Law Commons^™

Judicial Ethics In The Confluence Of National Security And Political Ideology: William Howard Taft And The “Teapot Dome” Oil Scandal As A Case Study For The Post-Trump Era, Joshua E. Kastenberg

St. Mary's Law Journal

Political scandal arose from almost the outset of President Warren G. Harding’s administration. The scandal included corruption in the Veterans’ Administration, in the Alien Property Custodian, but most importantly, in the executive branch’s oversight of the Navy’s ability to supply fuel to itself. The scandal reached the Court in three appeals arising from the transfer of naval petroleum management from the Department of the Navy to the Department of the Interior. Two of the appeals arose from President Coolidge’s decision to rescind oil leases to two companies that had funneled monies to the Secretary of the Interior. A third appeal …

The Militia: A Definition And Litmus Test, Marcus Armstrong

St. Mary's Law Journal

The United States Supreme Court, in its decision in Perpich v. Department of Defense, ruled that members of the National Guard are “troops” as that word is used in the Constitution. In doing so, the Court negated a long-standing, but obsolete, definition of the militia. However, this move away from an obsolete definition of the militia posed considerable difficulties that the Court was unable to rectify in its Perpich decision. In this Article, the author hopes to help rectify these difficulties by proposing four necessary characteristics that define the militia: first, the militia is a military force; second, the …

The President, Foreign Policy, And War Powers: A Survey On The Expansion And Setbacks Of Presidential Power, Michael W. Wilt

Channels: Where Disciplines Meet

How powerful is the President of the United States in the arena of foreign policy? This question has opened many discussions, and hotly contested debates as to the extent of the president’s actual power. To make matters more complicated, the United States’ foreign policy has developed and evolved over the course of the United States’ more than two-hundred years history. These foreign policy concerns and international conflicts have mired the presidency into debates and consistent trials over the constitutional extent of the presidency, specifically concerning presidential war powers. Moreover, the Presidents have varied in their approaches to each of these …

John Quincy Adams Influence On Washington’S Farewell Address: A Critical Examination, Stephen Pierce

Undergraduate Research

John Quincy Adams is seen by the American public today as a failed one-term president. When one starts to see his diplomatic work and his service in Congress, however, he becomes one of the most important figures in American history. The diplomatic historian Samuel Flagg Bemis was in 1944 the first historian to suggest that Adams’ early writings influenced Washington’s Farewell Address. He looked through some of Adams’ early published writings and concluded that it was, “Conspicuous among the admonitions of the Farewell Address are: (1) to exalt patriotically the national words, America, American, Americans; (2) to beware of foreign …

Fire, Aim, Ready! Militarizing Animus: “Unit Cohesion” And The Transgender Ban, Eric Merriam

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

President Trump’s currently litigated “transgender ban,” which excludes transgender persons from military service, is premised in part upon a claim that transgender persons’ presence in the military adversely affects “unit cohesion.” This use of identity- based “unit cohesion” as a justification for excluding a group from military service is the latest episode in a long history of the government asserting “unit cohesion” to justify excluding people from military service based on their identities. This Article contends that unit cohesion, when premised on identity, is always an impermissible justification for exclusion from military service because it is unconstitutional animus. Though …

Why Federal Courts Apply The Law Of Nations Even Though It Is Not The Supreme Law Of The Land, Anthony J. Bellia, Bradford R. Clark

Journal Articles

We are grateful to the judges and scholars who participated in this Symposium examining our book, The Law of Nations and the United States Constitution. One of our goals in writing this book was to reinvigorate and advance the debate over the role of customary international law in U.S. courts. The papers in this Symposium advance this debate by deepening understandings of how the Constitution interacts with customary international law. Our goal in this Article is to address two questions raised by this Symposium that go to the heart of the status of the law of nations under the Constitution. …

Prosecuting The War On Terror In The Trump Administration: The Trump Doctrine: Is There Really A New Sheriff In Town, Jeffrey F. Addicott

Faculty Articles

After one full year in office, it is time to examine the actions taken by the Trump Administration in light of its legal and policy structures for dealing with the War on Terror and the companion problem of radical Islamic terrorism-both the domestic and international threat. In this context, two general concepts bear examination. First, is there a significant change in the Trump Administration from the policies of the Bush and Obama Administrations vis a vis prosecuting the War on Terror and dealing with domestic jihadists? Second, has the Trump strategic vision and attendant actions contributed in any significant way …

The Constitution And National Security, Erwin Chemerinsky

Erwin Chemerinsky

No abstract provided.

Presidential Powers Including Military Tribunals In The October 2005 Term, Erwin Chemerinsky

Erwin Chemerinsky

No abstract provided.

