Law Commons^™

Justice Souter On Government Speech, Sheldon Nahmod

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Contingent Equal Protection: Reaching For Equality After Ricci And Pics, Jennifer S. Hendricks

College of Law Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court’s decision in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District #1 has been extensively analyzed as the latest step in the Court’s long struggle with the desegregation of public schools. This Article examines the decision’s implications for the full range of equal protection doctrine dealing with benign or remedial race and sex classifications. Parents Involved revealed a sharp division on the Court over whether government may consciously try to promote substantive equality. In the past, such efforts have been subject to an equal protection analysis that allows race-conscious or sex-conscious state action, contingent on existing, de …

Against Civil Gideon (And For Pro Se Court Reform), Benjamin H. Barton

College of Law Faculty Scholarship

This Article argues that the pursuit of a civil Gideon (a civil guarantee of counsel to match Gideon v. Wainright’s guarantee of appointed criminal counsel) is an error logistically and jurisprudentially and advocates an alternate route for ameliorating the execrable state of pro se litigation for the poor in this country: pro se court reform.

Gideon itself has largely proven a disappointment. Between overworked and underfunded lawyers and a loose standard for ineffective assistance of counsel the system has been degraded. As each player becomes anesthetized to cutting corners a system designed as a square becomes a circle.

There is …

Foreword: Somebody’S Watching Me: Surveillance And Privacy In An Age Of National Insecurity, Robert N. Strassfeld, Cheryl Ough

Faculty Publications

Forward to the Institute for Global Security Law and Policy at Case Western Reserve University symposium Somebody's Watching Me: Surveillance and Privacy in an Age of National Insecurity, Cleveland, OH, October 22-23, 2009

Voter Deception, Gilda R. Daniels

All Faculty Scholarship

In our recent electoral history, deceptive practices have been utilized to suppress votes in an attempt to affect election results. In most major elections, citizens endure warnings of arrest, deportation, and even violence if they attempt to vote. In many instances, these warnings are part of a larger scheme to suppress particular voters, whom I call “unwanted voters,” from exercising the franchise. Recent advancements in technology provide additional opportunities for persons to deceive voters, such as calls alerting citizens that Republicans (Whites) vote on Tuesday and Democrats vote (Blacks) on Wednesday. In spite of this resurgence of deception, the statutes …

Privacy Is The Problem, Raymond Shih Ray Ku

Faculty Publications

A local school district remotely activates laptop web cameras that allegedly record the activities of students, even in their bedrooms.1 The President authorizes the National Security Agency (NSA) to monitor the telephone calls and electronic communications of individuals within the United States on an unprecedented scale in the interest of national security.2 Even a cursory examination of the news suggests that the activities and communications of Americans are increasingly subject to government surveillance from every level of government. Whatever we may think about the necessity for this surveillance, we should question how such programs come into being; in other words, …

Dangerous Terrain: Mapping The Female Body In Gonzales V. Carhart, B. Jessie Hill

Faculty Publications

The body occupies an ambiguous position within the law. It is, in one sense, the quintessential object of state regulatory and police power, the object that the state acts both upon and for. At the same time, the body is often constructed in legal discourse as the site of personhood - our most intimate, sacred, and inviolate possession. The inherent tension between these two concepts of the body permeates the law, but it is perhaps nowhere more prominent than in the constitutional doctrine pertaining to abortion. Abortion is one of the most heavily regulated medical procedures in the United States, …

Unlimited Power: Why The President’S (Warrantless) Surveillance Program Is Unconstitutional, Raymond Shih Ray Ku

Faculty Publications

In this essay, Professor Ku explores the constitutionality of the President's Surveillance Program (PSP), and critiques the Bush Administration's legal explanations supporting warrantless surveillance. Defenders of the program have relied upon the President's inherent executive authority, the Congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force, the FISA Amendment Act of 2008, and ultimately that under any of these sources of authority the warrantless surveillance authorized is consistent with the right of privacy protected Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. As such, Professor Ku uses the PSP to illustrate the how and why current constitutional analysis both ignores and subverts “the right …

