Constitutional Law Commons^™

Brief Of Amici Curiae Criminal Law Scholars And Legal Organizations In Support Of Petitioner, Alabama Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, Florida Association Of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Kentucky Association Of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Criminal Defense Attorneys Of Michigan, North Carolina Advocates For Justice, Virginia Association Of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Due Process Institute, Ira P. Robbins, Kyle Singhal

Amicus Briefs & Court Filings

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT: The Sentencing Guidelines are, in practice, the most consequential legal text in federal criminal law. Yet this Court has abstained from interpreting the Guidelines for decades. That practice is anomalous in the federal judiciary and should end. District courts must correctly calculate every defendant’s guideline range at every sentencing hearing. Courts of Appeals routinely hear appeals asserting guideline mistakes. And differences of appellate opinion over purely legal, highly consequential questions often arise. This Court apparently declines to hear such cases because the Sentencing Commission could resolve those conflicts. See Braxton v. United States,500 U.S. 344, …

Brief Amicus Curiae Of Administrative And Constitutional Law Professors In Support Of Petitioners, Robert Glicksman, Richard Pierce, Alan B. Morrison, Jeffrey Lubbers, Peter L. Strauss

Amicus Briefs & Court Filings

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT: The ninety-six temporary agricultural workers employed by respondent were allowed to come to the United States solely because Congress established the program that governs their employment. As petitioners’ brief demonstrates, in order for respondent to be eligible to bring in foreign workers, it had to submit an application to the Department of Homeland Security. As part of that process, respondent had to establish that it would not employ non-citizen workers to displace domestic workers. Included in the required showing is an agreement by respondent to pay both domestic and foreign workers the same pay, so …

Article Iii's Constraints On The Legislative Power, Elizabeth Beske

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

Article III’s heightened concreteness standard for statutory harms takes federal judges deep into legislative terrain, jeopardizing statutory damage provisions and confining Congress to post hoc solutions rather than preemptive strikes. The Supreme Court has insisted that creating a cause of action is a legislative function. At the same time, its recent standing cases instruct lower federal courts to permit suit on statutory injuries only when they find actual harm that bears a tight connection to injuries recognized at common law. This new harm requirement rests uneasily with countless statutes featuring statutory damage provisions that are in place precisely because damages …

A Democratic Consultative Constitutionalism For Marxist-Leninist (Socialist) Political Systems—The Theory And Structure Of “Whole Process People’S Democracy” (全过程人民民主), Larry Catá Backer

American University International Law Review

The Chinese Socialist (Marxist-Leninist) constitutional order has recently fully elaborated a theory and practice of democracy, one that has been offered as an alternative model to liberal democratic theory and practice. In contemporary China, this evolution has taken concrete form as the form of 全过程人民民主 (Whole Process People’s Democracy (WPPD)). This essay examines this emerging theory of Chinese democracy both within the structure of Chinese constitutionalism and as an expression of its Marxist-Leninist foundations. The essence of the distinction of this form of democratic theory with classical liberal democracy is the centrality of consultation rather than elections in this system; …

The Unilateral Reinterpretation Of The Treaty Of Waitangi: Analyzing The Treaty Principles Bill And Its Impact On Māori Sovereignty, Jason Kehoe

American University International Law Review

This comment examines New Zealand’s compliance with the Treaty of Waitangi and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples by examining the countries treatment of Māori following the introduction of the Treaty Principles Bill and comparing the nations treatment of these groups to similarly situated nations. This comment analyzes the legal and moral duties imposed by the UNDRIP and ILO Convention 169 and the criticism New Zealand has faced for its pushback against the principles originally enshrined in the Treaty of Waitangi. This comment will first provide background on the treatment of Māori in New Zealand following …

Missing The Right(S) Point: How Australia’S Social Media Ban Fails Children And The Case For A Holistic Rights-Based Approach To Online Safety, Ying Chen

American University International Law Review

In December 2024, Australia rewrote the rules of growing up. Children under sixteen may learn to drive, open a bank account, and even face criminal charges—yet the Australian Government considers them too young to scroll through Instagram or send a Snapchat. With the enactment of the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024, Australia became the first country to introduce an outright ban on social media access for those under sixteen. This bold legislative move has attracted global attention, with several countries reportedly considering similar measures. Through a critical analysis of Australia’s social media ban, this article provides …

Incentivized Delegation In Corporate Criminal Investigations: State Action, Unconstitutional Conditions, And Fifth Amendment Erosion., Ying Zhou

