Law Commons^™

State And Comparative Constitutional Law Perspectives On A Possible Post-Roe World, Stephen Gardbaum

Saint Louis University Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Adding Colors To The Chameleon: Why The Supreme Court Should Adopt A New Compelling Governmental Interest Test For Race-Preference Student Assignment Plans, Leslie Yalof Garfield

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

When the Supreme Court ordered the City of Birmingham to desegregate its schools in 1954, it failed to consider the long range implications of its mandate. School districts across the country responded to the Court’s order by adopting race-preference school assignment plans, created to designate the particular public elementary or secondary school a student should attend. Now that these plans have successfully achieved their goals of desegregating classrooms, the question has become whether the continuation of the very programs that helped achieve those goals remain legal? In other words, as Justice Ginsburg recently said in arguments before the Supreme Court, …

A Quandary In Law? A (Qualified) Catholic Denial, Patrick Mckinley Brennan

Working Paper Series

A contribution to the second law review symposium dedicated to Steven Smith’s Law’s Quandary (Harvard 2004), this paper asks whether the “quandary” in which Smith finds modern law and jurisprudence is not, at least in part, the consequence of misunderstanding the classical natural law jurisprudence. The paper advances an interpretation of natural law according to which the natural law is the human person’s “participation” in the eternal law itself, with literally cosmic consequences for how we understand the ends and measures of human lawmaking. Mounting an argument against Justice Scalia’s thesis that “God applies the natural law,” the paper goes …

The Jurisprudence Of Colliding First Amendment Interests: From The Dead End Of Neutrality To The Open Road Of Participation Enhancing Review, Gregory P. Magarian

Working Paper Series

No abstract provided.

Interpreting Immunity, Chaim Saiman

Working Paper Series

This paper offers an examination and critique of the Supreme Court’s doctrine of qualified immunity—the immunity from constitutional tort liability granted to government officials in cases in which the tort was not “clearly established” by prior case law. Currently, courts must engage in a two-pronged inquiry: first, whether the official’s conduct was unconstitutional, and second, whether the unconstitutionality was clearly established. This paper argues that while the first question presents a standard case of common law interpretation and analysis, the second inquiry forces courts to approach the body of constitutional tort law as if it were a legislated code. However, …

Harmonizing Plural Societies: The Cases Of Lasallians, Families, Schools – And The Poor, Patrick Mckinley Brennan

Working Paper Series

The modern state characteristically assumes or asserts a monopoly over “group persons” and their right to exist; group persons are said to exist at the pleasure or concession of the state. According to Catholic social teaching, by contrast, these unities of order -- such as church and family, as well as corporations and schools and the like -- are, at least in potency, ontologically prior to the state. Such group persons both constitute conditions of the possibility of human flourishing and, correlatively, impose limitations on the “sovereign” state. Such group persons are not mere concessions of an unbounded state: They …

The Federalist And The Lessons Of Rome, Louis J. Sirico Jr.

Working Paper Series

Since the time of the Constitution’s framing, our intellectual canon has shifted so that the classical era is no longer central to our learning. This shift may impede our understanding of the Framers and their work. We may fail to grasp a historical analogy and, even more, fail to appreciate the full meaning of a core document in our history. This Article assists today’s reader in gaining the knowledge necessary for an informed understanding of The Federalist’s references to ancient Rome. The Article explains each significant reference to Rome by providing a richly textured historical background for the reference. The …

Displacing Dissent: The Role Of Place In First Amendment Jurisprudence, Thomas P. Crocker

Faculty Publications

From the perspective of free speech theory, both of the central First Amendment values - human autonomy and deliberative democracy - require robust protection for the places and spaces in which speech and public discourse occur. This Article argues that current Supreme Court doctrine does not effectively protect speech from content neutral regulation of place. The problem is that remaining neutral is consistent with policies that would dislocate the very place for the "marketplace of ideas." Moreover, free speech theory focused on autonomy and deliberative democracy has not adequately addressed the role that place plays in furthering these values. Speech …

Law's Limited Domain Confronts Morality's Universal Empire, Larry Alexander, Frederick Schauer

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Essential Holding Of Casey: Rethinking Viability, J. Randy Beck

Scholarly Works

The Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey plurality acknowledged an obligation to "justify the lines we draw." The corollary would seem to be an obligation to eschew lines that defy principled justification. In the decades since Roe v. Wade, the Court has offered no adequate rationale for the viability standard, notwithstanding persistent judicial and academic critiques. Exacerbating this country's divisions over abortion and placing us out of step with the world community, the viability rule seems a strong candidate for abandonment as the Court continues to rethink its abortion jurisprudence in the aftermath of Casey.

