Constitutional Law Commons^™

Dobbs V. Brown, Benjamin H. Barton

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization1is the most important and impactful Supreme Court decision since at least Roe v. Wade, and potentially since Brown v. Board of Education. Past survey data show that most Americans can only name two Supreme Court opinions: Roe and Brown. Dobbs will surely join that list. This Article compares the history, drafting, and opinions of Dobbs and Brown to show what a missed opportunity Dobbs represents. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the opinion, it should be clear that Dobbs was one of those unique times (like that of Brown) where the Court …

Structural Originalism: A Second Amendment Case Study, Ian C. Bartrum

Scholarly Works

“Originalism” is having a national moment, even if it is not entirely clear what the word means. What should we be originalist about? The leading academic approach asks us to parse the communicative content of text ratified in a very different linguistic culture; then construct a modern legal meaning consistent with our semantic speculations. Too often the result enforces policy judgments made in a radically different moral and technological world. This makes very little sense.

In this paper I recommend a more perspicuous and coherent use of constitutional history, which I call “structural originalism.” Rather than saddle ourselves with the …

Pozen And The Puzzle Of Counterfactuals, Louis Michael Seidman

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Constitution and the War on Drugs, David Pozen’s carefully researched and brilliantly argued book, is both illuminating and disturbing: illuminating because it unearths forgotten moments when judicially formulated constitutional doctrine that could have ended or sharply restricted the War on Drugs were well within the Overton Window, and disturbing because it surfaces hard questions about historical contingency and the scope of the change that might have occurred in a counterfactual world. In this review, the author argues that the failure to specify both the nature of the counterfactual and the breadth of the alternative possibility have confused discussions …

The New Substantive Due Process, Leah M. Litman

Articles

After the Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade, commentators made much about the possible demise of substantive due process—the idea that the Constitution safeguards certain substantive liberties that are not specifically or explicitly spelled out in the Constitution. Judges and scholars are debating which substantive due process decisions are next on the chopping block and whether the entire domain of substantive due process is in jeopardy. But a curious thing happened as the Court scaled back and openly questioned the traditional individual-rights line of substantive due process: Rather than eliminating it entirely, the Court seems to have transposed it elsewhere. …

Original Discontent, William Magnuson

Faculty Scholarship

There are many theories of constitutional interpretation. Most, but not all, of them assert that, in interpreting the Constitution’s provisions, we should start by taking seriously the intentions of the enactors, meaning, roughly speaking, its drafters, defenders and ratifiers. This Article argues that, in doing so, judges, scholars and policymakers have underestimated an important feature of the process of constitution-making: the discontent of the enactors themselves with the Constitution they were enacting. Time and again, during the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, during the penning of the Federalist Papers, and during the state ratifying conventions, the enactors expressed deep reservations about …

The Great Unsettling: Administrative Governance After Loper Bright, Cary Coglianese, Daniel E. Walters

Faculty Scholarship

“Chevron is overruled.” These three words surely captured more attention than any others in the U.S. Supreme Court’s thirty-five-page opinion in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. For forty years, the Chevron doctrine had been virtually synonymous with administrative law. Now that the Court has taken a step that many scholars thought unfathomable even just a few years ago, speculation abounds about the possible downstream impacts of Loper Bright on both what agencies will be able to do in the future and how lower courts will respond when reviewing agency action. The vast majority of early expert commentaries suggest …

Moral Politics Theory Applied To Abortion: Utopias, Dystopias, And Dobbs, Susan Ayres

Faculty Scholarship

This article examines Moral Politics Theory (MPT) as a way to understand current tensions in the US concerning reproductive justice. MPT, as developed and researched for over thirty years by cognitive scientist, George Lakoff, provides a way to explain differences in political worldviews. According to Lakoff’s research in Moral Politics and Don’t Think of an Elephant!, conservatives tend to hold a strict-father model, and progressives hold a nurturant-parent model. People in the political middle tend to endorse both models; Lakoff labels those in the middle as “biconceptuals,” and discusses how this group is most susceptible to persuasion because metaphors frame …

