Law Commons^™

The National Popular Vote On Trial, Keaton Barnes

Arkansas Law Review

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the Peopl to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them …

An Overview Of Arkansas' Right-To-Farm-Law, L. Paul Goeringer, H. L. Goodwin

Journal of Food Law & Policy

In the1980s, state legislatures in all fifty states enacted statutes commonly referred to as "right-to-farm" laws. Arkansas enacted its right-to-farm law ("the Act") in 1981. While there are similarities, these laws differ from state-to-state. All right-to-farm laws provide agricultural producers with statutory defenses to nuisance challenges, subject to certain conditions. As one scholar has noted, right-to-farm laws are designed "to protect existing farm investments by reducing actions under nuisance law that enjoined agricultural activities." These laws also work to preserve farmland and protect established farmland from the pressures of urbanization, allowing "farmers to continue with their husbandry pursuits rather than …

Is Obamacare Really Unconstitutional?, Nicholas Bagley

Articles

On December 18, 2019, just 3 days after the close of open enrollment on the exchanges and on the same day the House of Representatives impeached President Donald Trump, a conservative appeals court handed the President a major victory in his crusade against the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Over a stern dissent, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit declared that the law’s individual mandate is unconstitutional and that the entire rest of the law might therefore be invalid.

Does The Attorney General Have A Duty To Defend Her Legislature’S Statutes? A Comment On The Reference Re Genetic Non-Discrimination Act, Andrew Martin

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

The Reference Re Genetic Non-Discrimination Act was unusual because the Attorney General for Canada argued that federal legislation was unconstitutional. In this comment, I explore the implications of this choice for the role of the Attorney General and her relationship with Parliament. I argue that the Attorney General has a duty not to defend legislation, including legislation that began as a private member’s bill, that she reasonably believes to be unconstitutional – and that if Parliament wants to defend such legislation, it should do so itself instead of relying on the Attorney General. If Parliament does not do so, the …

Trump's "Big-League" Tax Reform: Assessing The Impact Of Corporate Tax Changes, Ryan J. Clements

Michigan Business & Entrepreneurial Law Review

This Article reviews and assesses corporate tax reforms advocated by President Donald Trump during his presidential campaign and signed into law since taking office (the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017), in light of economic theory and the Modigliani-Miller Irrelevance Theorem. The Ar-ticle argues that companies will adapt polcies in light of new taxation mea-sures, thereby impacting the effectiveness of reform. In support of this conclusion, the Article surveys two empirical studies—one in relation to the repatriation efforts of President Bush’s Homeland Investment Act and an-other in relation to unexpected changes to the taxation of Canadian income trusts—to highlight …

Are Unions A Constitutional Anomaly?, Cynthia Estlund

Michigan Law Review

This term in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Ass’n, the Supreme Court will consider whether ordinary public employees may constitutionally be required to pay an “agency fee,” as a condition of employment, to the union that represents them in collective bargaining. The Court established the terms of engagement in the 2014 decision Harris v. Quinn, which struck down an agency fee on narrower grounds while describing the current doctrine approving agency fees, blessed many times by the Court itself, as an “anomaly.” This Article asks whether labor unions are themselves anomalies in our legal system, particularly in their constitutional entitlements. Its …

Delegating Tax, James R. Hines Jr., Kyle D. Logue

Michigan Law Review

Congress delegates extensive and growing lawmaking authority to federal administrative agencies in areas other than taxation, but tightly limits the scope of Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and Treasury regulatory discretion in the tax area, specifically not permitting these agencies to select or adjust tax rates. This Article questions why tax policy does and should differ from other policy areas in this respect, noting some of the potential policy benefits of delegation. Greater delegation of tax lawmaking authority would allow administrative agencies to apply their expertise to fiscal policy and afford timely adjustment to changing economic circumstances. Furthermore, delegation of the …

