Law Commons^™

The Unconstitutionality Of Underfunded Public Defender Systems, Braden Daniels

Senior Honors Theses

When a defendant is ineffectively represented by a public defender due to an underfunded public defender system, a defendant whose public defender provides him only cursory representation is entitled to a new trial only if blatantly innocent. The U.S. Supreme Court should follow its precedent and declare systemically underfunded public defender systems unconstitutional, with cases meriting reversal when the underfunding is to blame for unreasonable attorney errors, regardless of prejudice. This stems logically from the Court’s holdings in Gideon v. Wainwright, Strickland v. Washington, and United States v. Cronic. Many have argued for the reversal or modification …

Fifty More Years Of Ineffable Quo? Workers’ Compensation And The Right To Personal Security, Michael C. Duff

All Faculty Scholarship

During the days of Covid-19, OSHA has been much in the news as contests surface over the boundaries of what risks of workplace harm are properly regulable by the federal government. Yet the original statute that created OSHA—the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970—was not exclusively concerned with front-end regulation of workplace harm. Just over fifty years ago, the same Act mandated an investigation of the American workers’ compensation system, which consists of a loose network of independent state workers’ compensation systems. The National Commission created by the Act to carry out the investigation issued a report of its …

Tax Treaties, The Constitution, And The Noncompulsory Payment Rule, Reuven S. Avi-Yonah

Law & Economics Working Papers

US Tax treaties have been regarded as self-executing since the first treaty (with France) was ratified in 1932. Rebecca Kysar has argued this raises a doubt on whether the treaties are constitutional, because tax treaties (like other treaties) are negotiated by the executive branch and ratified by the Senate with no involvement by the House, and all tax-raising measures must originate in the House under the Origination Clause (U.S. Const. Art I, section 7, clause 7). Her preferred solution is to make tax treaties non-self executing, but that would reverse the universal practice since 1932, and is therefore unlikely. Moreover, …

Is Gilti Constitutional?, Reuven S. Avi-Yonah

Law & Economics Working Papers

In this article, Avi-Yonah argues that the global intangible low-taxed income regime may be an unconstitutional attempt to tax the foreign-source income of foreign entities, and he offers an alternative.

Interstate Commerce In Cannabis, Robert Mikos

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

By the end of 2020, more than thirty states had legalized cannabis containing tetrahydrocannabinol ("THC") for at least some purposes.' Each of these states has authorized firms to produce and sell cannabis within its borders. In 2019, those state-licensed firms did a brisk business, selling more than $13 billion worth of cannabis.

However, none of that $13 billion of cannabis is now being sold (legally) across state lines. Instead, each legalization state now has its own, hermetically sealed local cannabis market, supplied entirely by cannabis cultivated and processed inside the state. For example, the $1.75 billion worth of cannabis that …

The Constitutionality Of Abortion, John M. Nerney

Senior Honors Theses

The purpose of this study is to determine whether abortion is constitutional under the Fourth Amendment. Essentially, the Supreme Court used what is known as the “right to privacy” which they created using the First, Fourth, Fifth and Ninth Amendments finding penumbras of the Bill of Rights, and in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment. This study addresses the history of the right to privacy and tries to show that the Supreme Court stretched the meaning of these Amendments beyond what the founders of the Constitution intended. This study analyzed the application of …

Tax Treaties, The Constitution, And The Noncompulsory Payment Rule, Reuven S. Avi-Yonah

Articles

US Tax treaties have been regarded as self-executing since the first treaty (with France) was ratified in 1932. Rebecca Kysar has argued this raises a doubt on whether the treaties are constitutional, because tax treaties (like other treaties) are negotiated by the executive branch and ratified by the Senate with no involvement by the House, and all tax-raising measures must originate in the House under the Origination Clause (U.S. Const. Art I, section 7, clause 7). Her preferred solution is to make tax treaties non-self executing, but that would reverse the universal practice since 1932, and is therefore unlikely. Moreover, …