Takings Doctrinalization, Gerald S. Dickinson

Washington and Lee Law Review

The U.S. Supreme Court’s takings jurisprudence is shaped by an unusually strong reliance on doctrinalist methods of interpretation and reasoning. From Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon to Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York to Kelo v. City of New London, the Court heavily consults its past takings decisions or refers to the tests, principles, or standards from those decisions as epistemic guides to draw meaning from the Takings Clause. This long history of takings doctrinalization, however, was abruptly disturbed in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard. There, Justices Scalia and …

Is Federal Question Jurisdiction Arising Or Setting, Lumen N. Mulligan

Faculty Works

In this essay, I respond to Professor Arthur D. Hellman. Hellman argues that "there is reason to be concerned that the [federal] judicial system falls short of the Framers' expectations--primarily by denying many litigants in cases presenting federal questions 'their real day in an Article III court,' but also by fostering 'balkanization' rather than uniformity in the interpretation of federal law." It is a privilege to comment upon Hellman's thoughtful piece. In doing so, I begin by questioning the value of originalist interpretations of Article III jurisdiction both descriptively and normatively. I then turn to an intra-originalist critique that paints …

What Is Trump Immunity?, Carlos Manuel Vázquez

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In Trump v. United States, the Supreme Court held that a former President is entitled to an immunity in criminal cases in certain circumstances. The decision has been heavily criticized, with many commentators saying it places the President above the law. Exactly how it does so depends on what type of immunity a former President enjoys. Is the immunity enjoyed by former Presidents in criminal cases an immunity from the operation of the primary obligations imposed by the criminal laws in question? Or is it an immunity from being subjected to certain types of sanctions for having violated validly …

White Christian Nationalism & Antisemitism: A True Threat, Doron Kalir

FIU Law Review

The ideology of Jewish hatred, also known as antisemitism, has deep roots. In the United States, antisemitism has known a long and complicated history; in the early 1940s, it reached peak levels. Now, more than 80 years later, antisemitism again rears its ugly head, aiming to end the Golden Age of American Jewry. The exclusionary ideology aiming to obliterate the wall separating Church and state, and to institutionalize Christian identity and values into the public square, also known as White Christian Nationalism, has deep roots. In the United States, it had a long and complicated history; by the mid 1920s, …

The Ethical Dilemma Of The Highest Court: Could Congress Constitutionally Impose A Binding Code Of Ethics On The United States Supreme Court?, Amys Serret

FIU Law Review

In response to mounting ethical concerns about Supreme Court Justices, the Court introduced its own Code of Conduct in November 2023, likely prompted by recent controversies involving Justice Clarence Thomas. This code aimed to dispel the public perception that Supreme Court Justices operate without ethical boundaries. The code mirrors the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, established in 1973, outlining ethical rules and principles for the Justices. It shares the same five canons and includes most provisions from the lower federal judges’ code, albeit with some differences. Although the Court’s ability to establish its own code is unquestioned, this …

Electing The Supreme Court, Dmitry Bam

FIU Law Review

There is a curious irony in how we select United States Supreme Court justices. According to basic constitutional theory, as well as the arguments made by many leading Framers at the time of the Founding, one of the Court’s primary roles is to serve as a check on the executive and legislative branches when they exceed the constitutional limits imposed by the American people. Yet, we ask those very branches to jointly select the justices responsible for enforcing these limits, leaving the American people with only an indirect (if any) role in the process. Not surprisingly, the justices nominated by …

On Guido Calabresi, Roger K. Newman

Touro Law Review

Few individuals have had as long and as influential a career in law as Guido Calabresi. Cofounder of the field of law and economics, teacher, dean, and judge, he has inspired (and infuriated) multitudes. On the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, where he has served for thirty years (while continuing to teach until recently), his creativity and doctrinal innovations continue apace. He has urged the academy, legislature, and bench alike to engage in continuing conversation to improve the law and its effect upon those to whom it acts. One of these areas is certification—the practice of …

Unboxing The Box: A Deep Dive Into Solitary Confinement And When It May Violate The First And Eighth Amendments, Madison Scarfaro

