Law Commons^™

Parents Involved & Meredith: A Prediction Regarding The (Un)Constitutionality Of Race-Conscious Student Assignment Plans, Eboni S. Nelson

ExpressO

During the October 2006 Term, the United States Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of voluntary race-conscious student assignment plans as employed in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No.1 and Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education. These cases will mark the Court’s first inquiry regarding the use of race to combat de facto segregation in public education. This article examines the constitutionality of such plans and provides a prediction regarding the Court’s decisions.

The article begins with an analysis of the resegregation trend currently plaguing American educational institutions and identifies two causes for the occurrence: …

Wallace V. City Of Chicago And Accrual Of 1983 Claims, Michael D. Frisch

ExpressO

This comment will analyze the recent 7th circuit case, Wallace v. City of Chicago. By ruling that claims under 1983 accrue from the moment of the injury, Wallace basically prevents convicts from recovering under 1983. I will examine the case and suggest resolutions for when the Supreme Court hears the case this term. See 440 F.3d 421

“Actions As Words, Words As Actions: Sexual Harassment Law, The First Amendment And Verbal Acts, John F. Wirenius

ExpressO

The article examines the tension between the hostile work environment under the civil rights laws and the First Amendment’s protection of free speech, even when such speech is offensive and even discriminatory. After discussing the tension and its limits, the author examines other rationales proposed to resolve this tension, and rejecting them as unsatisfactory. Noting that hostile work environment doctrine, as a variable standard, employs a less “bright-line” approach than is typical of the First Amendment’s rule, the author nonetheless finds that the “open texture” of all rules, and the requirement that a hostile work environment be systematically pervasive or …

Reforming Redistricting, Nicholas Stephanopoulos

ExpressO

There are several ways in which redistricting reform could in theory be achieved. State legislatures could voluntarily cede control over district-drawing, courts could invalidate especially egregious gerrymanders, or popular initiatives could be launched to create redistricting commissions. However, thanks to the self-interest of legislators as well as the Supreme Court’s unfortunate recent decisions in Vieth v. Jubelirer and LULAC v. Perry, the redistricting initiative is now the only realistic way to curb political gerrymandering. This Article provides the first detailed empirical and normative examination of redistricting initiatives. The Article begins by making the case for the popular initiative in the …

The Roberts Court And The Future Of Substantive Due Process: The Demise Of "Split-The-Difference" Jurisprudence?, John F. Basiak

ExpressO

This article offers a critical perspective on a problematic trend in substantive due process doctrine and suggests a resolution based on the jurisprudence of Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. The subject matter is both timely and un-preempted, and my analysis expands upon ideas I previously developed in two recently published law review articles, Inconsistent Levels of Generality in the Characterization of Unenumerated Fundamental Rights, 16 UNIVERSITY FLORIDA JOURNAL LAW & PUBLIC POLICY 401 (2005) and Dangerous Predictions: Referencing “Emerging” History and Tradition in Substantive Due Process Jurisprudence in an Era of Blue State Federalism, 15 WIDENER LAW JOURNAL 135 …

Herding Bullfrogs Towards A More Balanced Wheelbarrow: An Illustrative Recommendation For Federal Sentencing Post-Booker, Brian R. Gallini, Emily Q. Shults

ExpressO

The Article argues in favor of shifting the balance in federal sentencing toward a more indeterminate system. By exploring the post-Booker legal landscape at both the federal and state levels, the Article asserts that the judiciary's continued reliance on the “advisory" Guidelines has practically changed federal sentencing procedures very little in form or function. Accordingly, the Article proffers that, rather than insisting upon the Guidelines' immutability, federal sentencing would do well to reflect upon its own history, and the evolution of its state counterparts.

Transsexualism And The Binary Divide: Determining Sex Using Objective Criteria, Mathew Staver

ExpressO

This article deals with the legal status of postoperative transsexuals in terms of marriage and sex-based classifications. Until recently, sex has been assumed to be binary, i.e., male and female. Whether sex is immutable or transitory, objective or subjective, has now become an international concern. This article addresses every case in the world every decided on this issue. The resolution is centrally important to the battle over marriage and sex0based classifications. The thesis of this article is that sex is an immutable characteristic at the time of birth and must be determined by objective criteria. Sex must be determined by …

Fourth Amendment Searches Of The Home In Florida: State V. Rabb: Has The Florida Fourth District Court Of Appeals Barked Up The Wrong Tree? , Anthony Michael Stella