The Puzzling Presumption Of Reviewability, Nicholas Bagley

Articles

The presumption in favor of judicial review of agency action is a cornerstone of administrative law, accepted by courts and commentators alike as both legally appropriate and obviously desirable. Yet the presumption is puzzling. As with any canon of statutory construction that serves a substantive end, it should find a source in history, positive law, the Constitution, or sound policy considerations. None of these, however, offers a plausible justification for the presumption. As for history, the sort of judicial review that the presumption favors - appellate-style arbitrariness review - was not only unheard of prior to the twentieth century, but …

Enacted Legislative Findings And The Deference Problem, Daniel A. Crane

Articles

The constitutionality of federal legislation sometimes turns on the presence and sufficiency of congressional findings of predicate facts, such as the effects of conduct on interstate commerce, state discrimination justifying the abrogation of sovereign immunity, or market failures justifying intrusions on free speech. Sometimes a congressional committee makes these findings in legislative history. Other times, Congress recites its findings in a statutory preamble, thus enacting its findings as law. Surprisingly, the Supreme Court has not distinguished between enacted and unenacted findings in deciding how much deference to accord congressional findings. This is striking because the difference between enactedness and unenactedness …

Election Law's Lochnerian Turn, Ellen D. Katz

Articles

This panel has been asked to consider whether "the Constitution [is] responsible for electoral dysfunction."' My answer is no. The electoral process undeniably falls well short of our aspirations, but it strikes me that we should look to the Supreme Court for an accounting before blaming the Constitution for the deeply unsatisfactory condition in which we find ourselves.

The House Of Windsor: Accentuating The Heteronormativity In The Tax Incentives For Procreation, Anthony C. Infanti

Articles

Following the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Windsor, many seem to believe that the fight for marriage equality at the federal level is over and that any remaining work in this area is at the state level. Belying this conventional wisdom, this essay continues my work plumbing the gap between the promise of Windsor and the reality that heteronormativity has been one of the core building blocks of our federal tax system. Eradicating embedded heteronormativity will take far more than a single court decision (or even revenue ruling); it will take years of work uncovering the subtle …

Statutory Interdependence In Severability Analysis, Rachel J. Ezzell

Michigan Law Review

According to conventional wisdom, when a court rules a statutory provision unconstitutional, it must sever that provision or strike down the entire statute. This understanding is incomplete. In practice, courts may engage in compound severance: invalidating additional, otherwise constitutional provisions of the statute without striking down the entire statute. They reason that the degree of interrelation between those provisions is so significant that severance of one compels severance of the other. As a result, a subset of the statute remains law. The power to craft such subsets raises constitutional concerns, and yet the jurisprudence concerning statutory interdependence is inconsistent and …

The Constitutional Issues Surrounding The Science-Religion Conflict In Public Schools: The Anti-Evolution Controversy, Michael M. Greenburg

Pepperdine Law Review

Since the infamous Scopes trial the matter of the constitutional validity of the "anti-evolution" laws has plagued both legal scholars and school administrators. The courts have generally invalidated legislation which bans outright the teaching of evolution in public schools, but with the advent of the "balanced treatment" acts, a revival of this litigation has begun. The author examines the constitutional analysis utilized by the courts in dealing with the "anti-evolution" and "balanced treatment" acts and provides an historical perspective of the first amendment to question the Court's response to the issue.

Under The Influence Of California's New Drunk Driving Law: Is The Drunk Driver's Presumption Of Innocence On The Rocks? , Douglas Caiafa, A. Randall Farnsworth

Pepperdine Law Review

On January 1, 1982, the new California drunk driving law went into effect. This law makes it a crime to drive a motor vehicle where one's blood alcohol level is .10 or more. The law also marks a legislative attempt to curtail the practice of plea bargaining in drunk driving cases and significantly increases the penalties imposed upon those convicted of drunk driving. This Comment will discuss the provisions of the new drunk driving law and examine its constitutionality.

