Constitutional Law Commons^™

Unraveling A Ball Of Confusion: Layers Of Criminal Intent, Facebook, Rap, And Uncertainty In Elonis V. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2001 (2015), Cameron L. Fields

MC Law Review

“So, round and around and around we go. Where the world's heading nobody knows...Just a ball of confusion."

Elonis v. United States was a much-awaited case needed to clarify many questions within its realm. Part of the case's allure was its facts: threats, rap, and Facebook. While the alluring circumstances were well-presented, the potential for clarification was not realized. As the quotes from the various opinions above suggest, a song from the oldies had hinted at this ruling correctly when its lyrics said it's "just a ball of confusion." This Note seeks to unravel this ball of confusion to give, …

Administrative Law Judges And The Erosion Of The Administrative State: Why Jarkesy May Be The Straw That Breaks The Camel's Back, Nicholas D'Addio

Catholic University Law Review

The Trump-era unitary executive movement sought to expand presidential

power and shrink the influence of the administrative state through deregulation.

This movement ripples into the present moment, as Trump’s overhaul of the

federal judiciary installed a comprehensive system to delegitimize

administrative agency action— a system that is certain to endure. The

independence and role of administrative law judges (ALJs) has proven a key

target of the movement. Most recently, in the 2022 case of Jarkesy v. Securities

and Exchange Commission, the Fifth Circuit held that the dual-tiered for-cause

removal protections of SEC ALJs violated the Take Care Clause of Article …

Cherry-Picking History: Witchcraft, The Common Law, And The Weaponization Of Substantive Due Process, Sarah E. Bradley

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

In 2021, the Supreme Court sharply altered its substantive due process analysis in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, reversing the 49-year-old decision in Roe v. Wade to establish abortion access as a constitutional right. The Court reframed its substantive due process analysis as a two-step test, requiring a right to be narrowly framed and “deeply rooted in history and tradition” before it could be analyzed as “implicit in the concept of liberty,” instead of its previous balancing test that involved a broad description of the right. In the Dobbs majority opinion, the Court cherry-picked elements of common law …

The Ninth Amendment: An Underutilized Protection For Reproductive Choice, Layne Huff

Journal of Law and Health

Concern about individual rights and the desire to protect them has been part of our nation since its founding, and continues to be so today. The Ninth Amendment was created to assuage the Framers’ concerns that enumerating some rights in the Bill of Rights would leave unenumerated rights unrecognized and unprotected, affirming that those rights are not disparaged or denied by their lack of textual support. The Ninth Amendment has appeared infrequently in our jurisprudence, and Courts initially construed it rather narrowly. But starting in the 1960s, the Ninth Amendment emerged as a powerful tool not just for recognizing unanticipated …

How Far Have Standards Of Decency Evolved In Fifteen Years? An Update On Atkins Jurisprudence In Mississippi, Alexander Kassoff

MC Law Review

In 2002, the United States Supreme Court handed down Atkins v. Virginia, holding that the Eighth Amendment prohibits the execution of people with intellectual disability. In the years since that ruling, some change has occurred, but questions remain. This article will examine significant developments in Atkins jurisprudence during that time period. It will look at the two post-Atkins United States Supreme Court cases, and the development of the law - in Mississippi especially, but also to some extent in other jurisdictions that still have the death penalty.

The First Religious Charter School: A Viable Option For School Choice Or Prohibited Under The State Action Doctrine And Religion Clauses?, Julia Clementi

Fordham Law Review

After the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses were ratified, church and state became increasingly divorced from one another, as practicing religion became a private activity on which the government could not encroach. This separation, however, was slow, and much credit is owed to the U.S. Supreme Court for its efforts to disentangle the two. One particular area in which the Supreme Court exercised its influence was the U.S. education system; the Court invoked the Religion Clauses and neutrality principles to rid public schools of religious influences and ensure that private religious schools could partake in government programs that were available to …

Slaughtering Slaughter-House: An Assessment Of 14th Amendment Privileges Or Immunities Jurisprudence, Caleb Webb

Senior Honors Theses

In 1872, the Supreme Court decided the Slaughter-House Cases, which applied a narrow interpretation of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14^th Amendment that effectually eroded the clause from the Constitution. Following Slaughter-House, the Supreme Court compensated by utilizing elastic interpretations of the Due Process Clause in its substantive due process jurisprudence to cover the rights that would have otherwise been protected by the Privileges or Immunities Clause. In more recent years, the Court has heard arguments favoring alternative interpretations of the Privileges or Immunities Clause but has yet to evaluate them thoroughly. By applying the …

Navigating The First Amendment In School Choice: The Case For The Constitutionality Of Washington’S Charter School Act, Stephanie Smith

Washington Journal of Social & Environmental Justice

No abstract provided.

