Constitutional Law Commons^™

The Beleaguered Sovereign: Judicial Restraints On Public Enforcement, Luke P. Norris, Helen Hershkoff

Law Faculty Publications

Looking back at the federal courts over the last generation, commentators will likely focus on their role in undermining the functioning of the regulatory state. Well-acknowledged in this story are Supreme Court decisions that have constrained administrative agencies under the newly minted “major questions” doctrine, as well as the Court’s blockbuster decision overruling the longstanding Chevron doctrine. The Court also has made it increasingly difficult for individuals—often workers and consumers, people of color, women, and those who live from paycheck to paycheck—to seek federal judicial redress for regulatory violations as private enforcers. And the Court has questioned whether certain private …

From The Kkk To The Modern Day: How An Accurate Understanding Of History Can Inform The Proper Standard For Punishing Civil Rights Conspiracies Under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), Bair Srivastav

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

Following the Civil War, Congress passed the Reconstruction Amendments, which secured political rights for newly freed slaves and ushered in a new era for the United States. The Union defeated white Southerners on the battlefield and removed former Confederates from the halls of political power. But white Southerners were still Confederates in spirit. Full of racial hatred, they did not perceive a new era of freedom, but a world twisted into an unnatural order where African Americans walked freely amongst white people and participated in the political process of Southern society. In response to the extension of basic freedoms to …

Perfecting Our Submission? Mann And Trump, Ruffin And Roberts, Joseph S. Miller

Scholarly Works

Presidential power is vast, both under law and in practice. Who holds presidents accountable, and by what means? Courts wrestle with these intertwined questions of power and accountability. The majority opinion in the 2024 presidential immunity case, Trump v. United States, is eerily resonant, rhetorically, with a notorious judgment enhancing one person’s power over others by shielding that power utterly from criminal-law accountability. That judgment, from 1829, is Judge Thomas Ruffin’s infamous slavery-law opinion for the North Carolina Supreme Court in State v. Mann. I juxtapose the two opinions, which share jarringly similar claims about the nature of power, rule, …

Originalism's Difference?, Sherif Girgis

Journal Articles

From the Aritcle

My topic is whether originalism makes any practical difference to constitutional reasoning and outcomes, relative to other methods of interpretation.

INTRODUCTION ............................................. 1945

I. JUSTICE SCALIA'S VISION OF CONTRASTS .................. 1949

II. THE BREAKDOWN OF CONTRASTS ........................... 1952

III. REMAINING CONTRASTS: REAL BUT ELUSIVE TO THEORY....................................................... 1961

IV. THE CHAMBERS ORIGINALISM DIFFERENCE .................. 1966

CONCLUSION: LOOKING AHEAD ................................ 1973

Lessons Learned From The Trump Rule Of Law Stress Test: Beware Bad Faith Actors, Brian Z. Tamanaha

Scholarship@WashULaw

The second Trump Administration has engaged in a vast swath of actions that press against the outer boundaries of legality. These actions provide a unique opportunity to identify potential vulnerabilities and expose how the rule of law can be undermined. While I will elucidate well-known points along the way, my primary aim is to bring out aspects of the rule of law that usually go unnoticed or under the radar. After setting out basic aspects of the rule of law, I cover three topics: 1) adhering to the truth, 2) pretextual arguments, and 3) flooding the field with actions and …

Brief In Support Of Respondents As Amici Curiae, Donald J. Trump, President Of The United States, Et Al. V. Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, Et. Al, No. 25-332, Andrea Scoseria Katz, Jonathan Gienapp

Scholarship@WashULaw

In the years since this Court’s decision in Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U.S. 197 (2020), legal historians—including originalists—have unearthed a rich body of evidence challenging the conventional wisdom concerning the scope of the President’s removal powers at the Founding. Revisiting not only the Framers’ intellectual influences, but also their driving philosophical concerns and political incentives, this scholarship explains that removal authority was not understood to be vested exclusively in the President as a matter of settled constitutional law, but rather was permissibly exercised by various actors in various ways, intentionally not settled by the …

