Law Commons^™

You Had One Job: The Supreme Court's New Chance To Fix The Constitutional Law Of Sentencing Factfinding, Benjamin J. Priester

Faculty Articles

Four decades after the enactment of the federal Sentencing Reform Act, one might expect a settled consensus to have emerged addressing the constitutional constraints on implementing norms such as predictability, consistency, and uniformity in the imposition of criminal punishment in the United States. In reality, the United States Supreme Court has failed to provide stability or clarity in the doctrinal principles implicated in millions of criminal cases nationwide. Spanning a quarter century, the Apprendi v. New Jersey line of cases has featured narrow or fragmented majorities, significant concurring opinions, and multiple instances of individual justices either overtly admitting to changing …

Historical Tradition, The Second Amendment, And Marrying Gun Rights And Regulation: Examining The Proposals In Gavin Newsom's Twenty-Eighth Amendment And Their Place In Second Amendment Jurisprudence, Guy Cheatham

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

In September 2017, Stephen Paddock checked into rooms 32-134 and 32- 135 at the Mandalay Bay Hotel in Las Vegas. Both rooms looked over the Route 91 Festival in Las Vegas Village. Over the course of five days, Paddock brought twenty-two suitcases into his room: five on September 25th, seven on the 26th, two on the 28th, six on the 30th, and two on October 1st. On September 30th, Paddock placed “Do Not Disturb” signs on the doors of rooms 32-134 and 32-135. Paddock considered booking the high level suites for weeks; Google searches from May to September 2017 reveal …

Climate Change And Constitutional Overreach, Jonathan H. Adler

Faculty Publications

The failure of the political process to produce meaningful climate mitigation policies has encouraged activists to pursues aggressive and innovative litigation strategies. An increasing number of climate-related lawsuits seek to control greenhouse gas emissions, impose liability on fossil fuel producers, or otherwise force greater action on climate change. In many of these cases, litigants have made aggressive constitutional claims that stretch the bounds of existing constitutional doctrine and threaten to entrench climate policies outside of the traditional political process. This Article critically assesses some of the constitutional arguments made in climate cases, including Massachusetts v. EPA and Juliana v. U.S. …

Can The Law Of Democracy Save Democracy?, Helen L. Norton

Publications

No abstract provided.

History's Identity Crisis, Allison Orr Larsen

Faculty Publications

Lower court judges across the country are struggling to manage the Supreme Court’s new “history and tradition” test that applies to Second Amendment challenges. This Article articulates one fundamental reason for the struggle: nobody is quite sure what a judge is actually doing when she evaluates claims about what happened in the past. Is it traditional legal reasoning— weighing evidence and looking for patterns? Is it fact-finding of the sort we think expert historians should testify about—conveying to a trial judge the best evidence we have about the purpose of colonial gun laws? Or is it a different sort of …

Rules And Laws For Civil Actions 2026, Stella Burch Elias, Derek T. Muller, Jason Rantanen, Caroline Sheerin, Maya Steinitz

Books

Rules and Laws for Civil Actions is an open-access resource for law students containing the U.S. Constitution, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Federal Rules of Evidence, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, and selected federal and state statutes. The book was created by a team of faculty members at the University of Iowa College of Law to supplement the study of Civil Procedure, Evidence, Constitutional Law, and other law school courses. In addition to containing the official text, each legal source found in Rules and Laws for Civil Actions is accompanied by an introductory section written by an Iowa Law professor …

Resisting Federal Preemption, Desiree Leclercq

Scholarly Works

One of the most pressing issues in constitutional law is how states may—and should—resist federal preempting laws and policies with which they disagree. It’s a problem faced by red and blue states alike in an age of extreme political polarization. Despite having legitimate reasons to resist the federal government on matters that affect local citizens and interests, states seem to have few options. Conventional wisdom is that they engage in either direct resistance through litigation that challenges the constitutionality of preempting laws, or evasion by quietly enacting arguably non-compliant laws hoping to avoid enforcement. Both strategies adopt a belligerent stance …

Is Originalism Bullshit?, Michael L. Smith

Lewis & Clark Law Review

It’s finally time to answer the big question. This Article draws on the surprisingly robust literature examining the definition, essence, and significance of bullshit and evaluates whether originalist constitutional interpretation fits the bill. I begin with Harry Frankfurt’s definition of bullshit as utterances made in pursuit of the speaker’s goals without regard for their truth value. I also rely on alternate formulations, including bullshit as unclarifiable nonsense as well as contextual and audience-centric variations of bullshit.