A Response To Professor Laycock, Marci A. Hamilton

Articles

No abstract provided.

Revitalizing The Presumption Against Preemption To Prevent Regulatory Gaps: A Case Study Of Judicial Tolerance Of Illegal Railroad Waste Transfer Stations, Carter H. Strickland Jr.

Rutgers Law School (Newark) Faculty Papers

This article addresses the problem of regulatory gaps that are created through imprecise preemption rulings. It begins with a detailed case study of how railroads were able to enter the highly regulated solid waste industry, to claim that all state oversight is preempted by a federal statute intended to deregulate railroad economics, and to obtain the economic benefits of operating in a regulatory gap. The net result of current preemption doctrine in those cases has been to strip citizens of the power to ensure that waste transfer stations are safe, and this fundamental injustice serves as a backdrop to analyzing …

Revisiting Youngstown: Against The View That Jackson's Concurrence Resolves The Relation Between Congress And The Commander-In-Chief, Mark D. Rosen

All Faculty Scholarship

Virtually all legal analysts believe that the tripartite framework from Justice Jackson’s Youngstown concurrence provides the correct framework for resolving contests between Congress (when it regulates pursuant to its powers to make rules and regulations for the land and naval forces, for instance) and the president when he acts pursuant to his commander-in-chief powers. This Article identifies a core assumption of the tripartite framework that, up to now, has not been recognized and that consequently has not been adequately analyzed or justified. While Jackson’s framework importantly recognizes that Congress’s regulatory powers may overlap with the president’s commander-in-chief powers, the framework …

Was Shelley V. Kraemer Incorrectly Decided? Some New Answers (Winner Of The 2006 Outstanding Scholarly Paper Award From The Association Of American Law Schools), Mark D. Rosen

All Faculty Scholarship

Shelley v. Kraemer, the 1948 decision that famously forbade state courts from enforcing racially restrictive covenants, has proven to be immensely difficult to justify. Under Shelley's attribution rationale, a contract's substantive provisions are to be attributed to the state when a court enforces the contract. Thus although Shelley ruled that racially restrictive covenants themselves were perfectly legal, it held that judicial enforcement of the covenants constituted state action that violated the Equal Protection Clause.

Shelley's attribution rationale meant that courts could not enforce contracts with provisions that could not have been constitutionally enacted by a legislature. This Article shows, however, …

Below The Surface: Comparing Legislative History Usage By The House Of Lords And The Supreme Court, James J. Brudney

ExpressO

Abstract for “Below the Surface: Comparing Legislative History Usage by the House of Lords and the Supreme Court

In 1992, the Law Lords (the judicial arm of the House of Lords) overruled more than two centuries of precedent when it decided in Pepper v. Hart that courts could refer to and rely on legislative history to aid in construing enacted laws. The ensuing fourteen years have witnessed a robust debate among British judges and legal scholars as to the scope and propriety of Pepper. This article offers the first empirical and comparative analysis of how Britain’s highest court has used …

Black, White, Brown, Green, And Fordice: The Flavor Of Higher Education In Louisiana And Mississippi, Alfreda S. Diamond

ExpressO

"Black, White, Brown, Green, and Fordice: The Flavor of Higher Education in Louisiana and Mississippi" chronicles the higher education desegregation sagas in Louisiana and Mississippi. The Article specifically compares the histories of the higher education desegregation lawsuits in the two states and their subsequent experiences and progress under Settlement Agreements. The statistical populations of many universities in both states are still largely identifiable as “white” or “black,” and so the Article will pose questions not only respecting the implementation of United States v. Fordice in both states, but also respecting the value, desirability, or possibility of the “integrative ideal” converting …

