Constitutional Law Commons^™

Review Essay: Using All Available Information, Max Huffman

ExpressO

This is a review essay entitled “Using All Available Information,” in which I review and comment on Justice Stephen Breyer’s new book, Active Liberty: Interpreting Our Democratic Constitution, published in September 2005. Justice Breyer’s book, adapted from the Tanner Lectures given in 2005 at Harvard Law School, serves partly as a response to Justice Scalia’s 1997 volume A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law. I review Justice Breyer’s book in part by comparison to and contrast with Justice Scalia’s. I propose that much about Justice Breyer’s interpretive philosophy, which centers on determining the “purposes” of texts and interpreting …

Zoning And Eminent Domain Under The New Minimum Scrutiny, John H. Ryskamp

ExpressO

Recently the Supreme Court has made it clearer that minimum scrutiny is a factual analysis. Whether in any government action there is a rational relation to a legitimate interest is a matter of determining whether there is a policy maintaining important facts. This has come about in the Court’s emerging emphasis on developing fact-based criteria for determining government purpose. Thus, those who want to affect zoning and eminent domain outcomes should look to what the Court sees as important facts, and whether government action is maintaining those facts with its proposed land use or eminent domain action.

Using Capture Theory And Chronology In Eminent Domain Proceedings, John H. Ryskamp

ExpressO

Capture theory--in which private purpose is substituted for government purpose--sheds light on a technique which is coming into greater use post-Kelo v. New London. That case affirmed that eminent domain use need only be rationally related to a legitimate government purpose. Capture theory focuses litigators' attention on "government purpose." That is a question of fact for the trier of fact. This article shows how to use civil discovery in order to show the Court that private purpose has been substituted for government purpose. If it has, the eminent domain use fails, because the use does not meet minimum scrutiny. This …

Vagueness At The Highest Level: How The Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings Brought An Infrequently Discussed Legal Topic Back Into The Spotlight--Recusal, Brett S. Garson

ExpressO

Recusal has been present in one form or another in most civilized societies dating back to the sixteenth century. Today, recusal law finds its place in American jurisprudence at §§ 144 & 455. The scarce case law and lack of scholarly attention given to recusal perpetuates its aura of ambiguity and makes application of recusal standards to real factual situations difficult. When D.C. Circuit judge John Roberts interviewed with high White House officials seven days prior to hearing Hamdan v. Rumsfeld—a case where President Bush was a defendant and also the personal designator of Salim Hamdan as an enemy combatant—the …

Discarded Deference: Judicial Independence In Informal Agency Guidance, Christopher M. Pietruszkiewicz

ExpressO

In the past few years, the Supreme Court has resurrected an intermediate deference standard from the 1940s to be applied by courts in considering informal guidance issued by administrative agencies. The decision upon which the deference standard is based is a product of a political solution and not a comprehensive evaluation of how the New Deal agencies fit within traditional role of the courts as sole interpreters of the law.

This 1940s decision has evolved such that deference to the views of administrative agencies has become a matter of judicial discretion, finding deference when the views of an agency parallel …

Cable Operators' Fifth Amendment Claims Applied To Digital Must-Carry, Nissa Laughner, Justin Brown

Federal Communications Law Journal

This Article addresses the legal and policy implications of property rights in the digital must-carry issue. The Authors review must-carry regulations, present a traditional Fifth Amendment analysis of must-carry, address free speech implications of that property-based analysis, and show how property-based claims might influence future cable regulations and policies. The Authors conclude that while the Fifth Amendment claims are unlikely to succeed legally, they do contain significant rhetorical power that can help shift public policy in ways favorable to the cable industry.

Rethinking Regulation Of Advertising Aimed At Children, William A. Ramsey

Federal Communications Law Journal

In 1990, Congress passed the Children's Television Act ("CTA"), which directed the FCC to establish standards for broadcasters regarding the amount of children's programming aired and to enforce limits on the amount of commercial time aired during children's programming. The limits are meant to protect children from various harms caused by advertising aimed at children. This Note examines the constitutionality and the effectiveness of these commercial limits. The Note concludes that while the CTA's commercial limits are probably constitutional under the Court's test for regulations of commercial speech, the limits do not provide children with adequate protection from the harms …

Kav Laoved Worker’S Hotline V. Government Of Israel, Edmond E. Levy, Mishael Cheshin, Aharon Barak

Translated Opinions

Facts: The government of Israel adopted a policy of allowing foreign workers to come to work in Israel. The residence permits given to the foreign workers are conditional upon the foreign workers working for a specific employer (‘the restrictive employment arrangement’). Consequently, if the worker leaves his employer, he automatically becomes an illegal alien, and is liable to be arrested and deported. The petitioners attacked this policy, on the grounds that it violates the dignity and liberty of the foreign workers. It also undermines the bargaining power of the foreign workers in the employment market. The respondents replied that the …

Discarded Deference: Judicial Independence In Informal Agency Guidance, Christopher M. Pietruszkiewicz

ExpressO

In the past few years, the Supreme Court has resurrected an intermediate deference standard from the 1940s to be applied by courts in considering informal guidance issued by administrative agencies. The decision upon which the deference standard is based is a product of a political solution and not a comprehensive evaluation of how the New Deal agencies fit within traditional role of the courts as sole interpreters of the law.

