Law Commons^™

Pleading For A Bargain: The Upcoming Debate Over Competing Standards Of Prejudice In Missouri V. Frye, Ian Hampton

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

No abstract provided.

Forbidden Territory Or Well-Defined Boundaries? M.B.Z. V. Clinton And The Overzealous Application Of The Political Question Doctrine, Andrew Hand

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

No abstract provided.

Crying Wolfish: The Upcoming Challenge To Blanket Strip-Search Policies In Florence V. Board Of Chosen Freeholders, Aaron Johnson

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

No abstract provided.

Golan V. Holder: Congressional Power Under The Copyright Clause And The First Amendment, Claire Fong

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

No abstract provided.

It’S My Church And I Can Retaliate If I Want To: Hosanna-Tabor And The Future Of The Ministerial Exception, Brad Turner

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

No abstract provided.

Bullcoming V. New Mexico: Revisiting Analyst Testimony After Melendez-Diaz, Alex Herskowitz

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

No abstract provided.

The Significance Of It All: Corporate Disclosure Obligations In Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. V. Siracusano, Siobhan Innes-Gawn

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

No abstract provided.

A Deal Is A Deal In The West, Or Is It? Montana V. Wyoming And The Yellowstone River Compact, Shiran Zohar

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

No abstract provided.

A Father’S Presence: Flores-Villar V. United States And Equal Protection, Jeffrey Hochstetler

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

No abstract provided.

Lacking Swiss Precision: The First-Sale Doctrine In Costco V. Omega, Justin Yedor

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

No abstract provided.

The More Things Change, The More They Stay The Same: Schwarzenegger V. Entertainment Merchants Association, Beatrice M. Hahn

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

No abstract provided.

Bruesewitz V. Wyeth: The “Unavoidable” Vaccine Problem, Sara Wexler

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

No abstract provided.

Staub V. Proctor Hospital: Cleaning Up The Cat’S Paw, Hannah Banks

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

No abstract provided.

Harrington V. Richter: Aedpa Deference And The Right To Effective Counsel, Kara Duffle

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

No abstract provided.

Snyder V. Phelps: First Amendment Boundaries On Speech-Based Tort Claims, Michael Villeggiante

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

No abstract provided.

What State Constitutional Law Can Tell Us About The Federal Constitution, Joseph Blocher

Faculty Scholarship

Courts and scholars have long sought to illuminate the relationship between state and federal constitutional law. Yet their attention, like the relationship itself, has largely been one-sided: State courts have consistently adopted federal constitutional law as their own, and scholars have attempted to illuminate why this is, and why it should or should not be so. By contrast, federal courts tend not to look to state constitutional law, even for persuasive authority. Nor have scholars argued at any length that federal courts can or should look to state constitutional law for guidance in answering the many constitutional questions common to …

Reverse Incorporation Of State Constitutional Law, Joseph Blocher

Faculty Scholarship

State supreme courts and the United States Supreme Court are the independent and final arbiters of their respective constitutions, and may therefore take different approaches to analogous state and federal constitutional issues. Such issues arise often, because the documents were modeled on each other and share many of the same guarantees. In answering them, state courts have, as a matter of practice, generally adopted federal constitutional doctrine as their own. Federal courts, by contrast, have largely ignored state constitutional law when interpreting the federal constitution. In McDonald v. Chicago, to take only the most recent example, the Court declined to …

Government Property And Government Speech, Joseph Blocher

Faculty Scholarship

The relationship between property and speech is close but complicated. Speakers use places and things to deliver their messages, and rely on property rights both to protect expressive acts and to serve as an independent means of expression. And yet courts and scholars have struggled to make sense of the property-speech connection. Is property merely a means of expression, or can it be expressive in and of itself? And what kind of “property” do speakers need to have – physical things, bundles of rights, or something else entirely?

