Constitutional Law Commons^™

Cruel And Unusual Punishments And The Constitutional Status Of The Idea Of Progress, R. George Wright

FIU Law Review

To this point, we have developed some idea of what progress might have meant to the constitutional Framers, ratifiers, and later judges. We need not attempt the fruitless task of doing any precise head count of the variations of the concrete meaning, perceived likelihood, or value of progress among those parties. Doubtless some persons were more optimistic than others.178 But we need only assume that enough constitutional Framers, ratifiers, and judicial interpreters sufficiently shared any mainstream understanding of progress. Any such constitutional legitimacy of the idea, or the multiple ideas, of progress licenses the language of progress embraced in Trop.

Gienapp's Big Book: Conceptual Rupture, Modernism, And The End Of Originalism, Logan E. Sawyer Iii

Scholarly Works

For decades, we have lived in an age of partisan jurisprudence, in which nearly every Republican has embraced originalism, and nearly every Democrat has rejected it. One can mark the start of that era in multiple places, but one good choice is November 11th, 1977. That day, in the pages of National Review, William F. Buckley previewed Government by Judiciary, Raoul Berger’s originalist critique of the Warren Court’s rights revolution. The review, entitled “Berger’s Big Book,” was highly complimentary. Berger’s rebuke of Warren Court activism was, Buckley thought, “devastating.” And he was not alone. Following the publication of Government by …

The Rise And [?] Of Anti-Administrativism, Gary Lawson

BYU Law Review

Scholars have proclaimed the administrative state to be “Under Siege” or subject to a “Never-Ending Assault.” Was the election of President Donald Trump on November 5, 2024, the sixth, if not yet the seventh, day around the walls?

This seems an appropriate time to consider the present and future of opposition to the administrative state—something that has come to be dubbed “anti-administrativism.” The first task, as is usually the case when one seeks intellectual clarity, is to figure out what one is talking about. What is this “anti-administrativism”? Without knowing the answer to that seemingly simple question, one cannot accurately …

Textualist Reasoning And The Open Fields Doctrine: A Survey Of State-Constitutional Decisions, Ariel Krogue

BYU Law Review

State constitutions can, and often do, provide more extensive individual rights than the Federal Constitution affords. When this occurs, state courts frequently cite textual differences between the Federal Constitution and their own state constitutions to explain their departures from federal norms. But do textual differences between the Federal Constitution and state constitutions actually explain why some states offer more constitutional protection than the federal government does? When it comes to the Fourth Amendment’s open fields doctrine, the answer is no.

This Note provides a fifty-state survey of state-constitutional search and seizure provisions; it also identifies those states that have rejected …

Can’T Blaine A State For Trying: Writing A Constitutional Blaine Amendment After Carson V. Makin, Ry Stratton

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Rethinking Judicial Power & Remedial Restraint, Caprice L. Roberts

Catholic University Law Review

This Article maintains that groundbreaking Supreme Court cases reshaping judicial power and restraint are frequently remedies centric. The much- anticipated ruling in Trump v. CASA illustrates this correlation. Interpreting traditional equity, the Supreme Court circumscribed federal judicial power to issue universal relief. The Court relied on Marbury v. Madison to bolster its reasoning on the limits of judicial power. Ironically, both cases denied any remedy while enhancing the potential for future judicial power. Whether via judicial review and supremacy power or the Court’s future ability to now be the only federal court able to issue universal remedies—the Court’s role in …

Disregarding Severability, Kevin C. Walsh

Catholic University Law Review

The infirmities of severability doctrine have elicited increased attention at the Supreme Court. In his application of severability doctrine for a five-Justice majority in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., Chief Justice Roberts began to reformulate the doctrine in a way that can free the Court from the misleading mental imagery conjured by the conception of courts as “severing” provisions from a statute. Roberts's reformulation more properly depicts the relevant judicial activity to be judicial disregard of statutory rules to avoid unconstitutional applications of law rather than judicial severance of textual provisions to fix a problem that inheres in the …

A Conversation With Judge Stephanos Bibas, Stephanos Bibas, Kevin C. Walsh

Catholic University Law Review

On Friday, March 28th, 2025, the Catholic University Law Review hosted its annual spring symposium: Traditional Judicial Power & Doctrinal Development, which included a conversation between Judge Stephanos Bibas and Professor Kevin C. Walsh. The conversation covered topics such as standing, severability, and preliminary injunctions. This is a transcript of the conversation, and the text appears substantially as it was delivered.