While not all instances of originalism are bullshit, I identify those instances which are, and go on to demonstrate that originalism is uniquely prone …

State Constitutional Duty And Public Employee Speech, Scott R. Bauries

Georgia Law Review

Public employees do not sacrifice their constitutional rights by accepting public employment, but the doctrines surrounding public employee constitutional rights present a unique amalgam of rights and duties. Nowhere is this amalgam clearer than in the doctrine of public employee free speech. Under the federal Constitution’s First Amendment, public employees, notwithstanding their government roles, may speak out as citizens on matters of public concern, and any restrictions a government employer places on that speech must be justified by compelling workplace concerns that outweigh the speech interests of the employee and the interests of the public in access to relevant information. …

The Inadequacy Of Perpetuating Vestiges Of Segregation In K-12 Curriculum: The Justiciability Of Reviewing Duties To Adequacy In Florida's Education Clause, Soumya Sreerama

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

Although the Supreme Court declared segregation the most abusive affront to education and ruled to eliminate vestiges of segregation “root and branch,” those same roots have grown unchecked to remain prominent today. One of the undercurrents of state-sponsored discrimination that has escaped desegregation remedies is the skewed, whitewashed curriculum that permeated K-12 classrooms in Jim Crow America. More troubling, is that those vestiges of an inadequately biased curriculum are still slithering in students’ courses today. Although student movements and education reformists have attempted to counter skewed curricula by supplementing them with separate ethnic studies courses, states like Florida recently passed …

From The Kkk To The Modern Day: How An Accurate Understanding Of History Can Inform The Proper Standard For Punishing Civil Rights Conspiracies Under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), Bair Srivastav

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

Following the Civil War, Congress passed the Reconstruction Amendments, which secured political rights for newly freed slaves and ushered in a new era for the United States. The Union defeated white Southerners on the battlefield and removed former Confederates from the halls of political power. But white Southerners were still Confederates in spirit. Full of racial hatred, they did not perceive a new era of freedom, but a world twisted into an unnatural order where African Americans walked freely amongst white people and participated in the political process of Southern society. In response to the extension of basic freedoms to …

The Warrant Exception That Isn't Fisa Section 702, "Defensive" Searches, And The Fourth Amendment, Noah C. Chauvin

American University Law Review

Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act allows the government to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance of non-Americans who are located overseas. Although the surveillance targets foreigners, Americans’ communications are “incidentally” collected, too. Once the government has acquired Americans’ communications, court-approved rules allow it to conduct warrantless searches for and through them in its Section 702 databases. Intelligence agencies have used these rules to turn this foreign intelligence program into a domestic spying tool, conducting tens of thousands of warrantless “backdoor” searches for Americans’ private communications obtained under Section 702 every year.

Section 702 periodically sunsets; Congress most recently reauthorized …

Pozen And The Puzzle Of Counterfactuals, Louis Michael Seidman

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Constitution and the War on Drugs, David Pozen’s carefully researched and brilliantly argued book, is both illuminating and disturbing: illuminating because it unearths forgotten moments when judicially formulated constitutional doctrine that could have ended or sharply restricted the War on Drugs were well within the Overton Window, and disturbing because it surfaces hard questions about historical contingency and the scope of the change that might have occurred in a counterfactual world. In this review, the author argues that the failure to specify both the nature of the counterfactual and the breadth of the alternative possibility have confused discussions …

Sabbath Accommodations As A Civil Right: History, Title Vii, And The Path To Groff V. Dejoy, Isaac May

FIU Law Review

In Groff v. DeJoy, which concerned a Christian Sabbath observer, Jewish groups were vindicated by the Court’s overturning Hardison v. Transworld Airlines and strengthening Title VII’s protections for religion, particularly around employees’ Sabbath observance. This article positions Groff within the history of Jewish efforts to secure employment protections for Sabbath worship. Efforts to secure Sabbath accommodations were an outgrowth and expansion of early twentieth-century efforts to ensure Jews were protected by public accommodation laws and a product of attempts by litigators such as Leo Pfeffer to end mandatory Sunday closing laws in the mid-twentieth century. Sabbath accommodations became a critical …

The Civil Jury Trial Clause Of The Seventh Amendment, Renée Lettow Lerner

GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works

This essay discusses the Civil Jury Trial Clause—also known as the Preservation Clause—of the Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I provide background on English civil jury practice in common-law courts in the late eighteenth century and distinguish it from equity practice in the Court of Chancery. The essay describes Blackstone’s praise for the civil jury as well as the role the civil jury played in the events leading up to the American Revolution. The question of a federal constitutional right to civil jury trial provoked heated disputes in the Philadelphia Convention and the ratification debates. The ratification debates featured …

