Constitutional Law Commons^™

From Claiborne To Climate: Anti-Esg Boycott Legislation And Corporate First Amendment Rights, Ingrid Tjendro

Fordham Law Review Online

Since 2021, at least twenty-one states have enacted laws targeting financial institutions and companies that incorporate environmental, social, and governance (ESG) considerations into their business practices. This Comment examines the First Amendment implications of one specific category of such legislation—state anti-ESG boycott statutes—and argues that they constitute an unconstitutional suppression of protected corporate speech and association.

Drawing on traditional anti-boycott jurisprudence, including NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. and Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc., and the circuit split over anti-Israel boycott legislation, this Comment centers on the recent decision in American Sustainable Business Council v. Hegar …

What Is A House?: Searching For The Meaning And Scope Of Curtilage At Common Law, Mitchell A. Del Bianco

Fordham Law Review Online

No abstract provided.

Reorganizing The Administrative State: Executive Ambition And Legislative Constraint, Jordan Graber

Fordham Law Review

Beginning in the 1930s, Congress enacted a series of statutes granting presidents the authority to initiate reorganizations of the administrative state. Under these reorganization statutes, the president determined any necessary changes in agency organization and submitted a reorganization proposal to Congress, which could approve or reject the plan. Over the next fifty years, the president and Congress worked cooperatively to promote the effective and efficient functioning of the administrative state.

Despite the successful reorganization initiatives undertaken pursuant to these statutes, Congress has not conferred reorganization authority on any president in the last four decades. As a result, the organization of …

The Unitary Executive And The Federal Reserve, Lev Menand

Fordham Law Review

The U.S. Supreme Court may soon embrace an interpretation of the U.S. Constitution that would significantly expand the power of the president over federal administrators and invalidate key provisions in dozens of federal statutes. A critical question is whether this interpretation—known as the unitary executive theory (UET)—would also render unconstitutional central bank independence (CBI), an arrangement where a country’s monetary policy is formulated by a semiautonomous body of experts insulated from partisan political pressure. Several justices have suggested that it would not, and a growing scholarly literature has proposed ways for the Court to distinguish the country’s central banking apparatus …

False Conflict: Colorblindness And Section 2 Of The Voting Rights Act, W. Kerrel Murray

Fordham Law Review

If friends and foes of section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 agree on one thing, it is the irrepressible conflict between section 2’s attention to race and constitutional colorblindness. They’re wrong. Rightly understood, section 2’s design is remarkably compatible with colorblind constitutionalism’s letter and spirit.

To show how, this Article first returns to section 2’s origins and the preexisting approach its text codifies. That approach had an underappreciated ethos: When intentional discrimination’s effects sufficiently distort a political system, an electoral rule’s results might impugn its unconstitutionality, even if the rule had been adopted without discriminatory purpose. Drawing …

Interrogation Of Regents And Administrative Reliance Interests In The Context Of Vacillating Immigration Policy, Sarah Engelberg-Nolan

Fordham Law Review

Arbitrary and capricious review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) operates as an important agency-accountability tool when invoked as intended. But the recent U.S. Supreme Court case Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California and subsequent lower federal court cases have opened the floodgates to a more searching and potentially activist review. In Regents, the Court held that the administration of President Donald J. Trump could not rescind the discretionary immigration program Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) in the manner the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) attempted, in part because DHS failed to …

Bruen As Heller: Text, History, And Tradition In The Lower Courts, Leo Bernabei

Fordham Law Review Online

The Constitution and conventional wisdom suggest that lower courts must follow the most persuasive interpretations of U.S. Supreme Court precedent. But that does not always happen. Scholars recognize judicial under enforcement of Supreme Court precedent in several fields. This Essay contributes to this scholarship by analyzing lower court applications of New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, in which the Supreme Court held that firearm laws must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The lower courts vary widely in their approaches to analyzing gun laws under this standard. On one end, a small …

A Congressional Inappropriation?: Troubleshooting Cfpb V. Cfsa Ahead Of The Supreme Court’S Review, William Weingarten

Fordham Law Review Online

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Ass’n of America has emerged as one of the most consequential cases before the U.S. Supreme Court this term. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s judgment below—in Community Financial Services Ass’n of America v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau—held the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s funding structure to be unconstitutional under the Appropriations Clause of the U.S. Constitution. With this holding, the Fifth Circuit created a circuit split with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and became the first federal court of appeals to invalidate …