Wiretapping The Internet: The Expansion Of The Communications Assistance To Law Enforcement Act To Extend Government Surveillance, Christa M. Hibbard

Federal Communications Law Journal

Criminal use of the Internet to circumvent traditional government phone wiretaps has inspired the Obama Administration to create a proposal to expand the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act ("CALEA"). CALEA was passed in 1994 to regulate telephone and broadband companies to ensure compliance with standards to enable government wiretapping. The proposed amendment of CALEA would allow the government to require all communications service providers to meet technical standards necessary to comply with a wiretap order. The expansion of CALEA would likely widen its scope to social networking sites, instant messaging, gaming consoles that allow conversation among multiple players, and …

A "Pay Or Play" Experiment To Improve Children's Educational Television, Lili Levi

Federal Communications Law Journal

This Article addresses both the constitutionality and the efficacy of the FCC's current rules that require broadcasters to air children's educational programming. It argues that, even though the rules would probably pass muster under the First Amendment, they should nevertheless be substantially revised.

Empirical studies show mixed results, with substantial amounts of educationally insufficient programming. This is predictable-attributable to broadcaster incentives, limits on the FCC's enforcement capacities, and audience factors. Instead, the Article advises a turn away from programming mandates. It proposes a "pay or play" approach that allows broadcasters to pay a fee to a fund for high-quality public …

The Abolition Of The Death Penalty In New Jersey And Its Impact On Our Nation's "Evolving Standards Of Decency", Aaron Scherzer

Michigan Journal of Race and Law

In 2007, New Jersey became the first state in over forty years to abolish the death penalty legislatively. Twenty-five years earlier, in 1982, New Jersey had followed a state-level trend by reinstating its death penalty. However, during the twenty-five years between reinstatement and abolition, New Jersey did not conduct a single execution. Instead, the New Jersey Supreme Court reversed numerous death penalty cases and consistently narrowed the class of cases eligible for the death penalty. This Note posits that the supreme court's narrowing of eligible cases was one of the factors that prevented executions from taking place in New Jersey. …

The Juridical Structure Of Habitual Offender Laws And The Jurisprudence Of Authoritarian Social Control, Ahmed A. White

Publications

No abstract provided.

The Constitutionality Of An Executive Spending Plan, Paul E. Salamanca

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Operation of government in the absence of appropriations has become relatively common in the United States, particularly when projected expenses exceed projected revenue, making adoption of a budget a difficult task for the legislature. This Article focuses on the budget crisis in the Commonwealth of Kentucky from 2002 through 2003. In Part I, this Article recapitulates the history of the spending plan, including the action filed in Franklin Circuit Court to affirm its constitutionality. In Part II, this Article discusses certain theoretical, historical, and legal principles that inform analysis of the plan. In Part III, it considers certain deviations and …

Reinforcing Representation: Enforcing The Fourteenth And Fifteenth Amendments In The Rehnquist And Waite Courts, Ellen D. Katz

Articles

A large body of academic scholarship accuses the Rehnquist Court of "undoing the Second Reconstruction," just as the Waite Court has long been blamed for facilitating the end of the First. This critique captures much of what is meant by those generally charging the Rehnquist Court with "conservative judicial activism." It posits that the present Court wants to dismantle decades' worth of federal antidiscrimination measures that are aimed at the "reconstruction" of public and private relationships at the local level. It sees the Waite Court as having similarly nullified the civil-rights initiatives enacted by Congress following the Civil War to …

Federalism, Preclearance, And The Rehnquist Court, Ellen D. Katz

Articles

Lopez v. Monterey County is an odd decision. Justice O'Connor's majority opinion easily upholds the constitutionality of a broad construction of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) in language reminiscent of the Warren Court. Acknowledging the "substantial 'federalism costs" resulting from the VRA's "federal intrusion into sensitive areas of state and local policymaking," Lopez recognizes that the Reconstruction Amendments "contemplate" this encroachment into realms "traditionally reserved to the States." Justice O'Connor affirms as constitutionally permissible the infringement that the section 5 preclearance process "by its nature" effects on state sovereignty, and applies section 5 broadly, holding the statute …