Touro Law Review

Solitary confinement has been a practice used for those who are incarcerated in our criminal justice system for hundreds of years. Our nation, as well as our society have evolved and continue to evolve over the course of hundreds of years. However, the use of solitary confinement has not. Even with all of the research and literature surrounding the monstrosities that come about from solitary confinement, it is still used in most of our jails and prisons to this day. The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel …

Restoring Unanimity To The Alabama Death Penalty, Daniel Butler Friedman

Articles & Chapters

In Alabama, one of the jurisdictions most responsible for executions in the United States, the death penalty statute contains a very unusual provision: juries can sentence defendants to death even if they are not unanimous. This is a surprising fact to many people, including lawyers, who largely believe that the U.S. Supreme Court eliminated non-unanimous juries in 2020. That provision is enormously important to the capital punishment regime in Alabama, where 80% of people on death row were sentenced non-unanimously. The law's history, however, is poorly understood. This article lays out that history, showing it to be part of the …

When Is Free Speech “Beyond” The Constitution?, Abner S. Greene

Faculty Scholarship

The constitution of a nation without a state action doctrine might limit private restriction or compulsion of speech just as it limits the state. In such a nation, “free speech beyond the constitution” might not be a particularly meaningful concept. In the United States, however, the First Amendment’s free speech clause limits only what the federal, state, and local governments may do. As a nonconstitutional policy matter, it might or might not be a good idea for the government to impose First Amendment- like restrictions on private actors or for private actors to voluntarily impose First Amendment-like restrictions on themselves. …

An Analysis Of The Constitutionality Of Florida's 2024 Hb 3: “Online Protections For Minors,” Comparative To Other State Regulations Of The Internet, Evan J. Siegel

Honors Undergraduate Theses

This thesis examines the constitutionality of the Florida House of Representatives’ 2024 priority bill, HB 3: “Online Protections for Minors,” through its ongoing litigation in North Florida. The broad nature of the bill, which is now Florida law, and its burden on accessing constitutionality protected speech and/or expression may not be consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. How the law defines and shapes what material may be accessible to people on the Internet, or the means they would need to use to create a social media account, are questions many other courts have begun …

You Had One Job: The Supreme Court's New Chance To Fix The Constitutional Law Of Sentencing Factfinding, Benjamin J. Priester

Faculty Articles

Four decades after the enactment of the federal Sentencing Reform Act, one might expect a settled consensus to have emerged addressing the constitutional constraints on implementing norms such as predictability, consistency, and uniformity in the imposition of criminal punishment in the United States. In reality, the United States Supreme Court has failed to provide stability or clarity in the doctrinal principles implicated in millions of criminal cases nationwide. Spanning a quarter century, the Apprendi v. New Jersey line of cases has featured narrow or fragmented majorities, significant concurring opinions, and multiple instances of individual justices either overtly admitting to changing …

How Does The Modern Supreme Court Treat The Idea Of Retribution In The Context Of Capital Punishment?, Paige Forsberg

Honors Undergraduate Theses

This thesis explores the modern U.S. Supreme Court's treatment of retribution in the context of capital punishment, analyzing how justices have framed and justified the death penalty as a form of justice. Through the examination of key Supreme Court rulings and legal arguments, this study evaluates the evolving role of retribution in the Court’s decisions on death penalty cases, highlighting how judicial reasoning has shifted over time in response to legal, philosophical, and societal developments.

