Law Commons^™

The Lost History Of Delegation At The Founding, Christine Chabot

Georgia Law Review

The new Supreme Court is poised to bring the administrative state to a grinding halt. Five Justices have endorsed Justice Gorsuch’s dissent in Gundy v. United States—an opinion that threatens to invalidate countless regulatory statutes in which Congress has delegated significant policymaking authority to the Executive Branch. Justice Gorsuch claimed that the “text and history” of the Constitution required the Court to replace a longstanding constitutional doctrine that permits broad delegations with a more restrictive one. But the supposedly originalist arguments advanced by Justice Gorsuch and like-minded scholars run counter to the understandings of delegation that prevailed in the Founding …

Breathing Room For The Right Of Assembly, Tabatha Abu El-Haj

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

This Article explores the legal and political fault lines that the wave of protests highlighting police violence and systemic racism in the summer of 2020 reveal. It focuses in depth on Detroit, Michigan, as a window into the ways that the First Amendment, as currently construed, under-protects those seeking political change and racial reckoning by demonstrating in the streets.

"Hey, Hey! Ho, Ho! These Mass Arrests Have Got To Go!": The Expressive Fourth Amendment Argument, Karen J. Pita Loor

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

The racial justice protests ignited by the murder of George Floyd in May 2020 constitute the largest protest movement in the United States. Estimates suggest that between fifteen and twenty-six million people protested across the country during the summer of 2020 alone. Not only were the number of protestors staggering, but so were the number of arrests. Within one week of when the video of George Floyd’s murder went viral, police arrested ten thousand people demanding justice on American streets, with police often arresting activists en masse. This Essay explores mass arrests and how they square with Fourth Amendment …

Making The Impractical, Practical: A Modest And Overdue Approach To Reforming Fourth Amendment Consent Search Doctrine, Augustine P. Manga

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

At some point in your life, you may have a personal encounter with a police officer. During that moment, you may feel utterly powerless, especially if you do not know your rights. One important right that police are not required to inform people of is their right to deny an officer’s request to search their property. Forty-eight years ago, the Supreme Court made its position clear in Schneckloth v. Bustamonte that requiring law enforcement to provide citizens with this warning would be “thoroughly impractical.” Since then, the relationship between law enforcement and society—especially communities of color—has gradually deteriorated, and states …

Federalism, Free Competition, And Sherman Act Preemption Of State Restraints, Alan J. Meese

Faculty Publications

The Sherman Act establishes free competition as the rule governing interstate trade. Banning private restraints cannot ensure that competitive markets allocate the nation's resources. State laws can pose identical threats to free markets, posing an obstacle to achieving Congress's goal to protect free competition.

The Sherman Act would thus override anticompetitive state laws under ordinary preemption standards. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court rejected such preemption in Parker v. Brown, creating the "state action doctrine." Parker and its progeny hold that state-imposed restraints are immune from Sherman Act preemption, even if they impose significant harm on out-of-state consumers. Parker's progeny …

The Modest Impact Of The Modern Confrontation Clause, Jeffrey Bellin, Diana Bibb

Faculty Publications

The Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause grants criminal defendants the right "to be confronted with the witnesses against" them. A strict reading of this text would transform the criminal justice landscape by prohibiting the prosecution's use of hearsay at trial. But until recently, the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Clause was closer to the opposite. By tying the confrontation right to traditional hearsay exceptions, the Court's longstanding precedents granted prosecutors broad freedom to use out-of-court statements to convict criminal defendants.

The Supreme Court's 2004 decision in Crawford v. Washington was supposed to change all that. By severing the link between the …

Manufacturing Sovereign State Mootness, Daniel Bruce

William & Mary Law Review

The idea that public defendants should receive any special treatment in the mootness context has been subject to intense criticism among commentators. Most notably, in the lead-up to the New York Rifle decision, Joseph Davis and Nicholas Reaves—two prominent First Amendment litigators from the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty—urged the Supreme Court to take the opportunity to correct the lower courts’ practice of blessing government abuse of the voluntary cessation doctrine. Indeed, the Supreme Court has never adopted a presumption in favor of government defendants such as the one applied by the Seventh Circuit in Killeen, and it failed to …

