Constitutional Law Commons^™

Federal Governmental Power: Preemption From The October 2008 Term, Eileen Kaufman

Touro Law Review

In a stunning trifecta, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of consumers and held that federal law did not preempt state consumer claims. The three cases concerned patients injured by drugs, smokers misled by false advertising, and borrowers victimized by predatory lending practices. These cases represent the latest battle in the ongoing war between consumer advocates and business entities over whether federal laws should be interpreted to erect barriers against state consumer protection laws.

Wyeth v. Levine raised the issue of whether approval of a drug by the F.D.A. preempts a state tort claim based on failure to warn. Altria …

The Absentee Post-Conviction Constitutional Safeguards – People V. Zowaski, Danielle M. Hansen

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Foreword: Constitutional Constraints State Health Care & Privacy Regulation After Sorrell V. Ims Health, John M. Greabe

Law Faculty Scholarship

This brief Foreword explains that First Amendment law is fertile ground for analysis under choice of law principles. It then opines that the majority and dissenting opinions in Sorrell v. IMS Health are rooted in different choices of law that would benefit from a more explicit acknowledgment and explanation.

Oklahoma's Save Our State Amendment And The Conflict Of Laws, John T. Parry

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

When A Door Closes, A Window Opens: Using Preemption To Challenge State Medicaid Cutbacks, Martina Brendel

Chicago-Kent Law Review

Following the Supreme Court's 2002 decision in Gonzaga University v. Doe, several circuit courts of appeal have disallowed enforcement of key Medicaid provisions under § 1983. Notably, courts have placed no similar restrictions on the enforceability of these provisions under the Supremacy Clause. This article discusses Lankford v. Sherman and Independent Living Center v. Shewry, two recent appellate decisions in which plaintiffs succeeded in preventing Medicaid cuts under a preemption theory. It then addresses the limits of the Supremacy Clause, which applies to a narrower range of state action than § 1983. It argues that Medicaid reimbursement rates are "laws" …

Partisan Conflicts Over Presidential Authority, Jide Okechuku Nzelibe

Faculty Working Papers

A prevailing view in the legal and political science literature assumes that power holders seek to expand or contract their constitutional authority based on incentives that are intrinsic to the logic of the institutional offices they occupy. For instance, it is generally assumed that Presidents are empire builders who will almost always prefer maximum flexibility in shaping their policy objectives, whereas members of Congress may sometimes shirk their institutional prerogatives because of electoral incentives or collective action problems. A similar institutional logic underpins the view that federal courts will often seek to expand their interpretive authority in constitutional controversies at …

Withdrawing From International Custom: Terrible Food, Small Portions, Carlos Manuel Vázquez

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Curtis A. Bradley and Mitu Gulati’s Withdrawing from International Custom brings to mind the old joke recounted by Woody Allen in Annie Hall: “Two elderly women are at a Catskill mountain resort, and one of ’em says, ‘Boy, the food at this place is really terrible.’ The other one says, ‘Yeah, I know; and such small portions.’” Similarly, while Bradley and Gulati attack international law’s current prohibition of unilateral withdrawal from custom, they propose an alternative that differs only modestly from it (small portions). At the same time, the doctrinal change they propose would take customary international law in the …

Filling The Criminal Liability Gap For Private Military Contractors Abroad: U.S. V. Slough And The Civilian Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act Of 2010, Missye Brickell

Legislation and Policy Brief

To ensure that all contractors who commit crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan can be prosecuted effectively in the United States, Congress must pass legislation to update Federal criminal law and fill the gaps that may leave certain types of contractors free from any criminal liability. The Civilian Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2010 (CEJA) attempts to do just that, and while it may deter some PMCs from participating in the U.S. military and security contracting market, the benefits of having a fully accountable U.S. legal system outweigh the drawbacks for individual contracting companies.

Strategic Globalization: International Law As An Extension Of Domestic Political Conflict, Jide Nzelibe

Faculty Working Papers

Traditional accounts in both the international law and international relations literature largely assume that great powers like the United States enter into international legal commitments in order to resolve global cooperative problems or to advance objective state interests. Contrary to these accounts, this Article suggests that an incumbent regime (or partisan elites within the regime) may often seek to use international legal commitments to overcome domestic obstacles to their narrow policy and electoral objectives. In this picture, an incumbent regime may deploy international law to expand the geographical scope of political conflict across borders in order to isolate the domestic …

The Third Time Is Not Always A Charm: The Troublesome Legacy Of A Dutch Art Dealer-The Limitation And Act Of State Defenses In Looted Art Cases, Bert Demarsin

Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal

No abstract provided.