This 1940s decision has evolved such that deference to the views of administrative agencies has become a matter of judicial discretion, finding deference when the views of an agency parallel …

The Takings Clause, Version 2005: The Legal Process Of Constitutional Property Rights, Mark Fenster

ExpressO

The three takings decisions that the Supreme Court issued at the end of its October 2004 Term marked a stunning reversal of the Court’s efforts the past three decades to use the Takings Clause to define a set of constitutional property rights. The regulatory takings doctrine, which once loomed as a significant threat to the modern regulatory state, now appears after Lingle v. Chevron to be a relatively tame, if complicated, check on exceptional instances of regulatory abuse. At the same time, the Public Use Clause, formerly an inconsequential limitation on the state’s eminent domain authority, now appears ripe for …

The Bureaucratic Due Process Of Government Watch Lists, Peter M. Shane

ExpressO

Watch lists have become increasingly important tools for law enforcement and the protection of homeland security since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,. These lists, however, pose dangers that innocent persons may be burdened either because they are included on such lists without justification or because they share a name with another individual who is appropriately listed. Our public law traditionally addresses this sort of risk through some redress-oriented scheme of due process that allows individuals alleging improper treatment to seek administrative and judicial relief from the error they assert in their particular case. Such an approach is inadequate …

Regulatory Reform: The New Lochnerism?, David M. Driesen

ExpressO

This article explores the question of whether contemporary regulatory reformers’ attitudes toward government regulation have anything in common with those of the Lochner-era Court. It finds that both groups tend to favor value neutral law guided by cost-benefit analysis over legislative value choices. Their skepticism toward redistributive legislation reflects shared beliefs that regulation often proves counterproductive in terms of its own objectives, fails demanding tests for rationality, and violates the natural order. This parallelism raises fresh questions about claims of neutrality and heightened rationality that serve as important justifications modern regulatory reform.

Toward A Federal Common Law Of Bankruptcy: Judicial Lawmaking In A Statutory Regime, Adam J. Levitin

ExpressO

Bankruptcy is a statutory system, yet it is replete with practices for which there is no direct authorization in the Bankruptcy Code. This article argues that the authorization for judicial creation of bankruptcy law beyond the provisions of the Code has been misidentified as the equity powers of bankruptcy courts. This misidentification has led courts to place inappropriate statutory and historical limitations on non-Code practices because of discomfort with unguided equitable discretion.

Both the statutory and historic limitations are problematic. The statutory authorization for the bankruptcy courts’ equitable powers appears to have been repealed by what one judge has called …

In The Service Of Secrets: The U.S. Supreme Court Revisits Totten, 39 J. Marshall L. Rev. 475 (2006), Douglas Kash, Matthew Indrisano

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Hitching A Ride: Every Time You Take A Drive, The Government Is Riding With You, 39 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1499 (2006), Benjamin Burnham

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Dubitante Opinion, Jason J. Czarnezki

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

A dubitante (pronounced d[y]oo-bi-tan-tee) opinion indicates that “the judge doubted a legal point but was unwilling to state that it was wrong.” Judges rarely write dubitante opinions or use the term, and informal polling suggests not many legal scholars are aware of the practice. This short essay endeavors to shed some light on the use of the term dubitante in judicial opinions and spark discussion as to the merits of the dubitante opinion--What is a dubitante opinion? When was the term first used, and how often is the term used? Who uses it and how? What are the consequences of …

Out Of Thin Air: Using First Amendment Public Forum Analysis To Redeem American Broadcasting Regulation, Anthony E. Varona

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

American television and radio broadcasters are uniquely privileged among Federal Communications Commission (FCC) licensees. Exalted as public trustees by the 1934 Communications Act, broadcasters pay virtually nothing for the use of their channels of public radiofrequency spectrum, unlike many other FCC licensees who have paid billions of dollars for similar digital spectrum. Congress envisioned a social contract of sorts between broadcast licensees and the communities they served. In exchange for their free licenses, broadcast stations were charged with providing a platform for a free marketplace of ideas that would cultivate a democratically engaged and enlightened citizenry through the broadcasting of …

Market Triumphalism, Electoral Pathologies, And The Abiding Wisdom Of First Amendment Access Rights, Gregory P. Magarian

Scholarship@WashULaw

Forty years ago, Professor Jerome Barron made the classic case that the First Amendment requires not merely protection of speech against government interference but provision of access to the means of mass communication. The Supreme Court in the ensuing decades has largely rejected Barron's approach. In this article, Professor Magarian defends Barron's case for access rights against the two theoretical critiques that have underwritten its doctrinal rejection. The libertarian critique attacks the normative underpinnings of access rights, maintaining that the First Amendment insulates market-driven distributions of expressive opportunities. Professor Magarian demonstrates that politically progressive and conservative libertarian critics of access …

Taking The Stand: The Lessons Of The Three Men Who Took The Japanese American Internment To Court, Lorraine K. Bannai

Seattle Journal for Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Through The Looking Glass: Judicial Deference To Academic Decision Makers, The Conflict In Higher Education Between Fundamental Program Requirements And Reasonable Accommodations Under Section 504 Of The Rehabilitation Act And The Americans With Disabilities Act., Douglas Rush

ExpressO

No abstract provided.