All The King’S Lawyers, Rebecca Aviel

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

"In Better Times": The Basis Of Representation And The Forgotten History Of The Fourteenth Amendment, Jessica I. Gorovitz

Fordham Law Review

Over the past several years, the U.S. Supreme Court has incorporated history into the analysis of unenumerated individual rights, like abortion, and enumerated ones, like the right to keep and bear arms. But it has not incorporated history into its approach to individual rights claims of racial discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause, a methodological gap the Court has left unexplained. Rather, it has held that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment is to prevent racial classifications, largely citing its own precedent, eschewing the Amendment’s history. This approach conflicts with section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires states …

Corporations’ First Amendment Rights And Algorithmic Cocoons, Sol Murgui Orsucci

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

This Note examines how corporate First Amendment doctrine applies to algorithmic systems that curate commercial information and public discourse across online platforms. Courts have increasingly treated ranking, recommendation, and moderation practices as exercises of protected editorial judgment. At the same time, the Court has justified protection for corporate speech in part by reference to listener-centered interests in access to information and competitive comparison. This Note argues that the interaction between these doctrinal strands and contemporary algorithmic intermediation reveals a structural tension. Data-driven optimization can generate individualized informational environments—what this Note terms “algorithmic cocoons”—in which users encounter content, offers, and prices …

The Nlrb’S Authority To Make Workers Whole, Wanny Mei

Fordham Law Review

In December 2022, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or the “Board”) announced a modified make-whole remedial framework in Thryv, Inc.For all standard make-whole relief orders, the Board would order relief for direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms that employees suffer as a result of an unfair labor practice. Proponents of this remedial design assert that this is consistent with the Board’s authority under section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). On the other hand, opponents find that this design exceeds the Board’s statutory authority and conflicts with the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.

This Note …

The Dead Hand And Frozen Lives: Embryonic Personhood And The Disruption Of Property Interests, Emma Miloglav

Fordham Law Review

Advances in assisted reproductive technology and the expansion of fetal personhood laws are colliding with a body of property doctrine built on assumptions about reproduction that no longer hold. In LePage v. Center for Reproductive Medicine, P.C., the Supreme Court of Alabama held that extrauterine embryos—fertilized and frozen in a laboratory—are “children” under the state’s Wrongful Death of a Minor Act. LePage represents a dramatic extension of fetal personhood.

This shift carries profound consequences for trusts and estates. If frozen embryos are treated as legal persons, they may qualify as heirs under intestacy statutes and as beneficiaries of wills, …

Remote Access Restrictions To Immigration-Related Court Records, Doris H. Zhang

Fordham Law Review

Journalists today often report on newsworthy federal court cases by remotely accessing the court records online. However, thanks to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(c), remote access is not available by default in immigration-related cases. To obtain any court records in immigration cases, journalists must go to the courthouse, hire someone to go on their behalf, or ask the court to exercise its discretion to lift the Rule 5.2(c) remote access restrictions. These alternatives are burdensome, hindering the ability of the press and the public to keep track of immigration cases in federal courts. Despite the burdens on the press …

Red, White-, And Blue-Collar Crime: Federal Sentencing Practices Among White-Collar And Blue-Collar Offenders, Henna Judge

Fordham Law Review

Under the current federal sentencing regime, district courts exercise immense amounts of discretion when sentencing. Though strict adherence to the U.S. Sentencing Commission Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) was once mandatory, courts must now use these Guidelines as an advisory starting point and make a series of fact-specific determinations when sentencing a defendant. Though judicial discretion in this realm aids in preventing undue reliance on Guidelines-range recommendations that can lack nuance, it also invites bias.

In recent years, scholars and courts alike have called attention to a potential disparity in the way blue-collar and white-collar offenders are sentenced. This Note examines relevant …

Federal Courts, Class Actions, And The Jurisdictional Void, Courtney T. Welch

Fordham Law Review

To invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court, a plaintiff must satisfy the requirements of Article III. Among other things, Article III requires a plaintiff to have and maintain personal stake throughout the lifespan of the litigation. Though a simple premise, this constitutional requirement has a complicated history. This is especially true as applied to class action lawsuits, where plaintiffs bring claims both on behalf of themselves and other harmed individuals.

