Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
-
- University of Michigan Law School (640)
- Seattle University School of Law (217)
- Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center (217)
- William & Mary Law School (191)
- University of Colorado Law School (147)
-
- Universitas Indonesia (121)
- Texas A&M University School of Law (79)
- Notre Dame Law School (72)
- Duke Law (69)
- University of Richmond (69)
- Cleveland State University (60)
- Northwestern Pritzker School of Law (58)
- St. John's University School of Law (57)
- Brooklyn Law School (54)
- Yeshiva University, Cardozo School of Law (52)
- Roger Williams University (48)
- The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law (47)
- Fordham Law School (44)
- University of Georgia School of Law (40)
- UIC School of Law (38)
- University of Cincinnati College of Law (37)
- Vanderbilt University Law School (37)
- Washington and Lee University School of Law (34)
- The University of Akron (31)
- American University Washington College of Law (30)
- Georgetown University Law Center (30)
- University of Arkansas, Fayetteville (30)
- Boston University School of Law (29)
- Columbia Law School (28)
- Maurer School of Law: Indiana University (28)
- Keyword
-
- United States Supreme Court (513)
- Supreme Court (427)
- Constitution (344)
- Constitutional law (226)
- First Amendment (138)
-
- Federalism (127)
- Federal (125)
- State (107)
- Due process (103)
- Fifth Amendment (102)
- Congress (99)
- Constitutional Law (98)
- Judicial review (95)
- Sixth Amendment (89)
- New York (85)
- Constitutional interpretation (78)
- Equal Protection Clause (71)
- Abortion (70)
- Equal protection (70)
- Originalism (67)
- Separation of powers (65)
- Discrimination (64)
- Fourteenth Amendment (64)
- Jurisprudence (60)
- Police (60)
- Defendant (57)
- Court of Appeals (56)
- 1990) (55)
- Supreme Court of the United States (55)
- History (54)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- Michigan Law Review (403)
- Seattle University Law Review (213)
- Touro Law Review (202)
- Faculty Scholarship (175)
- Articles (174)
-
- Publications (143)
- "Dharmasisya” Jurnal Program Magister Hukum FHUI (121)
- Faculty Publications (107)
- Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar (54)
- Northwestern University Law Review (49)
- University of Richmond Law Review (47)
- UIC Law Review (34)
- William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal (33)
- Journal Articles (32)
- Law Faculty Scholarship (32)
- Scholarly Articles (31)
- Akron Law Review (30)
- Cleveland State Law Review (30)
- Arkansas Law Review (29)
- Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works (29)
- William & Mary Law Review (28)
- Faculty Articles (27)
- Brooklyn Law Review (26)
- Catholic University Law Review (26)
- DePaul Business & Commercial Law Journal (26)
- Notre Dame Law Review (26)
- Supreme Court Preview (26)
- Vanderbilt Law Review (26)
- All Faculty Scholarship (24)
- Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present) (24)
- Publication Type
- File Type
Articles 1471 - 1500 of 3213
Full-Text Articles in Constitutional Law
The New Unconstitutionality Of Juvenile Sex Offender Registration: Suspending The Presumption Of Constitutionality For Laws That Burden Juvenile Offenders, Spencer Klein
Michigan Law Review
In Smith v. Doe, the Supreme Court held that Alaska’s sex offender registration and notification statute did not constitute punishment and was therefore not susceptible to challenge under the Ex Post Facto Clause. In reaching that conclusion, the Court looked to the seven factors articulated in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez. To evaluate those factors, the Court applied a presumption of constitutionality, conducting the sort of narrow factual inquiry characteristic of rational basis review. Since Smith, courts have disagreed as to whether sex offender laws are punitive when applied to juveniles, and the Supreme Court has not yet addressed …
Should The President’S Words Matter In Court?, Katherine A. Shaw
Should The President’S Words Matter In Court?, Katherine A. Shaw
Online Publications
The most striking aspect of last Thursday’s opinion by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which rejected the Trump administration’s latest effort to revive its travel ban for individuals from six predominantly Muslim countries, was its reliance on Donald Trump’s own words as candidate, president-elect and president. The court leaned particularly heavily on his now-famous campaign statement that he was “calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”
An Empirical Assessment Of Georgia’S Beyond A Reasonable Doubt Standard To Determine Intellectual Disability In Capital Cases, Lauren Sudeall Lucas
An Empirical Assessment Of Georgia’S Beyond A Reasonable Doubt Standard To Determine Intellectual Disability In Capital Cases, Lauren Sudeall Lucas
Georgia State University Law Review
In Atkins v. Virginia, the Supreme Court held that execution of people with intellectual disabilities violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. In doing so, the Court explicitly left to the states the question of which procedures would be used to identify such defendants as exempt from the death penalty. More than a decade before Atkins, Georgia was the first state to bar execution of people with intellectual disability. Yet, of the states that continue to impose the death penalty as a punishment for capital murder, Georgia is the only state that requires capital defendants …
Proportionality Skepticism In A Red State, Lauren Sudeall Lucas
Proportionality Skepticism In A Red State, Lauren Sudeall Lucas
Faculty Publications By Year
Commentary on Carol S. Steiker & Jordan M. Steiker, Courting Death: The Supreme Court and Capital Punishment (2016).