Pluralism In Marbury And Van Gend, Daniel Halberstam

Book Chapters

‘Great cases, like hard cases, make bad law’, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr, famously remarked in his first Supreme Court dissent. For Holmes, ‘great cases are called great, not by reason of their real importance in shaping the law of the future, but because of some accident of immediate overwhelming interest which appeals to the feelings and distorts the judgment’. On this account neither Marbury v Madison70 nor Van Gend en Loos would qualify. Van Gend was a case of great principle without greatly interesting facts. And Marbury was a great political battle that nevertheless produced a case of great principle.

Nobody's Fools: The Rational Audience As First Amendment Ideal, Lyrissa Barnett Lidsky

UF Law Faculty Publications

Assumptions about audiences shape the outcomes of First Amendment cases. Yet the Supreme Court rarely specifies what its assumptions about audiences are, much less attempts to justify them. Drawing on literary theory, this Article identifies and defends two critical assumptions that emerge from First Amendment cases involving so-called core speech. The first is that audiences are capable of rationally assessing the truth, quality, and credibility of core speech. The second is that more speech is generally preferable to less. These assumptions, which I refer to collectively as the rational audience model, lie at the heart of the marketplace of ideas …

Introduction: Reproductive Rights, Human Rights, And The Human Right To Health, B. Jessie Hill

Faculty Publications

Introduction - Case Western Reserve University Law Review Symposium 2010: Reproductive Rights, Human Rights, and the Human Right to Health

The Political Economy Of Youngstown, Edward T. Swaine

GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works

The time is ripe for a non-doctrinal assessment of Justice Jackson’s famous three-category framework for challenges to presidential action, elaborated in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (also known as the Steel Seizure Case). Recent national security controversies have given the Youngstown framework a whole new lease on life, and its relevance for courts, Congress, and executive branch officials has never been higher. During the same period, empirical and analytical studies of presidential policymaking have advanced beyond personality-driven accounts of particular administrations. Together, these developments offer a terrific opportunity to assess how well the Youngstown framework fulfills its objective …

The End Of Originalism, Jeffrey Shaman

College of Law Faculty

This essay maintains that originalism—the idea that the Constitution should be interpreted according to its original meaning--is nearing its demise. Ironically, the beginning of the end of originalism may have been prompted by the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, marking the first time that a majority of the Court signed onto an opinion emphatically taking an originalist slant. Heller may represent the apogee of originalism and, because it exposes the fundamental flaws of originalism, may also mark the beginning of its decline.

Originalism is a radical departure from the Supreme Court’s well-established jurisprudence of a living …

Constitutional Construction And Departmentalism: A Case Study Of The Demise Of The Whig Presidency, Michael J. Gerhardt

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Is The Filibuster Constitutional?, Josh Chafetz, Michael J. Gerhardt

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Why The Assertion Of A "Nationalist" Presidency Does Not Support Claims For Expansive Presidential Power, William P. Marshall

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Enforcing The Bill Of Rights Against The States: The History And The Future, Richard Aynes

Akron Law Faculty Publications

This article traces, in broad strokes, the history of the disputes about whether or not the Bill of Rights can be enforced against the states.

It begins with pre-Fourteenth Amendment claims and recounts the actions of the 39th Congress: The Freedman’s Bureau, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the Fourteenth Amendment. Several speeches on the Amendment from the Congressional elections of 1866 are utilized, including those of Section 1 author John Bingham, Congressmen Columbus Delano, Rutherford B. Hayes, James Wilson, James Garfield, and Senator John Sherman, as well as Democrats who participated in what has been termed the most …

Mcdonald V. Chicago, The Fourteenth Amendment, The Right To Bear Arms And The Right Of Self-Defense, Richard L. Aynes

Akron Law Faculty Publications

The Supreme Court of the United States has granted certiorari in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago to consider this question:

"Whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is incorporated as against the States by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities or Due Process Clauses."

