Constitutional Law Commons^™

Legitimacy And The Major Questions Doctrine, Ronald M. Levin

Scholarship@WashULaw

Questions about the legitimacy of recent Supreme Court decisions are occupying an increasingly prominent place in public law discourse. Last February, a widely discussed feature in the New York Times quoted several well-known law professors' laments that multiple decision by the newly empowered conservative majority of the Court have departed so far from accepted constitutional premises that the professor could not figure out how to teach them to their students

...

With due respect to the Chief Justice, I will explain here why the MQD is itself among the few legal developments that I would describe as giving rise to …

The Riddle Of Race-Based Redistricting, Travis Crum

Scholarship@WashULaw

The Supreme Court has adopted divergent interpretations of the Equal Protection Clause as applied to race and redistricting. Vote dilution doctrine requires mapmakers to consider race to ensure that racial minorities are not packed or cracked. Congress, moreover, has embraced vote dilution doctrine in Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. By contrast, racial gerrymandering doctrine triggers strict scrutiny if mapmakers subordinate traditional redistricting principles to race, thereby threatening Section 2’s constitutionality.

To resolve this doctrinal riddle, this Essay examines whether, as originally understood, the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendment governed the use of race during redistricting. The Equal Protection Clause …

Washu Expert: Can Trump Bypass Senate Approval Of Controversial Cabinet Nominees?, Andrea Scoseria Katz, Neil Schoenherr

Scholarship@WashULaw

Andrea Katz, an associate professor of law at Washington University in St. Louis, is an expert on constitutional law, with a focus on presidential power. Here, she discusses how Cabinet members are traditionally appointed and whether the Senate or the Supreme Court could stop Trump from doing an end-around on tradition.

Taking Liberties: The Supreme Court’S New Hierarchy Of Rights And Its Victims, Richard B. Katskee

Faculty Scholarship

The legitimacy of our unelected Supreme Court comes from the nature and structural limitations on judicial power. Courts do not make policy in the abstract. Rather, Article III requires federal judges to decide only real, live disputes, on the facts before them. Stare decisis then prevents the courts from changing legal rules willy-nilly. The big, important changes come instead through collective decision-making by our elected representatives. When courts do break from stare decisis, it is normally to expand protections for the politically disempowered. Those protections then make legislatures more representative and act as brakes on abuses of minorities by an …

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

Journal Articles

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 statutes …

Does The Constitution Follow The Flag? The Paradox Of Puerto Rican Identity And Citizenship, Laura Somoza Velez

CMC Senior Theses

How do identity and citizenship interact? Puerto Rico’s current political status is that of an unincorporated, organized territory of the United States, under the shiny title of ‘Commonwealth.’ Although they have US Citizenship, Puerto Rican residents aren’t protected by the US Constitution. This source of dual identification, American and Puerto Rican, creates a unique circumstance where questions of identity, and belonging naturally arise. In this thesis, I aim to answer how the citizenship condition created in Puerto Rico and how it is experienced measure up to current debates and scholarship surrounding citizenship. Achieved through a historical analysis of the formation …

From The Barrel To The Border: Exploring The Roots And Ramifications Of Gun Trafficking From The United States To Mexico, Alexandra Punishill

CMC Senior Theses

Nowhere is the discussion surrounding gun violence more prominent than in the United States, with the impacts of our gun-friendly culture being felt around the world. This thesis analyzes the dynamics of gun trafficking from the United States to Mexico and sheds light on its role in fueling the epidemic of gun violence south of the border. It is argued that the particular system of federalism adopted by the United States has led to a variety of state-level gun regulations that have shaped domestic gun policy and have had an international impact. Despite Mexico’s persistent efforts to combat the gun …

Bill Of Rights Nondelegation, Eli Nachmany

BYU Law Review

Speculation about the “revival” of the nondelegation doctrine has reached a fever pitch. Although the Supreme Court apparently has not applied the nondelegation doctrine to declare a federal statute unconstitutional since 1935, the doctrine may be making a comeback. The common understanding is that the nondelegation doctrine prohibits Congress from “delegating” legislative power to the executive branch. While the nondelegation doctrine may appear to be about limiting Congress, its ultimate target is delegation. But if the nondelegation doctrine is about policing delegation, then the Court has been regularly — and rigorously — applying the doctrine in a different context: In …

