Law Commons^™

Mind The Gap: A Comparative Approach For Fixing Volcker, Learning From Liikanen, And Using Vickers To Repair The U.S. Banking System, Rachel Sereix

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

After the 2008 financial crisis, Congress, courts, and international banking agencies alike determined that their current banking infrastructures were inadequate to prevent such crises in the future. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Acttried to solve the problem by reducing derivatives-related risk through legislative provisions that increased capital and liquidity requirements for all banks. Yet, banks continued to find means to subvert the system and Congress remained relatively silent on the issue after the passage of Dodd-Frank—failing to amend Dodd-Frank in any meaningful way. Looking towards European peers for guidance about how to reform the United States’ banking regime has often …

A Modest Proposal: Leveraging Private Enforcement Mechanisms And The Bayh-Dole Act To Reduce Drug Prices In The U.S. Healthcare Industry, Brittany Day

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

The United States healthcare system is one of the most expensive in the world. Unlike other products, when drug prices skyrocket, people may die. While advocating for various solutions, both the Biden and Trump administrations have recognized the importance of halting the rise of prescription drug prices. Most of the solutions advanced are focused on government-side initiatives, such as allowing Medicare to directly negotiate with pharmaceutical companies. Yet, the "march-in rights" built into the Bayh-Dole Act create an opportunity to set up a mechanism that would invite private actors to sue pharmaceutical companies for unconscionable drug pricing. The Bayh-Dole Act …

Paving The Way For Mind-Reading: Reinterpreting "Coercion" In Article 17 Of The Third Geneva Convention, John Zarrilli

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Mind-reading is no longer a concept confined to the world of science-fiction: "Brain reading technologies are rapidly being developed in a number of neuroscience fields." One obvious application is to the field of criminal justice: Mind-reading technology can potentially aid investigators in assessing critical legal questions such as guilt, legal insanity, and the risk of recidivism. Two current techniques have received the most scholarly attention for their potential in aiding interrogators in determining guilt: brain-based lie detection and brain-based memory detection. The growing ability to peer inside someone's mind raises significant legal issues. A number of American scholars, especially in …

Ferpa And State Open Records Laws: What The North Carolina Supreme Court Got Wrong In Dth Media Corp. V. Folt, And How Courts & Congress Can Take Measures To Reconcile Privacy And Access Interests, Danielle Siegel

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Over the past few years, courts across the country have confronted a common scenario. Members of the public and media request records from a public university pertaining to its investigations of sexual assault and misconduct on campus. Then, media outlets contend they have a right to access these records under state open records laws. But the university claims that it cannot, or will not, disclose the records under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 ("FERPA").

The media outlet then files suit to compel disclosure. This Note explores the competing privacy and access interests at stake in this …

Brnovich V. Democratic National Committee: Examining Section 2 Of The Voting Rights Act, Arturo Nava

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

In Brnovich, the Court will determine whether Arizona’s out-of-precinct (OOP) policy and its ballot-collection law violate Section 2 of the VRA. The Ninth Circuit held that both voting provisions violate Section 2. The Supreme Court should affirm the Ninth Circuit’s decision, invoking the Section 2 Results Test adopted by multiple circuits, and find that a fact-specific inquiry should be preserved in assessing vote-denial claims. At a minimum, the Court should avoid establishing a bright-line rule as proposed by critics of the Section 2 Results Test. Such a rigid rule runs the risk of masking the nuances that the courts …

United States V. Arthrex Inc.: Clarifying Appointments Clause Requirements For Administrative Judges, Albert Barkan

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Article II of the United States Constitution details the methods by which presidential subordinate officers must be appointed. Despite its presence in the Constitution’s original text, the Appointments Clause remains ambiguous. The Clause provides different appointment processes for principal and “inferior officers,” but does not distinguish between these officers’ functions. In United States v. Arthrex, Inc., the Supreme Court must clarify the relationship between an Executive officer’s responsibilities and their appointment process.

Missing The Mark: Nysrpa As A Vehicle To Clarify Inconsistencies In Mootness Doctrine, Leila Hatem

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Federal mootness doctrine is far more confusing than helpful. Riddled with inconsistent jurisdictional outcomes, mootness doctrine lacks a unitary theoretical approach. This confusion results because the Court has historically characterized elements of the doctrine as either prudential or constitutional. Because the Court has reached the merits of otherwise moot claims, its doctrine is neither completely prudential nor constitutional. Rather, it is a messy hodge-podge of both.

