Constitutional Law Commons^™

Gideon V. Wainwright A Half Century Later, Yale Kamisar

Reviews

When he was nearing the end of his distinguished career, one of my former law professors observed that a dramatic story of a specific case "has the same advantages that a play or a novel has over a general discussion of ethics or political theory." Ms. Houppert illustrates this point in her very first chapter.

Gender-Conscious Confrontation: The Accuser-Obligation Approach Revisited, Michael El-Zein

Michigan Journal of Gender & Law

The Supreme Court’s recent Confrontation Clause decisions have had a dramatic effect on domestic violence prosecution throughout the United States, sparking debate about possible solutions to an increasingly difficult trial process for prosecutors and the survivors they represent. In this Note, I revisit and reinterpret the suggestion by Professor Sherman J. Clark in his article, An Accuser-Obligation Approach to the Confrontation Clause,1 that we should view the Confrontation Clause primarily as an obligation of the accuser rather than a right of the accused. Specifically, I reevaluate Clark’s proposition using a gendered lens, ultimately suggesting a novel solution to the problem …

Defeating A Wolf Clad As A Wolf: Formalism And Functionalism In Separation-Of-Powers Suits Against The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Lee A. Deneen

Georgia Law Review

In 2010, the Court decided Free Enterprise Fund, engaging in a substantially formalist analysis of the President's removal power. That same year, Congress authorized creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a federal agency with significant regulatory and enforcement power over the consumer finance industry. Within three years of that legislation, two lawsuits have challenged the CFPB's structure. This Note evaluates the arguments of the CFPB's opponents against the backdrop of Free Enterprise Fund and the Roberts Court's other formalist decisions. Although one might expect complaints against the CFPB to be lodged solely in formalist terms, the CFPB's opponents have …

Justifying A Prudential Solution To The Williamson County Ripeness Puzzle, Katherine M. Crocker

Georgia Law Review

In the much-maligned 1985 case Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, the Supreme Court articulated a rule of "ripeness" requiring most Fifth Amendment regulatory- takings claimants to seek 'just compensation" in state court before attempting to litigate in federal court. Williamson County and its progeny have opened a Pandora's box of unforeseen complications, spawning many more questions than they purported to answer. At the forefront is what kind of requirement the rule is anyway. This Article contends that reading Williamson County as grounded in the Constitution (specifically, in Article III or the Fifth Amendment) runs …

Election Law's Lochnerian Turn, Ellen D. Katz

Articles

This panel has been asked to consider whether "the Constitution [is] responsible for electoral dysfunction."' My answer is no. The electoral process undeniably falls well short of our aspirations, but it strikes me that we should look to the Supreme Court for an accounting before blaming the Constitution for the deeply unsatisfactory condition in which we find ourselves.

Judicial Takings: Musings On Stop The Beach, James E. Krier

Articles

Judicial takings weren’t much talked about until a few years ago, when the Stop the Beach case made them suddenly salient. The case arose from a Florida statute, enacted in 1961, that authorizes public restoration of eroded beaches by adding sand to widen them seaward. Under the statute, the state has title to any new dry land resulting from restored beaches, meaning that waterfront owners whose land had previously extended to the mean high-tide line end up with public beaches between their land and the water. This, the owners claimed, resulted in a taking of their property, more particularly their …

Same-Sex Marriage, Federalism, And Judicial Supremacy, Robert F. Nagel

Publications

Justice Kennedy's opinion in United States v. Windsor is characterized by a number of strained and wavering constitutional claims. Prominent among these is the argument that the principle of federalism calls into question the congressional decision to adopt the traditional definition of marriage, which the state of New York rejected. An examination of earlier federalism cases demonstrates that Kennedy's appreciation for federalism is in fact severely limited and suggests and that his lax use of legal authority is directly if perversely related to this limited appreciation.

Federalism cases prior to Windsor show that Justice Kennedy supports state authority only when …

Viva Conditional Federal Spending!, Samuel R. Bagenstos

Articles

From the rise of the New Deal through the constitutional litigation over the Affordable Care Act (ACA), conditional federal spending has been a major target for those who have sought to limit the scope of federal power. There are a couple of reasons for this. First, as the Supreme Court narrowed Congress's power to regulate private primary conduct and state conduct in the last twenty years,' conditional spending looked like the way Congress might be able to circumvent the limitations imposed by the Court's decisions. Thus, members of Congress quickly sought to blunt the impact of the Court's decision to …

From Google To Tolstoy Bot: Should The First Amendment Protect Speech Generated By Algorithms?, Margot Kaminski

Publications

No abstract provided.

