Constitutional Law Commons^™

Standing For (And Up To) Separation Of Powers, Kent H. Barnett

Indiana Law Journal

The U.S. Constitution requires federal agencies to comply with separation-of-powers (or structural) safeguards, such as by obtaining valid appointments, exercising certain limited powers, and being sufficiently subject to the President’s control. Who can best protect these safeguards? A growing number of scholars would allow only the political branches—Congress and the President—to defend them. These scholars would limit or end judicial review because private judicial challenges are aberrant to justiciability doctrine and lead courts to meddle in minor matters that rarely affect regulatory outcomes.

This Article defends the right of private parties to assert justiciable structural causes of action, arguing that …

Hopeful Clarity Or Hopeless Disarray?: An Examination Of Town Of Greece V. Galloway And The Establishment Clause, Krista M. Pikus

Catholic University Law Review

Reviewing Establishment Clause jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, this article notes that the current state of this area of law is in hopeless disarray and argues that the Court should resolve this confusion by employing a few proposed solutions. The article begins by reviewing and analyzing the confusion surrounding modern Establishment Clause jurisprudence. The article then discusses what interpretation of the Establishment Clause should be controlling: strict-separationism, nonpreferentialism, enhanced federalism, or the incorporation doctrine. Next, the article details what is wrong with modern establishment clause jurisprudence, namely, the Court’s inconsistent application of different tests to assess government action under the …

Reconceptualizing The Eighth Amendment: Slaves, Prisoners, And Cruel And Unusual Punishment, Alexander A. Reinert

Articles

The meaning of the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause has long been hotly contested. For scholars and jurists who look to original meaning or intent, there is little direct contemporaneous evidence on which to rest any conclusion. For those who adopt a dynamic interpretive framework, the Supreme Court’s “evolving standards of decency” paradigm has surface appeal, but deep conflicts have arisen in application. This Article offers a contextual account of the Eighth Amendment’s meaning that addresses both of these interpretive frames by situating the Amendment in eighteenth and nineteenth-century legal standards governing relationships of subordination.

In particular, I …

The Federal Government's Usurpation Of Local Control From Public Schools: A Historical Analysis Of Politics, Law, And Reaction, Brett Geier

Barry Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Curious Case Of Cell Phone Location Data: Fourth Amendment Doctrine Mash-Up, Monu Bedi

Northwestern University Law Review

Police surveillance ability and information gathering capacity have a dynamic relationship with technology. Greater advancements in technology make it easier for the police to surveil individuals and collect information. This state of affairs leads to heightened concerns over Fourth Amendment protection. This issue has most recently played out in the context of police collecting cell phone location data. Courts disagree on whether and to what extent this data garners Fourth Amendment protection. Underlying this disagreement rests a hitherto overlooked tension between two interrelated Fourth Amendment doctrines—the third-party and the public disclosure doctrines. While both vitiate privacy protection and are commonly …

How The Tenth Amendment Saved The Constitution, Contradicts The Modern View Of Broad Federal Power, And Imposes Strict Limitations, Steven T. Voigt

Et Cetera

This paper challenges the position that the Tenth Amendment merely states an abstract concept and has no place in constitutional interpretation. The history of the Tenth Amendment portrays a much greater significance for this amendment. Not only did the Tenth Amendment likely save the Constitution and preserve the union, but it imposed very real restraints on federal power. The implication for modern courts is that the Tenth Amendment cannot be ignored. Far from just stating a truism, it sets forth a constitutional rule of interpretation that must be applied whenever the scope of any federal power is examined.

The Erosion Of The Rule Of Law When A State Attorney General Refuses To Defend The Constitutionality Of Controversial Laws, Rena M. Lindevaldsen

Barry Law Review

No abstract provided.