The People Or The State?: Chisholm V. Georgia And Popular Sovereignty, Randy E. Barnett

ExpressO

Chisholm v. Georgia was the first great constitutional case decided by the Supreme Court. In Chisholm, the Court addressed the fundamental question: Who is Sovereign? The People or the State? It adopted an individual concept of popular sovereignty rather than the modern view that limits popular sovereignty to collective or democratic self-government. It denied that the State of Georgia was a sovereign entitled, like the King of England, to assert immunity from a lawsuit brought by a private citizen. Despite all this, Chisholm is not among the canon of cases that all law students are taught. Why not? In this …

School Naming Rights And The First Amendment's Perfect Storm, Joseph Blocher

ExpressO

This Article uses public school naming rights as a lens through which to examine the conflicts between the tempestuous First Amendment categories of government speech, commercial speech, and forum analysis. Courts and scholars have noted the internal conflicts within these three categories, but have not yet explored the conflicts between them. As the growth of school naming rights shows, government sponsorship arrangements collapse the artificial divisions between the categories and demand a better understanding of their interactions. This Article represents a first attempt to bring coherence to these poorly defined and increasingly important areas of First Amendment law.

Judicializing Federative Power, Richard Broughton

ExpressO

The federal Constitution is ambiguous about federative power, Locke’s description of the power over war and foreign relations. On the one hand, the Constitution is plainly un-Lockean, dividing federative power between Congress and the President and contemplating that they will exercise responsibility, and sometimes competing prerogatives, in war and foreign affairs. Yet there is a rich constitutional and political history in America suggesting that the constitutional scheme is more Lockean than at first blush, even if informal and hidden in complexity. This paper responds to two distinct, but related, lines of argument that seek to limit especially the executive’s Lockean …

'Prima Paint' Pushed Compulsory Aribitration Under The 'Erie' Train, Richard L. Barnes

ExpressO

As the face of commerce changes, the law usually follows, albeit at some distance. The United States Supreme Court has recently sped the pace. In a line of cases, some old, some recent, but all feeding off of one another, the Court has held that challenges to agreements which contain arbitration provisions must go to the arbitrator first. Courts may hear formational challenges only where they challenge the arbitration provision alone. In the Supreme Court, arbitration, with its vast potential for abuse as well as for good, has found a friend.

The Court’s doctrine of choice, “severability,” raises serious concerns …

The Inescapable Federalism Of The Ninth Amendment, Kurt T. Lash

ExpressO

For the past several decades, the majority of courts and commentators have viewed the Ninth Amendment as a provision justifying judicial enforcement of unenumerated individual rights against state and federal abridgment. The most influential advocate of this libertarian reading of the Ninth has been Professor Randy Barnett who has argued in a number of articles and books that the Ninth was originally understood as guarding unenumerated natural rights. Recently uncovered historical evidence, however, suggests that those who framed and ratified the Ninth Amendment understood the Clause as a guardian of the retained right to local self-government. Recognizing the challenge this …

A Textual-Historical Theory Of The Ninth Amendment, Kurt T. Lash

ExpressO

Despite the lavish attention paid to the Ninth Amendment as supporting judicial enforcement of unenumerated rights, surprisingly little attention has been paid to the Amendment’s actual text. Doing so reveals a number of interpretive conundrums. For example, although often cited in support of broad readings of the Fourteenth Amendment, the text of the Ninth says nothing about how to interpret enumerated rights such as those contained in the Fourteenth. No matter how narrowly one construes the Fourteenth, the Ninth merely demands that such enumerated rights not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people. The standard …

The New Federal Indian Law, Matthew L.M. Fletcher

ExpressO

Is federal Indian law dead? Despite a declining docket during the Rehnquist Court, the Supreme Court continued to take a disproportionately high number of Indian law cases – and deciding more than 75 percent of them against tribal interests. While many scholars suggest that the Court’s conservative views drive these Indian law decisions and criticize the Court for failing to follow foundational principles of federal Indian law, this Article asserts that the Court’s reasons for granting certiorari and for deciding against tribal interests in these cases are not Indian law-related. Instead, the Court identifies important, unrelated constitutional concerns that appear …

Interrogation Of Detainees: Extending A Hand Or A Boot?, Amos N. Guiora

ExpressO

The so called “war on terror” provides the Bush administration with a unique opportunity to both establish clear guidelines for the interrogation of detainees and to make a forceful statement about American values. How the government chooses to act can promote either an ethical commitment to the norms of civil society, or an attitude analogous to Toby Keith’s “American Way,” where Keith sings that “you’ll be sorry that you messed with the USofA, ‘Cuz we’ll put a boot in your ass, It’s the American Way.”

