Law Commons^™

Equilibrium, Adam Lamparello

Adam Lamparello

No abstract provided.

Something To Lex Loci Celebrationis: Federal Marriage Benefits Following United States V. Windsor, Meg Penrose

Meg Penrose

This article provides one of the first substantive treatments of United States v. Windsor, the Supreme Court's recent same-sex marriage case. The article's thesis proposes lex loci celebrationis (the place of marriage) as the proper method for determining marriage for federal law purposes. Failure to adopt lex loci celebrationis may violate the Fifth Amendment equal protection guarantee or the constitutional right to travel. Further, adoption of the lex loci celebrationis standard furthers marital stability and predictability.

Tocqueville’S Slow And Steady Democratic Order In Light Of Us V. Windsor: Same Sex Marriage, And The Dilemma Of Majority Tyranny, Federalism, And Equality Of Conditions, Harry M. Hipler

Harry M Hipler

Tocqueville is a reliable interpreter of contemporary American life. His ideas written in the 1830s still resonate today. Tocqueville’s democratic order in Democracy in America (DA) is a dynamic process of socialization and democratization that balances liberty, authority, and equality of the individual in the community in order to obtain social and political justice. The USSC in US v. Windsor ruled that Section 3 of DOMA violated the doctrine of federalism and state sanctioned same-sex marriage. The decision followed Tocqueville’s gradual and progressive development of social and political justice that is crucial to a sustainable democratic order. In my research …

Why Equal Protection Trumps Federalism In The Same-Sex Marriage Cases, Erin Ryan

Erin Ryan

Federalism is once again at the forefront of the Supreme Court’s most contentious cases this Term. The cases attracting most attention are the two same-sex marriage cases that were argued in March. Facing intense public sentiment on both sides of the issue and the difficult questions they raise about the boundary between state and federal authority, some justices openly questioned whether to just defer to the political process. And while this is often a wise prudential approach in review of contested federalism-sensitive policymaking, it’s exactly the wrong course of action when the matter under review is an individual right. This …

Conflicting Federal And State Medical Marijuana Policies: A Threat To Cooperative Federalism, Todd Grabarsky

Todd Grabarsky

The legal status of medical marijuana in the United States is something of a paradox. On one hand, federal government has placed a ban on the drug with no exceptions. On the other hand, over one-third of the states have that legalizes the cultivation, distribution, and consumption of the drug for medical purposes. As such, the usage of medical marijuana is an activity that is at the same time proscribed (by the federal government) and encouraged (by state governments through their systems of regulation and taxation). This Article seeks to shed light on this unprecedented nebulous zone of legality in …

Deciding Who Decides: Searching For A Deference Standard When Agencies Preempt State Law, John R. Ablan

John R Ablan

When a federal agency determines that the statute that it administers or regulations it has promulgated preempt state law, how much deference must a federal court give to that determination? In Wyeth v. Levine, the Supreme Court expressly declined to decide what standard of deference courts should apply when an agency makes a preemption determination pursuant to a specific congressional delegation to do so. Under this circumstance, this Article counsels against applying any single deference standard to an agency’s entire determination. Instead, it observes that preemption determinations are a complex inquiry involving questions of federal law, state law, and …

Why Justice Kennedy's Opinion In Windsor Short-Changed Same-Sex Couples, Adam Lamparello

Adam Lamparello

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s decision in United States v. Windsor—invalidating the Defense of Marriage Act—made the same mistake as his decision in Lawrence v. Texas: it relied upon abstract notions of ‘liberty’ rather than the text-based guarantee of equality. Same-sex couples deserve more. They are entitled to equal treatment under the United States Constitution. Bans on same-sex marriage cannot be supported by a rational state interest, and instead constitute impermissible discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. By issuing a doctrinally muddled decision that included discussions of federalism, liberty, due process, and equal protection, Justice Kennedy missed an …

Regulate/Mandate: Two Perspectives, John T. Valauri

John T. Valauri

The debate and litigation over the constitutionality of the individual mandate during the past few years has revealed an utter lack of consensus on the bench and in the academy concerning the scope of and limits on the congressional commerce power. The parties here are divided into two different camps and see questions and cases from opposing perspectives which color and frame their perception and understanding of the topic. One perspective is a dynamic take on the New Deal Settlement which sees Congress as possessing essentially unlimited legislative power over commerce. The other perspective freezes doctrine in place and accepts …

Teaching The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) Case, Corey A. Ciocchetti

Corey A Ciocchetti

The ObamaCare case is one of the most important Supreme Court decisions in modern time. Even though it contains detailed constitutional law issues and is nearly 200 pages long, the case can be taught to undergraduates. These slides help tell the story and can be used to teach the case as well as constitutional law issues such as: (1) enumerated powers, (2) preemption, (3) federalism and more.

Ending Judgment Arbitrage: Jurisdictional Competition And The Enforcement Of Foreign Money Judgments In The United States, Gregory Shill

Gregory Shill

Recent multi-billion-dollar damage awards issued by foreign courts against large American companies have focused attention on the once-obscure, patchwork system of enforcing foreign-country judgments in the United States. That system’s structural problems are even more serious than its critics have charged. However, the leading proposals for reform overlook the positive potential embedded in its design.

In the United States, no treaty or federal law controls the domestication of foreign judgments; the process is instead governed by state law. Although they are often conflated in practice, the procedure consists of two formally and conceptually distinct stages: foreign judgments must first be …

The Once And Future Challenges Of American Federalism: The Tug Of War Within, Erin Ryan

Erin Ryan

This essay is drawn from a lecture for the “Ways of Federalism” conference (University of the Basque Country, October 19, 2011) and a new book, "Federalism and the Tug of War Within" (Oxford, 2012) (http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Law/ConstitutionalLaw/?view=usa&ci=9780199737987), which explores how constitutional interpreters struggle to reconcile the core tensions within American federalism. The essay reviews the current challenges of the American federal system through the theoretical lens developed in the book, focusing on the role of state-federal bargaining within the U.S. federal system. It appears as a chapter in a book of selected conference proceedings, The Ways of Federalism in Western Countries and …

National Federation Of Independent Business V. Sebelius, Brannon P. Denning, Glenn H. Reynolds

Brannon P. Denning

Using our now-famous "Five Takes" format, Glenn Reynolds and I analyze NFIB v. Sebelius from five different perspectives: (1) Sebelius as Marbury; (2) Sebelius as Bakke; (3) Sebelius and the "legitimating" power of judicial review; (4) Sebelius as a Thayerian decision; and (5) Sebelius as part of some long game of Chief Justice Roberts'.