Justice Scalia And The Rule Of Law: Originalism Vs. The Living Constitution, Richard F. Duncan

Nebraska College of Law: Faculty Publications

Justice Antonin Scalia's sudden death in February, 2016, was a great loss for his family, a great loss for his friends, and a great loss for the "Written Constitution" of the United States of America. We will have no more of his brilliant, witty, and pugnacious judicial opinions. Instead, we will have to settle for the body of work he left behind as his legacy. But, as one commentator has said, his opinions are "so consistent, so powerful, and so penetrating in their devotion to the rule of law"—the real rule of law, not the political decrees of judges creating …

Does A House Of Congress Have Standing Over Appropriations?: The House Of Representatives Challenges The Affordable Care Act, Bradford Mank

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

In U.S. House of Representatives v. Sylvia Matthews Burwell, the District Court for D.C. in 2015 held that the House of Representatives has Article III standing to challenge certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act as violations of the Constitution’s Appropriations Clause. The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on legislative standing is complicated. The Court has generally avoided the contentious question of whether Congress has standing to challenge certain presidential actions because of the difficult separation-of-powers concerns in such cases. In Raines v. Byrd, the Court held that individual members of Congress generally do not have Article III standing by simply holding …

Originalism’S Bite, William Baude, Stephen E. Sachs

Faculty Scholarship

Is originalism toothless? Richard Posner seems to think so. He writes that repeated theorizing by "intelligent originalists," one of us happily included, has rendered the theory "incoherent" and capable of supporting almost any result. We appreciate the attention, but we fear we've been misunderstood. Our view is that originalism permits arguments from precedent, changed circumstances, or whatever you like, but only to the extent that they lawfully derive from the law of the founding. This kind of originalism, surprisingly common in American legal practice, is catholic in theory but exacting in application. It might look tame, but it has bite.

Aging Disgracefully: Do Economic Laws Remain Rational In Spite Of Changed Circumstances?, Johanna Talcott

FIU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Taking Dignity Seriously: Excavating The Backdrop Of The Eighth Amendment, Meghan J. Ryan

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

The U.S. punishment system is in turmoil. We have a historically unprecedented number of offenders in prison, and our prisoners are serving longer sentences than in any other country. States are surreptitiously experimenting with formulas for lethal injection cocktails, and some prisoners are suffering from botched executions. Despite this tumult, the Eighth Amendment of our Constitution does place limits on the punishments that may be imposed and how they may be implemented. The difficulty, though, is that the Supreme Court’s Eighth Amendment jurisprudence is a bit of a mess. The Court has been consistent in stating that a focus on …

The Declaration Of Independence And Constitutional Interpretation, Alexander Tsesis

Faculty Publications & Other Works

This Article argues that the Reconstruction Amendments incorporated the human dignity values of the Declaration of Independence. The original Constitution contained clauses, which protected the institution of slavery, that were irreconcilable with the normative commitments the nation had undertaken at independence. The Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments set the country aright by formally incorporating the Declaration of Independence's principles for representative governance into the Constitution.

The Declaration of Independence provides valuable insights into matters of human dignity, privacy, and self-government. Its statements about human rights, equality, and popular sovereignty establish a foundational rule of interpretation. While the Supreme Court has …

Model Or Anti-Model? U.S. Regulatory Takings Doctrine In Foreign Jurisdictions, Melanie Benesh

Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law

Canada and Australia have taken a different approach to regulatory takings than Peru, despite some similarities among the countries. Like Peru, Canada and Australia both have IIAs with the United States. Like Peru, both have also addressed regulatory takings issues in their domestic jurisprudence since signing those IIAs. And like Peru, both Canada and Australia have looked to U.S. regulatory takings doctrine while developing their own domestic jurisprudence. However, unlike Peru, Canada and Australia have both ultimately decided that the U.S. regulatory takings doctrine would not be viable in their constitutional and political systems. They view U.S. regulatory takings doctrine …

James Wilson In The State House Yard: Ratifying The Structures Of Popular Sovereignty, Ian C. Bartrum