The Future Of “History And Tradition”: The First Amendment Implication Of Bruen, The Floersheimer Center For Constitutional Democracy

2023–2024 Flyers

No abstract provided.

Assessing The Future Of “Offended Observer” Standing In Establishment Clause Cases, Larry J. Obhof

Cleveland State Law Review

This Article looks at the anomaly of “offended observer” standing in Establishment Clause challenges. It calls for greater consistency in the courts’ application of constitutional standing requirements.

Under Article III, Plaintiffs seeking to raise claims in federal court must allege a concrete and particularized injury in fact in order to support federal jurisdiction. Likewise, plaintiffs seeking to challenge a government policy must allege a unique injury that is separate from the interests of the public at large. The notable exception is where plaintiffs claim personal offense at alleged government entanglement in religion. These “offended observers” are frequently given access to …

Filling The Potholes Of Pretextual Traffic Stops: A Better Road Forward For Ohio, Jordan Weeks

Cleveland State Law Review

The Fourth Amendment was one of the driving forces behind the United States Revolution. This Amendment generally protects individuals against “unreasonable” searches and seizures. But what does “reasonable” mean in the context of a traffic stop?

In 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court in Whren v. United States tried answering this question. In so doing, the Court determined that pretextual traffic stops are “reasonable.” Pretextual traffic stops occur where an officer stops a vehicle and cites a lawful reason for the stop, yet the underlying reason is unlawful. The Whren Court determined that an officer’s intent is completely irrelevant to whether …

“I Wish I Knew How It Would Feel To Be Free”: A Lamentation On Dobbs V. Jackson’S Pernicious Impact On The Lives And Liberty Of Women, April L. Cherry

Cleveland State Law Review

On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court overturned nearly fifty years of precedent when it declared in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that abortion was not a fundamental right, and therefore it was not protected by the Fourteenth Amendment and substantive due process. In law school corridors and legal scholar circles, discussion of the Court’s evisceration of abortion rights focused on the corresponding changes in Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence and the Court’s outright dismissal of stare decisis. But in homes, hospitals, community centers, and workplaces, different conversations were happening. Conversations, mostly had by women, concerned the real-life consequences of overturning …

My Body, Whose Choice? A Case For A Fundamental Right To Bodily Autonomy, Miri Trauner

Brooklyn Law Review

In 2022, the US Supreme Court decided Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade and the fundamental right to abortion it had established nearly fifty years prior. The Court’s decision threw into uncertainty the future of not only reproductive rights in this country, but also many other individual rights. At the same time as the decision, the world was still reeling from a global pandemic, and the development of COVID-19 vaccines had spurred widespread controversy over the constitutionality of vaccine mandates. Both advocates for abortion access and opponents to vaccine mandates shared a common cry: “my …

Preempting Private Prisons, Christopher Matthew Burgess

Washington Law Review

In 2019 and 2021, respectively, California and Washington enacted laws banning the operation of private prisons within each state, including those operated by private companies in contracts with the federal government. Nevertheless, the federal government continues to contract with private prisons through Immigrations and Customs Enforcement for the detention of non-United States citizens. In 2022, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held in GEO Group, Inc. v. Newsom that federal immigration law preempted California’s private prison ban.

Preemption—when federal law supersedes state law—is a doctrinal thicket. Federal courts analyze preemption issues in multiple different ways in a particular case, often …

Charging Abortion, Milan Markovic

Faculty Scholarship

As long as Roe v. Wade remained good law, prosecutors could largely avoid the question of abortion. The Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization has now placed prosecutors at the forefront of the abortion wars. Some chief prosecutors in antiabortion states have pledged to not enforce antiabortion laws, whereas others are targeting even out-of-state providers. This post-Dobbs reality, wherein the ability to obtain an abortion depends not only on the politics of one’s state but also the policies of one’s local district attorney, has received minimal scrutiny from legal scholars.

Prosecutors have broad charging discretion, …

Outcome Reasons And Process Reasons In Normative Constitutional Theory, Lawrence B. Solum

Faculty Scholarship

Constitutional theory is a mess. Disagreements about originalism and living constitutionalism have become intractable. Constitutional theorists make some arguments that seem clearly fallacious and advance proposals that are pie in the sky. One of the reasons for the mess is an overreliance by constitutional theorists on “outcome reasons,” justifications that rely on the theorist’s beliefs about what outcomes are good and what outcomes are bad. This outcome-drive approach is exemplified by the so-called “canonical cases” argument, which evaluates positions in normative constitutional theory on the basis of its counterfactual implications for a handful of prior decisions of the Supreme Court. …