A Comparative Approach To Counter-Terrorism Legislation And Legal Policy, Paul David Hill Jr
A Comparative Approach To Counter-Terrorism Legislation And Legal Policy, Paul David Hill Jr
Senior Honors Theses
Since the 9/11 attacks, American legislation and legal policy in regards to classifying and processing captured terrorists has fallen short of being fully effective and lawful. Trial and error by the Bush and Obama administrations has uncovered two key lessons: (1) captured terrorists are not typical prisoners of war and thus their detainment must involve more legal scrutiny than the latter; and (2) captured terrorists are not ordinary criminals and thus the civilian criminal court system, due to constitutional constraints, is not capable of adequately trying every count of terrorism. Other nations, including France and Israel, approach this problem with …
Reciprocal Legitimation In The Federal Courts System, Neil S. Siegel
Reciprocal Legitimation In The Federal Courts System, Neil S. Siegel
Faculty Scholarship
Much scholarship in law and political science has long understood the U.S. Supreme Court to be the “apex” court in the federal judicial system, and so to relate hierarchically to “lower” federal courts. On that top-down view, exemplified by the work of Alexander Bickel and many subsequent scholars, the Court is the principal, and lower federal courts are its faithful agents. Other scholarship takes a bottom-up approach, viewing lower federal courts as faithless agents or analyzing the “percolation” of issues in those courts before the Court decides. This Article identifies circumstances in which the relationship between the Court and other …
The Highest Court: A Dialogue Between Justice Louis Brandeis And Justice Antonin Scalia On Stare Decisis, P. Thomas Distanislao Iii
The Highest Court: A Dialogue Between Justice Louis Brandeis And Justice Antonin Scalia On Stare Decisis, P. Thomas Distanislao Iii
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
When Facts Don't Matter, Eric Berger
When Facts Don't Matter, Eric Berger
BYU Law Review
We are used to thinking that facts shape legal outcomes, but sometimes the Supreme Court wants nothing to do with facts. In some high-profile constitutional decisions, the Roberts Court has ignored important congressional findings, deeming irrelevant facts that document the very mischief Congress sought to remedy. Similarly, in these same cases the Court exploits the muddy line between facial and as-applied challenges to avoid confronting particular facts. The Justices in these cases do not question the veracity of seemingly relevant facts. Rather, they write their opinions as though these facts don’t matter. This Article examines the Court’s penchant for brushing …
Disentangling Miranda And Massiah: How To Revive The Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel As A Tool For Regulating Confession Law, Eve Brensike Primus
Disentangling Miranda And Massiah: How To Revive The Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel As A Tool For Regulating Confession Law, Eve Brensike Primus
Articles
Fifty years after Miranda v. Arizona, many have lamented the ways in which the Burger, Rehnquist, and Roberts Courts have cut back on Miranda's protections. One underappreciated a spect of Miranda's demise is the way it has affected the development of the pretrial Sixth Amendment right to counsel guaranteed by Massiah v. United States. Much of the case law diluting suspects' Fifth Amendment Miranda rights has bled over into the Sixth Amendment right to counsel cases without consideration of whether the animating purposes of the Massiah pretrial right to counsel would support such an importation. This development is unfortunate …
The Miranda Case Fifty Years Later, Yale Kamisar
The Miranda Case Fifty Years Later, Yale Kamisar
Articles
A decade after the Supreme Court decided Miranda v. Arizona, Geoffrey Stone took a close look at the eleven decisions the Court had handed down “concerning the scope and application of Miranda.” As Stone observed, “[i]n ten of these cases, the Court interpreted Miranda so as not to exclude the challenged evidence.” In the eleventh case, the Court excluded the evidence on other grounds. Thus, Stone noted, ten years after the Court decided the case, “the Court ha[d] not held a single item of evidence inadmissible on the authority of Miranda.” Not a single item. To use …
Justice Scalia, Implied Rights Of Action, And Historical Practice, Anthony J. Bellia Jr.