Rekonstruksi Mekanisme Seleksi Hakim Konstitusi Di Indonesia, Indah Sri Pangestu, Dwi Yuliani, Hertaty Dorothy Dewi Siburian

Jurnal Konstitusi & Demokrasi

The mechanism for selection and election of constitutional judges in Indonesia currently still shows a diversity of procedures in each proposing institution, namely the Supreme Court, DPR and President. The process implemented does not fully reflect the principles of transparency, participation, objectivity and accountability as mandated in the Law on the Constitutional Court. Therefore, it is necessary to standardize the procedures for selection and selection of constitutional judges to ensure a more professional system and integrity. One of the solutions offered is the establishment of an independent institution responsible for the selection and recruitment of constitutional judges with a system …

Should The Army Be Involved In Divorce? Re-Examining The Pre-Divorce Defaults For Spousal Support, Artem M. Joukov, Thomas Godfrey

MC Law Review

Army Regulation 608-99 assigns a large portion of a Soldier’s paycheck to the spouse upon marital separation. The assignment occurs without a hearing, discovery, or consideration of critical evidence which might moderate the amount of support. The obligation rests on the Soldier to obtain a court order or spousal agreement to reduce the financial burden. The adversarial nature of modern divorces renders these requirements unrealistic. Amending the regulation would ease the burden of the Soldier, which is desirable in light of the ongoing recruitment crisis and the need to attract recruits and retain those already in the service.

Who Counts As A "Reasonable Employee"? The Third Circuit's Bungling Of Section 8(A)(1) Violations, Ben Milstein

Washington Law Review

The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) protects private employees’ right to unionize and collectively bargain with their employers. Section 7 of the NLRA guarantees employees the right to self-organize labor unions, while section 8 outlines numerous unfair labor practices. Specifically, section 8(a)(1) bans employer interference, coercion, or restraint of any section 7 rights. In a 2022 case, FDRLST Media v. NLRB, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) finding that FDRLST Media’s executive officer’s tweet constituted a section 8(a)(1) violation. This Comment examines the history of section 8(a)(1) violations, specifically discussing the widely …

Red, White-, And Blue-Collar Crime: Federal Sentencing Practices Among White-Collar And Blue-Collar Offenders, Henna Judge

Fordham Law Review

Under the current federal sentencing regime, district courts exercise immense amounts of discretion when sentencing. Though strict adherence to the U.S. Sentencing Commission Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) was once mandatory, courts must now use these Guidelines as an advisory starting point and make a series of fact-specific determinations when sentencing a defendant. Though judicial discretion in this realm aids in preventing undue reliance on Guidelines-range recommendations that can lack nuance, it also invites bias.

In recent years, scholars and courts alike have called attention to a potential disparity in the way blue-collar and white-collar offenders are sentenced. This Note examines relevant …

Federal Courts, Class Actions, And The Jurisdictional Void, Courtney T. Welch

Fordham Law Review

To invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court, a plaintiff must satisfy the requirements of Article III. Among other things, Article III requires a plaintiff to have and maintain personal stake throughout the lifespan of the litigation. Though a simple premise, this constitutional requirement has a complicated history. This is especially true as applied to class action lawsuits, where plaintiffs bring claims both on behalf of themselves and other harmed individuals.

The U.S. Supreme Court has applied flexible rules to some—but not all—of Article III’s requirements in class actions. The breadth of this flexibility, though, is uncertain. Accordingly, so too …

A Dangerous Challenge To The Constitutionality Of The Felon-In-Possession Statute: United States V. Bullock, Matthew Matherne

MC Law Review

In United States v. Bullock, Judge Carlton Reeves held that the federal felon-in-possession statute was unconstitutional as applied to Mr. Bullock. Although Mr. Bullock had been previously convicted of multiple violent felonies involving a firearm, including one that resulted in the death of an individual, Judge Reeves dismissed the charges because the government failed to establish a historical tradition of prohibiting felons from possessing firearms. Judge Reeves’ determination that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to Mr. Bullock is a decision that is not only “dangerous” to society, but it contradicts the historical tradition of firearm regulation in America. …

Mississippi Redistricting And The Voting Rights Act: An Historical Supplement, Leslie H. Southwick

MC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Auer Deference: He Who Writes The Law Must Not Adjudge Its Violation, William G. Kennedy

