Constitutional Law Commons^™

Quis Custodiet: Disestablishment And Standing To Sue, Thomas J. O'Toole

The Catholic Lawyer

No abstract provided.

Tiers Of Scrutiny In A Hierarchical Judiciary, Tara Leigh Grove

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Book Review Of Constitutional Personae, Michael N. Umberger

Library Staff Publications

No abstract provided.

Prosecuting Online Threats After Elonis, Michael Pierce

Northwestern University Law Review

In Elonis v. United States, decided last term, the Supreme Court vacated a conviction for online threats on the ground that the lower court erred in its instructions to the jury regarding mens rea. In doing so, however, the Court declined to articulate which mens rea standard would have sustained a conviction. It is thus currently uncertain which mens rea the government must prove when prosecuting online threats under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c). The Elonis Court discussed three potential mens rea standards; as universal standards for online threats, each leaves something to be desired. Fortunately, federal courts need not …

“Criminal Records” - A Comparative Approach, Sigmund A. Cohn

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Recent Decision: Constitutional Law - Restriction Of American Citizens’ Right Of Access To Information And Ideas In The Court Of Government Control Of Immigration Is Not Unconstitutional When Supported By A Facially Legitimate Reason, W. P. Bishop, Joseph C. Vanzant

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Habeas As Forum Allocation: A New Synthesis, Carlos Manuel Vázquez

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The scope of habeas relief for state prisoners, especially during the decades before the Supreme Court’s 1953 decision in Brown v. Allen, is a famously disputed question – one of recognized significance for contemporary debates about the proper scope of habeas review. This Essay provides a new answer. It argues that, until the enactment of AEDPA in 1996, state prisoners were always entitled to de novo review of the legal and mixed law/fact questions decided against them by the state courts. Until 1916, such review was provided by the Supreme Court; after 1953, such review was provided by the lower …

Going To Hell In A Hhs Notice: The Contraceptive Mandate's Next Impermissible Burden On Religious Freedom, Trey O'Callaghan

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that eligible religious organizations submit a notice objecting to providing their employees contraceptive coverage if they religiously object to contraception or abortifacients is as simple as filing a piece of paper. But to a collection of Catholic petitioners, complying with this requirement gives rise to “scandal” and causes them to “materially cooperate” with sin. Filing a piece of paper may seem far outside any exercise of religion, but these groups sincerely believe that the one page notice burdens their religious beliefs.

Zubik v. Burwell, like Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, presents a conflict between …

Asking The Right Federal Questions: Merrill Lynch V. Manning And The Exclusive Jurisdiction Provisions Of The Securities Exchange Act, Seth Taylor

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Suppose you run a small corporation in the business of auctioneering stamps, coins, and other collectibles. Sensing that your corporation’s financial prospects are on the decline, large financial institutions drive the price of the company’s stock down. Your shareholders sue in state court alleging a breach of state law in manipulating stock prices while also referencing breaches of federal securities law.

Can the defendant financial institutions remove the case to federal court? This question is set to be answered by the Supreme Court in Manning v. Merrill Lynch, which deals specifically with whether section 27 of the Securities Exchange …

Ocasio V. United States: The Scope Of A Conspiracy To Commit Hobbs Act Extortion, Benjamin Ludewig

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Ocasio v. United States presents the question of whether a conviction under the general federal conspiracy statute may be based on Hobbs Act extortion when a public official defendant has formed an agreement to obtain property from someone within the conspiracy. There is currently a circuit split on the question presented in Ocasio v. United States, which the Supreme Court will address. This commentary argues that the Court should allow a conviction under the general federal conspiracy statute to be based on Hobbs Act extortion when the property is obtained from someone within the conspiracy. This holding is consistent …

Utah V. Strieff And The Future Of The Exceptions To The Exclusionary Rule, Zack Gong

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

In the recent case State v. Strieff, the Supreme Court of Utah held that police’s discovery of a lawful outstanding warrant during an unlawful investigatory stop cannot save the evidence obtained during that arrest from suppression under the attenuation doctrine. To reach that decision, the court reasoned that the inevitable discovery doctrine, instead of the attenuation doctrine, is appropriate for this situation. However, the court failed to address whether the inevitable discovery doctrine can ultimately save the evidence from suppression.

The theoretical foundation of how the Fourth Amendment guaranty gives rise to the exclusionary rule has never been steadfast; …

Ring Around The Jury: Reviewing Florida's Capital Sentencing Framework In Hurst V. Florida, Richard Guyer

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

This commentary discusses Hurst v. Florida, a case in which the Supreme court will review Florida's death sentencing scheme to determine whether it violates the Sixth of Eighth Amendments. The author argues that Florida's capital sentencing framework violates the Sixth Amendment. A jury, rather than a judge, better reflects society's moral views, which are critical to weigh when deciding whether to impose the death penalty.