Too Strict?, Richard B. Collins

Publications

Should the strict scrutiny standard govern judicial review of claims that government has burdened religious freedom? American law’s patchwork of rules applies that demanding standard to some claims but denies any meaningful review to others. A major difficulty is that most claims alleging denial of religious freedom depend on beliefs that cannot be reviewed by secular courts. Claims based on allegations alone shift the burden to the defending government. Strict scrutiny purports to make justification very difficult; governments are supposed to lose most cases. A second defect of the test in religious freedom cases is its failure to consider harm …

The Conflict Of Visions In Nfib V. Sebelius, Jonathan H. Adler

Faculty Publications

In 2010, few anticipated the fate of healthcare reform would rest with the Supreme Court. Yet National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius [hereinafter NFIB] emerged as a watershed case that could remake the constitutional landscape. NFIB presented a conflict between two constitutional visions of federal power and the role of the courts in policing such limits--an unconstrained vision, under which limits on federal power are enforced primarily through the political process, and a constrained vision, under which constitutional limits on federal power are enforced by the courts. The contrasting views of the constitutionality of the individual mandate and …

The Supreme Court As A Constitutional Court, Jamal Greene

Faculty Scholarship

Political institutions are always works in progress. Their practical duties and aims as instruments of governance may not always match their constitutional blueprints or historical roles. Political offices might not always have the power to do what their constituent officers either need or want to do. A polity's assessment of whether the desired power is a need or a want may indeed mark a boundary between law and politics in the domain of institutional structure. The law gives, or is interpreted to give, political organs the tools they need to function effectively. They must fight for the rest.

The Jurisprudence Of Union, Gil Seinfeld

Articles

The primary goal of this Article is to demonstrate that the interest in national unity does important, independent work in the law of vertical federalism. We have long been accustomed to treating union as a constitutionally operative value in cases involving the duties states owe one another (i.e. horizontal federalism cases), but in cases involving the relationship between the federal government and the states, the interest in union is routinely ignored. This Article shows that, across a wide range of cases relating to the allocation of power between the federal government and the states, the states are constrained by a …

Originalism And History, Justice John P. Stevens (Ret.)

Georgia Law Review

The notion that a jurisprudence of "original intent" will constrain the discretion of judges who seek to impose their own policy preferences on the law has often been attributed to a speech delivered by Edwin Meese, then-Attorney General of the United States, to an American Bar Association audience on July 9, 1985. In that speech the Attorney General was particularly critical of Supreme Court opinions relying on the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as a basis for requiring the states to adhere to specific provisions of the Bill of Rights. "[N]owhere else [he said,] has the principle of …

Constitutionally Tailoring Punishment, Richard A. Bierschbach, Stephanos Bibas

Michigan Law Review

Since the turn of the century, the Supreme Court has regulated noncapital sentencing under the Sixth Amendment in the Apprendi line of cases (requiring jury findings of fact to justify sentence enhancements) as well as under the Eighth Amendment in the Miller and Graham line of cases (forbidding mandatory life imprisonment for juvenile defendants). Although both lines of authority sound in individual rights, in fact they are fundamentally about the structures of criminal justice. These two seemingly disparate doctrines respond to structural imbalances in noncapital sentencing by promoting morally appropriate punishment judgments that are based on individualized input and that …

Roe V. Wade At 40, Gerard V. Bradley

Journal Articles

Under the leadership of Chief Justice Warren Burger, who joined it in 1969, the Supreme Court departed from the course taken during the 16-year tenure of his predecessor, Earl Warren. The Burger Court rolled back precedents in criminal procedure and obscenity, while stopping the drive to universalize welfare rights and equalize public schooling expenditures. Roe v. Wade (1973), on the other hand, extended the Warren Court's deepest commitments: sexual liberation, obviously; equality, with respect to both race and class; and even church-state separation, insofar as the Roe Justices identified opposition to abortion with Catholic dogma. These more or less "progressive" …