Examining The Civil-Military Divide Through New (Institutional) Lenses: The Influence Of The Supreme Court, Allen Linken

Doctoral Dissertations

Civil-military relations have existed for as long as there has been a military, but only in the last sixty years has research in the field began to examine the relationships between civilian elites and the military. Who controls the military? What level of influence by the military is acceptable in a liberal society, such as the United States? What is the appropriate role of the military? Who serves in the military? What pattern of civil-military relations best ensures the effectiveness of the military instrument?

The study of these questions began with examining relationships between the military and the President, and …

Law Of War Developments Issue Introduction, David Glazier

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Ndaa, Aumf, And Citizens Detained Away From The Theater Of War: Sounding A Clarion Call For A Clear Statement Rule, Diana Cho

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

In the armed conflict resulting from the September 11 attacks, the executive authority to order the indefinite detention of citizens captured away from the theater of war is an issue of foreign and domestic significance. The relevant law of armed conflict provisions relevant to conflicts that are international or non-international in nature, however, do not fully address this issue. Congress also intentionally left the question of administrative orders of citizen detainment unresolved in a controversial provision of the 2012 version of the annually-enacted National Defense Authorization Act. While plaintiffs in Hedges v. Obama sought to challenge the enforceability of NDAA’s …

Liberty, Security, And Judicial Review In The War On Terror: An Analysis Of Supreme Court Approaches To Deference In A Post-9/11 Context, Jacob Oppler

Senior Independent Study Theses

In times of war, the government acts to suppress threats to national security, often curtailing or restricting American civil liberties. Over the course of American history, the Supreme Court has reviewed this legal conflict between civil liberties and national security policies during war. Scholars generally observe the Court’s judicial review as deferential to the government. The War on Terror presents new and different challenges to American civil liberties. While this legal conflict has emerged again under the conditions of a war against terrorism, the war itself is markedly unlike past wars in American history. This research seeks to explain how …

Presidential Powers Including Military Tribunals In The October 2005 Term, Erwin Chemerinsky

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Deference Or Abdication: A Comparison Of The Supreme Courts Of Israel And The United States In Cases Involving Real Or Perceived Threats To National Security, Eileen Kaufman

Eileen Kaufman

The Supreme Courts of Israel and the United States treat cases involving national security radically differently, or so it appears on the surface. The fact that the two courts make very different use of justiciability doctrines dramatically affects their willingness to decide “war on terrorism” cases that challenge aspects of national security programs as violative of individual rights. On the surface, the approaches of the two courts thus appear to be radically different, and indeed they are, at least with respect to their willingness to hear and decide cases in “real time” and in terms of their willingness to embrace …

The United States Supreme Court Rulings Of Detention On "Enemy Combatants" - Partial Vindication Of The Rule Of Law, Douglass Cassel

Douglass Cassel

No abstract provided.

Due Process In American Military Tribunals After September 11, 2001, Gary Shaw

Gary M. Shaw

The Authorization for Use of Military Force ("AUMF") provides broad powers for a president after September 11, 2001. President Bush, under the AUMF, claimed he had the power to hold "enemy combatants" without due process. This gave rise to two questions that the article addresses: "Could they be held indefinitely without charges or proceedings being initiated? If proceedings had to be initiated, what process was due to the defendants?"

Legal Affairs: Dreyfus, Guantánamo, And The Foundation Of The Rule Of Law, David Cole

Touro Law Review

Analogous to the Dreyfus affair, America's reaction to the events of September 11, 2001, subverted the rule of law to impose penalties on those it viewed as a threat. There are lessons to be learned from both the Dreyfus affair and America's reaction to September 11, 2001.

The Constitution And National Security, Erwin Chemerinsky

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Deference Or Abdication: A Comparison Of The Supreme Courts Of Israel And The United States In Cases Involving Real Or Perceived Threats To National Security, Eileen Kaufman

Scholarly Works

The Supreme Courts of Israel and the United States treat cases involving national security radically differently, or so it appears on the surface. The fact that the two courts make very different use of justiciability doctrines dramatically affects their willingness to decide “war on terrorism” cases that challenge aspects of national security programs as violative of individual rights. On the surface, the approaches of the two courts thus appear to be radically different, and indeed they are, at least with respect to their willingness to hear and decide cases in “real time” and in terms of their willingness to embrace …

Due Process In American Military Tribunals After September 11, 2001, Gary Shaw

Touro Law Review

The Authorization for Use of Military Force ("AUMF") provides broad powers for a president after September 11, 2001. President Bush, under the AUMF, claimed he had the power to hold "enemy combatants" without due process. This gave rise to two questions that the article addresses: "Could they be held indefinitely without charges or proceedings being initiated? If proceedings had to be initiated, what process was due to the defendants?"

