme Court, the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause protects the voting power of citizens. Thus, drawing state legislative districts resulting in dilution of citizens’ voting power may violate the Constitution. However, the question of what factors a state may take into account when redistricting has not been settled. In the upcoming Supreme Court case of Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, the Court faces the question of whether partisan makeup of the population and whether an attempt by a state to obtain federal preclearance for redistricting are valid factors a state can take into account …

Revisiting Erisa Preemption In Gobeille V. Liberty Mutual, Nicole B. Gage

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Under the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, federal law preempts state law. In 1974 Congress passed the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) governing benefits offered by employers to their employees. The purpose of this statute was ensuring the uniformity of the law applicable to employee benefts. The Supreme Court case of Gobeille v. Liberty Mutual concerns the limits of ERISA’s preemption of state law, specifically whether a state law governing employee benefits is merely peripheral to the core ERISA functions. This Commentary argues that ERISA does not preempt a state law which does not interfere with the administration of ERISA …

Foster V. Chatman: Clarifying The Batson Test For Discriminatory Peremptory Strikes, Meghan Daly

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Historically, peremptory challenges were thought necessary to ensure fair and impartial juries, but the tactic has also been widely used by prosecutors for racially discriminatory purposes. This Commentary previews an upcoming Supreme Court case, Foster v. Chatman, that deals with alleged discriminatory peremptory challenges which led to striking all black jurors from a jury trial. Even though the prosecution had offered race-neutral reasons for those strikes, this Commentary argues that the evidence shows that the underlying rational was, in reality, racial discrimination. For that reason, this Commentary argues that the Court should find this case to fall under the …

Tyson Foods, Inc. V. Bouaphakeo: The Use Of Statistical Evidence In Class Actions, Wenbo Zhang

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Statistical analysis potentially plays an important role in class-action litigation, but the use of such evidence is limited at the class-certification stage of such suits. This Commentary previews an upcoming Supreme Court case that deals with the question of whether inferential evidence may be used to certify a class in a class-action lawsuit. Because this case deals with a violation of a duty, imposed by statute, on the defendant, this Commentary argues that under existing precedent, inferential statistical evidence is appropriate for determining the question of class-certification.

The Young And The Redemptionless? Juvenile Offenders Before Miller V. Alabama, Katherine Johnson

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits excessive criminal sanctions, and the Supreme Court has held that this provision has special application in situations dealing with juvenile offenders. This Commentary looks at the recent Supreme Court case of Montgomery v. Louisiana, in which the Court held that there was a constititutional prohibition of life sentences without parole for juvenile offenders. This Commentary argues that this is the correct result under the Court’s Eighth Amendment jurisprudence but that the Court should also have held that the sole remedy for such constitutional violations is resentencing.

A Power Struggle: Demand Response And The Limits Of Ferc’S Authority, Adrien Dumoulin-Smith, Geoffrey Wright

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

This Commentary details a recent Supreme Court case which dealt with the question of the extent of a federal agency’s authority to regulate retail markets for electric power or whether the agency was restricted only to regulation of wholesale markets. In this case, the Court held that the federal agency had jurisdiction over wholesale markets, regardless of the impact in retail markets. This Commentary argues that the Court reached the correct result as a matter of statutory interpretation but also argues that the Court was insufficiently deferential to the agency in interpreting the extent of that agency’s jurisdiction under the …

Luis V. United States: Asset Forfeiture Butts Heads With The Sixth Amendment, Jordan Glassberg

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

In recent years, the federal government has vastly increased its use of asset forfeiture, the seizure of property connected to illegal activities. As authorized under federal law, the government is also able to restrain assets prior to trial when the government belives those assets will ultimately be found to be forfeitable. This pretrial restraint potentially implicates the constitutionally guaranteed right to counsel for criminal defendants. In the upcoming Supreme Court case of Luis v. United States, the Court will address the question of whether a pretrial restraint of assets which are not traceable to any illegal activity is permissible …

Hurdles To The Court: The Doctrine Of Standing Under Statutory Violations, Priya Khangura

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Standing is a precondition for any suit brought in federal court. This Commentary analyzes a Supreme Court case, Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, which will address whether a violation of a federal statute grants a plaintiff standing to sue. The Author argues that such a violation is sufficient for establishing standing because the plaintiff suffered an injury-in-fact which the legisture intended to prevent. That harm is both traceable to the violation and redressible by statute. Thus, the requisite elements of constitutional standing exist in this case. Such a holding follows from existing standing jurisprudence and ensures that plaintiffs can have …

Arbitration Revisited: Preemption Of California’S Unconscionability Doctrine After Concepcion, David Friedman

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

This commentary looks at a Supreme Court case, Imburgia v. DIRECTV, in which the Court faces the question of whether an arbitration agreement, made pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, preempts state unconscionability doctrine which would render that agreement unenforceable. The Author argues that holding that federal law implementing a policy favoring arbitration fully preempts state law doctrines from preventing the enforcement of arbitration agreements.

Practice And Precedent In Historical Gloss Games, Joseph Blocher, Margaret H. Lemos

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Distinctive Role Of Justice Samuel Alito: From A Politics Of Restoration To A Politics Of Dissent, Neil S. Siegel

Faculty Scholarship

Justice Samuel Alito is regarded by both his champions and his critics as the most consistently conservative member of the current Supreme Court. Both groups seem to agree that he has become the most important conservative voice on the Court. Chief Justice John Roberts has a Court to lead; Justice Antonin Scalia and his particular brand of originalism have passed on; Justice Clarence Thomas is a stricter originalist and so writes opinions that other Justices do not join; and Justice Anthony Kennedy can be ideologically unreliable. Justice Alito, by contrast, is unburdened by the perceived responsibilities of being Chief Justice, …

The Death Penalty And The Fifth Amendment, Joseph Blocher

Faculty Scholarship

Can the Supreme Court find unconstitutional something that the text of the Constitution “contemplates”? If the Bill of Rights mentions a punishment, does that make it a “permissible legislative choice” immune to independent constitutional challenges?