Justice Scalia, Implied Rights Of Action, And Historical Practice, Anthony J. Bellia Jr.
Journal Articles
In the realm of Federal Courts, the question of “implied rights of action” asks when, if ever, may a plaintiff bring a federal right of action for the violation of a federal statute that does not expressly create one. Justice Scalia argued that a court should not entertain an action for damages for the violation of a federal statute unless the text of the statute demonstrates that Congress meant to create a right of action. The Supreme Court adopted this approach in 2001 in Alexander v. Sandoval, with Justice Scalia writing for the majority. Certain judges and scholars have argued …
My Body, Not My Say: How Roe V. Wade Endangers Women's Autonomy, Kisha K. Patel
My Body, Not My Say: How Roe V. Wade Endangers Women's Autonomy, Kisha K. Patel
Politics Honors Papers
When defining women’s rights to reproductive decisions in Roe v. Wade, Justice Blackmun fails to ensure protection for women by defining this right in the privacy doctrine. Justice Blackmun’s opinion allows the government to interpret and apply the doctrine to deny women access and availability to reproductive health. This can be shown by the subsequent Supreme Court decisions on privacy that allow the government to overrule the right of the individual woman. This allows for the government to effectively deny women the right to abortion and ultimately prevents women from making independent autonomous decisions. The laws and regulations against …
Find My Criminals: Fourth Amendment Implications Of The Universal Cell Phone "App" That Every Cell Phone User Has But No Criminal Wants, Christopher Joseph
Find My Criminals: Fourth Amendment Implications Of The Universal Cell Phone "App" That Every Cell Phone User Has But No Criminal Wants, Christopher Joseph
Barry Law Review
No abstract provided.
Mcdonnell V. United States: Defining “Official Action” In Public Corruption Law, Christopher Murphy
Mcdonnell V. United States: Defining “Official Action” In Public Corruption Law, Christopher Murphy
Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar
McDonnell v. United States involved the former Governor of Virginia leveraging the power of his position to help a wealthy constituent gain access to top state decision makers in exchange for valuable gifts and loans. The Government argued that conduct like setting up phone calls and meetings, as well as hosting receptions on behalf of the constituent was sufficient to constitute an “official act” under public corruption laws. Governor McDonnell argued for a narrower interpretation of “official act,” claiming that his conduct was akin to run of the mill things public officials do every day to benefit their constituents. The …
What Is The Relevant Parcel? Clarifying The "Parcel As A Whole" Standard In Murr V. Wisconsin, Gavin S. Frisch
What Is The Relevant Parcel? Clarifying The "Parcel As A Whole" Standard In Murr V. Wisconsin, Gavin S. Frisch
Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar
Murr v. Wisconsin seeks to determine whether commonly-owned, adjacent parcels of land are considered as 1 or 2 parcels for purposes of analyzing a regulatory takings claim. Nearly 40 years ago, the Court in Penn Central rejected a property owner's takings claim which segmenting the entire parcel into discrete property rights because a compensatory taking must result from governmental action which interferes with the "parcel as a whole." In Murr, property owners argue that a local zoning ordinance effected a taking of one of their two adjoining parcels because the ordinance prohibited the owners from developing their lot. I …
The Prevailing Culture Over Immigration: Centralized Immigration And Policies Between Attrition And Accommodation, Antonios Kouroutakis
The Prevailing Culture Over Immigration: Centralized Immigration And Policies Between Attrition And Accommodation, Antonios Kouroutakis
Seton Hall Circuit Review
No abstract provided.
