Constitutional Law Commons^™

The "High-Crime Area" Question: Requiring Verifiable And Quantifiable Evidence For Fourth Amendment Reasonable Suspicion Analysis [Pdf], Andrew Guthrie Ferguson, Damien Bernache

American University Law Review

This article proposes a legal framework to analyze the "high crime area" concept in Fourth Amendment reasonable suspicion challenges. Under existing Supreme Court precedent, reviewing courts are allowed to consider that an area is a "high crime area" as a factor to evaluate the reasonableness of a Fourth Amendment stop. See Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000). However, the Supreme Court has never defined a "high crime area" and lower courts have not reached consensus on a definition. There is no agreement on what a "high-crime area" is, whether it has geographic boundaries, whether it changes over time, whether …

Supreme Court Reversals: Exploring The Seventh Court, Stephen Wermiel

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

No abstract provided.

Inside The Box - When Exercising Peremptory Challenges, Attorneys Should Keep In Mind The Three-Step Framework Of Batson/Wheeler, Angela J. Davis

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

No abstract provided.

Enhanced Protections For Geographical Indications Under Trips: Potential Conflicts Under The U.S. Constitutional And Statutory Regimes, David Snyder

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

No abstract provided.

The Assumptions Behind The Assumptions In The War On Terror: Risk Assessment As An Example Of Foundational Disagreement In Counterterrorism Policy, Kenneth Anderson

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

This 2007 article (based around an invited conference talk at Wayne State in early 2007) addresses risk assessment and cost benefit analysis as mechanisms in counterterrorism policy. It argues that although policy is often best pursued by agreeing to set aside deep foundational differences, in order to obtain a strategic plan for an activity such as counterterrorism, foundational differences must be addressed in order that policy not merely devolve into a policy minimalism that is always and damagingly tactical, never strategic, in order to avoid domestic democratic political conflict. The article takes risk assessment in counterterrorism, using cost benefit analysis, …

Risky Business: Massachusetts V. Epa, Risk-Based Harm, And Standing In The D.C. Circuit, Amanda Leiter

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

No abstract provided.

The 'High Crime Area' Question: Requiring Verifiable And Quantifiable Evidence For Fourth Amendment Reasonable Suspicion Analysis, Andrew Ferguson, Damien Bernache

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

This article proposes a legal framework to analyze the "high crime area" concept in Fourth Amendment reasonable suspicion challenges.Under existing Supreme Court precedent, reviewing courts are allowed to consider that an area is a "high crime area" as a factor to evaluate the reasonableness of a Fourth Amendment stop. See Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000). However, the Supreme Court has never defined a "high crime area" and lower courts have not reached consensus on a definition. There is no agreement on what a "high-crime area" is, whether it has geographic boundaries, whether it changes over time, whether it …

Grand Jury Discretion And Constitutional Design, Roger Fairfax

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

The grand jury possesses an unqualified power to decline to indict - despite probable cause that alleged criminal conduct has occurred. A grand jury might exercise this power, for example, to disagree with the wisdom of a criminal law or its application to a particular defendant. A grand jury might also use its discretionary power to send a message of disapproval regarding biased or unwise prosecutorial decisions or inefficient allocation of law enforcement resources in the community. This ability to exercise discretion on bases beyond the sufficiency of the evidence has been characterized pejoratively as grand jury nullification. The dominant …

Giving Birth In Shackles: A Constitutional And Human Rights Violation, Dana L. Sichel

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

No abstract provided.

Born To No Mother: In Re Roberto D.B. And Equal Protection For Gestational Surrogates Rebutting Maternity, Emily Stark

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

No abstract provided.

"Protecting" Women's Health: How Gonzales V. Carhart Endangers Women's Health And Women's Equal Right To Personhood Under The Constitution, Martha K. Plante

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

No abstract provided.

A Shot Heard 'Round The District: The District Of Columbia Circuit Puts A Bullet In The Collective Right Theory Of The Second Amendment, Amanda C. Dupree

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

No abstract provided.

Regulating Pregnancy Behaviors: How The Constitutional Rights Of Minority Women Are Disproportionately Compromised, Joanne E. Brosh, Monica K. Miller

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

No abstract provided.

The Spy Who Sued The King: Scaling The Fortress Of Executive Immunity For Constitutional Torts In Wilson V. Libby, Scott R. Daniel

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

No abstract provided.

Save Me From Harm: The Consequences Of The Ordinary Remand Rule's Misapplication To Gao V. Gonzales, Brenna Finn

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

No abstract provided.