American University Business Law Review

This Article identifies and critiques “incentivized delegation,” an enforcement regime in which the Department of Justice (DOJ) conditions prosecutorial leniency on corporations’ completion of specified, prosecution-oriented, internal investigations of employee misconduct. While courts readily find state action when the government formally delegates investigative functions, they have not squarely addressed whether corporate investigations undertaken to secure prosecutorial leniency—without explicit governmental direction—should likewise trigger state-action scrutiny. United States v. Coburn illustrates the blind spot: by insisting that state action requires overt governmental direction and control, the decision exposes a fundamental failure to appreciate how the government can embed investigative mandates within the …

Law’S Limits: Abortion And The Social Determinants Of Health, Maya Manian

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

After Dobbs: How the Supreme Court Ended Roe but Not Abortion (“After Dobbs”) is a prescient and timely response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade and upended nearly five decades of constitutional protection for abortion. In this meticulously structured oral history, law professor David S. Cohen and sociologist Carole Joffe center the voices of abortion providers, clinic administrators, funders, and advocates from across the country. After Dobbs, not only documents the extraordinary persistence of abortion supporters in the face of legal devastation but also bears witness to …

Undermining Discretion: The Selective Attacks On Progressive Prosecutors, Angela J. Davis

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

Prosecutors are the most powerful officials in the criminal legal system. They decide whether to bring criminal charges and what those criminal charges should be. These decisions are totally within their discretion. The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently protected the power and discretion of prosecutors in making these decisions, and legal challenges to the exercise of prosecutorial discretion have been largely unsuccessful.

In recent years, a growing number of individuals have successfully run for chief prosecutor on platforms of reducing the prison and jail populations, consistent with public safety. They pledged to use their power and discretion to implement policies …

Originalism As Disruption, Susan D. Carle

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

This Article challenges the conventional understanding of originalism as a method that promotes unchanging constitutional meanings. Drawing on four and a half decades of experience since Attorney General Edwin Meese first championed originalism as a conservative project, this Article demonstrates that originalism has generally proven destabilizing rather than stabilizing to constitutional law. Landmark cases such as New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, and Shelby County v. Holder show that the Supreme Court frequently deploys originalism when it seeks to upend settled constitutional doctrine, contradicting claims …

This Land Is Our Land: Creating Abortion Safe-Havens In Federal Enclaves Using The Nondelegation Doctrine, Callie Fucarino

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

In a post-Dobbs world, the legal status of abortion care is in the hands of the states. Healthcare providers and people seeking abortion care must either take legal risks or betray their morals and oath to care for their patients to follow the law in certain restrictive states. What remains in flux is the status of abortion rights on federal lands. There is currently no federal law that criminalizes abortion, but many states prohibit it. Within some states that have restricted abortion, there lie federal enclaves—certain specified land that the United States government owns, where federal law controls. At first …

Fundamental Rights Betrayed: How Pregnancy Exclusions In Advance Directive Statutes Silence Pregnant People’S Wishes, Molly Hill

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

INTRODUCTION: In 2013, Marlise Muñoz collapsed at her home and was rushed to the hospital, where the doctors informed her family that she had suffered a pulmonary embolism and was now brain-dead. Marlise had previously expressed to her family that she never wished to be kept on life support if she was left brain-dead, so her family wanted to honor her wishes. However, despite her irreversible brain death, because Marlise was fourteen weeks pregnant, Texas law required that her body remain on life-sustaining treatment until her fetus became viable. Her body lay in the hospital hooked up to machines against …

No Exception For Ultra Vires Discrimination, Rev. James Deboer

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

The Ministerial Exception (“the Exception”) is an affirmative defense that religious institutions may use to obtain dismissal of discrimination claims brought by current and former ministerial employees.The Exception rests on the seemingly straightforward premise that churches and other religious institutions must be free to select and remove their own ministers without interference from secular laws.  It applies with equal force to any kind of discrimination; extends to harassment and retaliation; and is not confined to forms of alleged discrimination motivated by religious belief.