The Supreme Court’S Countermajoritarianism? What Impact Does Public Opinion Have On The Supreme Court Decisions?, Evan Tompkins
The Supreme Court’S Countermajoritarianism? What Impact Does Public Opinion Have On The Supreme Court Decisions?, Evan Tompkins
Political Science Theses and Capstones
Although normative questions about the role of the Supreme Court as a countermajoritarian institution have been commonly debated in political science research, an updated empirical question on Mishler and Sheehan’s (1993), study on public opinion and its impact on the Court must be asked. It has been 25 years since the publication of their study and numerous high profile cases such as Bush v. Gore, Citizens United v. FEC, and Obergefell v. Hodges have brought nationwide attention to the Supreme Court and how it interacts with public opinion. Results from empirical measurements of the Supreme Court’s decisions and what impact …
Linnaean Taxonomy And Globalized Law, Ronald J. Krotoszynski Jr.
Linnaean Taxonomy And Globalized Law, Ronald J. Krotoszynski Jr.
Michigan Law Review
Review of The Court and the World: American Law and the New Global Realities by Stephen Breyer.
Justice Scalia And Abortion Speech, Timothy Zick
Justice Scalia And Abortion Speech, Timothy Zick
Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
An Alcohol Mindset In A Drug-Crazed World: A Review Of Birchfield V. North Dakota, Devon Beeny
An Alcohol Mindset In A Drug-Crazed World: A Review Of Birchfield V. North Dakota, Devon Beeny
Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar
Birchfield v. North Dakota involved the ability of legislatures to criminalize a driver’s refusal to submit to a chemical test after a law enforcement officer arrested the individual for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The driver’s argued this criminalized their constitutional right to refuse a warrantless search, while the governments’ argued they needed this power in order to effectively address drunk driving in their jurisdictions. The Court decided that refusing a breath test could be criminalized because requiring the test did not violate the driver’s constitutional rights, however the Court also ruled that because of the invasive …
Ditching Your Duty: When Must Private Entities Comply With Federal Antidiscrimination Law?, Tara Knapp
Ditching Your Duty: When Must Private Entities Comply With Federal Antidiscrimination Law?, Tara Knapp
Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar
This Commentary considers how the Fifth Circuit characterizes “services, programs, and activities” of public agencies in Ivy v. Williams, in the context of determining whether a private entity is subject to federal antidiscrimination law. “Services, programs, and activities” of public agencies must comply with Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, whether directly distributed by a public or a private entity. This Commentary argues private driving schools in Texas that distribute a driving course necessary to obtaining a drivers’ license are subject to Title II because the providing the course functionally constitutes a program of the Texas Education …
Drawing Lines: Racial Gerrymandering In Bethune-Hill V. Virginia Board Of Elections, Scott Reed
Drawing Lines: Racial Gerrymandering In Bethune-Hill V. Virginia Board Of Elections, Scott Reed
Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar
In Bethune-Hill v. Virginia Board of Elections, the Supreme Court had to decide whether twelve Virginia challenged legislative districts, in which a one-size-fits-all 55% black voting age population floor was imposed, withstood constitutional scrutiny. The Court, though stating that the lower court misapplied precedent, declined to hold that race predominated in the formation of the districts and that strict scrutiny would be triggered, instead remanding to the lower court for reexamination. This commentary argues that the Court missed an opportunity to hold that a 55% BVAP floor prioritized above all else is per se racial predomination, and such a …
Birchfield V. North Dakota: Warrantless Breath Tests And The Fourth Amendment, Sara Jane Schlafstein
Birchfield V. North Dakota: Warrantless Breath Tests And The Fourth Amendment, Sara Jane Schlafstein
Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar
In Birchfield v. North Dakota, the Supreme Court explored warrantless breath tests during DUI stops and their validity under the Fourth Amendment. To determine their constitutionality, the Court adopted a balancing test, weighing the government’s interest in preventing instances of drunk driving with the intrusion on an individual’s privacy. The Court ultimately concluded that warrantless breath tests are constitutional when conducted incident to a lawful DUI arrest. This commentary explores the Court’s reasoning and holding and will argue that the Court was correct in deciding that a warrant is not necessary for conducting a breath test incident to a …
May The Best Canon Win: Lockhart V. United States And The Battle Of Statutory Interpretation, Hassan Shaikh
May The Best Canon Win: Lockhart V. United States And The Battle Of Statutory Interpretation, Hassan Shaikh
Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar
In Lockhart v. United States, the Supreme Court resolved a long-standing circuit split regarding 18 U.S.C. § 2252(b)(2), which triggered a mandatory minimum sentence for recidivists who had previously been convicted under federal or state crimes relating to “aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual conduct involving a minor or ward.” In expected fashion, the Court relied on the statute’s plain meaning to decide whether Lockhart’s previous crime had triggered the mandatory minimum. However, even with identical approaches to the text, the majority and dissent reached contrary conclusions. This commentary explores how a single approach could result in …
The Supreme Court On Abortion - A Dissenting Opinion, Patrick T. Conley, Robert J. Mckenna
The Supreme Court On Abortion - A Dissenting Opinion, Patrick T. Conley, Robert J. Mckenna
The Catholic Lawyer
No abstract provided.