In the context of government property and government speech, the ill-defined relationship …

Legal Integration In The Andes: Law-Making By The Andean Tribunal Of Justice, Laurence R. Helfer, Karen J. Alter

Faculty Scholarship

The Andean Tribunal of Justice (ATJ) is a copy of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), and the third most active international court. This article reviews our findings based on an original coding of all ATJ preliminary rulings from 1984 to 2007, and over forty interviews in the region. We then compare Andean and European jurisprudence in three key areas: whether the tribunals treat the founding integration treaties as constitutions for their respective communities, whether the ATJ and ECJ have implied powers for community institutions that are not expressly enumerated in the founding treaties, and how the tribunals conceive of …

Retail Rebellion And The Second Amendment, Darrell A. H. Miller

Faculty Scholarship

When, if ever, is there a Second Amendment right to kill a cop? This piece seeks to answer that question. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment codifies a natural right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. That right to self-defense extends to both private and public threats, including self-defense against agents of a tyrannical government. Moreover, the right is individual. Individuals -- not just communities -- have the right to protect themselves from public violence. Individuals -- not just militias -- have the right to defend themselves against tyranny. In McDonald …

Guns, Inc.: Citizens United, Mcdonald, And The Future Of Corporate Constitutional Rights, Darrell A. H. Miller

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court began its 2009 Term by addressing the constitutional rights of corporations. It ended the Term by addressing the incorporated rights of the Constitution. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a five-member majority of the Court held that corporations have a First Amendment right to spend their own money on political advocacy. A corporation generally is no different than a natural person when it comes to the First Amendment - at least as it relates to political speech. In McDonald v. City of Chicago, a plurality of the Court held that the Second Amendment to the United …

Crisis In The Legal Profession: Don’T Mourn, Organize!, Michael E. Tigar

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Between Liberalism And Theocracy, John D. Inazu

Faculty Scholarship

Our symposium conveners have focused us on “the relationship between liberalism and Christianity and their influence on American constitutionalism.” My objective is to complicate the relationship and reorient the influence. The focus of my inquiry is the liberty of conscience and its implications for the relationship between church and state. By approaching these issues through the lens of political theology (as distinct from either political or constitutional theory), hope to show that some of the most significant embodiments of conscience in the American colonies can neither be squared with an individualistic liberalism (as some on the left are prone to …

Amicus Brief Of Antitrust Professors And Scholars, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church And School V. Eeoc, Barak D. Richman, Harry First

Faculty Scholarship

Professional associations of clergy have invoked the ministerial exception to claim immunity from the antitrust laws. In claiming immunity, these clergy feel entitled to construct cartel-like arrangements that, absent such immunity, would violate section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 (2006). The question presented in this case characterizes the ministerial exception as a bar to most “employment-related lawsuits brought against religious organizations by employees performing religious functions.” Such a characterization leaves open the possibility that “religious organizations” could include professional associations of clergy, in addition to churches, religious schools, or other employers of clergy, and “employment-related lawsuits” …

Four Constitutional Limits That The Minimum Coverage Provision Respects, Neil S. Siegel

Faculty Scholarship

Opponents of the minimum coverage provision in the Affordable Care Act charge that if Congress can require most people to obtain health insurance or pay a certain amount of money, then Congress can impose whatever mandates it wishes—or, at least, whatever purchase mandates it wishes. This Essay refutes that claim by identifying four limits on the Commerce Clause that the minimum coverage provision honors. Congress may not use its commerce power: (1) to regulate noneconomic subject matter; (2) to impose a regulation that violates constitutional rights, including the right to bodily integrity; (3) to regulate at all, including by imposing …

Reasoning About The Irrational: The Roberts Court And The Future Of Constitutional Law, H. Jefferson Powell

Faculty Scholarship

Commentary on the future direction of the Roberts Court generally falls along lines that correlate with the commentators' political views on the desirability of the Court's recent decisions. A more informative approach is to look for opinions suggesting changes in the presuppositions with which the Justices approach constitutional decision making. In footnote 27 in his opinion for the Court in the District of Columbia v. Heller Second Amendment decision, Justice Scalia suggested a fundamental revision of the Court's assumptions about the role of judicial doctrine, and the concept of rationality, in constitutional law. Justice Scalia would eliminate the normative aspects …

The Regrettable Clause: United States V. Comstock And The Powers Of Congress, H. Jefferson Powell

Faculty Scholarship

In this Article, Powell argues that in Comstock, the Court encountered one of the oldest and most basic constitutional issues about the scope of congressional power-whether there are justiciable limits to the range of legitimate ends Congress may pursue. The Justices, without fully recognizing the fact, were taking sides in an ancient debate, and in doing so, they inadvertently reopened an issue that ought to be deemed long settled. Part II of the Article first addresses the question before the Court in Comstock, which was limited to a pure question of Article I law: is a specific provision of a …

Case For Calling An Article V Convention, Paul D. Carrington

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Constitutional Law Professors As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioner, Ernest A. Young

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Roberts’ Rules: The Assertiveness Of Rules-Based Jurisprudence, Joseph Blocher

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.