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 …

How The Ada Regulates And Restricts Solitary Confinement For People With Mental Disabilities, Margo Schlanger

Other Publications

In a landmark decision two decades ago, United States District Judge Thelton Henderson emphasized the toxic effects of solitary confinement for inmates with mental illness. In Madrid v. Gomez, a case about California’s Pelican Bay prison, Judge Henderson wrote that isolated conditions in the Special Housing Unit, or SHU, while not amounting to cruel and unusual punishment for all prisoners, were unconstitutional for those “at a particularly high risk for suffering very serious or severe injury to their mental health . . . .” Vulnerable prisoners included those with pre-existing mental illness, intellectual disabilities, and brain damage. Henderson concluded that …

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 …

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 …

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 …

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 …

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.

Brief Of Political Scientists And Historians As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondent, National Labor Relations Board, Petitioner V. Noel Canning, No. 12-1281, United States Supreme Court (Nov. 25, 2013), David F. Forte, Hadley P. Arkes, Joseph M. Bessette, Nelson Lund, Jeremy A. Rabkin, Ralph A. Rossum

Law Faculty Briefs and Court Documents

The Recess Appointments Clause does not permit the unilateral appointments to the NLRB made by the President in this case. Those appointments - made during a three-day “intra-session” break when the Senate was meeting pro forma - are unique in the history of the Republic. They are also the culmination of unnecessary and inappropriate Executive overreaching. This overreaching has undermined a valuable Senate prerogative in a manner unfathomable to the Founders and inconsistent with the design of the Constitution.

The primary purpose of this brief is to show that adhering to the original meaning of the Recess Appointments Clause has …

The Promise Of Things To Come: Anticipatory Warrants In Texas, Gerald S. Reamey

Faculty Articles

While the U.S. Supreme Court has settled the question of the constitutionality of anticipatory search warrants, Texas has no statutory provision regulating the issuance of such warrants. Similarly, state appellate courts have contributed almost nothing to the question of whether such warrants are acceptable under Texas procedural law or, if they are, under what circumstances. As the use of such warrants grows in the state, these issues require attention. This article begins that discussion, reviewing existing law and proposing interpretations of current statutes as well as proposing others.

Bad News For Professor Koppelman: The Incidental Unconstitutionality Of The Individual Mandate, Gary S. Lawson, David Kopel

Faculty Scholarship

In "Bad News for Mail Robbers: The Obvious Constitutionality of Health Care Reform," Professor Andrew Koppelman concludes that the individual mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) is constitutionally authorized as a law "necessary and proper for carrying into Execution" other aspects of the PPACA. However, the Necessary and Proper Clause rather plainly does not authorize the individual mandate.

The Necessary and Proper Clause incorporates basic norms drawn from eighteenth-century agency law, administrative law, and corporate law. From agency law, the clause embodies the venerable doctrine of principals and incidents: a law enacted under the clause must …

The Mandatory Death Penalty And A Sparsely Worded Constitution, Jack Tsen-Ta Lee

Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law

It was not unexpected that the Singapore Court of Appeal would reaffirm the constitutionality of the mandatory death penalty for certain forms of drug trafficking in Yong Vui Kong v Public Prosecutor [2010] 3 S.L.R 489. ... The appellant made submissions based on Articles 9(1) and 12(1) of the Constitution, which respectively guarantee rights to life and personal liberty, and to equality before the law and equal protection of the law. This note examines aspects of the Article 9(1) arguments.