The Curious Case Of Justice Neil Gorsuch, Justin Burnworth

Pace Law Review

Justice Gorsuch has a propensity for unexpected decisions. His opinions in Bostock v. Clayton County, United States v. Vaello Madero, and McGirt v. Oklahoma confounded the legal community at large. Some argue that his Western upbringing played a role. Others argue that his time clerking for Justice Kennedy primed him for unpredictable decisions. These explanations do not get at the core of Justice Gorsuch’s legal reasoning. This article dives into the depths of these opinions to extract his “Enduring” theories of law. I argue that legal scholarship has incorrectly viewed these three decisions as isolated incidents when they are best …

First Amendment Scrutiny: Realigning First Amendment Doctrine Around Government Interests, John Inazu

Brooklyn Law Review

This article proposes a simpler way to frame judicial analysis of First Amendment claims: a government restriction on First Amendment expression or action must advance a compelling interest through narrowly tailored means and must not excessively burden the expression or action relative to the interest advanced. The test thus has three prongs: (1) compelling interest; (2) narrow tailoring; and (3) proportionality. Part I explores how current First Amendment doctrine too often minimizes or ignores a meaningful assessment of the government’s purported interest in limiting First Amendment liberties. Part II shows how First Amendment inquiry is further confused by threshold inquiries …

Co-Managers? The Need For Clarification Regarding State And Federal Powers In Federal Elections, Amber Mccomas

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

This article argues that the Court needs to clarify the distinction between the state and federal government’s roles in federal elections to avoid chaos and unconstitutional overreach. As a part of this clarification, the Court should also clarify how information is deemed “necessary.” This article looks specifically at one potential consideration: public fears regarding election security. Data and logic indicate that such fears should not be a consideration in the necessity determination as they are unreliable. Section II examines the background of the Election Assistance Commission, the applicable law, as well as criticism and support the agency has received since …

The Anti-Constitutionality Of The Deeply Rooted Test In Dobbs V. Jackson, Reginald Oh

Cleveland State Law Review

The deeply rooted in history test used by Justice Alito in Dobbs v. Jackson to overturn Roe v. Wade is anti-constitutional. In Dobbs, Alito concluded that, because a majority of states in 1868 criminalized abortion, abortion is not deeply rooted in history, and is therefore not a fundamental liberty under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. However, relying on state laws in 1868 to interpret constitutional text not only has no basis in the Constitution, it goes against the fundamental nature of the Constitution as an integrated whole. What I call the Integrated Constitution is based on Chief Justice John …

Methodological Gerrymandering, David Simson

Cleveland State Law Review

The U.S. Supreme Court has come to decide many of the most consequential and contentious aspects of social policy via its interpretations of the U.S. Constitution. Institutional features of the Court create significant pressure on the Justices to justify their decisions as applications of “law” rather than the practice of “politics.” Their perceived failure to do so calls forth criticism sounding in a variety of registers—ranging from allegations of a lack of neutrality, lack of impartiality, or lack of “principle,” to allegations of opportunism, disingenuousness, and hypocrisy. Analyzing the Justices’ choices in relation to interpretational “methodology”—choosing one lens through which …

R.E.S.P.E.C.T.: The Court's Forgotten Virtue, Camille Pollutro

Cleveland State Law Review

This Article recommends a shift in constitutional interpretation that requires the existence of respect for the class at issue when a fundamental right is being considered under the narrow, historical deeply rooted test of the Fourteenth Amendment. By focusing on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, this Article highlights that the class at issue—women—are having their fundamental rights decided for them by the legal sources of 1868. In applying this strict and narrow historical deeply rooted test, the Court fails to consider the lack of respect and autonomy that women had in 1868. To the Court, if twenty-eight out …

Does The Discourse On 303 Creative Portend A Standing Realignment?, Richard M. Re

Notre Dame Law Review Reflection

Perhaps the most surprising feature of the last Supreme Court Term was the extraordinary public discourse on 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. According to many commentators, the Court decided what was really a “fake” or “made-up” case brought by someone who asserted standing merely because “she worries.” As a doctrinal matter, these criticisms are unfounded. But what makes this episode interesting is that the criticisms came from the legal Left, which has long been associated with expansive principles of standing. Doubts about standing in 303 Creative may therefore portend a broader standing realignment, in which liberal Justices become jurisdictionally hawkish. …

