Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Institution
Articles 1 - 14 of 14
Full-Text Articles in Law
Free Expression, In-Group Bias, And The Court's Conservatives: A Critique Of The Epstein-Parker-Segal Study, Todd E. Pettys
Free Expression, In-Group Bias, And The Court's Conservatives: A Critique Of The Epstein-Parker-Segal Study, Todd E. Pettys
Todd E. Pettys
In a recent, widely publicized study, a prestigious team of political scientists concluded that there is strong evidence of ideological in-group bias among the Supreme Court’s members in First Amendment free-expression cases, with the current four most conservative justices being the Roberts Court’s worst offenders. Beneath the surface of the authors’ conclusions, however, one finds a surprisingly sizable combination of coding errors, superficial case readings, and questionable judgments about litigants’ ideological affiliations. Many of those problems likely flow either from shortcomings that reportedly afflict the Supreme Court Database (the data set that nearly always provides the starting point for empirical …
Campaign Finance, Federalism, And The Case Of The Long-Armed Donor, Todd E. Pettys
Campaign Finance, Federalism, And The Case Of The Long-Armed Donor, Todd E. Pettys
Todd E. Pettys
In its ruling last Term in McCutcheon v. FEC, the Court struck down federal campaign-finance laws that limited the aggregate amount of money that Shaun McCutcheon and other would-be campaign donors could give to a variety of political committees and to individuals running for Congress in states and districts other than their own. Chief Justice Roberts began his opinion for the plurality by declaring that "[t]here is no right more basic in our democracy than the right to participate in electing our political leaders." Retired justice John Paul Stevens has argued that the Court's ruling in McCutcheon is "a grossly …
Unions, Corporations, And The First Amendment: A Response To Professors Fisk And Chemerinsky, Todd E. Pettys
Unions, Corporations, And The First Amendment: A Response To Professors Fisk And Chemerinsky, Todd E. Pettys
Todd E. Pettys
In this response to Professor Fisk and Chemerinsky’s critique of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Knox v. SEIU Local 1000, I make two arguments. First, I challenge the premise of shareholder-employee equivalency that undergirds key portions of Fisk and Chemerinsky’s analysis. Second, I contest the claim that Knox contributes to incoherence in the Court’s First Amendment jurisprudence. Specifically, I challenge Fisk and Chemerinsky’s argument that Knox is difficult to reconcile with the Court’s leading precedents on the speech rights of government employees, and I raise doubts about their reading of the Court’s compelled-speech cases involving complaints that one’s resources are …
Judicial Retention Elections, The Rule Of Law, And The Rhetorical Weaknesses Of Consequentialism, Todd E. Pettys
Judicial Retention Elections, The Rule Of Law, And The Rhetorical Weaknesses Of Consequentialism, Todd E. Pettys
Todd E. Pettys
From Alaska to Florida, the 2010 election season brought the nation an unprecedented number of organized campaigns aimed at denying retention to judges who had ruled in ways that some voters found objectionable. Judges in those and other retention-election states can no longer rest comfortably on the assumption that voters will routinely exempt them from meaningful scrutiny. Anxious judges, state bar officials, and others have responded with a set of deontological and consequentialist arguments aimed at persuading voters not to use retention elections as an opportunity to oust judges who have issued controversial rulings. The deontological arguments posit that ousting …
Judicial Discretion In Constitutional Cases, Todd E. Pettys
Judicial Discretion In Constitutional Cases, Todd E. Pettys
Todd E. Pettys
A damaging dichotomy is hindering the nation’s ability to talk intelligently and constructively about the constitutional work of the courts. The “legitimacy dichotomy” holds that, when adjudicating constitutional disputes, judges either obey the sovereign people’s determinate constitutional instructions or illegitimately trump the sovereign people’s value judgments with their own. The legitimacy dichotomy leaves little or no room for the possibility that an array of conflicting interpretations of the Constitution might be reasonably available to a judge; it leaves little or no room, in other words, for judicial discretion. This article begins by examining the legitimacy dichotomy from three different vantage …
The Vitality Of The American Sovereign, Todd E. Pettys
The Vitality Of The American Sovereign, Todd E. Pettys
Todd E. Pettys
In this book review, I examine Christian Fritz's "American Sovereigns: The People and America's Constitutional Tradition Before the Civil War." I dispute Fritz's claim that Americans today have essentially ceded their sovereign prerogatives to government officials. Contrary to Fritz's suggestion, ordinary Americans do still sometimes intervene directly in day-to-day governmental affairs in ways that are unauthorized by their elected leaders, and they do alter their constitutional landscape by means other than those formally authorized by Article V. Americans have determined that their long-term interests are often best served by manifesting their sovereign desires through extended interactions with government officials and …
Counsel And Confrontation, Todd E. Pettys
Counsel And Confrontation, Todd E. Pettys
Todd E. Pettys
Responding to the Court’s recent reworking of its confrontation jurisprudence, I argue that, under the Anglo-American common-law principles that the Confrontation Clause now incorporates, defendants are not entitled to an attorney’s assistance when interrogating witnesses prior to trial. Although the Assistance of Counsel Clause and the Due Process Clauses will pick up the slack in many cases, I contend that there are other instances in which the Constitution now leaves unrepresented defendants responsible for cross-examining witnesses on their own. I suggest that legislative reform may be necessary to ameliorate the new constitutional landscape’s deficiencies.