The Supreme Court has only addressed the Exception twice. First, in 2012, through Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church …

The Ambiguity That Isn’T: Why Same-Sex Marriage Is Legal In American Samoa, Dante Cade Harootunian, Sammi Lawrence

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that prohibitions on same-sex marriage violate the equal protection guarantees of the U.S. Constitution, several government officials in American Samoa issued statements claiming that the decision had no effect in American Samoa, and, to date, no same-sex couples have

applied for a marriage license in the territory. This Article analyzes the Obergefell decision in light of other federal and territorial court decisions that determined the applicability of constitutional rights to U.S. territories and concludes that, despite the statements of local officials, the Obergefell decision applies in American Samoa, and the …

Why Dobbs Is No Roadmap For Deciding State Constitutional Abortion Issues, Daniel A. Small

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

In deciding that Fourteenth Amendment “liberty” does not protect a woman’s decision to end her pregnancy, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization sought to distinguish the precedent that Roe and Casey relied on to recognize an abortion right. The Dobbs majority claimed that this precedent did not support a right to abortion because, in its view, destroying a fetus is more immoral than the conduct at issue in those earlier cases. However, moral concerns about fetal destruction shed no light on the nature or characteristics of a woman’s liberty interest in an abortion decision. These concerns, therefore, cannot show whether …

What Is “The Nation’S History And Tradition?”: Using History To Redefine “Liberty” And Applying A New Deeply Rooted Test To Transgender Rights, Kaori Kawaguchi

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

INTRODUCTION: “In a Constitution for a free people, there can be no doubt that the meaning of ‘liberty’ must be broad indeed.” In Roe v. Wade, the Court considered a woman’s liberty right to decide whether to continue a pregnancy or have an abortion and recognized the constitutional validity of a liberty right to abortion as part of the right to privacy. In Roe, the Court concluded, “[o]nly personal rights that can be deemed ‘fundamental’ or ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty’ are included in the guarantee of a right of personal privacy.” Liberty should be “left to …

Nonviolent Felony Offenders And The Second Amendment: Reexamining Categorical Disarmament Laws In Light Of Bruen And Rahimi, Nikolay Belardi

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

INTRODUCTION: The Second Amendment ensures that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In a country with more civilian-owned firearms than people—and more gun dealers than McDonald’s, Burger King, Subway, and Wendy’s locations combined—it is no surprise that Americans pride themselves on their right to bear arms. However, a majority of the American population favors stricter gun laws and regulations, a position that seems sensible given that mass shootings are an all-too-familiar occurrence in the United States. The enshrinement of the right to bear arms in the Constitution limits the laws and regulations …

State Mifepristone Regulation Following Genbiopro V Raynes, Greer Donley, Lewis Grossman, Patricia J. Zettler

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

After the US Supreme Court eliminated the federal constitutional right to abortion in 2022, several high-profile legal fights have centered on US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oversight of mifepristone. Mifepristone (200 mg) is approved, in a regimen with misoprostol, for the medical termination of intrauterine pregnancy through 70 days' gestation. Legal battles over Mifepristone have included a lawsuit challenging the FDA’s initial approval of the drug and the sufficiency of FDA-required restrictions on the drug, as well as lawsuits arguing, to the contrary, that FDA-required restrictions are unnecessary and must be eliminated.

Citizen Led Initiatives - Constitutional Amendments & Statutes, Priya Baskaran

Research Reports & White Papers

50-state survey of provisions for amending state constitutions.

Letter From The Editor, Davis Hayman

Criminal Law Practitioner

Dear Readers,

Thank you for your interest in The Criminal Law Practitioner. This marks my first publication as the Editor-in-Chief for the 2025-2026 academic year. I am thrilled to leave this remarkable team as we continue to solicit, write, and publish issues in criminal law.

 This issue continues this trend by highlighting topics including evolving interpretation of the 8th Amendment and a discussion on Constitutional venue issues related to internet crimes. Our authors provide some intriguing, unique insights that I invite you to dig into. In “The Continuing Unevolving Model of Decency, Kennedy v. Louisiana in Peril”, Professor Patrick S. …

The Continuing Unevolving Model Of Decency, Kennedy V. Louisiana In Peril, Patrick S. Metze

Criminal Law Practitioner

Professor Metze reflects on Kennedy v. Louisiana in its part in the development of Eighth Amendment jurisprudence and how the Supreme Court initially used Kennedy to further our understanding of the limits of the Eighth Amendment. The Court recently avoided a meaningful discussion of how our society is maturing and evolving by acknowledging a purposeful effort of some to reflect modern beliefs in opposition to those who would interpret everything through an 18th-century prism. After a case-by-case analysis of how the Court has used Kennedy, it is apparent the conservative majority now on the Court has decided there is no …

A Peek Behind The Scenes Of Supreme Court Decision Making Concerning The Federal Ip System, Jonathan Band

Joint PIJIP/TLS Research Paper Series

In the 1970s and 80s, the Supreme Court decided three cases that continue to define the limits of the authority of the states within the federal intellectual property system: Goldstein v. California (1973); Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Oil Co. (1974); and Bonito Boats v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc. (1989). The papers of the Supreme Court Justices that decided these cases show the Court as a human institution wrestling with this complex issue. This issue has assumed new importance as state legislatures have rushed to enact laws on the use of generative artificial intelligence to replicate the voice …

Brennan And State Constitutions, Stephen Wermiel

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

The former Great Gorge Playboy Resort in New Jersey seems an unlikely place to help form a jurisprudential movement toward reliance on state constitutions to protect civil rights and liberties.