Race-Based Remedies In Criminal Law, Ion Meyn

William & Mary Law Review

This Article evaluates the constitutional feasibility of using race-based remedies to address racial disparities in the criminal system. Compared to white communities, communities of color are over-policed and over-incarcerated. Criminal system stakeholders recognize that these conditions undermine perceptions of legitimacy critical to ensuring public safety. As jurisdictions assiduously attempt race-neutral fixes, they also acknowledge the shortcomings of such interventions. Nevertheless, jurisdictions dismiss the feasibility of deploying more effective race-conscious strategies due to the shadow of a constitutional challenge. The apprehension is understandable. Debates around affirmative action in higher education and government contracting reveal fierce hostility toward race-based remedies.

This Article, …

Exacting Inclusion: Property Theory, The Character Of Government Action, And Implicit Takings, Donald J. Smythe

Faculty Scholarship

Recent takings cases challenging inclusionary housing ordinances tap into an ongoing controversy about whether government interventions in the housing market do more harm than good; but they also raise much more general questions about takings law. This Article uses the controversy raised by recent housing cases to probe the relationship between the Supreme Court’s regulatory takings jurisprudence and its exaction takings jurisprudence and to suggest a more coherent approach to implicit takings. The Court’s exaction takings jurisprudence is well-designed if it is applied appropriately. As a general matter, it encourages the mitigation of socially harmful nuisances, incentivizes developers to make …

Why The Civil Rights Cases Belong In The Anti-Canon: Black Citizenship, The Fourteenth Amendment, And Judicial Interposition, Matthew Norman, Christopher Bryant

ConLawNOW

This essay analyzes the Supreme Court’s ruling in The Civil Rights Cases (1883) and surveys both contemporary and scholarly responses to it. Citizenship should mean something, and the Court’s ruling in The Civil Rights Cases invalidated much of the Civil Rights Act of 1875, the most ambitious and progressive civil rights legislation that Congress enacted prior to 1964. When the Supreme Court issued its decision in Dred Scott, Abraham Lincoln warned of a sequel that would nationalize slavery. While the Thirteenth Amendment eliminated the possibility of such a decision, Dred Scott is widely recognized as one of the Court’s …

The Expressive Fourth Amendment, Karen Pita Loor

Faculty Scholarship

After the eight-minute and forty-six second video of George Floyd’s murder went viral, cities across the United States erupted in mass protests with people outraged by the death of yet another Black person at the hands of police. The streets were flooded for months with activists and community members of all races marching, screaming, and demonstrating against police brutality and for racial justice. Police—like warriors against enemy forces—confronted overwhelmingly peaceful protesters with militarized violence and force. Ultimately, racial justice protesters and members of the media brought lawsuits under section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act in the district courts of …

Caperton V. A.T. Massey Coal Co.: A Ten-Year Retrospective On Its Impact On Law And The Judiciary, Amam Mcleod

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Restoring Causality In Attenuation: Establishing The Breadth Of A Fourth Amendment Violation, Bryan H. Ward

West Virginia Law Review

When the police violate a suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights, what often follows is the discovery of incriminating evidence. Sometimes the evidence is discovered directly after the Fourth Amendment violation. In other situations, the evidence comes by a more indirect route and may occur long after the original Fourth Amendment violation. Courts struggle when trying to decide if the discovery of this indirectly obtained evidence was caused by the police misconduct. This causal question is important because causality acts as a limiting principle when deciding when to apply the exclusionary rule. A basic view of the exclusionary rule suggests that evidence …

Aals Constitutional Law Panel On Brown, Another Council Of Nicaea?, Kelly A. Macgrady, John W. Van Doren

Akron Law Review

When considering the product of the AALS Constitutional Law Panel, entitled "What Brown Should Have Said," held in January 2000, in Washington, D.C., we have experienced considerable disorientation. We therefore ask the question asked by Lucretia in Machievelli's play, The Mandragola, "Do you mean it or are you laughing at me?" We fear that the Panelists may be laughing at us. Because, in short, their writings criticize the formalism that they use in the panel court opinions. In this article, we pick four of the Panelists, more or less at random, and confront the question of whether their writings before …