Strike Two: An Analysis Of The Child Online Protection Act’S Constitutional Failures, Heather L. Miller

Federal Communications Law Journal

Congress's first attempt to regulate minors' access to sexually explicit material via the Internet failed. Congress responded with the Child Online Protection Act, which, despite its narrower scope, cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny. This Notes delves into the constitutionality of Congress's second attempt by addressing the difficulty of applying the vague "harmful to minors" definition to the Internet medium and the economic and technological unavailability of the Act's affirmative defenses. This Note concludes with an explanation as to why legislation is an ineffective mechanism to address the problem of minors' access to online pornography.

The Constitutionality Of The Driver’S Privacy Protection Act: A Fork In The Information Access Road, Angela R. Karras

Federal Communications Law Journal

The Driver's Privacy Protection Act, instituted in 1997, regulates the disclosure of personal information in motor vehicle records. New controversy surrounds it today as the U.S. Supreme Court evaluates the arguments presented in November 1999 regarding its constitutionality. A split among circuit courts, coupled with the tremendous growth in technology and subsequent new in-roads for information access, draw increased attention toward the Act. The concern for information access in light of the Act, however, reaches beyond the courts' elucidated concerns about dual sovereignty and the public's right to privacy. This Note argues that there is a forgotten argument: the Act's …

The Constitution, The White House, And The Military Hiv Ban: A New Threshold For Presidential Non-Defense Of Statutes, Chrysanthe Gussis

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The President's constitutional duty to 'take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" implies that the President is entrusted with the responsibility to defend those laws against court challenges. On occasion, however, Presidents faced with legislation that they deem unconstitutional have declined to defend that legislation against legal challenges. On February 10, 1996, President Clinton declined to defend a provision included in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 that required discharge from the military of all HIV-positive servicemembers because he believed that the provision violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This Note explores whether …

Doma: An Unconstitutional Establishment Of Fundamentalist Christianity, James M. Donovan

Michigan Journal of Gender & Law

According to the text of the Act, DOMA's purposes are "to define and protect the institution of marriage," where marriage is defined to exclude same-sex partners. To be constitutionally valid under the Establishment Clause, this notion that heterosexual marriages require "protection" from gay and lesbian persons must spring from a secular and not religious source. This Article posits that DOMA has crossed this forbidden line between the secular and the religious. DOMA, motivated and supported by fundamentalist Christian ideology, and lacking any genuine secular goals or justifications, betrays the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Independent Counsel And The Constitution, Harold H. Bruff

Publications

No abstract provided.

The Severability Of Legislative Veto Provisions: An Examination Of The Congressional Budget And Impoundment Control Act Of 1974, Steven W. Pelak

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Note examines the constitutionality of the legislative veto provision (section 1013(b)) in the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act, and discusses section 1013(b)'s and Title X's severability from the Act. Part I demonstrates that Chadha invalidates section 1013(b). Part II outlines the traditional severability doctrine. Part III proposes a refined model of the severability doctrine with which to resolve severability conflicts involving legislative veto provisions. Part IV applies the proposed severability model to the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act, and concludes that section 1O13(b)'s unconstitutionality requires that the entire Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act fall.

The Twentieth-Century Primacy Of Statutory Law, Albert Tate Jr.

Michigan Law Review

A Review of Dealing with Statutes by James Williard Hurst

Common Sense About The Age Of Statutes, Steve Macisaac

Michigan Law Review

A Review of A Common Law for the Age of Statutes by Guido Calabresi

The Constitutionality Of The 1972 Amendment To Title Vii's Exemption For Religious Organizations, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

This note will examine the constitutionality of the title VII exemption for religious associations, focusing on the extent to which the exemption is required by the free exercise clause and the extent to which it must be limited to avoid conflict with the establishment clause. The religion clauses will be considered solely in the context of the private business sector; this note will not consider the possibility that the establishment clause would require a narrower exemption for a quasi-public institution, such as a broadcast licensee or a religious association receiving public funds.