Envisioning The Constitution , Thomas P. Crocker

American University Law Review

If one of the more persistent problems of constitutional interpretation, particularly of the Bill of Rights, is that we lack a clear view of it, then it would appear that how we see the Constitution is as important as how we read it. What clauses we see as connected in order to form comprehensive values, such as federalism or rights protections, are not so much products of constitutional interpretation as constitutional vision. To obtain a view of the Constitution, we have to do more than derive semantic meaning from diverse articles and clauses. To have a vision of the Constitution …

The Constitutional Right To Watch Television: Analyzing The Digital Switchover In The Context Of The First Amendment , Eugene Ho

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Review And Tax Law: An Analytical Framework , Yoseph Edrey

American University Law Review

This Article offers a more comprehensive and substantial approach to constitutional review of the general power to tax and the way tax laws should comply with constitutional rights and principles. The power of Congress to levy taxes is not confined to income taxes; it is broader and much more general. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution describes the general power of Congress in terms of tax laws as follows: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United …

Cruelty To The Mentally Ill: An Eighth Amendment Challenge To The Abolition Of The Insanity Defense, Stephen M. Leblanc

American University Law Review

This Comment addresses the present gap in insanity-defense laws

created by the defense’s abolition and offers an Eighth Amendment

based remedy. Part I reviews the history and evolution of the insanity

defense in Anglo-American law. It then describes how four states

have statutorily abolished the defense. It concludes with a discussion

of Clark v. Arizona, the Court’s most recent decision on the

constitutionality of the insanity defense. Part II turns to the Eighth

Amendment, examining its historical understanding and the

contemporary evolving-standards-of-decency analysis, through which

the Court assesses the constitutionality of modern-day punishments.

Part II concludes with a discussion of …

Final Salute To Lost Soldiers: Preserving The Freedom Of Speech At Military Funerals, Andrea Cornwell

American University Law Review

This Comment argues that RAFHA, as currently written, cannot stand in light of First Amendment jurisprudence. Part I reviews the history and development of relevant free speech case law and restrictions on expression, including the recent trend in the states of passing legislation similar to RAFHA. Part II assesses the Act’s constitutionality against this background. First, Part II contends that the statute is a content-based restriction of free speech and is thus subject to strict scrutiny. Second, even if deemed content neutral, the Act could not survive the courts’ intermediate scrutiny. Finally, this Comment reasons that even if able to …

The Discriminatory Effects Of Protecting America's Children , Jennifer E. Jones

The Modern American

No abstract provided.

Electing One Of Our Own: The Importance Of Black Communities In The Context Of Local Government , Royce Brooks

The Modern American

No abstract provided.

Special Purpose Credit Programs: A Well-Intentioned Idea Gone Bad, Luke Reynolds

The Modern American

No abstract provided.

Legislative Updates, Dan Raposa

The Modern American

No abstract provided.

The Irrationality Of A Rational Basis: Denying Benefits To The Children Of Same-Sex Couples , Sam Castic

The Modern American

No abstract provided.

Pencil Me In: The Use Of Title Ix And S.1983 To Obtain Equal Treatment In High School Athletics Scheduling , Leigh E. Ferrin

The Modern American

No abstract provided.

Equal Marriage Rights For Transgendered Individuals , Parker Thoeni

The Modern American

No abstract provided.

Cash In The Freezer: Conducting Midnught Raids To Restore Trust In The House, Matt Kelly

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

No abstract provided.

Gay Pornography And The First Amendment: Unique, First-Person Perspectives On Free Expression, Sexual Censorship, And Cultural Images, Clay Calvert, Robert D. Richards

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

No abstract provided.

On Mock Funerals, Banners, And Giant Rat Balloons: Why Current Interpretation Of Section 8(B)(4)(Ii)(B) Of The National Labor Relations Act Unconstitutionality Burdens Union Speech, Kate L. Racokzy

American University Law Review

This Comment discusses whether the government may prohibit unions from engaging in types of secondary protest like mock funerals. Since 1959, § 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA” or “the Act”) has made it illegal for unions to “threaten, coerce, or restrain” secondary employers into severing their business ties with primary employers. Precisely what forms of protest this provision outlaws, however, is unclear. On one end of the spectrum, courts almost always find that picketing secondary employers constitutes illegal coercion, for courts see pickets as having a unique power to induce automatic action. On the other end, the …