No aspect of the “war on terrorism” more clearly addresses this balance than coercive interrogation. …

Love V. Virginia: The Constitutionality Of The Marshall/Newman Amendment, Pavitra Mohan Ram

ExpressO

My comment explores the constitutionality of a recent amendment in Virginia, the Marshall/Newman Amendment, which bans gay marriage and civil unions between unmarried people, and precludes Virginia from recognizing such arrangements formed in other states. The analysis is particularly timely, because even though the Democrats have regained a majority in Congress, and a traditionally Republican Virginian constituency just elected a Democratic senator, a majority of Virginians adopted this Amendment, indicating conservative values still reign.

The comment argues that the Amendment is demonstrably inconsistent with the mandates of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution. The first provision seeks to ban …

The American Tradition Of Racial Profiling, Jean Phan

ExpressO

The enemy has always been easily recognizable in American life: He has been the savage Native American known for scalping people; the black slave bent on ravaging white women; the Asian worker unfairly competing against the white man; the Mexican immigrant who does nothing but leech off the system; the Arab who dreams up terrorist plots, and carries them out. These enemies have always been visible in American society, and yet, they don’t exist in reality. They exist only in the minds of those too afraid to consider that these strange individuals who seem so different, could be just like …

Shooting Down Hijacked Airplanes? Sorry, We’Re Humanists. A Comment On The German Constitutional Court Decision Of 2.15.2006, Regarding The Luftsicherheitsgesetz (2005 Air Security Act), Miguel Beltran De Felipe, Jose Maria Rodriguez De Santiago

ExpressO

The article analyzes a very remarkable decision of the Constitutional Court of Germany that struck down a law (2005 Air Security Law) that expressly authorized the federal government to shoot down hijacked airplanes, in case they were likely to be crashed against a target on the ground. The Court ruled that deliberately killing innocent people on board is incompatible with the right to human dignity, as established in the Basic Law. The article focuses on some of the main issues addressed by the Court (among others, the absolutization of human dignity, which makes unconstitutional for the legislature and for the …

Hudson And Samson: The Roberts Court Confronts Privacy, Dignity, And The Fourth Amendment, John D. Castiglione

ExpressO

This article critically analyzes Samson v. California and Hudson v. Michigan, which were the Roberts Court's first major Fourth Amendment decisions. In Samson, the Court upheld a California law allowing government officials to search parolees without any suspicion of wrongdoing. In Hudson, to the surprise of almost every observer, the Court held that knock-and-announce violations do not carry with them a remedy of exclusion. What was most notable about Hudson was not only that it rejected what every state and every federal court, save one, believed to be the proper remedy for knock-and-announce violations, but that it called into question …

Son Of Sam Resurrected: Did Greedy Criminals Unwittingly Give New Life To The “Son Of Sam” Laws?, Arthur M. Ortegon

ExpressO

No abstract provided.

Jutstice Kennedy And The Environment: Property, States' Rights, And The Search For Nexus, Michael Blumm

ExpressO

Justice Anthony Kennedy, now clearly the pivot of the Roberts Court, is the Court’s crucial voice in environmental and natural resources law cases. Kennedy’s central role was never more evident than in the two most celebrated environmental and natural resources law cases of 2006: Kelo v. New London and Rapanos v. U.S., since he supplied the critical vote in both: upholding local use of the condemnation power for economic development under certain circumstances, and affirming federal regulatory authority over wetlands which have a significant nexus to navigable waters. In each case Kennedy’s sole concurrence was outcome determinative.

Justice Kennedy has …