Petitioner's Observations On Canada's Additional Information, Jeffrey C. Tuomala

Faculty Publications and Presentations

No abstract provided.

Separation Of Powers And The Criminal Law, Rachel E. Barkow

ExpressO

Scholars have written volumes about the separation of powers, but they have focused on the administrative state and have wholly ignored the criminal state. Judges, too, have failed to distinguish criminal from administrative matters. So, the conventional wisdom has been that whatever theory works for the administrative state should work for anything else, including crime. And because most scholars and judges have supported a flexible or functional approach to separation of powers in the regulatory sphere, they have failed to see a problem with the functional approach when it comes to criminal matters. Indeed, the Supreme Court has been even …

Breaking The Bank: Revisiting Central Bank Of Denver After Enron And Sarbanes-Oxley, Celia Taylor

ExpressO

No abstract provided.

Facing A Hobson's Choice? The Constitutionality Of The Epa's Administrative Compliance Order Enforcement Scheme Under The Clean Air Act, Christopher M. Wynn

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Standards-Based Theory Of Judicial Review And The Rule Of Law, Sidney A. Shapiro

ExpressO

The constitutionality of legislative preclusion of judicial review has received considerable attention from constitutional and administrative law scholars. We join this debate by proposing a new approach: a standards-based theory of judicial review based on two fundamental principles. First, whenever government officials make decisions involving the application of legal standards, the rule of law – and hence the rule of law safeguards of due process and judicial review – attach. Second, with the exception of those cases in which the Constitution itself contemplates standardless official discretion, legislative delegations of authority to government actors must contain legal standards that guide and …

Functional Participation In Eu Delegation Regulation: Lessons From The United States And The Eu's "Constitutional Moment:, Stijn Smismans

Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies

Back to Government?: The Pluralistic Deficit in the Decisionmaking Processes and Before the Courts, Symposium. University of Trento, Italy, June 11-12, 2004.

Discriminatory Filtering: Cipa's Effect On Our Nation's Youth And Why The Supreme Court Erred In Upholding The Constitutionality Of The Children's Internet Protection Act, Katherine A. Miltner

Federal Communications Law Journal

Congress introduced the Children's Internet Protection Act ("CIPA") in order to filter obscene and indecent material in response to a perceived threat to members of the public, specifically minors, who are exposed to pornographic material on the Internet. The provisions of CIPA have provoked tension between two competing interests: protecting minors from cyberpornography, and safeguarding First Amendment rights. This Note argues that the Supreme Court erred by upholding the constitutionality of CIPA. As a result of the Supreme Court's decision, the nation's youth will have restricted access to constitutionally protected information. The Court improperly relied on a provision of the …

“Oh Lord, Please Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood!”: Rediscovering The Penn Central And Mathews V. Eldridge Frameworks, Gary Lawson, Katharine A. Ferguson, Guillermo Montero

ExpressO

The manuscript re-examines the origins and purposes of two of the most misunderstood constructs in modern legal doctrine: the so-called Penn-Central and Mathews v. Eldridge three-factor tests. We say “so-called,” because neither case actually invented a three-factor test. Penn Central set forth a framework involving two factors that later cases (unwisely, in our view) expanded to three, and the framework in Mathews was initially crafted by litigators in the Solicitor General’s office in order to resolve the specific issue facing the Court in that case. More significantly, neither Penn Central nor Mathews purported to set forth a methodology for deciding …

A Right To No Meaningful Review: The Aftermath Of Shalala V. Illinois Council On Long Term Care, Inc., Ruqaiijah Ayanna Yearby

ExpressO

A RIGHT TO NO MEANINGFUL REVIEW: THE AFTERMATH OF SHALALA v. ILLINOIS COUNCIL ON LONG TERM CARE, INC. Ruqaiijah A. Yearby

The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment has been perverted in the federal administrative system. Federal agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), regularly deprive individuals of liberty and property with little to no review. In its regulation of the health care industry through the Medicare program, HHS often turns a blind eye to procedural Due Process protections, such as providing individuals an opportunity to challenge the deprivation of property at a hearing, …

The Opacity Of Transparency, Mark Fenster

ExpressO

The normative concept of transparency, along with the open government laws that purport to create a transparent public system of governance promise the world—a democratic and accountable state above all, and a peaceful, prosperous, and efficient one as well. But transparency, in its role as the theoretical justification for a set of legal commands, frustrates all parties affected by its ambiguities and abstractions. The public’s engagement with transparency in practice yields denials of reasonable requests for essential government information, as well as government meetings that occur behind closed doors. Meanwhile, state officials bemoan the significantly impaired decision-making processes that result …