Retribution, long considered one of the primary justifications for capital punishment, is examined through a nuanced lens in this study. While historically viewed as a …

The Sword, The Purse, And The Pen: The Constitutional Conundrum Of Impoundment, William N. Chance

CMC Senior Theses

This Thesis explores the constitutional conundrum of executive impoundment, the practice by which the President of the United States withholds or delays the expenditure of funds appropriated by Congress. Although impoundment has deep historical roots dating back to the Constitution’s Framers, its modern use raises profound questions regarding our separation of powers. This Thesis establishes a functional framework that distinguishes between “routine” impoundments, which promote administrative efficiency, and “policy” impoundments, which may undermine congressional intent. Furthermore, after tracing the development of impoundment from the early Republic through the Nixon Administration and the passage of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, …

What Did Gitlow Do?, James Y. Stern

Faculty Publications

Gitlow is generally regarded as the first modern incorporation case, the genesis of both federal free speech curbs on state action and the larger project of making the same limitations that the federal Constitution imposes on the federal government applicable to the states. In both respects, moreover, it can also be seen as an important milestone in the larger twentieth century transformation of federal court practice and constitutional understanding centered on the assertion of individual rights. That linkage is no accident. For all the talk about federalism and state sovereignty in the U.S. Reports, the modern jurisprudence of constitutional rights …

Volume 48 Masthead, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Volume 48 Masthead

Voting Matters: Materiality Considerations And The Shareholder Vote, Renee M. Jones

Seattle University Law Review

For the shareholder franchise to have meaning, shareholders must have access to relevant information to inform their voting decisions. The securities laws’ disclosure requirements play an essential role in informing the shareholder vote.

This Essay focuses on the question of the materiality of information in the context of shareholder voting. It addresses the question of whether ESG-related information is material, positioning the materiality inquiry within the context of shareholders’ voting decisions. It explores the definition of materiality with a focus on the “reasonable investor” concept embedded within the definition. The Essay argues that the implicit expectations of many commentators that …

Volume 48 Masthead, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Volume 48 Masthead

Understanding The Big Three’S Wavering Support Of Environmental And Social Shareholder Proposals, Jeff Schwartz, Jefferson Jensen

Seattle University Law Review

Because of their substantial equity portfolios, BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street (the Big 3) are central players in corporate governance. It is, therefore, critical to understand how they vote. One puzzle is that their support for shareholder proposals on environmental and social matters appears to waiver. In 2020, for instance, BlackRock supported 11.1% of environmental proposals at S&P 500 firms. In 2021, it seemingly reversed course, supporting 55.2%. It then flipped again, supporting 32.1% in 2022. Such statistics suggest that the Big 3 are constantly changing their views on these topics. This Article seeks to better understand whether this is …

Volume 48 Masthead, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Volume 48 Masthead

Per Se Non-Takings, Nestor M. Davidson, Timothy M. Mulvaney

Faculty Scholarship

In the discourse on the Takings Clause, disputes over methodology have long formed a kind of proxy war, with per se rules ordinarily underwriting strong constitutional protection for property rights and ad hoc standards more often vindicating public interests. At a moment when the Supreme Court is increasingly embracing the rules end of this rules–standards spectrum, this Article offers a novel perspective to challenge the conventional link between categorical reasoning and classical liberal conceptions of constitutional property.

To do so, the Article excavates a vast body of law denying takings liability through rule-like reasoning, an approach the Article calls per …

Popular Originalism, Thomas G. Donnelly

Law Faculty Publications

Scholars are obsessed with the Roberts Court’s recent turn to history and tradition. But another source of authority has also emerged as an important feature of the Roberts Court’s approach to constitutional cases. In previous work, I have referred to this source of authority as popular meaning. While original meaning identifies the best reading of the Constitution’s text at the time of its ratification, popular meaning draws on sources of authority outside the courts to capture the constitutional views of the American people today. In this Article, I demonstrate how interpreters might draw on the Constitution’s popular meaning to help …

A Crust Of Bread: Religious Resistance And The Fourteenth Amendment, Kurt T. Lash, Stephanie Hall Barclay

Law Faculty Publications

In Employment Division v. Smith, the U.S. Supreme Court denied heightened constitutional protection to religiously motivated exercise burdened by neutral and generally applicable laws. The history presented in this Article suggests that the Smith approach conflicts with the original understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment. Out of the crucible of religious abolitionist resistance to the Fugitive Slave Act emerged a substantive theory of constitutional religious freedom: American citizens should have the right to obey the Biblical command to care for the needy and provide the hungry a "crust of bread," even if doing so was contrary to neutral and generally …