Identifying Super-Precedents In An Era Of Human Rights, Vincent J. Samar

Pace Law Review

This Article discusses what a “super-precedent” is in American Constitutional Law. Additionally, it describes the current criteria used to identify super-precedents and the limitations of these criteria. It then mentions the various precedents that have been afforded this august title and suggests the need for an additional criterion to ensure the continued protection of those precedents most closely associated with the protection of human rights. Finally, the article identifies three additional precedents, beyond those usually recognized, that ought to be ranked super-precedents and provides a basis for ranking all precedents, grounded in autonomy, when they either conflict with one another …

Should The Dead Bind The Living? Perhaps Ask The People: An Examination Of The Debates Over Constitutional Convention Referendums In State Constitutional Conventions, John J. Liolos

Akron Law Review

Should the United States of America have a constitutional convention? Thomas Jefferson would maintain that one is long overdue; James Madison would argue the contrary. These two luminaries of American constitutional thought took sides in a stirring debate on a fundamental question in constitutionalism: should the dead bind the living? Jefferson advocated for recurrent recourse to the people by holding constitutional conventions in each generation. James Madison disagreed, arguing that stability and constitutional veneration, among other factors, were paramount. Most recall Madison as having won the debate. But at least 18 states throughout American history have adopted a Jeffersonian model …

Shelter From The Storm: Human Rights Protections For Single-Mother Families In The Time Of Covid-19, Theresa Glennon, Alexis Fennell, Kaylin Hawkins, Madison Mcnulty

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

COVID-19’s arrival, and the changes it has unleashed, reveal how longstanding legal and policy decisions produced structural inequalities that have left so many families, and especially single-parent families with children, all too insecure. The fragility of single-mother families is amplified by the multifaceted discrimination they face. While all single parents, including single fathers and other single relatives who are raising children, share many of these burdens, this Article focuses on the challenges confronting single mothers.

Federal policy choices stand in sharp contrast to the political rhetoric of government support for families. Social and economic policy in the twentieth century developed …

Petitions From The Grave: Why Federal Executions Are A Violation Of The Suspension Clause, Taran Wessells

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Note will address the intersection of wrongful convictions, the federal death penalty, and habeas corpus to conclude that the federal death penalty is an unconstitutional violation of the Suspension Clause of the United States Constitution. Part I of this Note will establish that Congress may not suspend the writ of habeas corpus outside of wartime. Then, Part II will show that wrongfully convicted prisoners therefore have a constitutional right to a habeas petition if they discover new, exonerating evidence. Part III will argue that because executed prisoners cannot file a habeas petition for release, executing wrongfully convicted prisoners is …

The President And Individual Rights, Mark Tushnet

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The Emerging Lessons Of Trump V. Hawaii, Shalini Bhargava Ray

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In the years since the Supreme Court decided Trump v. Hawaii, federal district courts have adjudicated dozens of rights-based challenges to executive action in immigration law. Plaintiffs, including U.S. citizens, civil rights organizations, and immigrants themselves, have alleged violations of the First Amendment and the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause with some regularity based on President Trump’s animus toward immigrants. This Article assesses Hawaii’s impact on these challenges to immigration policy, and it offers two observations. First, Hawaii has amplified federal courts’ practice of privileging administrative law claims over constitutional ones. For example, courts considering …

The Original Meaning Of The Habeas Corpus Suspension Clause, The Right Of Natural Liberty, And Executive Discretion, John Harrison

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The Habeas Corpus Suspension Clause of Article I, Section 9, is primarily a limit on Congress’s authority to authorize detention by the executive. It is not mainly concerned with the remedial writ of habeas corpus, but rather with the primary right of natural liberty. Suspensions of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus are statutes that vest very broad discretion in the executive to decide which individuals to hold in custody. Detention of combatants under the law of war need not rest on a valid suspension, whether the combatant is an alien or a citizen of the United States. …

Destructive Federal Decentralization, David Fontana

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article—written for a symposium hosted by the William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal—focuses on the efforts by the Trump administration to relocate federal officials outside of Washington to reduce the capacity of the federal government. Federalism and the separation of powers are usually the twin pillars of structural constitutional law. Locating federal officials outside of Washington— federal decentralization—has been an additional tool of diffusing power that has started to gain some scholarly attention. These debates largely focus on structural constitutional law as constructive—as improving the capacity and operation of the federal and state governments. The power …