The U.S. Supreme Court has applied flexible rules to some—but not all—of Article III’s requirements in class actions. The breadth of this flexibility, though, is uncertain. Accordingly, so too …

Separation-Of-Powers Lochnerism, Andrea Scoseria Katz

Fordham Law Review

One hundred and twenty years ago, in 1905, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered one of the single most notorious opinions in history, striking down a New York labor law for violating the right to contract—a right found nowhere in the text of the Constitution. Though the era of Lochner v. New York is well past us, the judicial impulses that gave rise to the case remain. 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 …

A True Fact Should Not Be Controversial: Analyzing The Zauderer Standard And Defining “Uncontroversial”, Edina Hartstein

Fordham Law Review

In Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized an exception to the compelled speech doctrine that allowed the government to regulate commercial speech if it was “purely factual and uncontroversial.” However, the Court failed to define what it meant for a disclosure to be “purely factual” or what it meant to be “uncontroversial.” This lack of clarity led to lower courts inconsistently applying the Zauderer standard. In 2018, the Supreme Court decided National Institute for Family Life & Advocates v. Becerra (NIFLA), which held that the Zauderer standard cannot apply when the disclosure …

Settling On A Standard: Reviewing The Right To Self-Representation, Lauren Lipson

Fordham Law Review

Courts appoint counsel for indigent criminal defendants who cannot afford legal representation to uphold their Sixth Amendment rights. In its seminal waiver case, Faretta v. California, the U.S. Supreme Court elevated the corollary right—the right to self-representation—to constitutional status. In dicta, the Court created a standard by which defendants must waive their right to counsel “knowingly and intelligently” to proceed pro se. The Court subsequently sculpted the right to self-representation as it came to standby counsel and mental competency, but it never prescribed a precise waiver colloquy for district court judges to administer, causing the Faretta colloquy to look …

Defining “Cases” Or “Controversies”: A Fundamental Confusion In Article Iii Standing Doctrine And Its Consequences In Multi-Plaintiff Litigation, Dominic Signa

Fordham Law Review

The United States Supreme Court has addressed the absolute core requirements of standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution on several occasions. However, the Court has not clearly articulated what purpose standing serves relative to Article III’s limitations on the exercise of judicial power to only “cases” or “controversies,” and this has led to major downstream effects in the realm of multi plaintiff litigation. Specifically, the Court has not explained whether standing is meant to ensure (1) that all potential plaintiffs demonstrate that they are properly parties to the same case or controversy before a federal court or (2) …

The Roberts Court Paradox, John C. P. Goldberg, Benjamin C. Zipursky

Fordham Law Review

As perhaps the most conservative Supreme Court of the past century, the Roberts Court regularly touts its commitment to traditional ideals, including the rule of law. Yet Trump v. United States seems ready to place presidents entirely or largely above the law by granting them absolute or near absolute immunity from criminal prosecutions for official conduct. And Trump is not a one-off: from judicial recusal to qualified immunity to due process decisions, the Court frequently seems to display indifference to values of accountability and impartiality that have long been thought integral to the rule of law. What is going on? …

Emotionally Unstable: Addressing Emotional Distress As A Concrete Injury In Data Breach Cases Post-Transunion, Anna P. Cox

Fordham Law Review

Data breaches and data breach litigation are exponentially on the rise. Plaintiffs whose information is stolen in a data breach often claim emotional distress for fear of future harm the data breach may cause. However, plaintiffs who bring suit in federal court must show that they have suffered an injury in fact for purposes of Article III standing before a federal court will exercise jurisdiction. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez requires that plaintiffs who seek money damages under a theory of risk of future harm show that they have suffered a present concrete injury to …

Fixing The Fix: The Case For Unifying The Remedial Framework Of Apa Rulemaking Challenges, Dea Devlin

Fordham Law Review

Vacatur is the default remedy for successful administrative rulemaking challenges brought under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Yet its broad and sweeping effects raise critical questions regarding its appropriateness as a one-size-fits-all remedy. Unlike injunctive relief, which is subject to a rigorous heightened standard, and remand without vacatur, which has a comparable standard of its own, vacatur is routinely awarded without similar scrutiny, leading to inconsistencies in the judicial application of remedies in APA challenges.