This Note analyzes New York State Riffle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. The City of New York (“NYSRPA”) in light of this dichotomous framework and assesses how the opinion engages with the …

Who Protects Whom: Federal Law As A Floor, Not A Ceiling, To Protect Students From Inappropriate Use Of Force By School Resource Officers, Elsa Haag

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Over the past forty years, students in the U.S. have experienced increasingly strict school discipline policies and increased police presence in schools. Sent into schools with the aim of improving security in the wake of mass shootings, school resource officers (SROs) are sworn law enforcement regularly assigned to schools. But there is a paucity of evidence that SROs are effective in preventing mass shootings or provide other significant benefits. Instead, research shows that the presence of SROs results in students achieving less and experiencing more physical and emotional harm, with long-term implications and costs for individuals and communities. As trained …

Not A King: President Trump And The Case For Presidential Subpoena Reform, Robert J. Denault

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

In Trump v. Vance and Trump v. Mazars, the Supreme Court heard two expansive claims of presidential immunity from grand jury and Congressional subpoenas for the personal papers of the president. In both cases, the Court rejected the President’s claims. Despite winning both cases, the grand jury and Congress did not receive evidence relevant to potential misconduct by the President until after he left office—a remarkable feat for a President who did not win a single case or appeal in his effort to block either subpoena.

This Note argues for significant reforms in response to President Trump’s unprecedented success …

Tiktok Might Stop: Why The Ieepa Cannot Regulate Personal Data Privacy And The Need For A Comprehensive Solution, Alicia Faison

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

In August 2020, President Trump announced a ban on the popular app TikTok, citing the risk that TikTok could be sharing Americans’ personal data with the Chinese government. In doing so, President Trump used his powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which authorizes Presidents to impose economic sanctions in the face of a national emergency. Associating TikTok’s data mining practices with a national emergency raises interesting questions about the governance of our personal data: is there a national security risk and if so, how should data be protected? This Note argues that ineffective personal data privacy regulation …

Interstate Burdens And Antitrust Federalism: A Reexamination Of Parker Immunity, John Sack

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

The Supreme Court has largely immunized state action from Federal antitrust enforcement. However, this carte blanche immunity, while founded on federalism grounds, runs counter to a number of constitutional principles, and too easily allows states to impose costs on other states while reaping all the benefits of anti-competitive policies. While the Supreme Court has only scantily discussed revisiting this immunity, academics and the Federal Trade Commission have largely criticized the doctrine. The Sherman Act, described as taking on a constitutional standing, should seek to form a more perfect economic union, and our understanding of State Action Immunity should strive towards …

Handle With Care: Constitutional Standards For Information Sharing In Medical-Correctional Transition, Andrew R. Hayes

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Correctional institutions have an Eighth Amendment obligation to provide healthcare to inmates. In practice though, jails and prisons struggle to provide adequate care to millions of incarcerated individuals, roughly half of whom have at least one chronic health condition. As a result, harsh conditions of confinement routinely threaten the health of inmates who require specific medical accommodations. Recognizing this risk, the courts hold corrections institutions liable for harm when government officials are “deliberately indifferent” to prisoner medical needs.

Beginning with the HITECH Act of 2009, mainstream medicine embraced tools that eliminate gaps in medical communication. Today, most Americans rely on …

Exhausted And Confused: How Fry Complicated Obtaining Relief For Disabled Students, Chris Ricigliano

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Congress guaranteed the right of disabled children to a Free Appropriate Public Education through legislation. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act provides a mechanism for receiving redress when those educational services are denied. Before suing, representatives of disabled children must exhaust their claims administratively according to the procedures set by the states. However, how exactly to tell which kinds of wrongs are the denial of an education and subject to exhaustion has been a subject of much confusion. The Supreme Court in Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools tried to set up a framework for when exhaustion is required versus when …

California V. Texas: The Denouement Of The Affordable Care Act's Legal Challenges?, Rachel Sereix

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

In February of 2018, Texas and nineteen other states filed suit against the federal government seeking to have the entire ACA struck down. In the consolidated case California v. Texas, the Court is considering four questions: First, whether Texas and the individual plaintiffs have standing to challenge the individual mandate; Second, whether the Tax Cut and Jobs Act renders the individual mandate unconstitutional; Third, whether the rest of the ACA can stand even if the mandate is unconstitutional; Finally, if the entire ACA is found invalid, whether the Act should be unenforceable nationwide or whether it should only be unenforceable …

Ford Motor Company V. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court: Redefining The Nexus Requirement For Specific Jurisdiction, Brittany Day

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

No abstract provided.