An Originalist Approach To Prospective Overruling, John O. Mcginnis, Michael Rappaport

Notre Dame Law Review

Originalism has become a dominant jurisprudential theory on the Supreme Court. But a large number of precedents are inconsistent with the Constitution’s original meaning and overturning them risks creating enormous disruption to the legal order. This article defends a prospective overruling approach that would harmonize precedent with originalism’s rise and reduce the disruption from overrulings. Under prospective overruling, the Court declares that an existing statute violates the original meaning but will continue to be enforced because declaring it unconstitutional would produce enormous costs; however, future statutes of this type will be voided as unconstitutional. Under our approach, the Court would …

Historians Wear Robes Now? Applying The History And Tradition Standard: A Practical Guide For Lower Courts, Alexandra Michalak

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Never before has the Supreme Court relied on the history and tradition standard to such a magnitude as in the 2021 term to determine the scope of a range of constitutional rights. [...] In reaffirming this standard, the Supreme Court provided no guidance to lower courts on how to apply and analyze the history and tradition standard. Along with balancing the lack of resources in deciding cases with the history and tradition framework, lower courts must face the reality that this standard presents ample opportunity for one-sided historical analysis. To combat the temptation of conducting unbalanced and cursory reviews of …

The Common Law And First Amendment Qualified Right Of Public Access To Foreign Intelligence Law, Laura K. Donohue

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

For millennia, public access to the law has been the hallmark of rule of law. To be legally and morally binding, rules must be promulgated. Citizens’ knowledge of the law, in turn, serves as the lynchpin for democratic governance. In common law countries, it is more than just the statutory provisions and their execution that matters: how courts rule, and the reasoning behind their determination, proves central. Accordingly, in the United States, both common law and the right to petition incorporated in the First Amendment have long enshrined a presumed right of public right of access to Article III opinions …

Social Costs Of Dobbs' Pro-Adoption Agenda, Malinda L. Seymore

Faculty Scholarship

Abortion opponents have long claimed that women denied access to abortion can simply give their children up for adoption. Justice Alito repeated this argument in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health. Of course, this claim assumes away the burdens of the pregnancy itself, which can result in economic strife, domestic violence, health risks, and potentially death in childbirth. But even on its own terms, the argument that adoption is an adequate substitute for abortion access makes normative assumptions about adoption as a social good in and of itself, ignoring the social costs of adoption for birth parents and adoptees. Idealizing adoption …

Free Exercise Of Abortion, Elizabeth Sepper

BYU Law Review

For too long, religion has been assumed to be in opposition to abortion. Abortions consistent with, motivated by, and compelled from religion have been erased from legal and political discourse. Since the fall of Roe v. Wade, free exercise claims against abortion bans have begun to correct course. Women and faith leaders in several states have filed suit, asserting their religious convictions in favor of abortion. They give form to the reality—as progressive theologians have long argued—that to have a child can be a sacred choice, but not to have a child can also be a sacred choice. And they …

It Is A Constitution We Are Expounding: John Marshall, Spencer Roane, And The Fundamental Conflicts Surrounding Mcculloch V. Maryland (1819), Catherine T. Meisenheimer

Compass: An Undergraduate Journal of American Political Ideas

Using a blend of primary and secondary sources, this research paper examines the lesser-known newspaper debate between Chief Justice John Marshall and Judge Spencer Roane of the Virginia Court of Appeals. The purpose of this research is to answer one question: What were the fundamental issues that divided early Americans as demonstrated by the landmark case of McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)? To contribute to the ongoing discussion of McCulloch and its significance, my paper attempts to understand the issues surrounding McCulloch within its broader, historical context. Instead of confining its importance to the Second Bank of the United States, I …

The Collateral Fallout From The Quest For A Unitary Executive, Harold J. Krent

Fordham Law Review

To bolster a strong “Unitary Executive,” the Roberts Court has held that Congress can neither shield a single head of an administrative agency nor an inferior officer in an independent agency from removal at will. With respect to appointments, the Roberts Court has held that adjudicative officers in many executive agencies must now be appointed either by the President or a superior officer under the President’s supervision. As a result, dissenting Justices and academics have accused the Roberts Court of expanding Article II beyond both the constitutional text—which seemingly grants Congress the discretion to structure administrative agencies as it deems …