MC Law Review

This Comment explores Auer deference and its application to the Sentencing Guidelines, the Sentencing Commission, and its commentary. Auer deference, in its simplest form, requires courts to give controlling weight to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulations unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation. Following the Court’s decision in Kisor—expressly limiting Auer’s application, the circuit courts have disagreed on the applicability of Auer to the Sentencing Commission’s commentary regarding career offender designation. This disagreement begs for an appearance before the Court of Last Resort, but until that day, the courts must rigidly apply Kisor to …

Separation-Of-Powers Lochnerism, Andrea Scoseria Katz

Fordham Law Review

One hundred and twenty years ago, in 1905, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered one of the single most notorious opinions in history, striking down a New York labor law for violating the right to contract—a right found nowhere in the text of the Constitution. Though the era of Lochner v. New York is well past us, the judicial impulses that gave rise to the case remain. With a new champion in the Roberts Court, Lochnerism is alive and well, deployed in a new context to redefine the relationships between the president, Congress, federal agencies, and the courts.

Bringing together two …

Settling On A Standard: Reviewing The Right To Self-Representation, Lauren Lipson

Fordham Law Review

Courts appoint counsel for indigent criminal defendants who cannot afford legal representation to uphold their Sixth Amendment rights. In its seminal waiver case, Faretta v. California, the U.S. Supreme Court elevated the corollary right—the right to self-representation—to constitutional status. In dicta, the Court created a standard by which defendants must waive their right to counsel “knowingly and intelligently” to proceed pro se. The Court subsequently sculpted the right to self-representation as it came to standby counsel and mental competency, but it never prescribed a precise waiver colloquy for district court judges to administer, causing the Faretta colloquy to look …

Nonparty Protective Relief In The Early Republic: Judicial Power To Annul Letters Patent, James E. Pfander, Mary E. Zakowski

Northwestern University Law Review

Much of the debate over the constitutionality of universal or nonparty protective relief in the federal court system has focused on lessons drawn from historical practice. But with its emphasis on injunctive relief, the literature has largely ignored forms of adjudication that arose outside the courts of equity and led to judgments and decrees affecting the rights of nonparties. As a result, the story of nonparty protective relief has not yet been fully told.

This Article offers a more complete story, highlighting proceedings in which federal courts issued judgments that settled a matter once and for all. Some familiar examples …

The Search Of A Search: Moderating Reverse Internet Keyword Warrants, Tui Rademaker

Northwestern University Law Review

Statistics show that Americans consistently turn to Google and other search engines to answer their most personal and private concerns, yet a new investigative tool risks law enforcement having vast discretion in the access of this data. With a keyword warrant, law enforcement can request from a search engine provider (usually Google) a list of probative search queries that users made over a specified time period. Such warrants are beginning to face legal challenges, and so far, courts seem reluctant to recognize the constitutional implications—instead leaving law enforcement with greater potential discretion over their use.

This Note assesses the constitutionality …

First Amendment Exceptions To Otherwise Valid Laws: A Doctrinal And Meta-Doctrinal Perspective, Richard H. Fallon Jr.

Northwestern University Law Review

When do the First Amendment’s Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses require exceptions to generally valid laws? Recently, the Supreme Court has upheld a number of such exceptions, which excuse some speakers and religiously motivated actors from legal duties that apply to others, including in prominent cases under antidiscrimination statutes and emergency pandemic regulations. By contrast, other landmark cases––such as United States v. O’Brien and Employment Division v. Smith—insist that First Amendment exceptions should be rare.

In analyzing the fraught and confusing issues that surround First Amendment exceptions, this Article makes four main contributions. First, it conceptualizes claims to …

Malapportionment: A Murder Mystery, Daniel Wodak

Northwestern University Law Review

Malapportionment—electoral districts with divergent ratios of people to representation—was ruled to be unconstitutional in a widely venerated series of cases before the Warren Court. Those cases held that a principle of political equality, one person, one vote, is required by the Constitution. But what is the content of that principle? Many Justices and commentators declare that it is vague, empty, circular, or meaningless. This creates a murder mystery. Malapportionment was killed, but by what exactly? This Article seeks an answer by focusing on the Supreme Court’s commitments about the scope and strictness of one person, one vote: it …

Control As A Constitutional Threshold: Moody V. Netchoice And The Case For Human Authorship, Giselle Goad