How Can You Tell If There Is A Crisis? Data And Measurement Challenges In Assessing Jury Representation, Mary R. Rose, Marc A. Musick

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Arrival Of The Civil Jury In Argentina: The Case Of Chaco, Shari S. Diamond, Valarie P. Hans, Natali Chizik, Andres Harfuch

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

Lay Participation Reform In China: Opportunities And Challenges, Zhiyuan Guo

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

Beacons Of Democracy? A Worldwide Exploration Of The Relationship Between Democracy And Lay Participation In Criminal Cases, Sanja K. Ivkovic, Valarie P. Hans

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Hybridization Of Lay Courts: From Colombia To England And Wales, Jeremy Boulanger-Bonnelly

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

Judges, Lawyers, And Willing Jurors: A Tale Of Two Jury Selections, Barbara O'Brien, Catherine M. Grosso

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

Virtual Technology And The Changing Rituals Of Courtroom Justice, Meredith Rossner, David Tait

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

Race, Peremptory Challenges, And State Courts: A Blueprint For Change, Nancy S. Marder

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

An Exegesis Of The Meaning Of Dobbs: Despotism, Servitude, & Forced Birth, Athena D. Mutua

Journal Articles

The Dobbs decision has been leaked. Gathered outside of New York City's St. Patrick's Old Cathedral, pro-choice protesters chant: "Not the church, not the state, the people must decide their fate."

A white man wearing a New York Fire Department sweatshirt and standing on the front steps responds: "l am the people, l am the people, l am the people, the people have decided, the court has decided, you lose . . . . You have no choice. Not your body, not your choice, your body is mine and you're having my baby."

Despicable but not unexpected,³ this man's comments …

The 2024 Cardozo Colloquium On Global And Constitutional Theory, Benjamin N. Cardozo School Of Law

2024 Event Invitations

The US Supreme Court is currently experiencing a significant decrease in public approval, as are several courts in many other parts of the world, such as the Israel Supreme Court and top courts in various Eastern European countries. At the same time, in certain other parts of the world, such as Western Europe, constitutional courts persist as well integrated and are widely perceived as trustworthy guarantors of workable checks and balances. The Colloquium will explore what accounts for these differences and whether the various crises concerning judicial review arise from similar or different types of circumstances. To what extent are …

The 2024 Cardozo Colloquium On Global And Constitutional Theory Presents: Linda Greenhouse On The Roberts Court, Benjamin N. Cardozo School Of Law

2024 Event Invitations

Join Linda Greenhouse, Senior Research Scholar in Law at Yale Law School, to discuss the exceptional trajectory of the Roberts Court. Greenhouse is also a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter who has covered the United States Supreme Court for nearly three decades for The New York Times.

The Wages Of Crying Roe: Some Realism About Dobbs V. Jackson Women’S Health Organization, Neil S. Siegel

Faculty Scholarship

The U.S. Supreme Court’s reasoning in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organizationcannot be taken seriously. The Court’s stated rationale for rejecting continued protection of the abortion right—that abortion is not deeply rooted in nineteenth century history and tradition—applies with equal force to other substantive due process rights that the DobbsCourt repeatedly insisted were not under threat even without considering stare decisis, including contraception, sexual intimacy between consenting adults, and same-sex marriage. One should add inter-racial marriage and protection from involuntary sterilization to that list. Rather than applying its draconian version of the “history and tradition” test in a …

Corpus Linguistics And The Original Public Meaning Of The Sixteenth Amendment, Thomas R. Lee, Lawrence B. Solum, James C. Phillips, Jesse A. Egbert

Faculty Scholarship

Moore v. United States raises the question whether unrealized gains, such as an increase in property value or a stock portfolio, constitute “incomes, from whatever source derived” under the original meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment. Moore is widely viewed as the most important tax case to reach the United States Supreme Court in decades. It is also an opportunity for the Court to refine its theory and method of finding original meaning.

We focus here on the original public meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment—the ordinary, common meaning attributed to its text by the general public in 1913. So far, the …

State Sovereign Immunity And The New Purposivism, Anthony J. Bellia Jr., Bradford R. Clark

William & Mary Law Review

Since the Constitution was first proposed, courts and commentators have debated the extent to which it alienated the States’ preexisting sovereign immunity from suit by individuals. During the ratification period, these debates focused on the language of the citizen-state diversity provisions of Article III. After the Supreme Court read these provisions to abrogate state sovereign immunity in Chisholm v. Georgia, Congress and the States adopted the Eleventh Amendment to prohibit this construction. The Court subsequently ruled that States enjoy sovereign immunity independent of the Eleventh Amendment, which neither conferred nor diminished it. In the late twentieth-century, Congress began enacting …