Law Commons^™

Mutually Intelligible Principles?, Andrew J. Ziaja

Pace Law Review

Are the nondelegation, major questions, and political question doctrines mutually intelligible? This article asks whether there is more than superficial resemblance between the nondelegation, major questions, and political question concepts in Wayman v. Southard, 23 U.S. (10 Wheat.) 1 (1825), an early nondelegation case that has become focal in recent nondelegation and major questions scholarship and jurisprudence. I argue that the nondelegation and political question doctrines do interact conceptually in Wayman, though not as current proponents of the nondelegation doctrine on the Supreme Court seem to understand it. The major questions doctrine by contrast conscripts the nondelegation …

The First Amendment And Online Access To Information About Abortion: The Constitutional And Technological Problems With Censorship, John Villasenor

Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property

To what extent could an abortion-restrictive state impede access to online information about abortion? After Dobbs, this question is no longer theoretical. This essay engages with this issue from both a legal and technological perspective, analyzing First Amendment jurisprudence as well as the technological implications of state-level online censorship. It concludes that the weight of Supreme Court precedent indicates that state attempts to censor information regarding out-of-state abortion services would violate the First Amendment. That said, the essay also recognizes that as Dobbs itself upended precedent, it is unclear what Supreme Court would do when ruling on questions regarding …

Is There A Constitutional Common Good?, R. George Wright

Journal of Catholic Legal Studies

(Excerpt)

Identifying and pursuing some widely shared idea of the common good seems central to a sustainable constitutional order. This may seem especially true in an era of deep political division. The problem, though, is that such political division may indeed heighten the need for recognizing and promoting a shared constitutional common good, while, at the same time, preventing such an identification and pursuit of any such common good. What is needed is a way to disrupt this vicious circle. This Article is an illustration of the operation of this vicious circle and, more optimistically, a proffering of the means …

Marianist Law Schools: Demonstrating The Courage To Be Catholic, David A. Grenardo

Journal of Catholic Legal Studies

(Excerpt)

Only two Marianist law schools exist in the United States. Both University of Dayton School of Law (UDSL) and St. Mary’s University School of Law (St. Mary’s Law School) proudly embrace their Catholic and Marianist traditions in promoting their schools. For instance, St. Mary’s Law School, the only Catholic law school in Texas, openly advertises its commitment to welcome and serve “students of all faiths and uphold the Marianist tradition of hospitality, openness and the family spirit.” Similarly, UDSL’s online published materials state unequivocally: “In the Catholic, Marianist spirit, many of our students participate in pro bono activities and …

National Pork Is A Bibb Case, Not A Pike Case, Michael S. Knoll, Ruth Mason

All Faculty Scholarship

In October 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, a Ninth Circuit case out of California, dismissing a challenge to Proposition 12, which, inter alia, bans the sale of wholesome pork (without regard to where it was produced) from the offspring of breeding sows confined in a manner California voters consider “cruel.” National Pork thus puts the Court in the position of choosing between the often-criticized undue-burden strand of the dormant Commerce Clause and California’s request that the Court approve its ban on out-of-state pork not because of the products’ qualities, but …

A World Without Roe: The Constitutional Future Of Unwanted Pregnancy, Julie C. Suk

William & Mary Law Review

With the demise of Roe v. Wade, the survival of abortion access in America will depend on new legal paths. In the same moment that Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization has constrained access to abortion in the United States, other constitutional democracies have moved in the opposite direction, expanding access to safe, legal, and free abortions. They have done so without reasoning from Roe’s vision of the private zone of unwanted pregnancy. The development of abortion law outside the United States provides critical insights that can inform future efforts to vindicate the constitutional rights of women facing …

The Role Of Departments In The Design Of The Federal Government, Jack M. Beermann

Faculty Scholarship

Reviewing Blake Emerson,The Departmental Structure of Executive Power: Subordinate Checks from Madison to Mueller, 38 Yale J. Reg. 90 (2021)

Adherents to the unitary executive theory, which posits that the Constitution grants the President complete and absolute control over the execution of the law, claim that their view is required by the text of the Constitution, especially Article II’s vesting clause which proclaims that the “Executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” As Justice Scalia put it, “this does not mean some of the executive power, but all of the …

Taking Care With Text: "The Laws" Of The Take Care Clause Do Not Include The Constitution, And There Is No Autonomous Presidential Power Of Constitutional Interpretation, George Mader