Separation-Of-Powers Lochnerism, Andrea Scoseria Katz

Scholarship@WashULaw

One hundred and twenty years ago, the Supreme Court handed down one of the single most notorious opinions ever rendered, striking down a New York labor law for violating a right to contract found nowhere in the text of the Constitution. The era of Lochner v. NY (1905) is well past us, but not the judicial impulses that gave rise to the case. With a new champion in the Roberts Court, Lochnerism is alive and well, deployed in a new context to redefine the relationships between the President, Congress, federal agencies, and the courts. Bringing together two lines of case-law-on …

Disagreement And Historical Argument Or How Not To Think About Removal, Andrea Scoseria Katz, Noah A. Rosenblum, Jane Manners

Scholarship@WashULaw

Scholars have debated the reach of the President’s power to remove government officers for over one hundred years. This old fight is now suddenly urgent as President Trump asserts far-reaching powers to control the federal bureaucracy and the Supreme Court transforms Unitary Executive Theory into caselaw. Yet the scholarly case for an indefeasible presidential removal power has never been weaker.

This Essay continues an ongoing conversation about how to read some critical early republic evidence about removal. It briefly recapitulates the stakes of the disagreement before offering in-depth analyses of developments in Pennsylvania removal practice, including a reading of the …

A Conversation With Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Brett M. Kavanaugh, J. Joel Alicea

Catholic University Law Review

On Thursday, September 26th, 2024, the Center for the Constitution and the Catholic Intellectual Tradition at The Catholic University of America hosted a conversation between Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh and Professor J. Joel Alicea. This was the inaugural event of the new Center. The conversation covered topics such as constitutional interpretation, the separation of powers, religious liberty, and the Catholic intellectual tradition. This is a transcript of the conversation, and the text appears substantially as it was delivered. The video of the event may be found at this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sKvSwzkmqo.

Religion In Public Schools: Constitutional Revolution In Action, Noah R. Feldman

University of Cincinnati Law Review

No abstract provided.

Colliding Doctrines: How Sffa V. Harvard Impacts Public University Officials' Legal Protections, Christo Fosse

University of Cincinnati Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Search For Unenumerated Fundamental Rights, Alina Sluzhyvenkova

Student Theses and Dissertations

There are certain rights that are explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, e.g., right to bear arms, right to free speech, right to a speedy and public trial. There are also rights that aren’t specifically written out but are nevertheless enjoyed by people nationwide. Rights that aren’t explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, but which are fundamental to are called the unenumerated rights. Unenumerated rights are just as important and can be derived from natural law, enumerated rights, the Ninth Amendment, precedents, judicial opinions, and substantive due process.

Substantive due process is a principle guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which …

Stitch Incoming: Lindke V. Freed’S Impact On Social-Media-Blocking Litigation, Clare R. Norins, Mark L. Bailey

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

Since at least 2016, social-media-blocking litigation against government officials who censor their online critics has been an evolving battleground for First Amendment rights of free speech and petition. In 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued its first substantive opinion on social media blocking, holding that government officials’ social media activity, even on a personal account, constitutes state action triggering constitutional scrutiny if (1) the official possessed actual authority to speak on the State’s behalf, and (2) purported to exercise that authority when she spoke on social media.

In this Article, we explain the Court’s novel two-part test for determining …

We Are All Cafeteria Originalists Now (And We Always Have Been), Jack M. Balkin

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In Memory and Authority, I argue that Americans, both in politics and in constitutional culture, are "‘cafeteria originalists.’ They pick and choose when to follow the views of the founders, framers, or adopters (as they understand them) and often artfully recharacterize these principles to support contemporary political and legal arguments.” Like customers in a cafeteria who take the chocolate cake and leave the boiled kale, Americans pick the features of the framers they like to support their arguments, and leave other, less savory, features behind.

[...]

My central claim is that cafeteria originalism is not a pathology or a …

The Griffin's Case Phenomenon And The Problem Of Historical Knowledge In Legal Arguments, Rachel A. Shelden

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The sudden relevance of a formerly little-known historic case is surely not new; much of legal history is necessarily about discovery and rediscovery of the past. Still, I think the clarity with which we can outline the development of the Griffin’s Case phenomenon offers an opportunity to think carefully about the role of history in constitutional conversation. What follows, then, is a short exploration of the case’s recent (re)entry into our historical consciousness. Tracing this phenomenon highlights (at least for me) some potential difficulties embedded in the interaction between legal advocacy and what we know about the past.