What Can Be Done Against Cyber Hate? Freedom Of Speech Versus Hate Speech In The Council Of Europe, Isabelle Rorive

Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law

The article examines the tension between freedom of speech and the regulation of hate speech on the internet, focusing on the challenges posed by conflicting international laws and jurisdictional issues. It highlights the Council of Europe's efforts to address cyber hate through legal frameworks like the Cybercrime Convention and the Additional Protocol, while discussing the limitations of these measures. The co-regulatory model, combining government oversight with private sector accountability, is presented as a potential solution, though concerns about censorship and free speech remain.

The "Define And Punish" Clause And The Limit Of Universal Jurisdiction, Eugene Kontorovich

Faculty Working Papers

This Article examines whether the "Define and Punish" clause of the Constitution empowers Congress to criminalize foreign conduct unconnected to the United States. Answering this question requires exploring the Constitution's "Piracies and Felonies" provision. While it is hard to believe this can still be said of any constitutional provision, no previous work has examined the scope of the "Piracies and Felonies" powers. Yet the importance of this inquiry is more than academic. Despite its obscurity, the Piracies and Felonies power is the purported Art. I basis for a statute currently in force, which represents Congress's most aggressive use of universal …

Originalism And The Difficulties Of History In Foreign Affairs, Eugene Kontorovich

Faculty Working Papers

This Article spotlights some of the idiosyncratic features of admiralty law at the time of the founding. These features pose challenges for applying the original understanding of the Constitution to contemporary questions of foreign relations. Federal admiralty courts were unusual creatures by Article III standards. They sat as international tribunals applying international and foreign law, freely hearing cases that implicated sensitive questions of foreign policy, and liberally exercising universal jurisdiction over disputes solely between foreigners. However, these powers did not arise out of the basic features of Article III, but rather from a felt need to opt into the preexisting …

Case For A Constitutional Definition Of Hearsay: Requiring Confrontation Of Testimonial, Nonassertive Conduct And Statements Admitted To Explain An Unchallenged Investigation, The, James L. Kainen, Carrie A. Tendler

Faculty Scholarship

Crawford v. Washington’s historical approach to the confrontation clause establishes that testimonial hearsay inadmissible without confrontation at the founding is similarly inadmissible today, despite whether it fits a subsequently developed hearsay exception. Consequently, the requirement of confrontation depends upon whether an out-of-court statement is hearsay, testimonial, and, if so, whether it was nonetheless admissible without confrontation at the founding. A substantial literature has developed about whether hearsay statements are testimonial or were, like dying declarations, otherwise admissible at the founding. In contrast, this article focuses on the first question – whether statements are hearsay – which scholars have thus far …

Conflict Of Law And Surreptitious Taping Of Telephone Conversations, Carol M. Bast

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

Choice Of Law, The Constitution And Lochner, James Y. Stern

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Beyond The Article I Horizon: Congress’S Enumerated Powers And Universal Jurisdiction Over Drug Crimes, Eugene Kontorovich

Faculty Working Papers

This paper explores the Article I limits faced by Congress in exercising universal jurisdiction (UJ) – that is, regulating extraterritorial conduct by foreigners with no affect on or connection the U.S. While UJ is becoming increasingly popular in Europe for the punishment of human rights offenses, Congress's primary use of UJ today is under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act. This obscure law allows the U.S. to punish for violating U.S. drug laws foreign defendants on foreign vessels in international waters. The MDLEA's UJ provisions raise fundamental questions about the source and extent of Congress's constitutional power to regulate purely …

Letting "Privates" Be Private: Toward A Right Of Gender Selfdetermination, Samuel E. Bartos

Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights & Social Justice

The note examines the contradictory landscape of transgender jurisprudence, particularly focusing on the legal struggles of transgender individuals to achieve recognition of their gender identity. It highlights the Kansas Supreme Court's decision in In the Matter of the Estate of Marshall G. Gardiner, which denied legal recognition of a transgender individual's marriage, contrasted with more progressive rulings in other jurisdictions. The analysis underscores the need for a consistent and inclusive legal framework to address the rights of transgender individuals, emphasizing the potential for future Supreme Court intervention to establish uniform standards.