Gutting Public Sector Unions: Friedrichs V. California Teachers Association, Jake Wasserman

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

In Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, public-sector unions face a constitutional challenge that could lead to their demise. In California, all public school employees are represented by a union--whether or not they are union members--and are required to pay an agency fee. This requirement seems to run contrary to the First Amendment, which generally prohibits the government from compelling citizens to support the speech and expressive activities of a private organization. This commentary argues that the Court should not overrule its decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education and uphold the validity of agency-shop agreements.

Some Thoughts On The Study Of Judicial Behavior, Lee Epstein

William & Mary Law Review

Back in the 1940s the political scientist C. Herman Pritchett began tallying the votes and opinions of Supreme Court Justices. His goal was to use data to test the hypothesis that the Justices were not only following the “law,” but were also motivated by their own ideological preferences.

With the hindsight of nearly eighty years, we know that Pritchett’s seemingly small project helped to create a big field: Judicial Behavior, which I take to be the theoretical and empirical study of the choices judges make. Political scientists continue to play a central role, but they are now joined by economists, …

Judicial Recusation In The Federal Republic Of Germany, Sigmund A. Cohn

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Introduction: Is The Supreme Court Failing At Its Job, Or Are We Failing At Ours?, Suzanna Sherry

Vanderbilt Law Review

It is a pleasure and a privilege to write an introduction to this Symposium celebrating Dean Erwin Chemerinsky's important new book, The Case Against the Supreme Court. Chemerinsky is one of the leading constitutional scholars of our time and a frequent advocate before the U.S. Supreme Court. If he thinks there is a case to be made against the Court, we should all take it very seriously indeed. Chemerinsky's thesis may be stated in a few sentences. The primary role of the Supreme Court, in his view, is to "protect the rights of minorities who cannot rely on the political …

Thinking About The Supreme Court's Successes And Failures, Erwin Chemerinsky

Vanderbilt Law Review

The Supreme Court often has failed at its most important tasks and at the most important times. I set out this thesis at the beginning the book:

To be clear, I am not saying that the Supreme Court has failed at these crucial tasks every time. Making a case against the Supreme Court does not require taking such an extreme position. I also will talk about areas where the Court has succeeded in protecting minorities and in enforcing the limits of the Constitution. My claim is that the Court has often failed where and when it has been most needed. …

Clarence Thomas, Fisher V. University Of Texas, And The Future Of Affirmative Action In Higher Education, Scott D. Gerber

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Tricky Negotiation: Free Speech Versus Insensitivity, Melvin Dilanchian

Washington University Undergraduate Law Review

The central question presented in this paper is whether specialty license plates constitute government speech, and are thus subject to disapproval by the Board of the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles. The core concerns reviewed in this research, largely focus on defining whose speech specialty license plates are. The purpose is to investigate and analyze the precedent established as a result of a recent case, Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans. The paper thoroughly reviews the arguments made in the majority opinion, as well as those of the dissenting opinion, with an interdisciplinary approach. The argument presented …

The Place Of Policy In International Law, Oscar Schachter

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Law Professors Want Hearing, Vote On Garland, Eric Berger, Kristen M. Blankley, Brian H. Bornstein, Eve M. Brank, Robert C. Denicola, Alan H. Frank, Stephen S. Gealy, Justin Hurwitz, David Landis, Craig M. Lawson, Richard Leiter, William H. Lyons, Richard H. Lawson, Matt Novak, Allen Overcash, Stefanie S. Pearlman, Ross Pesek, Kevin Ruser, Robert F. Schopp, Anthony Schutz, Anna Williams Shavers, Brett C. Stohs, Ryan Sullivan, Richard L. Weiner, Steven L. Willborn, Sandra Zellmer

Nebraska College of Law: Faculty Publications

Dear Senator Fischer and Senator Sasse,

We write this as citizens, but we all teach at the University of Nebraska College of Law. We hold different political viewpoints and disagree frequentIy with each other on political and legal issues. As law professors, however, we share a deep commitment to the rule of law and an impartial judiciary. We therefore urge you to hold confirmation hearings and a vote on President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Chief Judge Merrick B. Garland.