The Wrong Choice To Address School Choice: Espinoza V. Montana Department Of Revenue, Brooke Reczka

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

For many school-choice advocates, Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue is the chance to extend the Supreme Court’s decision in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer in 2017. In Trinity Lutheran, the Supreme Court held that a state’s exclusion of a church from a public benefit program to resurface playgrounds discriminated against religion in violation of the Free Exercise Clause. Many school-choice proponents hope to extend the Trinity Lutheran holding from playgrounds materials to school funding and thus strike down religion-based exclusions in school voucher programs. However, Espinoza is the wrong vehicle to do so. In …

Has Revenge Become A Justification To Legitimize The Death Penalty?, Jordan Ryan

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Revenge has played a role in criminal justice systems for thousands of years. From the Code of Hammurabi, to the Bible, to modern Supreme Court jurisprudence, revenge, or “getting even,” has been a consideration in how wrongdoers are punished, especially with respect to the imposition of the death penalty. Historically, revenge has not been viewed as a legitimate justification for punishment under American legal principles. However, in the past year, both the United States Supreme Court and the Department of Justice have signaled that revenge may well have a legitimate role in justifying the death penalty.

This Note will explore …

Stand In The Place Where Data Live: Data Breaches As Article Iii Injuries, Jason Wasserman

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Every day, another hacker gains unauthorized access to information, be it credit card data from grocery stores or fingerprint records from federal databases. Bad actors who orchestrate these data breaches, if they can be found, face clear criminal liability. Still, a hacker’s conviction may not be satisfying to victims whose data was accessed, and so victims may seek proper redress through lawsuits against compromised organizations. In those lawsuits, plaintiff-victims allege promising theories, including that the compromised organization negligently caused the data breach or broke an implied contract to protect customers’ personal information.

However, many federal courts see a data breach …

Pretrial And Error: The Use Of Statements Inadmissible At Trial In Preliminary Proceedings, Erin Hughes

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

This Note argues that a “criminal case,” as provided by the Fifth Amendment, begins with the initiation of adversarial judicial criminal proceedings, whether that commencement occurs through a formal charge, a preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment. A broad understanding of the Fifth Amendment’s scope aligns with the Second, Seventh, Ninth and Tenth Circuits’ analysis. In particular, this Note endorses the in-depth analysis provided by the Tenth Circuit in its determination that a “criminal case” under the Fifth Amendment includes preliminary proceedings. This Note further offers an analysis of past Supreme Court precedent as well as policy rationales that support …

Campus Sexual Assault And Due Process, Ilana Frier

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

College women experience rape and sexual assault at alarmingly high rates. One highly publicized statistic, famously asserted by President Obama, states that one in five women experience sexual assault while attending college. In 2011, the U.S. Department of Education radically expanded its involvement in campus sexual misconduct adjudications, encouraging vigorous enforcement. Sustained regulatory and public pressure effectuated some positive change for victims. However, a proliferation of litigation also followed. Students found responsible of campus sexual assault, most of whom were males, increasingly began suing their schools alleging due process violations in their adjudications. In 2018, the Trump administration's Department of …

Dhs V. Regents Of The University Of California: Administrative Law Concerns In Repealing Daca, Charles Fendrych

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

On its surface, deferred action is simple: it is a decision by Executive Branch officials to postpone deportation proceedings against an individual or group that is otherwise eligible to be removed from the United States.Deferred action is an exercise of the Executive’s inherent authority to manage its policies, but is not expressly grounded in statute Despite this lack of statutory authority, Congress and the Supreme Court have historically recognized deferred action policies. Indeed, records of such Executive discretion date back to the early twentieth century.The Executive, grounding its justification in humanitarian concerns, has continued to institute categorical deferred action programs …

Contracting Free From Racial Animus: Comcast Corporation V. National Association Of African American-Owned Media And Entertainment Studios, Catherine Tarantino

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

The United States has come a long way in promoting racial equality since the 1866 and 1964 Civil Rights Acts, but racial animus still plays an impermissible role in many contracting and employment decisions. Comcast Corporation v. National Association of African American-Owned Media and Entertainment Studios offers the Supreme Court the opportunity to decide which causal standard applies to claims alleging racial bias in contracting under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Specifically, the Court will decide whether § 1981 requires a plaintiff to demonstrate that racial animus was the but-for cause or simply a motivating-factor in the defendant’s refusal to contract. …

Questioning The Definition Of "Sex" In Title Vii: Bostock V. Clayton County, Ga., Katherine Carter

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

In October of 2019, the Supreme Court heard the arguments of two cases presenting the same inquiry: whether Title VII’s prohibition on sex discrimination encompasses discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Currently, twenty-one states as well as the District of Columbia expressly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation by statute or regulation. Other states offer protection in the form of agency interpretation or court ruling. However, for the remaining states with no established protections, Title VII stands as the only potential safeguard against sexual orientation discrimination.