ExpressO

The use of drug dogs in the United States began in 1970 when the United States Customs started using dog sniffs to detect the presence of contraband. This practice raised the Fourth Amendment issue of whether the use of a dog sniff required probable cause and a warrant. In United States v. Place, the United States Supreme Court found that a dog sniff is not a Fourth Amendment search because it is “less intrusive than a typical search” and because it reveals only “the presence or absence of narcotics.” Since that decision, some State courts have interpreted their constitutions to …

Polycephalous Anatomy Of The Ec In The Wto: An Analysis Of Law And Practice, Rafael Leal-Arcas

ExpressO

This article analyzes the unique legal position of the European Community (EC) in the world trading system. Its polycephalous anatomy derives from the fact that all 25 Member States of the EC are members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) along with the EC itself. This means that when referring to the EC, the whole as well as its parts are independent Members of the WTO. This has legal and political consequences related to the allocation of powers between the national and supranational levels that will be analyzed. The article explains what is meant by a “mixed agreement” and analyzes …

Originalism And Parking Tickets, Lawrence Rosenthal

ExpressO

Originalism – the view that constitutional provisions should be interpreted as they were “understood at the time of the law’s enactment” – is the ascendant method of constitutional interpretation. In particular, originalists argue that the Constitution's open-ended provisions should be interpreted in light of their generally understood legal meaning at the time of their framing. An originalist view of due process -- entitling civil and criminal defendants to those procedures considered "due" at the time of framing -- would accordingly condemn any number of innovations in criminal and civil procedures' that alter framing-era procedural rights, such as the novel systems …

Radicals In Robes: A Review, Dru Stevenson

ExpressO

This essay reviews and critiques Cass Sunstein’s new book about conservative activists in the federal judiciary. After a discussion of Sunstein’s (somewhat misleading) rhetorical nomenclature, this essay argues that Sunstein’s proposed “minimalist” methodology in constitutional jurisprudence is beneficial, but not for the reasons Sunstein suggests. Sunstein alternatively justifies judicial restraint or incrementalism on epistemological self-doubt (cautiousness being an outgrowth of uncertainty) and his fear that accomplishments by Progressives in the last century will be undone by conservative judges in the present. Constitutional incrementalism is more convincingly justified on classical economic grounds. While affirming Sunstein’s overall thesis, this essay offers an …

Tough Talk From The Supreme Court On Free Speech: The Illusory Per Se Rule In Garcetti As Further Evidence Of Connick’S Unworkable Employee/Citizen Speech Partition, Sonya K. Bice

ExpressO

Garcetti v. Ceballos was intended to clear up an area of First Amendment law so murky that it was the source not only of circuit splits but also of intra-circuit splits—panels from within the same circuit had arrived at opposite results in nearly identical cases. As it turned out, the Supreme Court itself was as splintered as the circuits. Of all the previously argued cases that remained undecided during the Court’s transition involving Justice O’Connor’s retirement and Justice Alito’s confirmation, Garcetti was the only one for which the Court ordered a second argument. This suggested to some that without a …

Conversational Standing: A New Approach To An Old Privacy Problem, Christopher M. Drake

ExpressO

American society has long considered certain conversations private amongst the participants in those conversations. In other words, when two or more people are conversing in a variety of settings and through a variety of media, there are times when all parties to the conversation can reasonably expect freedom from improper government intrusion, whether through direct participation or secret monitoring. This shared expectation of privacy has been slow to gain judicial recognition. Courts have indicated that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution only protects certain elements of the conversation, such as where and how it takes place, but that …

How To Sue Without Standing: The Constitutionality Of Citizen Suits In Non-Article Iii Tribunals, David Krinsky

ExpressO

In recent years, the “injury-in-fact” standing requirement of Article III has frequently impeded attempts by concerned citizens and public interest groups to challenge government actions in federal court.

This article proposes a way in which “citizen suits”—lawsuits brought by plaintiffs who wish to challenge perceived illegalities that affect the public as a whole—can be given a federal forum. It argues that, with some limitations, Congress has authority to authorize pure citizen suits in Article I tribunals, and discusses the (surmountable) obstacles that such fora pose.