Although vacatur can provide a plaintiff with relief, its award conflicts with underlying principles of equity and proportionality. In rulemaking challenges, vacatur can create regulatory …

The Inevitability Of Local Environmental Law, Keith H. Hirokawa, Cinnamon Carlarne Hirokawa, Lauren A. Vanwagoner

Fordham Environmental Law Review

The United States is entering a new era of environmental law. Within the first few months of President Trump’s second term in office, the administration issued a mass of executive orders, memoranda and policy changes that seek to peel back environmental protections, in many cases, to the point of erasure. The administration shuttered entire agencies, such as USAID, dissolved the Environmental Protection Agency’s research arm, terminated life-saving programs like the National Weather Service’s translation service, cut funding to housing and public health initiatives, and eliminated diversity, equity, and inclusion programs across the country. Given the reality of these large-scale drawbacks, …

Rethinking Aquaculture Regulation In A Post-Chevron World, Kamaile A. N. Turčan

Fordham Environmental Law Review

After the Supreme Court overruled Chevron deference in Loper Bright v. Raimondo, commentators warned of the detriment to federal agencies resulting from the loss of judicial deference to agencies’ interpretations of the statutes they administer. This Essay takes a different approach and examines how advocates for agency authority can use this shift away from judicial deference to their advantage—by refocusing litigation strategy toward congressional delegations. Statutory interpretation arguments need no longer focus on whether an agency is intruding on the judicial prerogative to interpret the law and can now focus instead on whether a court is intruding on the …

An Alternate History Of Chevron, With A Lesson For Today, Michael Herz

Fordham Environmental Law Review

It is a banal truism that judicial deference to agency decisionmaking enables the executive branch to pursue its agenda, whatever that agenda may be. That was obvious to all in the early years of the Chevron decision, which was greeted enthusiastically on the right and skeptically on the left. In Chevron itself, and for a while thereafter, deference advanced the Reagan deregulatory program. Over the years, a subtler conclusion gained consensus: overall and in the long haul, judicial deference is likely to have a net pro-regulatory impact. Hence the right’s hardened opposition to Chevron leading up to its demise. But …

Misusing Eminent Domain: Pretextual Takings For A Traditional Public Use, Cameron P. Hellerman

Fordham Law Review

Eminent domain is a powerful tool at the disposal of local, state and federal governments. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution imposes two conditions on this sovereign power: the taking must be for “public use,” and the condemner must pay “just compensation” to the property owner. There are minimal guardrails in place to police potential misuse of the eminent domain power in the courts. The U.S. Supreme Court equates “public use” with “public purpose” and applies a deferential standard of review to a condemner’s determination that a taking serves a public purpose. Nonetheless, the Court in Kelo v. City …

A Distinctive Court: A Glimpse Into The History And Significance Of The D.C. Circuit, Judge J. Michelle Childs

Fordham Law Review

Judge J. Michelle Childs serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Before her appointment, Judge Childs received a B.A. from the University of South Florida Honors College and a J.D. from the University of South Carolina School of Law. She also received Masters degrees from the University of South Carolina’s Darla Moore School of Business and from Duke University School of Law, as well as an Honorary Doctorate Degree from the University of South Carolina. After working in private practice for eight years, Judge Childs received an appointment to serve as the Deputy Director for the …

Does The Major Questions Doctrine Apply To The Federal Courts?, Michael Coenen, Seth Davis

Fordham Law Review

The new “major questions doctrine” (MQD) requires courts to apply a “distinct” approach to statutory interpretation when reviewing challenges to an agency action of “vast economic and political significance.” Under that approach, courts must assume that such an action exceeds the scope of that agency’s statutory authority unless there exists “clear congressional authorization” for it. In this Article, we examine whether this new rule for administrative agencies (or what we call the “agency MQD”) implies the existence of a similarly strong constraint on the federal courts’ power to interpret and apply statutes for themselves (or what we call the “judicial …

Abortion Travel Restrictions Under The Dormant Commerce Clause After National Pork Producers Council V. Ross, Katherine Bartley

Fordham Law Review

Since Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, twelve states have banned abortion entirely, and seven states have banned abortion earlier in pregnancy than the standard set in Roe v. Wade. As abortion access dwindles, patients increasingly cross state lines to seek reproductive healthcare. In response, antiabortion state officials and lawmakers have made efforts to restrict interstate travel for abortion care.

This Note examines abortion travel restrictions under the “Dormant” Commerce Clause doctrine, which limits state laws that burden interstate commerce. In 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed but narrowed the judge-made doctrine in National Pork Producers Council v. …