Recent developments have given new hope to those seeking constitutional abolition of the death penalty. But some supporters of the death penalty continue to argue, as they have since Furman v. Georgia, that the death penalty must be constitutional because the Fifth Amendment explicitly contemplates it. The appeal of this argument is obvious, but its strength is largely superficial, and is also mostly irrelevant …

Our Prescriptive Judicial Power: Constitutive And Entrenchment Effects Of Historical Practice In Federal Courts Law, Ernest A. Young

Faculty Scholarship

Scholars examining the use of historical practice in constitutional adjudication have focused on a few high-profile separation-of-powers disputes, such as the recent decisions in NLRB v. Noel Canning and Zivotofsky v. Kerry. This essay argues that “big cases make bad theory” — that the focus on high-profile cases of this type distorts our understanding of how historical practice figures in constitutional adjudication more generally. I shift focus here to the more prosaic terrain of federal courts law, in which practice plays a pervasive role. That shift reveals two important insights: First, while historical practice plays an important constitutive role, structuring …

What Is Gun Control? Direct Burdens Incidental Burdens, And The Boundaries Of The Second Amendment, Joseph Blocher, Darrell A. H. Miller

Faculty Scholarship

Particularly in places with few recognizable gun control laws, “gun neutral” civil and criminal rules are an important but often-unnoticed basis for the legal regulation of guns. The burdens that these rules impose on the keeping and bearing of arms are at times significant, but they are also incidental, which raises hard questions about the boundaries between constitutional law, regulation, and legally enforceable private ordering. Does the Second Amendment apply to civil suits for trespass, negligence, and nuisance? Does the Amendment cover gun-neutral laws of general applicability like assault and disturbing the peace? In the course of addressing these practical …

Brief Of Amici Curiae Professors Of Law In Support Of Petitioner, Barbara Allen Babcock, Jeffrey Bellin, Darryl K. Brown, Robert P. Burns, James E. Coleman Jr., Lisa Kern Griffin, Robert P. Mosteller, Deborah Tuerkheimer, Neil Vidmar, Jessica L. West

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Religiously-Motivated Medical Neglect: A Response To Professors Levin, Jacobs, And Arora, Doriane Lambelet Coleman

Faculty Scholarship

This Response to Professors Levin, Jacobs, and Arora’s article To Accommodate or Not to Accommodate: (When) Should the State Regulate Religion to Protect the Rights of Children and Third Parties? focuses on their claim that the law governing religious exemptions to medical neglect is messy, unprincipled, and in need of reform, including because it violates the Establishment Clause. I disagree with this assessment and provide support for my position. Specifically, I summarize and assess the current state of this law and its foundation in the perennial tussle between parental rights and state authority to make decisions for and about the …

The Thirteenth Amendment, Disparate Impact, And Empathy Deficits, Darrell A. H. Miller

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Originalism’S Bite, William Baude, Stephen E. Sachs

Faculty Scholarship

Is originalism toothless? Richard Posner seems to think so. He writes that repeated theorizing by "intelligent originalists," one of us happily included, has rendered the theory "incoherent" and capable of supporting almost any result. We appreciate the attention, but we fear we've been misunderstood. Our view is that originalism permits arguments from precedent, changed circumstances, or whatever you like, but only to the extent that they lawfully derive from the law of the founding. This kind of originalism, surprisingly common in American legal practice, is catholic in theory but exacting in application. It might look tame, but it has bite.

Brief Of Amici Curiae 56 Professors Of Law And Economics In Support Of Petition Of Writ Of Certiorari, John R. Allison, Margo Bagley, James Bessen, Jeremy Bock, Daniel H. Brean, Michael A. Carrier, Michael W. Carroll, Bernard Chao, Tun-Jen Chiang, Colleen V. Chien, Andrew Chin, Robert Cook-Deegan, Md, Rochelle Dreyfuss, Dr. Dieter Ernst, Samuel F. Ernst, Robin C. Feldman, Lee Fleming, Brian Frye, William Gallagher, Shubha Ghosh, Eric Goldman, Bronwyn H. Hall, Yaniv Heled, Christian Helmers, Joachim Henkel, Susan Helper, Tim Holbrook, Herbert Hovenkamp, William Hubbard, Dr. Xavier Jaravel, Dennis S. Karjala, Peter Lee, Mark A. Lemley, David K. Levine, David S. Levine, Doug Lichtman, Yvette Joy Liebesman, Orly Lobel, Brian Love, Phil Malone, Michael J. Meurer, Dr. Shawn Miller, Matthew Mitchell, Susan Barbieri Montgomery, Sean Pager, Arti K. Rai, Jacob H. Rooksby, Jorge R. Roig, Matthew Sag, Pamela Samuelson, Ana Santos Rutschman, Lea Bishop Shaver, Toshiko Takenaka, John L. Turner, Jennifer Urban, Eric Von Hippel

Faculty Scholarship

28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) provides that a defendant in a patent case may be sued where the defendant is incorporated or has a regular and established place of business and has infringed the patent. This Court made clear in Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Prods. Corp., 353 U.S. 222, 223 (1957), that those were the only permissible venues for a patent case. But the Federal Circuit has rejected Fourco and the plain meaning of § 1400(b), instead permitting a patent plaintiff to file suit against a defendant anywhere there is personal jurisdiction over that defendant. The result has been rampant …