Scholarly Works

There is an excellent (and rapidly growing) literature examining the influence of James Wilson's Scottish philosophical education on his later political ideas. In this Article, Professor Ian Bartrum makes two contributions to that scholarship. First, he reexamines several of the most important Scottish moral sentimentalists with a particular focus on the specific ontological and epistemological accounts that influenced Wilson. Second, he dissolves the seeming contradictions in Wilson's political thought by showing that, while he understood that representative bodies were essential to legitimate government, he nonetheless distrusted these institutions because they work to obscure, or even subvert, their members' individual experience …

Inherent National Sovereignty Constitutionalism: An Original Understanding Of The U.S. Constitution, Robert J. Kaczorowski

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Policing In The Era Of Permissiveness: Mitigating Misconduct Through Third-Party Standing, Julian A. Cook Iii

Brooklyn Law Review

On April 4, 2015, Walter L. Scott was driving his vehicle when he was stopped by Officer Michael T. Slager of the North Charleston, South Carolina, police department for a broken taillight. A dash cam video from the officer’s vehicle showed the two men engaged in what appeared to be a rather routine verbal exchange. Sometime after Slager returned to his vehicle, Scott exited his car and ran away from Slager, prompting the officer to pursue him on foot. After he caught up with Scott in a grassy field near a muffler establishment, a scuffle between the men ensued, purportedly …

Waive Goodbye To Appellate Review Of Plea Bargaining: Specific Performance Of Appellate Waiver Provisions Should Be Limited To Extraordinary Circumstances, Holly P. Pratesi

Brooklyn Law Review

In the federal criminal justice system, plea bargaining remains the predominant method for disposing of cases. An important provision in most plea agreements consists of the waiver of the defendant’s right to appeal the conviction or sentence. This note explores the constitutional, contractual, and policy implications of a recent Third Circuit decision that would allow specific performance as a remedy where a defendant’s only breach of the plea agreement consists of filing an appeal arguably precluded by an appellate waiver provision. This note argues that the approach taken by the Third Circuit in United States v. Erwin could effectively preclude …

Judge Judith Kaye At Skadden, Arps, Barry H. Garfinkel

Brooklyn Law Review

This collection of remarks from scholars, practitioners, and judges serves as a tribute to the life of the beloved and esteemed Judge Kaye and her commitment to the New York State Constitution. The collection culminates with Judge Kaye’s final essay, written for the Brooklyn Law Review, with her reflections on opportunity in life and law and New York’s State Constitution.

The Making Of A Judge's Judge: Judith S. Kaye's 1987 Cardozo Lecture, Henry M. Greenberg

Brooklyn Law Review

This collection of remarks from scholars, practitioners, and judges serves as a tribute to the life of the beloved and esteemed Judge Kaye and her commitment to the New York State Constitution. The collection culminates with Judge Kaye’s final essay, written for the Brooklyn Law Review, with her reflections on opportunity in life and law and New York’s State Constitution.

For Judith S. Kaye, Susan N. Herman

Brooklyn Law Review

This collection of remarks from scholars, practitioners, and judges serves as a tribute to the life of the beloved and esteemed Judge Kaye and her commitment to the New York State Constitution. The collection culminates with Judge Kaye’s final essay, written for the Brooklyn Law Review, with her reflections on opportunity in life and law and New York’s State Constitution.

Reflections On Opportunity In Life And Law, Judith S. Kaye

Brooklyn Law Review

This essay was written by Judge Kaye in the fall of 2015 for the Brooklyn Law Review. She reflects on her life, her time on the bench, and the significance of New York’s Constitutional Convention. Through the lens of dual constitutionalism and her own life story, Judge Kaye opines on the opportunities in life and law that are not to be missed.

A Tribute To Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye, Hon. Janet Difiore

Brooklyn Law Review

This collection of remarks from scholars, practitioners, and judges serves as a tribute to the life of the beloved and esteemed Judge Kaye and her commitment to the New York State Constitution. The collection culminates with Judge Kaye’s final essay, written for the Brooklyn Law Review, with her reflections on opportunity in life and law and New York’s State Constitution.