After discussing the constitutionality of citizen suits in Article I tribunals, the article then turns …

Privatizing Eminent Domain: The Delegation Of A Very Public Power To Private, Non-Profit And Charitable Corporations, Asmara Tekle Johnson

ExpressO

In an age of privatization of many governmental functions such as health care, prison management, and warfare, this Article poses the question as to whether eminent domain should be among them. Unlike other privatized functions, eminent domain is a traditionally governmental and highly coercive power, akin to the government’s power to tax, to arrest individuals, and to license. It is, therefore, a very public power.

In particular, the delegation of this very public power to private, non-profit and charitable corporations has escaped the scrutiny that for-profit private actors have attracted in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in …

The Essential Holding Of Casey: Rethinking Viability, Randy Beck

ExpressO

The joint opinion in Casey v. Planned Parenthood included dicta reaffirming the rule that abortion rights extend to the point of fetal viability. This manuscript argues that the Court has never offered an adequate rationale for the viability standard, an unusually permissive line when compared with abortion laws in other countries. The Court's normal obligation to justify the lines it draws is augmented in light of the disparate impacts generated by the viability rule, which attributes constitutional significance to a characteristic that tends to vary with the race and gender of the fetus. The viability standard can also be challenged …

Taking "Justice And Fairness" Seriously: Distributive Justice And The Takings Clause, Jeffrey M. Gaba

ExpressO

Since the 1960 case of Armstrong v. United States, the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that “the” purpose of the Takings Clause is to prevent burdens falling on individual landowners that should in “justice and fairness” be born by society as a whole. The essay argues that this embodies a concept of distributional justice and further argues that the Court has failed to adequately consider the implications of such a conception as the basis of Takings analysis. The essay, after describing the origins of the Armstrong principle, discusses four implications: first, the rejection of a rights- based conception of the …

Re-Thinking Trade And Human Rights, Andrew T. Lang

ExpressO

The last decade has seen the development of a burgeoning literature on the relationship between international trade and the protection of human rights, driven in part by a series of influential reports produced by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Some human rights commentators have been heavily critical of the trade regime, pointing to a variety of ways in which obligations under international trade law purportedly undermine the ability of governments to fulfil their human rights obligations. Others see the potential for strong synergies between the two regimes, and argue that international trade can be a …

Every Law Maintains An Important Fact: The Supreme Doctrine Of The New Fourth Constitutional Epoch, John H. Ryskamp

ExpressO

Every law maintains an important fact: out of the political welter this doctrine has emerged as the supreme doctrine of the new fourth Constitutional epoch. It is widely understood that the scrutiny regime instituted by West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, is but one of three which have determined applications of the Constitution since its ratification. However, what is less widely known is that three recent cases illustrate how the third epoch has ended and the concerns of the new epoch. Currently the cases are litigated in terms of the meaning of, every, maintain and important.

A New Clean Water Act, Paul Boudreaux

ExpressO

The Supreme Court’s new federalism has struck its strongest blows so far on the Clean Water Act. This summer, in Rapanos v. United States, a sharply divided Court nearly struck down a large chunk of the Act’s protection of wetlands and other small waterways – five years after an earlier decision had narrowed the reach of the Act because of its supposed overreaching into state prerogative. Why has the Clean Water Act been the Court’s favorite target? One reason is that the statute was fatally flawed when enacted. Congress chose to cover “navigable waters,” but its practical definition has never …

Searches & The Misunderstood History Of Suspicion & Probable Cause: Part One, Fabio Arcila

ExpressO

This article, the first of a two-part series, argues that during the Framers’ era many if not most judges believed they could issue search warrants without independently assessing the adequacy of probable cause, and that this view persisted even after the Fourth Amendment became effective. This argument challenges the leading originalist account of the Fourth Amendment, which Professor Thomas Davies published in the Michigan Law Review in 1999.

The focus in this first article is upon an analysis of the common law and how it reflected the Fourth Amendment’s restrictions. Learned treatises in particular, and to a lesser extent a …

Leaving The Thicket At Last, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer

ExpressO

No abstract provided.