Preemption And Textualism, Daniel J. Meltzer

Michigan Law Review

In the critically important area of preemption, the Supreme Court’s approach to statutory interpretation differs from the approach it follows elsewhere. Whether in politically salient matters, like challenges to Arizona’s immigration laws, or in more conventional cases, such as those in which state tort liability overlaps with federal regulation, the Court’s preemption decisions reflect a highly purposive approach to reading statutes, most notably through the application of “obstacle preemption” analysis. Recently, however, Justice Thomas has objected to the Court’s failure in preemption cases to respect its more textualist approach to issues of statutory interpretation, and he has urged that obstacle …

Brief Of Eugene Volokh, Richard W. Garnett, Michael Stokes Paulsen, Timothy Zick, William E. Lee, Alan K. Chen, & Ronald J. Krotoszynski, Jr. As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioners, Kevin C. Walsh, Matthew A. Fitzgerald, Andriana S. Daly, Richard W. Garnett

Court Briefs

No. 12-1168
Eleanor McCullen v. Martha Coakley

On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

From the Summary of Argument

Even many steadfast supporters of abortion rights believed that the Court erroneously applied the First Amendment in Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 (2000). As put bluntly by leading liberal scholar Professor Laurence Tribe, Hill was among the candidates for “most blatantly erroneous” decisions of the 1999 Term. Tribe added that the case was “slam-dunk simple” yet the Court got it “slam-dunk wrong.”

Specifically, pro-choice and pro-life scholars alike agreed that the …

Transforming Juvenile Justice: Making Doctrine Out Of Dicta In Graham V. Florida, Jason Zolle

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

In the late 1980s and 1990s, many state legislatures radically altered the way that their laws treated children accused of crimes. Responding to what was perceived of as an epidemic of juvenile violence, academics and policymakers began to think of child criminals as a "new breed" of incorrigible "superpredators." States responded by making it easier for prosecutors to try and sentence juveniles as adults, even making it mandatory in some circumstances. Yet in the past decade, the Supreme Court handed down four opinions that limit the states' ability to treat children as adults in the justice system. Roper v. Simmons …

Not The Power To Destroy: An Effects Theory Of The Tax Power, Robert D. Cooter, Neil S. Siegel

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court’s “new federalism” decisions impose modest limits on the regulatory authority of Congress under the Commerce Clause. According to those decisions, the Commerce Clause empowers Congress to use penalties to regulate interstate commerce, but not to regulate noncommercial conduct. What prevents Congress from penalizing non-commercial conduct by calling a penalty a tax and invoking the Taxing Clause? The only obstacle is the distinction between a penalty and a tax for purposes of Article I, Section 8. In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (NFIB), the Court considered whether the minimum coverage provision in the Patient Protection and …

Symposium: The Challengingly Uncategorizable Recess Appointments Clause, Michael Herz

Online Publications

I fear that I am participating in this discussion under false pretenses, because I have no idea how the Court will decide National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning. And the reasons go far beyond the fact that this is a case of first impression or the possibility that the whole thing is a nonjusticiable political question. I am not going to review the substantive arguments for and against the D.C. Circuit’s ruling. Instead, I will touch on some other aspects of the recess appointments issue that make it a particularly hard one to guess about.

Originalism Without Obligation, Gary S. Lawson

Faculty Scholarship

I am truly delighted that Boston University School of Law is hosting a conference on Abner Greene’s Against Obligation1 and Michael Seidman’s On Constitutional Disobedience. 2 Both books launch powerful and much-needed broadsides against the idea of a political obligation to obey the U.S. Constitution, and more generally (whether or not the authors embrace these implications) against the very idea of a political obligation to obey state authorities. I fully agree with both authors that the arguments normally made in favor of a duty of obedience to the Constitution, and by extension to state authorities of any kind, are remarkably …

Collective Action Federalism And Its Discontents, Neil S. Siegel

Faculty Scholarship

An increasing number of scholars argue that the Commerce Clause is best read in light of the collective action problems that the nation faced under the Articles of Confederation. The work of these “collective action theorists” is reflected in Justice Ginsburg’s opinion in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius. Writing for four Justices, she stressed the “collective-action impasse” at the state level to which the Affordable Care Act responds.