Police Officers, Policy, And Personnel Files: Prosecutorial Disclosure Obligations Above And Beyond Brady, Lauren Giles

Fordham Law Review

Police officers play a significant role in the criminal trial process and are unlike any other witness who will take the stand. They are trained to testify, and jurors find them more credible than other witnesses, even though officers may have more incentive to lie than the ordinary witness. Despite the role of police officers in criminal proceedings, state statutes say virtually nothing about evidence used to impeach police officers, often contained in the officer’s personnel file. Worse still, the standard for disclosing information in an officer’s personnel file varies among and within states, resulting in inconsistent Brady disclosures. This …

Originalism After Dobbs, Bruen, And Kennedy: The Role Of History And Tradition, Randy E. Barnett, Lawrence B. Solum

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In three recent cases, the constitutional concepts of history and tradition have played important roles in the reasoning of the Supreme Court. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization relied on history and tradition to overrule Roe v. Wade. New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen articulated a history and tradition test for the validity of laws regulating the right to bear arms recognized by the Second Amendment. Kennedy v. Bremerton School District looked to history and tradition in formulating the test for the consistency of state action with the Establishment Clause.

These cases raise important questions about …

Inconsistencies In State Court Decisions Regarding Public School Financing Are Violating The Constitutional Rights Of Citizens: Why The Nevada Court In Shea V. State Should Have Intervened, Corinne Milnamow

University of Miami Law Review

In 1973, the Supreme Court decided the landmark case, San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, which held there was no fundamental right to education under the United States Constitution. In the years that have followed Rodriguez, state courts across the country have been left to decide issues related to public school financing. Many plaintiffs in these cases will argue that education is a fundamental right under their state’s constitution and that their respective state’s public school financing structure—one that heavily relies on local property taxes—is unconstitutional because of the discrepancies in the quality of education one will receive in …

Americans For Prosperity Foundation V. Bonta: Protecting Free Speech And Its Implications For Campaign Finance Disclosures, Sara Lindsay Neier

Fordham Law Voting Rights and Democracy Forum

In 2021, the United States Supreme Court in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta considered the anonymous speech rights of charitable donors against the California Attorney General’s interest in preventing wrongdoing by charitable organizations. The Court applied exacting scrutiny, a standard traditionally applied to campaign finance disclosure laws, determining that California’s requirement was facially invalid as a violation of associational rights. Bonta did not concern campaign finance, making this application of exacting scrutiny novel. This Article considers the open questions raised by Bonta regarding how exacting scrutiny should be applied and what it means for the future of campaign finance …

Discriminatory Intent Claims Under Section 2 Of The Voting Rights Act, Amandeep S. Grewal

Fordham Law Voting Rights and Democracy Forum

This Article addresses a new controversy over whether Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits laws that exhibit “only” discriminatory intent, in the absence of discriminatory results. Lower courts have long embraced an intent approach for Section 2. And the Department of Justice has rested its entire ongoing case against Georgia’s controversial voting bill on an intent approach.

However, this Article shows that the Supreme Court’s decision in Brnovich v. DNC effectively rejects the intent approach to Section 2. In April 2023, the Eleventh Circuit reversed its prior cases and now rejects an intent theory. This puts in peril …

Bureaucratic Overreach And The Role Of The Courts In Protecting Representative Democracy, Katie Cassady

Liberty University Journal of Statesmanship & Public Policy

The United States bureaucracy began as only four departments and has expanded to address nearly every issue of public life. While these bureaucratic agencies are ostensibly under congressional oversight and the supervision of the President as part of the executive branch, they consistently usurp their discretionary authority and bypass the Founding Fathers’ design of balancing legislative power in a bicameral Congress.

The Supreme Court holds an indispensable role in mitigating the overreach of executive agencies, yet the courts’ inability to hold bureaucrats accountable has diluted voters’ voices. Since the Supreme Court’s 1984 ruling in Chevron, U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense …

Turn Up The Volume: The Connick Pickering Test As A Remedy For Quiet Quitting And The Covid-19 Pandemic’S Impact On Critical Private Employment Issues, Megan E. Bowling

University of Cincinnati Law Review

No abstract provided.

Inactive Exercise & Unequal Protection: Espinoza & Carson Under The Equal Protection Clause, Griffith B. Bludworth

University of Cincinnati Law Review

No abstract provided.