Faculty Scholarship

“Departmentalism” posits that each branch of the federal government has an independent power of constitutional interpretation—all branches share the power and need not defer to one another in the exercise of their interpretive powers. As regards the Executive Branch, the textual basis for this interpretive autonomy is that the Take Care Clause requires the President to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” and the Supremacy Clause includes the Constitution in “the supreme Law of the Land.” Therefore, the President is to execute the Constitution as a law. Or so the common argument goes. The presidential oath to “execute …

Colorblind Capture, Jonathan Feingold

Faculty Scholarship

We are facing two converging waves of racial retrenchment. The first, which arose following the Civil Rights Movement, is nearing a legal milestone. This term or the next, the Supreme Court will prohibit affirmative action in higher education. When it does, the Court will cement decades of conservative jurisprudence that has systematically eroded the right to remedy racial inequality.

The second wave is more recent but no less significant. Following 2020’s global uprising for racial justice, rightwing forces launched a coordinated assault on antiracism itself. The campaign has enjoyed early success. As one measure, GOP officials have passed, proposed or …

Book Review: Kermit Roosevelt Iii, The Nation That Never Was: Reconstructing America's Story, Ainslee Johnson-Brown

ConLawNOW

This review summarizes the key thesis of the book, The Nation That Never Was, which argues for a reset of the Constitutional baseline of principles. The book argues that the Gettysburg Address should be considered a key part of modern constitutional guarantees of equality and liberty. The review explains this thesis, and notes the questions it leaves open.

Symposium: Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity & The Constitution: Love Is Love: The Fundamental Right To Love, Marriage, And Obergefell V. Hodges, Reginald Oh

ConLawNOW

Why is same-sex marriage a constitutional right of individual autonomy and dignity? Because of love. Based on a close reading of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, this essay will argue that Obergefell is best understood as an opinion about the centrality of love, not just marriage, for individual self-realization. It is love that helps make sense of Kennedy’s opinion. If love is not understood to be an essential aspect of Kennedy’s reasoning, then the opinion is rendered less coherent, emptied of much of its substance, and made vulnerable to critiques from both the right and …

Mitigation Works: Empircal Evidence Of Highly Aggravated Cases Where The Death Penalty Was Rejected At Sentencing, Russell Stetler, Maria Mclaughlin, Dana Cook

Hofstra Law Review

This Article updates data presented in this law review in 2018 documenting almost two hundred capital cases presenting serious aggravating circumstances where juries nonetheless chose life sentences. This updated Article adds more than four hundred new cases in the same highly aggravated categories to the total, which is now over six hundred cases. The new case lists, which do not purport to be exhaustive, further support the point that the effective investigation and presentation of mitigating evidence can forestall a death sentence no matter how death-worthy the crime facts may appear at first glance. Indeed, the empirical evidence presented here …

Grand Unified (Separation Of Powers) Theory: Examining The United States Marshals, Emile Katz

Pace Law Review

This Article examines a novel separation of powers issue that the Supreme Court has never directly addressed: the existence and practices of the United States Marshals. The United States Marshals serve an executive branch function—law enforcement—yet are often directly overseen and commanded by the judicial branch. In the United States federal government system—in which the executive and judicial branches are designed to act independently—the control the federal courts exercise over the marshals raises separation of powers concerns. Since no court has decided what test should apply when federal courts vicariously exercise executive power, this Article applies several separation of powers …

Make Pennsylvania Free Again, Margaret Riley

The Compass

The author created this paper for a class assignment testing students’ knowledge of constitutional law. The assignment was to write a legal brief addressing the constitutionality of a statewide mask mandate during the COVID-19 pandemic. COVID-19 is an airborne disease that can be transmitted from person to person up to six feet apart. The hypothetical facts provided for this brief were that a suit was filed in Pennsylvania state court by a group of individuals in opposition to the state’s mask mandate that was enacted to address the COVID-19 pandemic. The goal of this brief is to demonstrate knowledge of …

The Supreme Court Decisions On Guns And Abortion Relied Heavily On History. But Whose History?, Allison Orr Larsen

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Inherent Powers And The Limits Of Public Health Fake News, Michael P. Goodyear

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

In a Vero Beach, Florida, supermarket, Susan Wiles rode her motorized cart through the produce aisle. In any year other than 2020 or 2021, this would have been a routine trip to the grocery store. But in 2020, Mrs. Wiles was missing an accessory that had become ubiquitous in society during that year: a face mask. Despite causing a commotion, Mrs. Wiles stood by her decision, claiming that the concerns about COVID-19 were overblown: “I don’t fall for this. It’s not what they say it is.” Mrs. Wiles’ statement is emblematic of the year 2020. This is not the …