The following Commentary considers the case of Gerald Bostock, a gay man from …

Kahler V. Kansas: The End Of The Insanity Defense?, Eric Roytman

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

In 1995, Kansas, along with a small number of other states, passed a statute abrogating the widely recognized common law insanity defense. At common law, a defendant could raise the defense when a mental illness impaired his ability to distinguish right from wrong, allowing him to escape liability even when the elements of the crime were otherwise fulfilled. However, under Kansas’ statutory scheme, evidence of a defendant’s mental illness can only be used to negate the mens rea element of the offense. In other words, evidence of mental illness is only relevant when it shows that the defendant lacked the …

Kansas V. Glover And The Issue Of Reasonable Suspicion, Zach Kumar

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

It is settled law that an officer may initiate a traffic stop when there is articulable and reasonable suspicion that the person stopped has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. In Kansas v. Glover, the Supreme Court has an opportunity to clarify what constitutes “reasonable suspicion.” The Court will determine whether it is reasonable for an officer to seize a vehicle if the registered owner has a revoked license and there is no information to suggest that the person driving is not the owner of the car. This Commentary argues that the Court should uphold …

Let History Repeat Itself: Solving Originalism's History Problem In Interpreting The Establishment Clause, Neil Joseph

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

The Supreme Court's Establishment Clause jurisprudence is all over the place. The current justices have widely divergent views on the Establishment Clause's meaning, and the Lemon test has been widely panned by several justices. Originalist judges, however, have had a fairly consistent approach to interpreting the Establishment Clause. This largely stems from their reliance on history. This Note argues that their use of history in analyzing the Establishment Clause is flawed. Originalist Establishment Clause jurisprudence has been and is criticized for being unprincipled. And those criticisms are correct. Originalists encounter such criticism because the justices struggle to reconcile historical practice …

Gamble V. United States: A Commentary, Kayla Mullen

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Under the judicially created dual-sovereignty exception, a defendant may be prosecuted by state and federal governments for the same conduct, due to the fact that the state and federal government constitute two separate sovereignties. The doctrine is grounded in the idea that each sovereign derives its power from independent sources—the federal government from the Constitution and the states from their inherent police power, preserved to them by the Tenth Amendment—and thus, each sovereign may determine what constitutes an offense against its peace and dignity in an exercise of its own sovereignty. Under this exception, defendants, by a single act, may …

Litigating War: The Justiciability Of Executive War Power, Chris Smith

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Courts frequently dismiss claims against the Executive’s use of the war power as being non-justiciable political questions. This lack of a judicial check has created a situation in which meaningful checks and balances on the war power are found only in the Executive Branch itself. But the Constitution places the bulk of war powers in the hands of Congress. Executive usurpation of Congress’s constitutional prerogative to initiate hostilities has significantly weakened the separation of powers. In the aftermath of the Vietnam War, Congress sought to reassert its constitutional authority over war-making decisions by passing the War Powers Resolution. The Resolution …

The Race Horse That Wouldn't Die: On Herrera V. Wyoming, Benjamin Cantor

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

In Herrera v. Wyoming, the Supreme Court is considering how to reconcile the Crow Tribe’s hunting right with Wyoming’s sovereignty. This endeavor requires examining nineteenth-century treaties and precedents to decipher the intents of the Crow Tribe and the United States government. If the Court’s decision includes a clear articulation of whether Native American treaty rights may be truncated by mere implication, tribes nationwide may be at risk of losing treaty rights they have enjoyed for centuries. In making its decision, the Supreme Court will also have to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of overturning precedent and of undermining its …

Apple V. Pepper: Applying The Indirect Purchaser Rule To Online Platforms, Jason Wasserman

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Long-established antitrust precedent bars customers who buy a firm’s product through intermediaries from suing that firm for antitrust damages. In Apple Inc. v. Pepper, this “indirect purchaser rule” is brought into the smartphone age in a price-fixing dispute between technology giant Apple and iPhone users. This case will determine whether iPhone users buy smartphone applications directly from Apple through the App Store, or if Apple is merely an intermediary seller-agent of app developers. The indirect purchase rule is generally considered settled precedent. How the rule should apply to online platforms, however, differs between circuit courts, which have split on …