One need only turn back the clock to 1976 to find the story of one of the most significant moments in the rise of state constitutions. Anyone who is steeped in this movement is likely familiar with the lead article in the January 1977 issue of the Harvard Law Review, “State Constitutions and the Protection of Individual Rights.” The author was U.S. Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan Jr.

A Loss For Public Participation, Jeffrey Lubbers

Popular Media

Overshadowed in the blitzkrieg of orders and actions of the Trump Administration that are seemingly intended to assert complete presidential control over the executive branch was a recent rule issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on March 3, 2025, signed by new Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

Legislative Reforms To End Lawfare By State And Local Prosecutors, Elizabeth Beske

Legislative Testimony & Comments

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government will hold a hearing on Tuesday, March 4, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. ET. The hearing, "Legislative Reforms to End Lawfare by State and Local Prosecutors," will examine the use of lawfare tactics by the Biden-Harris Administration to weaponize the rule of law against political opponents. It will further highlight legislative reforms to end politically motivated state and local prosecutions.

Trump Should Pass On Project 2025'S Disparate Impact Plan, Susan D. Carle

Popular Media

Although President-elect Donald Trump disavowed reliance on, or even knowledge of, the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 agenda, his appointments and policy announcements have substantially tracked Project 2025 so far, suggesting that his administration will look to Project 2025 when choosing its goals.

Book Review The Making Of A Justice: Reflections On My First 94 Years By John Paul Stevens, Stephen Wermiel

Book Reviews

The autobiography of Justice John Paul Stevens, published just a few months before he died, is an enticing travelogue for Supreme Court nerds. Other travelers may want to pick a different landscape.

In The Making of a Justice: Reflections on My First 94 Years, Stevens who died in July 2019, at age 99, spent 130 pages on his life before he joined the Supreme Court and then 394 pages describing the decisions during his thirty-four year as a Justice. Stevens was an agile writer and did as good a job as anyone can of making the narrative accessible, but it …

Kobaliya V. Russia: Curtailing Civil Society Through Labels Of Foreign Influence., Alida Blendonohy

Human Rights Brief

In a January 2025 judgment, the European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”) held in the case of Kobaliya and Others v. Russia that the application of Russia’s foreign agent legislation violated Articles 8, 9 and 10 of the European Con­vention on Human Rights (“ECHR”) which pro­tect the rights to freedom of expression, freedom of association, and respect for private and family life.

In Kobaliya, the ECtHR assessed Russia’s foreign agent legislation, its evolution since 2012, and its increasing restrictiveness. In its initial 2012 enactment, the law applied to nongovernmental organizations (“NGOs”) that participated in political activity with foreign funding, …

Military Service Academies: The Final Battleground For Affirmative Action, Krista Trefen

American University Law Review

The future of affirmative action in the United States military service academies faces critical uncertainty following the Supreme Court's decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, which ended race-conscious admissions practices in higher education. Although the Court explicitly excluded the service academies from its holding, reserving space for race-conscious practices tied to national security-the Naval Academy, Military Academy, and Air Force Academy have recently indicated they will discontinue the use of affirmative action in response to changes in Department of Defense policy.

This Comment examines the historical and statutory foundations of the military …

The Warrant Exception That Isn't Fisa Section 702, "Defensive" Searches, And The Fourth Amendment, Noah C. Chauvin

American University Law Review

Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act allows the government to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance of non-Americans who are located overseas. Although the surveillance targets foreigners, Americans’ communications are “incidentally” collected, too. Once the government has acquired Americans’ communications, court-approved rules allow it to conduct warrantless searches for and through them in its Section 702 databases. Intelligence agencies have used these rules to turn this foreign intelligence program into a domestic spying tool, conducting tens of thousands of warrantless “backdoor” searches for Americans’ private communications obtained under Section 702 every year.

Section 702 periodically sunsets; Congress most recently reauthorized …