This abstract …

Not-So-Special Solicitude, Katherine Mims Crocker

Faculty Scholarship

In a high-profile case last term about state standing to sue in federal court, Justice Gorsuch deemed it “hard not to wonder why” the majority said “nothing about ‘special solicitude.’” The silence was indeed surprising, for in a landmark decision several years earlier, the Supreme Court had declared that states were “entitled to special solicitude”—presumably meaning some sort of preferential treatment—“in [the] standing analysis.” And since then, commentators had depicted the concept as permitting opportunistic states to wage ideological crusades in courts across the country, especially through administrative-law attacks on federal-government defendants.

But what if “special solicitude” is not so …

Reconceptualizing Property Law's Background Principles In Takings Law, Timothy M. Mulvaney

Faculty Scholarship

Both libertarians and progressives celebrated the result in Tyler v. Hennepin County. This Article asserts that this unified celebration has overshadowed the extent to which the Supreme Court’s reasoning calls into question even our most foundational assumptions about the meaning of property and the takings protections the constitution affords to it. Followed to its literal end, Tyler remarkably suggests that owners may well need to ground their expectations in the property laws endorsed by a majority of states rather than in the laws of their own state.

Suspicious that the Court intended such a revolutionary upheaval of the state variations …

Property Rights Or Obstacles To Progress?: The Fundamental Flaws In Takings Jurisprudence, Liam Higgins

Journal of Law and Policy

New York boasts some of the strongest protections for tenants out of all jurisdictions throughout the country. Chief among these laws is the state Rent Stabilization Law (“RSL”). Among other protections, the RSL has limited excessive rent increases on regulated apartments, granted tenants a right of renewal so that they could remain in their homes, and permitted family members to take over the tenancy of their loved ones upon their passing. The RSL has been amended several times throughout its history, each time providing more or less protections depending on the administration at the time. Recently, in 2019, the New …

The Good Officer: President Trump, General Milley, And The “Necessity” Of Constitutional Fidelity, John C. Dehn

Brooklyn Law Review

Actions taken by General Mark Milley, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to prevent an abuse of presidential power during the waning days of the Trump administration prompted a range of reactions and concerns. This Article leverages these events to explore the circumstances under which a member of the armed forces or senior executive branch official may have a moral or legal right or duty to disobey presidential orders or authorizations that entail a clear violation of the Constitution or federal laws, or that abuse lawful authorities in ways that would subvert the Constitution’s text or vital …

Dejoyful Noise: Reimagining Title Vii Religious Accommodations In The Wake Of Groff V. Dejoy, Mikko Biana

Brooklyn Law Review

The prominence of religion in everyday life has dwindled in recent decades. The number of Americans who attend weekly religious services continues to decline, and wide swaths of the population now profess irreligion altogether. Despite this trend, constitutional mandates such as the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses remind society that throughout history and into the present day, the relationship between religion and state has been and always will be ripe for discussion. The 2023 Supreme Court decision Groff v. DeJoy exemplifies this characterization. Prior to Groff, the Court primarily relied on a 1977 case, Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, …

Liberty And Equality Under The First Amendment: Scrutinizing Book Bans Through An Equal Protection Framework, Sarah Ryan

Brooklyn Law Review

While the constitutional text refers only to liberty, equality has been recognized as an implicit principle of the First Amendment. The guarantee of free speech ensures an equal opportunity for every voice to be heard. As school book bans proliferate, the consistent targeting of titles containing themes of race or LGBTQIA+ identity reveals a discriminatory motivation on the part of state actors. The resultant infringement on students’ right to receive information, as well as the unequal treatment of particularly-themed content would seemingly run afoul of both the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause. Given the broad discretion granted to …

The Politics Of Constitutional Dignity Jurisprudence, Daniel Haefke

Brooklyn Law Review

This Article traces the politics of (human) dignity in US constitutional law. It reveals that the notion has undergone a conservative shift, which has resulted from Supreme Court Justices increasingly unleashing dignity’s dormant conservative potential. Legal scholars arguing for prominently including the notion in constitutional jurisprudence reflect the belief that adopting the language of dignity would push the Supreme Court to be more sensitive to progressive political demands. This progressive constitutional dignity optimism is historically plausible yet conceptually misguided. It is historically plausible considering the legacy of constitutional dignity in previous opinions of the Court. As the Article expounds, the …