Originalist Or Original: The Difficulties Of Reconciling Citizens United With Corporate Law History, Leo E. Strine Jr., Nicholas Walter

Notre Dame Law Review

In this Article, we focus on a specific question raised by Citizens United, which is whether the Supreme Court’s decision can be justified solely by application of the originalist method of constitutional interpretation, or whether it can only be explained by giving substantial weight to a more modern, evolved understanding of the relevant constitutional provisions. We conclude that however Citizens United is rationalized, it cannot be defended solely or primarily as the product of a disciplined application of the originalist method of constitutional interpretation. Because Citizens United takes a view at odds both with the historical understanding of business …

Stop The Reach: Solving The Judicial Takings Problem By Objectively Defining Property, Steven C. Begakis

Notre Dame Law Review

The future of judicial takings may rest on the ability of the Court to define property in a robust and objective way. Property has essential characteristics that make it easily identifiable, the most significant of which are the rights to exclude and use. However, even when a property right does not fit within a neat categorical definition, should that right have a long, well established pedigree in state court precedent, that property right is similarly within the capacity of the reviewing court to identify. And once it is determined that, prior to the judgment, the petitioners possessed a clearly defined …

Military Mothers And Claims Under The Federal Tort Claims Act For Injuries That Occur Pre-Birth, Tara Willke

Notre Dame Law Review Reflection

In order to right a longstanding wrong perpetrated against military mothers and their children, the Court should grant review in Ortiz v. United States ex rel. Evans Army Community Hospital. Part I of this Essay provides a brief discussion of the FTCA and the Feres doctrine. Part II discusses the facts and holding in Ortiz and its rejection of the approaches taken in other circuits involving pregnant service members and pre-birth injuries, which has caused a clear split in the circuits. Part III argues that these types of claims are not subject to the Feres doctrine because pregnancy and …

The Emergence Of Contextually Constrained Purposivism, Michael C. Mikulic

Notre Dame Law Review Reflection

This Case Comment first outlines the various methods of statutory construction used by the Supreme Court throughout its history, leading up to the Court’s implementation of contextually constrained purposivism in King v. Burwell. It then provides a summary of the facts and procedural history of King, thereby setting the stage to explain how the Court invoked contextually constrained purposivism. Finally, the Case Comment discusses some of the positive and negative implications of the approach.

To Seek A Newer World: Prisoners’ Rights At The Frontier, David M. Shapiro

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

Prisoners’ rights lawyers have long faced a dismal legal landscape. Yet, 2015 was a remarkable year for prison litigation that could signal a new period for this area of law—the Supreme Court handed down decisions that will reverberate in prison jurisprudence for decades to come. New questions have been asked, new avenues opened. This piece is about what the Court has done recently, and what possibilities it has opened for the future. More broadly, I suggest that the Court may be subjecting prison officials to greater scrutiny and that this shifting judicial landscape reflects an evolving social discourse about prison …

At The Intersection Of Religious Organization Missions And Employment Laws: The Case Of Minister Employment Suits, Jarod S. Gonzalez

Catholic University Law Review

Reviewing the intersection of a religious organization’s right to select employees based on their goals and mission and modern employment law, this article argues that the analysis of the ministerial exception will depend on the type of suit brought. Specifically, the Article identifies five analytical categories: (1) employment discrimination/employment retaliation claims; (2) breach of employment contract claims; (3) whistleblower claims; (4) tort claims; and (5) miscellaneous claims.

The Article begins by describing the ministerial exception and ecclesiastical abstention doctrines that exist under the First Amendment through the lens of the Supreme Court’s decision in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School …

The Quid Pro Quo Quark: Unstable Elementary Particle Of Honest Services Fraud, Brian H. Connor

Catholic University Law Review

From 1946 to 1987, the federal mail fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1341, was a powerful tool for the prosecution of political corruption. In a line of decisions beginning with the Fifth Circuit’s in Shushan v. United States, and ending with the Supreme Court’s decision in McNally v. United States, courts upheld the use of the statute to prosecute officials who had deprived the public of its “intangible right” to the official’s “honest services.” In 1988, after the Supreme Court held this theory unconstitutionally vague in McNally, Congress enacted § 1346, intending to restore “honest services fraud” …

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 …

What Two Legal Scholars Learned From Studying 70 Years Of Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings, Lori A. Ringhand, Paul Collins

Popular Media

This article in The Conversation on March 21, 2016 and moves beyond the conventional wisdom espoused by Biden, Kagan and others, and presents a strong case for an alternative view of the hearings. Examining every statement made at confirmation hearings from 1939 to 2010, we conclude the hearings are important to the health of American democracy. Based on this, we’d like to see partisan politics pushed aside and Judge Merrick Garland to get a hearing.