Some Observations On Separation Of Powers And The Wisconsin Constitution, Chad M. Oldfather

Marquette Law Review

In recent years the Wisconsin Supreme Court has decided several high- profile cases concerning the separation of powers under the state constitution. In the abstract, questions concerning the separation of powers do not seem inherently partisan, largely because the partisan balance of government will shift over time. Yet, as has been the case with many of its recent decisions, the justices’ votes have broken along what most observers regard as partisan lines, and the opinions have featured heated prose including accusations of result orientation and methodological illegitimacy.

The Constitutional (And Political) Safeguards Against Impeachment, Victoria Frances Nourse

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Will the Trump impeachments inspire a flurry of future presidential impeachments? Will the second Trump impeachment, which occurred after the President left office, spur impeachments of lesser, former government officials? These and other questions emerged during the 2022 Missouri Law Review Symposium and on the Senate floor during the Trump impeachment trials. I have argued that we can make an educated prognosis about these possibilities based on constitutional structure. I called this argument the “political safeguards” of impeachment in my recent book, The Impeachments of Donald Trump: An Introduction to Constitutional Argument. What I called political safeguards, invoking the …

Legalization Without Disruption: Why Congress Should Let States Restrict Interstate Commerce In Marijuana, Scott Bloomberg, Robert A. Mikos

Pepperdine Law Review

Over the past twenty-five years, states have developed elaborate regulatory systems to govern lawful marijuana markets. In designing these systems, states have assumed that the Dormant Commerce Clause (“DCC”) does not apply; Congress, after all, has banned all commerce in marijuana. However, the states’ reprieve from the doctrine may soon come to an end. Congress is on the verge of legalizing marijuana federally, and once it does, it will unleash the DCC, with dire consequences for the states and the markets they now regulate. This Article serves as a wake-up call. It provides the most extensive analysis to date of …

Presumptively Awful: How The Federal Government Is Failing To Protect The Constitutional Rights Of Those Adjudicated As Mentally Ill, As Illustrated By The 18 U.S.C. § 922(G)(4) Circuit Split, Kaitlyn M. Rubcich

Pepperdine Law Review

The Third, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits are split as to whether the 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4) federal firearms ban violates the Second Amendment rights of those who were once adjudicated as mentally ill but have since returned to good mental health. In Beers v. Attorney General, the Third Circuit applied its own unique framework and held that § 922(g)(4) is constitutional. Meanwhile, the Sixth Circuit applied intermediate scrutiny in Tyler v. Hillsdale County Sheriff’s Department and deemed the statute unconstitutional, while in Mai v. United States, the Ninth Circuit also applied intermediate scrutiny but held that § 922(g)(4) is constitutional. …

Vesting, Jed Handelsman Shugerman

Faculty Scholarship

"The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." The Executive Vesting Clause is one of three originalist pillars for the unitary executive theory, the idea that the President possesses executive powers like removal without congressional limitations (that is, the powers are indefeasible). An underlying assumption is that "vest" connotes a formalist approach to separation of powers rather than a more functional system of Madisonian checks and balances. Assumptions about "vesting" for official powers are likely the result of semantic drift from property rights and ahistoric projections back from the later Marshall Court doctrine …

Three Observations About Justice Alito's Draft Opinion In Dobbs - Commentary, John M. Greabe

Law Faculty Scholarship

[Excerpt] "There is much to say about Justice Samuel Alito's draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which was leaked from the United States Supreme Court on May 2 [2022].

Obviously, the most significant direct consequence of the proposed decision, which overrules Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) while upholding the constitutionality of a Mississippi law that outlaws most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, would be the restriction or elimination of abortion services throughout much of the nation. This will have all sorts of attendant consequences, large and smaller, many of which …

Yes, Alito, There Is A Right To Privacy: Why The Leaked Dobbs Opinion Is Doctrinally Unsound, Nancy C. Marcus

ConLawNOW

The Essay details how the primary premises underlying the leaked draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization regarding abortion rights are infirm as a matter of constitutional doctrine and precedent. It addresses the doctrinal infirmities of the underlying analysis of the draft Dobbs opinion, as well as the resulting dangers posed for the protection of fundamental privacy rights and liberties in contexts even beyond abortion. The draft Dobbs opinion bases its rationale for overruling Roe v. Wade on two deeply flawed premises. First, the opinion claims that abortion had not been a recognized enumerated right prior to Roe …

Nondelegation And Originalism, Jack M. Beermann

Faculty Scholarship

Originalism certainly isn’t what it used to be. From a fringe theory with few adherents it has, in recent decades, become the dominant conservative legal weapon deployed against nearly every liberal legal development since the dawn of the twentieth century, particularly the acceptance of the administrative state and the delegation of rulemaking power to agencies. Professor Kurt Eggert’s recent article adds to the mounting evidence that originalism is not a credible legal theory especially when deployed against Congress’s choices concerning the proper structure of the regulatory state.