Shadows Of The Crown: The Virtue Of Equilibrium In American Sovereign Immunity, William T. Olmstead

Cleveland State Law Review

Under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the federal and state governments of the United States cannot be sued or prosecuted unless they voluntarily waive their own impunity. In recent decades, the Supreme Court has expanded the scope of the sovereign immunity of the state governments. This Note argues that such an expansion is a profound and shortsighted mistake. It proposes that the most effective way to balance governmental functionality with civic accountability is to pass and ratify a constitutional amendment that solidifies national sovereign immunity and abolishes state sovereign immunity. It argues that such action is necessary to ensure the …

The Decline Of Representation Reinforcement In The Supreme Court: Increasing Deference To The Political Process, Jonathan L. Entin

Cleveland State Law Review

The Supreme Court has often interpreted the Constitution with an eye toward ameliorating failures of the political process. Over the past two decades, however, the Court has retreated from that concern with representation reinforcement. This article examines decisions upholding restrictive voter identification laws, making it more difficult to prove violations of the Voting Rights Act, and preventing federal courts from hearing claims of partisan gerrymandering. Some decisions that seem sympathetic to failures of the political process will not really promote representation reinforcement, and the Court’s most recent cases further reinforce the Court’s skepticism of claims of failures of the political …

Threading The Needle In Extreme Partisan Gerrymandering Cases, Michael Gentithes

Cleveland State Law Review

Recent Supreme Court jurisprudence paints a grim picture for future reform to address extreme partisan gerrymandering. The decisions in Rucho v. Common Cause and Moore v. Harper appear to foreclose progress at both the federal and state level. Reformers must neither create unmanageable legal standards for adjudication in federal litigation, nor ask state courts to transgress ordinary bounds of judicial review when interpreting state laws that might address gerrymandering.

But there remains a path forward that focuses on clear and detailed state constitutional mandates to curb gerrymandering practices. Beneath their rhetoric, these decisions support clear legal rules over broader democratic …

On The Nature Of Regulating Medication Abortion: A Post-Dobbs Analysis On The Legality Of Emerging Efforts To Ban Federally Approved Mifepristone, Yann Kaufman

MC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rising Temperatures, The Prison Litigation Reform Act, And The Heat Death Of Human Dignity In Texas Prisons, Brianne Wylie

Northwestern University Law Review

This Note seeks to shed light on the life-threatening danger of extreme heat in un-air-conditioned Texas prisons. The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) starkly limits the relief available to those suffering and dying in these prisons. This Note proposes an amendment to the legislation that could create a path toward lasting relief for incarcerated people. After analyzing the effects of increasing heat on the particularly vulnerable prison population, this Note analyzes how the Supreme Court and the Fifth Circuit have handled claims alleging constitutionally violative prison conditions under the Eighth Amendment—in short, ineffectively, if at all. This Note then details …

Thurgood Marshall Memorial Lecture: 80 Years After Korematsu V. U.S.: It's All About Us 10-29-2024, Roger Williams University School Of Law

School of Law Conferences, Lectures & Events

No abstract provided.

Free Exercise Challenges To Entheogen Prohibitions: Precedents, Principles, And Issues, Kevin Chamow

Pace Law Review

This paper examines the conditions for the possibility of future

challenges to prohibitions against the cultivation, distribution, and use of entheogens—substances which reliably induce religious experiences in their users—based on the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Smith no longer applies to federal prohibitions against entheogens, because of Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Under the current Gonzalez framework, the Court is given the difficult task of evaluating the cost of the claimant’s exemption against the state’s interest in the general ban; including how the exemption would impact enforcement of the general ban. This is essentially predictive systems-theory and policymaking, …

Affirmative Action’S Asian American Problem, Huyen Pham, Joseph Thai

Faculty Scholarship

Asian American opponents of affirmative action have received both credit and blame for their pivotal role in toppling racial preferences in university admissions in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (SFFA). Allied conservatives highlighted evidence of discrimination against Asian American applicants as a compelling reason to dismantle affirmative action; liberals either denied this discrimination existed or tolerated it as an acceptable cost of helping other minority applicants. But largely unacknowledged is the precipitating history of the Supreme Court’s marginalization of Asian American applicants and its decades of tacit approval of their exclusion from affirmative action programs. This unwritten …