The Myth Of The Written Constitution, Todd E. Pettys
The Myth Of The Written Constitution, Todd E. Pettys
Todd E. Pettys
Many Americans have long subscribed to what this Article calls the myth of the written constitution—the claim that the nation’s Constitution consists entirely of those texts that the sovereign American people have formally ratified, and the claim that the will of the American people, as expressed in those ratified texts, determines the way in which properly behaving judges resolve constitutional disputes. Drawing on two different meanings of the term myth, this Article contends that neither of those claims is literally true, but that Americans’ attachment to those claims serves at least three crucial functions. Subscribing to the myth helps to …
Popular Constitutionalism And Relaxing The Dead Hand: Can The People Be Trusted?, Todd E. Pettys
Popular Constitutionalism And Relaxing The Dead Hand: Can The People Be Trusted?, Todd E. Pettys
Todd E. Pettys
A growing number of constitutional scholars are urging the nation to rethink its commitment to judicial supremacy. Popular constitutionalists argue that the American people, not the courts, hold the ultimate authority to interpret the Constitution’s many open-ended provisions whose meanings are reasonably contestable. This Article defends popular constitutionalism on two important fronts. First, using originalism as a paradigmatic example of the ways in which courts frequently draw constitutional meaning from sources rooted deep in the past, the Article contends that defenders of judicial supremacy still have not persuasively responded to the familiar dead-hand query: Why should constitutional meanings that prevailed …
State Habeas Relief For Federal Extrajudicial Detainees, Todd E. Pettys
State Habeas Relief For Federal Extrajudicial Detainees, Todd E. Pettys
Todd E. Pettys
I argue that the Court’s nineteenth-century rulings in Ableman v. Booth and Tarble’s Case marked a little-known but sharp break with state courts’ decades-long practice of granting habeas relief to federal extrajudicial detainees. I contend that the Court’s reasoning in those cases is unpersuasive, and that modern efforts to rationalize those cases’ outcomes fare no better. I also argue that the Suspension Clause bars Congress from stripping state courts of their power to grant habeas relief to persons being extrajudicially detained by federal authorities.
Our Anticompetitive Patriotism, Todd E. Pettys
Our Anticompetitive Patriotism, Todd E. Pettys
Todd E. Pettys
In this article, I contend that the nation’s seemingly exclusive claim to citizens’ patriotism significantly shields the federal government from the competitive forces that the Framers believed would restrain Congress’s and the President’s ability to govern in objectionable ways. I argue that, because America is a nation-state built upon certain core convictions about public life, there are strong connections in this country between the entity about which people feel patriotic and the sovereign that people would like to govern many—perhaps even most—of their important public affairs. I argue that American patriotism was constructed in a manner that led nineteenth- and …
Choosing A Chief Justice: Presidential Prerogative Or A Job For The Court?, Todd E. Pettys
Choosing A Chief Justice: Presidential Prerogative Or A Job For The Court?, Todd E. Pettys
Todd E. Pettys
After identifying the original rationales for our longstanding tradition of permitting the President and Senate to decide which of the Court’s nine members will serve as Chief Justice, I argue that those rationales are anachronistic, that the tradition creates unnecessary conflicts of interest and separation-of-powers concerns, and that the Court’s members should be permitted to decide for themselves which of them will serve as Chief Justice.
The Mobility Paradox, Todd E. Pettys
The Mobility Paradox, Todd E. Pettys
Todd E. Pettys
Nearly half a century ago, in an article spanning a mere nine pages, Charles Tiebout revolutionized the way many think about American federalism. Using the analytic tools Tiebout gave them, numerous scholars now contend that, in our mobile society, citizens’ interests would best be served by dramatically shrinking the federal government and permitting state and local governments to regulate a far greater number of important matters. In this article, I argue that citizens’ interests and the dynamics of federalism are far more complicated than the devolutionary proposals of Tiebout’s adherents suggest. I identify three reasons why a mobile—and rational—public might …
Competing For The People's Affection: Federalism's Forgotten Marketplace, Todd E. Pettys
Competing For The People's Affection: Federalism's Forgotten Marketplace, Todd E. Pettys
Todd E. Pettys
Returning to forgotten themes in the Federalist Papers, the article argues that the state and federal governments compete with one another for the “affection” of their citizens and for the regulatory power that often accompanies that affection. The article further contends that citizens and politicians are able fully to participate in this affection-driven marketplace only if three prerequisites are met: each sovereign must be assured of an opportunity to demonstrate its competence; each sovereign must enjoy a significant measure of autonomy from the other; and the two sovereigns’ dealings with one another must be sufficiently transparent to enable citizens to …