Preemption And Federal Common Law, Ernest A. Young

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Populist Safeguards Of Federalism, Robert A. Mikos

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Extant legal scholarship often portrays citizens as the catalysts of federalization. Scholars say that citizens pressure Congress to impose their morals on people living in other states, to trump home-state laws with which they disagree, or to shift the costs of regulatory programs onto out-of-state taxpayers, all to the demise of states' rights. Since Congress (usually) gives citizens what they want, scholars insist the courts must step in to protect states from federal encroachments. By contrast, this Article proposes a new theory of the populist safeguards of federalism. It develops two distinct but mutually reinforcing reasons why populist demands on …

An Uninvited Guest: The Federal Death Penalty And The Massachusetts Prosecution Of Nurse Kristen Gilbert, John P. Cunningham

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

'Prima Paint' Pushed Compulsory Aribitration Under The 'Erie' Train, Richard L. Barnes

ExpressO

As the face of commerce changes, the law usually follows, albeit at some distance. The United States Supreme Court has recently sped the pace. In a line of cases, some old, some recent, but all feeding off of one another, the Court has held that challenges to agreements which contain arbitration provisions must go to the arbitrator first. Courts may hear formational challenges only where they challenge the arbitration provision alone. In the Supreme Court, arbitration, with its vast potential for abuse as well as for good, has found a friend.

The Court’s doctrine of choice, “severability,” raises serious concerns …

Truth, Deterrence, And The Impeachment Exception , James L. Kainen

Faculty Scholarship

James v. Illinois permits illegally-obtained evidence to impeach defendants, but not defense witnesses. Thus far, all courts have construed James to allow impeachment of defendants' hearsay declarations. This article argues against allowing illegally-obtained evidence to impeach defendants' hearsay declarations because doing so unduly diminishes the exclusionary rule's deterrent effect. The distinction between impeaching defendants and defense witnesses disappears when courts allow prosecutors to impeach defendants' hearsay declarations. Because defense witnesses report exculpatory conduct of a defendant who always has a substantial interest in disguising his criminality, their testimony routinely incorporates defendant hearsay. Defense witness testimony thus routinely paves the way …

Due Process Rights And Terrorist Emergencies, James W. Nickel

Articles

This essay discusses the grounds for due process rights (DPRs) and the permissibility of suspending them during terrorist and other emergencies. The two topics are profitably treated together because DPRs - along with freedoms of movement, expression, and political participation - are often suspended or restricted when national emergencies occur. Although I present a strong case for DPRs as human rights, this justification does not settle their priority during emergency situations. That issue raises additional questions, and I discuss some of them. The overall thrust of the essay is to defend the importance of respecting DPRs during troubled times. The …

Anti-Federalist Procedure, A. Benjamin Spencer

Faculty Publications

"[T]he new federal government will ... be disinclined to invade the rights of the individual States, or the prerogatives of their governments."

"[T]he Constitution of the United States ... recognizes and preserves the autonomy and independence of the States-independence in their legislative and independence in their judicial departments. . . . Any interference with either, except as [constitutionally] permitted, is an invasion of the authority of the State and, to that extent, a denial of its independence."

The understanding expressed by these opening quotes-that the national government was designed to be one of limited powers that would refrain from encroaching …

A Complete Property Right Amendment, John H. Ryskamp

ExpressO

The trend of the eminent domain reform and "Kelo plus" initiatives is toward a comprehensive Constitutional property right incorporating the elements of level of review, nature of government action, and extent of compensation. This article contains a draft amendment which reflects these concerns.

Bond Repudiation, Tax Codes, The Appropriations Process And Restitution Post-Eminent Domain Reform, John H. Ryskamp

ExpressO

This brief comment suggests where the anti-eminent domain movement might be heading next.

The Application Of Federal Common Law To Overcome Conflicting State Laws In The Supplemental Disgorgement Proceedings Of An Sec Appointed Receiver, Gauhar Naseem

ExpressO

In spite of the Erie doctrine, the application of federal common law has survived to overcome conflicting state laws in diversity actions where a federal law, interest or function is implicated. A federal court’s authority to substantively implement a federal common law rule over state law is clearest when the party to the action is a federal entity, namely an agency of the U.S. Government deriving its authority from the Constitution or some source of federal law. Analyzing such authority becomes more difficult in circumstances where parties to a diversity lawsuit are private citizens (not necessarily possessing any direct federal …

The Secret Is Out: Patent Law Preempts Mass Market License Terms Barring Reverse Engineering For Interoperability Purposes, Daniel Laster

ExpressO

As patent protection has emerged to protect software, courts and commentators have mistakenly focused on copyright law and overlooked the centrality of patent preemption to limit contract law where a mass market license which prohibits reverse engineering (RE) for purposes of developing interoperable products leads to patent-like protection. Review of copyright fair use cases on RE and Congress’s policy favoring RE for interoperability purposes in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act reinforce the case for patent preemption. Also, the fundamental freedom to RE embodied in state trade secret law, coupled with federal patent and copyright law and policies, cumulatively should override …

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

ExpressO

No abstract provided.