Snyder V. Phelps: The Destruction Of The Equilibrium Between The Right To Free Speech And The Right To Protection From It, Stewart Berkeley

University of Miami National Security & Armed Conflict Law Review

No abstract provided.

Snyder V. Phelps: Finding The Light At The End Of The Tort, Brendan Mackesey

University of Miami National Security & Armed Conflict Law Review

No abstract provided.

Snyder V. Phelps: The Demise Of Constitutional Avoidance, Emily Horowitz

University of Miami National Security & Armed Conflict Law Review

No abstract provided.

Veterans Benefits In 2010: A New Dialogue Between The Supreme Court And The Federal Circuit, Paul Gugliuzza

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court rarely grants certiorari in a veterans benefits case. Congress gave the Federal Circuit exclusive jurisdiction over veterans appeals in 1988 but, until 2009, the Supreme Court had reviewed only two Federal Circuit veterans decisions. In the 2010 Term, however, the Court decided its second veterans case in less than two years. Although patent lawyers are familiar with a trend of increasing Supreme Court interest in the Federal Circuit’s work, little attention has been paid to the similar, albeit incipient, trend that may be emerging in the field of veterans law.

In this contribution to the annual Federal …

Texas Law's Life Or Death Rule In Capital Sentencing: Scrutinizing Eight Amendment Violations And The Case Of Juan Guerrero, Jr., John Niland, Riddhi Dasgupta

St. Mary's Law Journal

The United States Supreme Court has never explained the Eighth Amendment’s impact in noncapital cases involving a mentally retarded or brain-injured defendant. The Court has not provided guidance to legislatures or lower courts concerning the acceptable balancing of aggravating and mitigating factors and the role that mitigating factors must play in the sentencing decision. A definitive gap exists between the protections afforded to a criminal defendant facing a life sentence as opposed to those confronted with the death penalty. The Court requires sentencing procedures to consider aggravating and mitigating factors, including mental retardation and brain damage, when imposing a death …

Rehnquist, Innsbruck, And St. Mary's University Tribute., Vincent R. Johnson

St. Mary's Law Journal

William H. Rehnquist taught for St. Mary’s University School of Law for four summers while serving as the sixteenth Chief Justice of the United States. For two weeks each July in 1991, 1994, 1998, and 2000, Rehnquist lectured on The Supreme Court in United States History as part of the law school’s Institute on World Legal Problems in Innsbruck, Austria. St. Mary’s has conducted the Institute as an annual five-week summer program at the University of Innsbruck since 1986, with the generous administrative support of that university’s Roman Law Institute. Rehnquist felt welcome in Innsbruck and earned the St. Mary’s …

The Great Writ Of Incoherence: An Analysis Of Supreme Court's Rulings On "Enemy Combatants", Gregory Dolin

All Faculty Scholarship

On June 28, 2004, the United States Supreme Court released its much awaited decisions in the cases posing a challenge to the Executive's self-professed authority to detain and indefinitely hold individuals designated as "enemy combatants." The cases arose from the "war on terrorism" that was launched after the attack on the United States on September 11, 2001. When each decision is looked at individually, the result seems to make sense and, given the outcome (affording detainees rights of judicial review), feels good. Yet when these decisions are looked at collectively, it is hard to believe that they were issued by …

Who Has The Body? The Paths To Habeas Corpus Reform, Cary H. Federman

Department of Justice Studies Faculty Scholarship and Creative Works

The purpose of this article is to place the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) of 1996 within a political and historical framework that describes the effort by the Supreme Court and various interested parties to restrict prisoners’ access to the federal courts by way of habeas corpus. Of principal concern here is how an act of terrorism against the United States provides an opportunity for Congress to restrict death row prisoners from obtaining habeas corpus review. Along with an analysis of Supreme Court decisions, three attempts to limit federal habeas corpus review for state prisoners from the late …

Military Detention And The Judiciary: Al Qaeda, The Kkk And Supra-State Law, Wayne Mccormack

San Diego International Law Journal

This Article touches on the choice of whether to use the language and tools of war or the language and tools of law enforcement in responding to terrorism. The principal focus, however, is on the limited issue of judicial review and military detentions. The Article reviews the case law created on this subject during the Civil War and World War II. Historical considerations are found by the author to be relevant and helpful in solving the incoherency of current legal responses to terrorism. For instance, indefinite military detention is not coherent with either the international law concept of violations of …