The Re-Examination Clause Of The Seventh Amendment, Renée Lettow Lerner

GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works

This essay discusses the origins, history, and current interpretation of the Re-examination Clause of the Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. As Justice Joseph Story declared, the Re-examination Clause is separate from the right to civil jury trial in the Amendment’s Preservation Clause. The Re-examination Clause states that no fact tried by a jury shall be “re-examined” in federal court except by the rules of “the common law.” This provision had no counterpart in the state constitutions. The essay explains the methods of review of jury verdicts in English common-law courts in the late eighteenth century, focusing on the remedy …

Original Discontent, William Magnuson

Vanderbilt Law Review

There are many theories of constitutional interpretation. Most, but not all, assert that, in interpreting the U.S. Constitution’s provisions, we should start by taking seriously the intentions of the enactors, meaning, roughly speaking, its drafters, defenders, and ratifiers. This Article argues that, in doing so, judges, scholars, and policymakers have underestimated an important feature of the process of constitution-making: the discontent of the enactors themselves with the Constitution they were enacting. Time and again, during the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, during the penning of the Federalist Papers, and during the state ratifying conventions, the enactors expressed deep reservations about the …

The Endorsement Test's Early Years, 1983-1985: Notes From The O'Connor Files, Jay D. Wexler

Faculty Scholarship

One of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s signature contributions to U.S. constitutional law was the endorsement test, a subtle but critically important reformulation of the Court’s then prevailing approach to applying the Establishment Clause that focused on the message sent by government action supporting religion and the potentially harmful effects of that message on religious minorities and the political community. Now that the current Court has discarded the endorsement test, leaving the government freer than ever to support religion in a variety of ways, we should expect to see the harms that Justice O’Connor cared about become increasingly widespread and prevalent. …

Manifesting A Shift In The "Overton Window": The Threat Of Project 2025 On The Lgbtq+ Community In Higher Education, Athena M. King, Sara Sanatkar

Political Science & Geography Faculty Publications

Since the first Trump administration, historically marginalized groups in the United States have been subjected to greater instances of bigotry and discrimination due to conservative influence on sociopolitical institutions. These actions suggest a shift in the "Overton Window," whereby policy preferences previously deemed "unacceptable" are given consideration in the mainstream, especially by conservative policy actors. "Project 2025" is a comprehensive plan to restructure the federal government according to conservative dictates in the second Trump administration. This article is an examination of how higher education may be impacted by this plan, especially as it relates to LGBTQ+ faculty, administration, staff, and …

A Constitutional Right To Exclude Evidence, Colin Miller

Texas A&M Law Review

The Supreme Court has held that criminal defendants have a constitutional right to introduce evidence and a constitutional right to receive evidence, but it has never recognized a constitutional right to exclude evidence. Specifically, the Supreme Court has issued numerous rulings finding that the Due Process Clause demands that (1) defendants have the right to present a defense that trumps the rules of evidence; (2) the prosecution must disclose material exculpatory evidence to the defense; (3) the State has certain duties to preserve evidence so that it can be disclosed to the defense; and (4) any discovery obligations on defendants …

State V. Sweatt: An Examination Of The Current Confusion In Fourth Amendment Standing, John Archer Hobson

Maine Law Review

In State v. Sweatt the Maine Law Court held that an owner of gems being sold on consignment in a third party's store has standing under the fourth amendment to contest the seizure of the gems. The movants in Sweatt were the targets of several police searches during October and November of 1980. During these searches the police seized tourmaline gemstones which were alleged to have been stolen from Dale Sweatt's former business partner, and miscellaneous personal items belonging to the Sweatts. Subsequently, the Sweatts moved for suppression and return of all these articles. The superior court granted the movants' …

Stewart V. Inhabitants Of Durham: An Exclusionary Purpose Ignored, Peter Alexander Meyer

Maine Law Review

Exclusionary zoning of mobile homes has become an increasingly important issue in Maine because of escalating costs of conventional housing and rising unmet housing needs. Although towns may regulate mobile home or any other housing use in order to foster public health, safety, morals, or general welfare, they may not enact a zoning ordinance to exclude people of lower income in an attempt to avoid the "increased governmental costs and the stresses upon public services which generally accompany such an incursion." In Stewart v. Inhabitants of Durham, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court was confronted with an exclusionary purpose in a …

Religious Beliefs, Unemployment Benefits, And Constitutional Choices: Flynn V. Maine Employment Security Commission, Mary Ann Lynch