Partial Unconstitutionality, Kevin C. Walsh

Law Faculty Publications

Courts often hold legislation unconstitutional, but nearly always only part of the statute offends. The problem of partial unconstitutionality is therefore pervasive and persistent. Yet the exclusive doctrinal tool for dealing with this problem--severability doctrine-is deeply flawed. To make matters worse, severability doctrine is purportedly necessary for any workable system of judicial review. The accepted view is that severance saves: A court faced with a partially unconstitutional law must sever and excise the unconstitutional provisions or applications so that the constitutional remainder can be enforced going forward. Absent severance and excision, a law must fall in its entirety. This excision-based …

An Uncertain Future For Section 5 Of The Voting Rights Act: The Need For A Revised Bailout System, Christopher B. Seaman

Scholarly Articles

In Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder ("NAMUDNO"), 129 S. Ct. 2504 (2009), the Supreme Court declined to decide one of last Term's most prominent issues: the constitutionality of the 2006 renewal of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Instead, the Court adopted an unexpected statutory construction permitting the plaintiff to seek an exemption called "bailout" from continued coverage under this provision. But even though the Court avoided directly ruling on its constitutionality, NAMUDNO left little doubt that Section 5 remains on shaky constitutional ground. A revised bailout system is likely the best approach for placing …

Presidential Control Of The Elite "Non-Agency", Kimberly L. Wehle

All Faculty Scholarship

This article examines the constitutionality of legislation creating a new form of independent agency – in effect, a “non-agency” agency residing in the no-man’s land between Articles I and II of the Constitution. In the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, Congress established the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (“PCAOB” or “Board”) and endowed it with massive governmental powers while insulating it from traditional mechanisms for ensuring accountability. Congress deemed the PCAOB not an agency, rendered it substantially immune from judicial review, empowered Board members to set their own salaries and budget, and gave the embattled Securities and Exchange Commission – not the President …

The Constitutionality Of State And Local Laws Targeting Immigrants, Karla M. Mckanders

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

This paper addresses current immigration issues across the country, specifically in Arkansas, and how lawyers can seek to achieve social justice for immigrants. There currently has been a lot of activity and discussion surrounding state and local laws targeting immigrants. Central to this discussion has been whether states and localities are constitutionally permitted to enact immigration laws and whether state and local actions upset the current immigration system and how, if at all, their actions affect documented and undocumented immigrants' rights. When states and localities pass immigration related laws, the main concern is whether federal, state or local governments are …

The Early History Of The Colorado Court Of Appeals, Robert M. Linz, Claire E. Munger

Publications

No abstract provided.

"Failure To Pay Any Poll Tax Or Other Tax": The Constitutionality Of Tax Felon Disenfranchisement, Sloan G. Speck

Publications

If the government convicts a citizen under the tax evasion provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, some state disenfranchisement laws preclude that citizen — now a felon — from voting. In this sense, the right to vote depends on the payment of federal income taxes. The Constitution's Twenty-Fourth Amendment, however, guarantees that the federal franchise “shall not be denied or abridged... by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.” If “other tax” includes income taxes, the text of the Twenty-fourth Amendment appears to prohibit the disenfranchisement of citizens convicted of tax felonies. This Comment argues that …

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

Publications

No abstract provided.

Defining The Constitutional Question In Partisan Gerrymandering, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

Vieth v. Jubelirer is a significant setback to efforts to challenge partisan gerrymandering in court. Four members of the Supreme Court repudiated Davis v. Bandemer and concluded that partisan gerrymanders present a nonjusticiable question, while the fifth, Justice Kennedy, determined that the Court ought to "refrain from intervention" at this time, although he left open the hope that gerrymandering might become justiciable if the right standard of proving a gerrymander is ever found. Yet, strikingly, all nine members of the Supreme Court agreed that, justiciable or not, partisan gerrymanders do raise a constitutional question and some partisan gerrymanders are unconstitutional. …

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 …

The Employment Law Decisions Of The October 2000 Term Of The Supreme Court: A Review And Analysis, Ann C. Hodges

Law Faculty Publications

During the October 2000 Term, the Supreme Court delivered major setbacks for employees in Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, which upheld mandatory and binding arbitration of federal and state employment discrimination claims through arbitration clauses forced upon employees as a condition of employment, and in Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, which shielded state employers from federal court law suits brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act by victims of disability discrimination in employment. Employees escaped harm in Pollard v. E.I du Pont de Nemours & Co., in which the Court followed nearly unanimous circuit …