The Restitutionary Approach To Just Compensation, Tim Kowal

ExpressO

In the wake of the Court’s near-total refusal to impose a check on the legislature through the public use clause, this paper discusses whether any confidence in our property rights be restored through the just compensation clause in the form of restitutionary compensation, rather than the traditional, and myopic, “fair market value” standard. This paper discusses the historical presumption against restitution, elucidated through Bauman v. Ross over a century ago, is founded upon (1) the idea that the public should not be made to pay any more than necessary to effect a public project, and (2) the idea that the …

The Pragmatic Populism Of Justice Stevens' Free Speech Jurisprudence, Gregory P. Magarian

Working Paper Series

In his three decades on the Supreme Court, Justice John Paul Stevens has developed a distinctive approach to the First Amendment. During his tenure, the Court’s majority has crystallized a theory of First Amendment speech protection as an abstract, negative protection of individual autonomy against government interference. In contrast, Justice Stevens’ pragmatic judicial methodology has caused him to place greater emphasis on free speech decisions’ practical consequences, particularly their effectiveness in making democratic debate inclusive as to both participants and subject matter in order to ensure robust, well-informed public discourse. Alone on the present Court, Justice Stevens manifests a deep …

The Uncertain Future Of Marriage And The Alternatives, Daniel I. Weiner

ExpressO

The cultural and institutional predominance of marriage in our society has lately been challenged by two important social trends: growing dissatisfaction with or indifference to marriage on the part of those eligible to marry, and the emergence of nontraditional families headed by adults who may wish to marry but are presently excluded from doing so. This Essay argues that proactive law reformers have responded to these trends by taking two very different approaches. The first approach, “diversity of forms,” is exemplified by the cultivation of alternatives and substitutes to traditional marriage ranging from same and opposite-sex domestic partnerships and other …

Rethinking Civil Contempt Incarceration, Jessica C. Kornberg

ExpressO

Under current federal law civil contempt is governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, yet it often results in incarceration. This incarceration can, and in a few cases has been, indefinite. The unlimited duration of civil contempt represents the pinnacle of judicial power, and yet it is a topic which has generated surprisingly little scholarship or case law. This Article explores the history and development of modern contempt law, and finds that while the federal law treats all civil contemnors equally, historically and in many states, contemnors are classified by the type of civil contempt committed. This Article proposes …

Why Guru Nanak Is Another Nail In The Coffin Of West Coast Hotel V. Parrish, John H. Ryskamp

ExpressO

In Guru Nanak v. Sutter, the Ninth Circuit upheld RLUIPA by accepting its conflation of "individualized assessments" and "substantial burden." Although RLUIPA involved a misreading of Oregon v. Smith, it was a misreading the Ninth Circuit adopted. The question is, why did Sutter counsel allow the misreading of Smith, especially since Smith lost? It is because, in general, the American bar has failed to see that there has been a substantial corrosion of the scrutiny regime established by West Coast Hotel v. Parrish. They are in denial: they can't believe that the scrutiny regime could ever fall. And yet, the …

Light From The Trees: The Story Of Minors Oposa And The Russian Forest Cases , Oliver Austin Houck

ExpressO

This article describes two lawsuits in the late twentieth century that changed their countries in ways from which there will be no return. One took place in the Philippines, emerging from the reign of Fernando Marcos, and the other in Russia, following a near century of communist rule. They have two things in common. They declared the rights of their citizens to challenge, and reverse, government decisions. And they were about the environment, more particularly, trees. What we learn is that notions of environmental protection, citizen enforcement and judicial review have traveled the world and that, in differing legal systems, …

Regulating Land Use In A Constitutional Shadow: The Institutional Contexts Of Exactions, Mark Fenster

ExpressO

In a refreshingly clear and comprehensive decision issued towards the end of its 2004 Term, the Supreme Court explained in Lingle v. Chevron (2005) that the Takings Clause requires compensation only for the effects of a regulation on an individual’s property rights. Under the substantive due process doctrine, by contrast, courts engage in a deferential inquiry into both a regulation’s validity and the means by which the regulation attempts to meet the government’s objective. Lingle’s explanation appeared to cast doubt on the doctrinal foundation and reach of Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) and Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994), …

The New Nuisance: An Antidote To Wetland Loss, Sprawl, And Global Warming, Christine A. Klein

ExpressO

In 1992, Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council held that governments must provide compensation to landowners whenever regulations deprive land of all economically beneficial use, unless the restrictions inhere in background principles of the state’s law of property and nuisance. Such background principles, the Court added, may evolve in accordance with new knowledge. Thus, nuisance became “new” in two critical respects: it expanded from offense to affirmative defense, and it explicitly recognized that new learning continuously redefines the boundaries of nuisance. More than a dozen years have passed since Lucas, and much is new: The years have brought a shift …