This case follows and seeks to build upon District of Columbia v. Heller which held that the Second Amendment protects both the right to self-defense and what has been termed an individual right to bear arms. Of course, Heller’s application is limited to the federal government and has no direct …

The Influence Of Abraham Lincoln On The Supreme Court's Interpretation Of The Constitutional Principles Of Liberty And Equality, Wilson Huhn

Akron Law Faculty Publications

The purpose of this article is to demonstrate that the Supreme Court has embraced Abraham Lincoln’s transcendent understanding of the principles of liberty and equality – transcendent in the sense that these principles are considered to be timeless, universal, and morally binding. The article briefly summarizes the Transcendental Movement, sets forth Lincoln’s understanding of liberty and equality, and describes how, in the modern era, the Supreme Court has “constantly approximated” the principles that Lincoln believed that this country is dedicated to.

The Strange Origins Of The Constitutional Right Of Association, John D. Inazu

Scholarship@WashULaw

Although much has been written about the freedom of association and its ongoing importance to American constitutionalism, much recent scholarship mistakenly relies on a truncated history that begins with Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984), the case that divided constitutional association into intimate and expressive components. Roberts’s doctrinal framework has been rightly criticized. However, neither the right of association nor all of its doctrinal problems start there. The Supreme Court’s foray into the constitutional right of association began a generation earlier with NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449 (1958).

This article offers a new …

Fourth Amendment Remedial Equilibration: A Comment On Herring V. United States And Pearson V. Callahan, David B. Owens

Articles

In two recent decisions, the Supreme Court addressed remedies under the Fourth Amendment by assuming that this remedial construction did not alter the value of the underlying right meant to be protected by the Constitution. First, in Herring v. United States, the court broadened exceptions to the exclusionary rule and implied that suppression may not be required for "negligent" errors generally. Then, in Pearson v. Callahan, the Court abandoned it's "battle-of-order" rule - which required courts to consider the right before inquiring whether that right was "clearly established" at the time of the violation - when considering qualified …

Clashing Visions Of A "Living" Constitution: Of Opportunists And Obligationists, William W. Van Alstyne

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Introduction To The South Dakota Law Review's 2010 Symposium Issue, Marci A. Hamilton

Articles

No abstract provided.

Zoya's Standing Problem, Or, When Should The Constitution Follow The Flag?, Jeffrey D. Kahn

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

Some federal courts have devised a new test of prudential standing that they use to dismiss suits filed by foreign plaintiffs alleging unlawful conduct by American officials abroad, even when these cases involve matters that may have nothing to do with foreign affairs, national security, or terrorism. Rather than decide the case on its merits or dismiss it on any number of legitimate grounds, the complaint is dismissed because the plaintiff lacks a “prior substantial connection” to the United States.

I identify and critique this strange but proliferating test of standing. First, it is inconsistent with any theoretical view of …

The Constitutional Canon As Argumentative Metonymy, Ian Bartrum

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Property As/And Constitutional Settlement, Timothy Zick

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Displacement, Timothy Zick

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Speech And The Identity Crisis, Timothy Zick

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Solipsism: Toward A Thick Doctrine Of Article Iii Duty; Or Why The Federal Circuits’ Nonprecedential Status Rules Are (Profoundly) Unconstitutional, Penelope J. Pether

Working Paper Series

Constitutional Solipsism is the fourth in a series of articles on aspects of the private judging practices which have come to characterize the U.S. state and federal courts since the late 1950s. The first, Inequitable Injunctions: The Scandal of Private Judging in the U.S. Courts, 56 STAN. L. REV. 1435 (2004) gave a critical historical account of the development of the “practices of private judging” in U.S. Courts. Take a Letter, Your Honor: Outing the Judicial Epistemology of Hart v. Massanari, 62 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 1553 (2005), analyzed the development of a distinctive U.S. theory of precedent. Sorcerers, …

Section 5: Individual Rights, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.