Maine Law Review

The last decade has seen a growing number of individuals adopt fundamentalist, "born-again" Christianity. For these people, religion requires more than observance of a sabbath, weekly services, or financial commitment. Fundamentalist religion often requires its adherents to spread their religious beliefs with missionary zeal. Religion may be a constant preoccupation and as such, is brought into the work place. Thus, there is potential for conflict between the needs and demands of employers and the exercise of one's religion. While the free exercise clause of the first amendment may not always provide protection for employees against employers' requirements, it nevertheless serves …

Constitutional Issues Raised By The Civil-Criminal Dichotomy Of The Maine Oui Law, Bruce W. Smith

Maine Law Review

Moving to the forefront of a national trend, the Maine Legislature undertook a thorough reform of its operating under the influence (OUI) law in 1981. The new statute was billed "the toughest in the nation," largely because of a provision for mandatory prison sentences. The statute's most radical provision is not the mandatory prison term, however, but a section which gives prosecutors the option to treat less egregious first offenses as civil infractions rather than crimes. The section generates the broad issue addressed by this Comment: may trial by jury and other constitutional protections formerly afforded OUI defendants be denied …

Maine's Iolta Proposal: A Source Of Supplemental Funding For Legal Services, J. Gordon Scannell Jr.

Maine Law Review

Lawyers often hold certain client funds for short periods of time. Generally, those funds must be kept separate from funds belonging to the lawyer or law firm. Occasionally the clients' funds are deposited in individual, interest bearing accounts and the interest generated is credited to the particular client, but more often the amount or length of the deposit does not warrant the opening of an individual account and the funds are aggregated in a general, noninterest bearing trust account. A number of states have implemented programs, commonly referred to as Interest on Lawyers' Trust. Accounts (IOLTA), which allow attorneys to …

The Primacy Method Of State Constitutional Decisionmaking: Interpreting The Maine Constitution, Glen S. Goodnough

Maine Law Review

The past fifteen years have witnessed the steady growth of both the theory and practice of state constitutional law. Initial inquiry focused on whether state supreme courts should provide their residents more expansive substantive and procedural rights under their state constitutions than required by United States Supreme Court interpretations of the federal Constitution. Given the plethora of state constitutional decisions expanding rights beyond the federally required minimum, or "floor," it is apparent that a large number of state supreme courts have settled the question of whether they will in fact interpret their state constitutions in such a manner. Nevertheless, lingering …

Originalism's Selection Problem, Darrell A.H. Miller

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Essay examines the problem of selection with any originalist theory and what it means for constitutional adjudication. Part I surveys the major branches of originalism, explains how each share a commitment to the pursuit of objective, knowable, falsifiable fact, and then use that fact as a fixed point to constrain discretion. Part II discusses how each of these theories are vulnerable to methodological challenges familiar to all empirical projects. Part III explores the implications of these methodological challenges for originalism in particular and for constitutional doctrine and theory more generally.

This abstract has been taken from the author's introduction.

We Are All Cafeteria Originalists Now (And We Always Have Been), Jack M. Balkin

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In Memory and Authority, I argue that Americans, both in politics and in constitutional culture, are "‘cafeteria originalists.’ They pick and choose when to follow the views of the founders, framers, or adopters (as they understand them) and often artfully recharacterize these principles to support contemporary political and legal arguments.” Like customers in a cafeteria who take the chocolate cake and leave the boiled kale, Americans pick the features of the framers they like to support their arguments, and leave other, less savory, features behind.

[...]

My central claim is that cafeteria originalism is not a pathology or a …

The Griffin's Case Phenomenon And The Problem Of Historical Knowledge In Legal Arguments, Rachel A. Shelden

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The sudden relevance of a formerly little-known historic case is surely not new; much of legal history is necessarily about discovery and rediscovery of the past. Still, I think the clarity with which we can outline the development of the Griffin’s Case phenomenon offers an opportunity to think carefully about the role of history in constitutional conversation. What follows, then, is a short exploration of the case’s recent (re)entry into our historical consciousness. Tracing this phenomenon highlights (at least for me) some potential difficulties embedded in the interaction between legal advocacy and what we know about the past.

This abstract …

Memory, Resistance, And Doubt, Richard Primus

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The Burroughs Court did not identify any enumerated power that warranted the Corrupt Practices Act, I suggest, because the Burroughs Court did not subscribe to the enumeration principle. The Justices did not believe—or at least, did not consistently believe— that every federal law must be grounded in some enumerated power. As I have explained at length elsewhere, the text of the Constitution does not actually prescribe the enumeration principle: it can be read to support that idea, but it need not be. And at various moments in American constitutional history, judges and other people have taken the view that Congress …