In its purest form, a collective action approach maintains that the existence of a significant problem of collective action facing two or more states is both necessary and sufficient for …

The New Textualism, Progressive Constitutionalism, And Abortion Rights: A Reply To Jeffrey Rosen, Neil S. Siegel

Faculty Scholarship

In this Essay, I offer a few thoughts in response to Jeffrey Rosen's contribution to this symposium on Jack Balkin's "Living Originalism". I will first focus on what he writes about the "new textualism." I will then reply to what he intimates about the continuing validity of Roe v. Wade. In short, I will argue that Rosen offers progressives little reason to accept the new textualism or to reject Roe in the name of legal fidelity.

If the abortion right is ultra vires because a lack of decisive warrant in text, structure, and history trumps mediating equality principles and legal …

Defining Corruption And Constitutionalizing Democracy, Deborah Hellman

Michigan Law Review

The central front in the battle over campaign finance laws is the definition of corruption. The Supreme Court has allowed restrictions on the giving and spending of money in connection with elections only when they serve to avoid corruption or the appearance of corruption. The constitutionality of such laws, therefore, depends on how the Court defines corruption. Over the years, campaign finance cases have conceived of corruption in both broad and narrow terms, with the most recent cases defining it especially narrowly. While supporters and critics of campaign finance laws have argued for and against these different formulations, both sides …

Plea Bargaining And The Right To Counsel At Bail Hearings, Charlie Gerstein

Michigan Law Review

A couple million indigent defendants in this country face bail hearings each year and most of them do so without court-appointed lawyers. In two recent companion cases, Lafler v. Cooper and Missouri v. Frye, the Supreme Court held that the loss of a favorable plea bargain can satisfy the prejudice prong of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. If the Constitution requires effective assistance of counsel to protect plea bargains, it requires the presence of counsel at proceedings that have the capacity to prejudice those bargains. Pretrial detention has the capacity to prejudice a plea bargain because a defendant held …

The Exceptions Clause As A Structural Safeguard, Tara Leigh Grove

Faculty Publications

Scholars have long treated the Exceptions Clause of Article III as a serious threat to the Supreme Court’s central constitutional function: establishing definitive and uniform rules of federal law. This Article argues that scholars have overlooked an important function of the Clause. Congress has repeatedly used its broad “exceptions power” to facilitate, not to undermine, the Supreme Court’s constitutional role. Drawing on insights from social science, this Article asserts that Congress has an incentive to use its control over federal jurisdiction to promote the Court’s role in settling disputed federal questions. Notably, this argument has considerable historical support. When the …

Fifty Years Before Brady, Colin Starger

All Faculty Scholarship

In marking the fiftieth anniversary of Brady v. Maryland, a fitting way to appreciate the historic significance of Justice Douglas’ opinion for the Court is to turn back the pages another fifty years. Brady’s profound contribution to our criminal justice system becomes apparent by considering the impoverished state of the Supreme Court’s due process doctrine as it stood a century ago. In the fifty years that led up to Brady, the Court confronted a series of racially and politically charged cases that forced constitutional soul searching about due process in the face of rank injustice. The story of the Court’s …

Brief Of Richard W. Garnett, Michael Stokes Paulsen, & Eugene Volokh As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioners, Kevin C. Walsh, Ryan A. Shores, Richard W. Garnett

Court Briefs

No. 12-1168
Eleanor McCullen v. Martha Coakley

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

From the Summary of Argument

This Court granted certiorari in Hill v. Colorado “[b]ecause of the importance of the case.” 530 U.S. 703, 714 (2000). The Court should grant certiorari in this case because of the importance of placing limits on Hill.

The Court does not need to overrule Hill to contain the damage wrought by the First Circuit’s expansion of it. But the Court should contain Hill and thereby prevent further erosion of …

Federal Incarceration By Contract In A Post-Minneci World: Legislation To Equalize The Constitutional Rights Of Prisoners, Allison L. Waks

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

In the 2012 case Minneci v. Pollard, the United States Supreme Court held that federal prisoners assigned to privately-run prisons may not bring actions for violations of their Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment and may instead bring actions sounding only in state tort law. A consequence of this decision is that the arbitrary assignment of some federal prisoners to privately-run prisons deprives them of an equal opportunity to vindicate this federal constitutional right and pursue a federal remedy. Yet all federal prisoners should be entitled to the same protection under the United States Constitution-regardless of the type …