Commodity Supply And Extraterritorial Patent Infringement In Life Technologies V. Promega, G. Edward Powell
Commodity Supply And Extraterritorial Patent Infringement In Life Technologies V. Promega, G. Edward Powell
Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar
American patent law grants inventors the exclusive right, within U.S. territory, to make, sell, use, and import their patented inventions. In response to attempts to circumvent the right by making the components of an invention within the U.S. and exporting them for assembly abroad, Congress passed 35 U.S.C. § 271(f), prohibiting “suppl[ying] . . . from the United States all or a substantial portion of the components of a patented invention . . . to actively induce the combination of such components outside of the United States . . . .” Petitioner Life Technologies supplied one commodity component of a …
Without More, There Is No More: Standing And Racial Gerrymandering In Wittman V. Personhuballah, Jessica Edmundson
Without More, There Is No More: Standing And Racial Gerrymandering In Wittman V. Personhuballah, Jessica Edmundson
Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar
In drawing election maps, racial gerrymandering separates minority groups, packing them into specific districts to weaken the power of their votes. In Wittman v. Personhuballah, the Supreme Court held that a group of Virginia congressmen that neither lived in, nor represented a district did not have standing to defend gerrymandering in that district. Although the Court had the opportunity to address the substantive issues in the case, it did not, leaving a substantial gap in racial gerrymandering jurisprudence. This commentary explores the consequences of this gap and argues that the Court should not find a legally cognizable right in …
Trending @ Rwu Law: Dean Yelnosky's Post: 24: Dean Style 3-6-2017, Michael Yelnosky
Trending @ Rwu Law: Dean Yelnosky's Post: 24: Dean Style 3-6-2017, Michael Yelnosky
Law School Blogs
No abstract provided.
Where Does Judge Gorsuch Stand On Limiting The Federal Government?, David J. Reiss
Where Does Judge Gorsuch Stand On Limiting The Federal Government?, David J. Reiss
Cornell Law Faculty Working Papers
This week, all eyes are on Judge Gorsuch’s confirmation hearing for a seat on the Supreme Court. While Gorsuch has not explicitly stated that he wants to drown or deconstruct the federal government, there is troubling language in his opinions that indicates that he shares that goal. While this will hearten many a Tea Partyer, moderate Republicans along with Democrats should be wary of someone who does not value the good that the federal government can and does do.
Random If Not "Rare"? The Eighth Amendment Weaknesses Of Post-Miller Legislation, Kimberly Thomas
Random If Not "Rare"? The Eighth Amendment Weaknesses Of Post-Miller Legislation, Kimberly Thomas
Articles
First, this Article surveys the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to analogize life without parole for juveniles to the death penalty for adults, and discusses the Eighth Amendment law regarding the parameters around death penalty statutory schemes. Second, this Article examines the state legislative response to Miller, and scrutinizes it with the Court's Eighth Amendment death penalty law-and the states' responses to this case law-in mind. This Article highlights the failure of juvenile homicide sentencing provisions to: 1) narrow offenses that are eligible for life without parole sentences; 2) further limit, once a guilty finding is made, the categories of …