Who Constrains Presidential Exercise Of Delegated Powers?, Rebecca L. Brown

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Building on the work of administrative law scholars who have identified and illuminated the several components of the problem over the years, this Article will seek to show what has happened when a cluster of separate circumstances have come together to create a new and serious threat to individual liberty when the President exercises expansive delegated authority. Several doctrinal components lead to this confluence: First, the moribund “intelligible principle” test has evolved to provide little or no constraint on this or any other delegation. Second, a delegation to the President, specifically, is not subject to the procedural requirements of the …

Rétrospectives Et Perspectives Sur La Place Du Droit Comparé Dans La Jurisprudence Du Conseil Constitutionnel, Elisabeth Zoller

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Marriage Mandates: Compelled Disclosures Of Race, Sex, And Gender Data In Marriage Licensing Schemes, Mikaela A. Phillips

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

This Note argues that mandatory disclosures of personal information—specifically race, sex, and gender—on a marriage license application constitute compelled speech under the First Amendment and should be subject to heightened scrutiny. Disclosing one’s race, sex, or gender on a marriage license application is an affirmative act, and individuals may wish to have their identity remain anonymous. These mandatory disclosures send a message that this information is still relevant to marriage regulation. Neither race nor gender is based in science; rather they are historical and social constructs created to uphold a system of white supremacy and heteronormativity. Thus, such statements are …

The Thirteenth Amendment And Equal Protection: A Structural Interpretation To "Free" The Amendment, Larry J. Pittman

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

The hope is that the Court will one day hold that the Thirteenth Amendment has its own equal protection clause or component and that strict scrutiny will not be used for benign racial classifications designed to eradicate current badges and incidents of slavery. This Article critiques the Court’s decision in the Civil Rights Cases regarding the scope of section 1 of the Amendment and it offers a holistic or structural interpretation of the Amendment to include an equal protection component and a lesser standard of review than strict scrutiny. Essentially, the Thirteenth Amendment, if properly used, could become a public …

Symposium: Examining Black Citizenship From Reconstruction To Black Lives Matter: Black Citizenship, Dehumanization, And The Fourteenth Amendment, Reginald Oh

ConLawNOW

The fight for full Black citizenship has been in large measure a fight against the systematic dehumanization of African Americans. Dehumanization is the process of treating people as less than human, as subhuman. Denying Blacks full and equal citizenship has gone hand in hand with denying their full humanity. To effectively promote equal citizenship for African Americans, therefore, requires an explicit commitment to ending their dehumanization. This essay examines the concept of dehumanization and its connection to formal, political, civil, and social citizenship. It elaborates on the less familiar idea of social citizenship, entailing the right to have personal relationships …

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 …

Reconsidering Section 1983'S Nonabrogation Of Sovereign Immunity, Katherine Mims Crocker

Faculty Publications

Motivated by civil unrest and the police conduct that prompted it, Americans have embarked on a major reexamination of how constitutional enforcement works. One important component is 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows civil suits against any "person" who violates federal rights. The U.S. Supreme Court has long held that "person" excludes states because Section 1983 flunks a condition of crystal clarity.

This Article reconsiders that conclusion--in legalese, Section 1983's nonabrogation of sovereign immunity--along multiple dimensions. Beginning with a negative critique, this Article argues that because the Court invented the crystal-clarity standard so long after Section 1983's enactment, the caselaw …

Constitutional Structure, Institutional Relationships And Text: Revisiting Charles Black’S White Lectures, Richard C. Boldt

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

Fundamental questions about constitutional interpretation and meaning invite a close examination of the complicated origins and the subsequent elaboration of the very structure of federalism. The available records of the Proceedings in the Federal Convention make clear that the Framers entertained two approaches to delineating the powers of the central government relative to those retained by the states. The competing approaches, one reliant on a formalist enumeration of permissible powers, the other operating functionally on the basis of a broad dynamic concept of state incompetence and national interest, often are presented as mutually inconsistent narratives. In fact, these two approaches …