Northwestern University Law Review

The Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Moody v. NetChoice, LLC left a critical question unanswered: when do algorithmic outputs on social media platforms, such as recommended posts and videos, constitute the platform’s protected speech under the First Amendment? This Note contends that courts and litigants should borrow from the First Amendment’s speech-promoting partner, copyright law, and its authorship framework when answering that question. Copyright doctrine has already begun to grapple with how much human control is required over expressive outputs generated with the aid of technology, including AI, in order for an author to receive copyright protection over those outputs. …

Investigating The Relationship Between Noun Classes And Plant Folk Taxonomy In Chasu Language Of Kilimanjaro Region In Tanzania, Peter Rabson Mziray

Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences

The current study investigates the relationship between noun classes and plant folk taxonomy in Chasu (G 22). The study focuses on two objectives: the first objective is to describe the plant folk taxonomy in Chasu and the second objective is to determine the relationship between noun classes and plant folk taxonomy in Chasu. Data were collected from rural villages in Same and Mwanga districts by using free listing, field interviews (jungle-walk-and-identify), and written texts containing Chasu plant names. The findings reveal that Chasu folk taxonomy reflects different ethnobotanical categories; including a unique beginner which is mmea/mimea ‘plant(s)’, and three life …

Causation’S Due Process Dimensions, Cassandra Burke Robertson, Charles W. “Rocky” Rhodes

Texas A&M Law Review

For decades, courts have grappled with the tension between compensating victims of mass harms and maintaining fairness to defendants when causation is difficult to prove. This Article argues that the Supreme Court’s due process jurisprudence provides a relevant framework for navigating this tension. We contend that the Court over the last three decades has established a consistent Fourteenth Amendment due process approach in punitive damages and personal jurisdiction cases, which is rooted in antecedents tracing to the nineteenth century and relies on a nexus of interests that balances individual rights, state interests, and federalism concerns. This framework, we argue, has …

New Judicial Federalism And The Establishment Clause: Classroom Ten Commandments As A Case Study In State Constitutional Protection, Caroline Mala Corbin

Articles

Louisiana recently enacted a law requiring a Ten Commandments display in every public school classroom from kindergarten to college. Forty-five years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a nearly identical attempt to introduce Christianity into the public schools violated the Establishment Clause—the clause in the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment that requires some degree of separation between church and state.

Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court has since reduced the Establishment Clause to a shadow of its former self. It replaced doctrinal tests that protected religious minorities with a history and tradition test that is easily manipulated and that presumes the …

Defining “Cases” Or “Controversies”: A Fundamental Confusion In Article Iii Standing Doctrine And Its Consequences In Multi-Plaintiff Litigation, Dominic Signa

Fordham Law Review

The United States Supreme Court has addressed the absolute core requirements of standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution on several occasions. However, the Court has not clearly articulated what purpose standing serves relative to Article III’s limitations on the exercise of judicial power to only “cases” or “controversies,” and this has led to major downstream effects in the realm of multi plaintiff litigation. Specifically, the Court has not explained whether standing is meant to ensure (1) that all potential plaintiffs demonstrate that they are properly parties to the same case or controversy before a federal court or (2) …

Living Property, Joseph William Singer

Seattle University Law Review

The Supreme Court has increasingly defined property rights that are per se exempt from regulation in the absence of compensation, most recently in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid (2021) and Tyler v. Hennepin County (2023). The Court claims that it can identify property rights that are categorically protected from regulation by reference to history, tradition, and precedent. Yet this approach is oddly ahistorical; it is inconsistent with the fact that property law changed dramatically over U.S. history, as well as varying tremendously among the states. It is also inconsistent with the historical context of the Founding era. At that time, …

Table Of Contents

Seattle University Law Review

Table of Contents

The Roots Of Credit Inequality, Andrea Freeman

Seattle University Law Review

Debt oppression began before the United States became a country. Settlers enslaved Africans and Indigenous people, treating them as property that they could buy and sell for their economic and personal benefit. When enslavement became illegal, new economic systems and laws that included sharecropping, Black Codes, and Jim Crow kept Black people in servitude. Laws that prohibited enslaved people from owning property or selling goods to white people evolved into restrictions on Black people’s occupations and market participation, both formal and informal. When Black entrepreneurs overcame these obstacles and built wealth within Black business enclaves, white people enforced their racist …