A Tribute To Judge Kaye, Nicholas W. Allard

Brooklyn Law Review

This collection of remarks from scholars, practitioners, and judges serves as a tribute to the life of the beloved and esteemed Judge Kaye and her commitment to the New York State Constitution. The collection culminates with Judge Kaye’s final essay, written for the Brooklyn Law Review, with her reflections on opportunity in life and law and New York’s State Constitution.

Putting The Commerce Back In The Dormant Commerce Clause: State Taxes, State Subsidies, And Commerce Neutrality, Ryan Lirette, Alan D. Viard

Journal of Law and Policy

The unpredictability of the Supreme Court’s dormant Commerce Clause (“DCC”) jurisprudence continues to draw trenchant criticism from commentators and the Justices themselves, as the Court remains unable to explain which state taxes and subsidies impede interstate commerce. We show that these problems can be resolved by a Commerce Neutrality framework requiring that state taxes and subsidies provide a combined treatment of inbound and outbound transactions at least as favorable as their treatment of intrastate transactions. This simple test has an economic foundation because taxes and subsidies that violate it create incentives to engage in intrastate rather than interstate transactions. The …

Recovering Forgotten Struggles Over The Constitutional Meaning Of Equality, Helen Norton

Publications

No abstract provided.

Hate Speech And Double Standards, Thomas M. Keck

Political Science - All Scholarship

Many European states ban the public expression of hateful speech directed at racial and religious minorities, and an increasing number do so for anti-gay speech as well. These laws have been subjected to a wide range of legal, philosophical, and empirical investigation, but this paper explores one potential cost that has not received much attention in the literature. Statutory bans on hate speech leave democratic societies with a Hobson’s choice. If those societies ban incitements of hatred against some vulnerable groups, they will inevitably face parallel demands for protection of other such groups. If they accede to those demands, they …

Congress And The Reconstruction Of Foreign Affairs Federalism, Ryan Baasch, Saikrishna Bangalore Prakash

Michigan Law Review

Though the Constitution conspicuously bars some state involvement in foreign affairs, the states clearly retain some authority in foreign affairs. Correctly supposing that state participation may unnecessarily complicate or embarrass our nation’s foreign relations, the Supreme Court has embraced aggressive preemption doctrines that sporadically oust the states from discrete areas in foreign affairs. These doctrines are unprincipled, supply little guidance, and generate capricious results. Fortunately, there is a better way. While the Constitution permits the states a limited and continuing role, it never goes so far as guaranteeing them any foreign affairs authority. Furthermore, the Constitution authorizes Congress to enact …

Agenda-Setting In The Regulatory State: Theory And Evidence, Cary Coglianese, Daniel E. Walters

Faculty Scholarship

Government officials who run administrative agencies must make countless decisions every day about what issues and work to prioritize. These agenda-setting decisions hold enormous implications for the shape of law and public policy, but they have received remarkably little attention by either administrative law scholars or social scientists who study the bureaucracy. Existing research offers few insights about the institutions, norms, and inputs that shape and constrain agency discretion over their agendas or about the strategies that officials employ in choosing to elevate certain issues while putting others on the back burner. In this article, we advance the study of …

Justice And Accountability: Activist Judging In The Light Of Democratic Constitutionalism And Democratic Experimentalism, William H. Simon

Faculty Scholarship

This essay examines the charge that activist judging is inconsistent with democracy in the light of two recent perspectives in legal scholarship. The perspectives – Democratic Constitutionalism and Democratic Experimentalism – suggest in convergent and complementary ways that the charge ignores or oversimplifies relevant features of both judging and democracy. In particular, the charge exaggerates the pre-emptive effect of activist judging, and it implausibly conflates democracy with electoral processes. In addition, it understands consensus as a basis for judicial legitimacy solely in terms of pre-existing agreement and ignores the contingent legitimacy that can arise from the potential for subsequent agreement.