Symposium: Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity & The Constitution: American Constitutions And Artificial Insemination Births, Jeffrey A. Parness

ConLawNOW

Childcare parentage issues arising from assisted reproduction births are subject to constitutional guidance, including due process, equal protection, and privacy dictates. Constitutional rights, however, sometimes go unrecognized in assisted reproduction laws, particularly for same sex couples, wed and unwed, as well as for single women. Upon a brief review of contemporary American state assisted reproduction laws, current and future constitutional precedents are explored. This analysis shows that constitutional, as well as public policy, reforms are particularly needed for same-sex female couples and single women employing assisted reproduction as intended parents.

Fundamental First Amendment Principles, David L. Hudson Jr., Jacob David Glenn

Northern Illinois University Law Review

First Amendment law is highly complex, even labyrinthine. But, there are fundamental principles in First Amendment law that provide a baseline for a core understanding. These ten fundamental principles are: (1) the First Amendment protects the right to criticize the government; (2) the First Amendment abhors viewpoint discrimination and often content, or subject-matter discrimination; (3) the First Amendment protects a great deal of symbolic speech or expressive conduct; (4) the First Amendment protects a great deal of offensive and even repugnant speech; (5) the First Amendment does not protect all forms of speech; (6) the First Amendment often depends upon …

The Demise Of The Bivens Remedy Is Rendering Enforcement Of Federal Constitutional Rights Inequitable But Congress Can Fix It, Henry Rose

Northern Illinois University Law Review

A federal statute allows a person whose federal constitutional rights are violated by state actors to sue for damages. There is no analogous federal statute that allows a person whose constitutional rights are violated by federal actors to sue for damages. In 1971, the United States Supreme Court allowed a suit for damages against federal law enforcement officials who allegedly violated Fourth Amendment rights to proceed directly under the Constitution, creating the Bivens remedy. Beginning in 1983, the Supreme Court reversed course and issued ten consecutive decisions in which it denied a Bivens remedy because no federal statute authorizes suits …

Originalism's Implementation Problem, Michael L. Smith, Alexander S. Hiland

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Despite the vast body of theoretical work produced by originalist scholars, this literature fails to address how practicing judges and attorneys should apply originalist theories. All too often, academic originalists appear to write for an audience of other originalist scholars. This results in lengthy, technical, and heavily theoretical discussions. The question of how courts and judges are to apply these increasingly technical and theoretical originalist methods is left by the wayside. All too often, judges and attorneys cherry-pick from this body of scholarship to create a veneer of academic legitimacy for their own goal-oriented arguments.

We do not seek to …

Symposium: Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, & The Constitution: Queer Black Trans Politics And Constitutional Originalsim, Marc Spindelman

ConLawNOW

Queer Black trans politics offer an important frame for understanding the current constitutional moment. This is a moment in which the Supreme Court’s newly enthroned constitutional originalist project is taking off in ways that have race, sex, sexuality, and trans equality rights in its sights. Thinking with queer Black trans politics—and, in particular, their demands for intersectionality and for centering Black trans lives—this Essay presents a distinctive topology of LGBTQ rights and their intersections with constitutional race and sex guarantees. It considers how a queer Black trans-focused intersectional thinking plays out, including in the context of reproductive rights, and traces …

Reckless Abandon: The Shadow Of Model Rule 8.4(G) And A Path Forward, Margaret Tarkington

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

In August 2016, the American Bar Association’s (“ABA”) Board of Governors approved Model Rule of Professional Conduct (“MRPC”) 8.4(g) as a model for state adoption. The Rule makes it professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in “harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status.” Curbing harassment and discrimination is a critically important goal. However, the actual Rule as promulgated reaches far beyond prohibiting sexual harassment and unlawful discrimination. Instead the comments to the Rule define discrimination and harassment broadly to prohibit speech …