Constitutional Law Commons^™

Mucho Ruido Y Pocas Nueces? Rethinking Mexico's Judicial Reform In Comparative Perspective, Oscar Serratos

Notre Dame Journal of International & Comparative Law

Mexico's 2024 judicial reform, which made it the first country to elect all judges by popular vote, has generated widespread criticism for allegedly threatening judicial independence and democratic governance. This Article challenges the prevailing narrative by arguing that many of these concerns overstate the reform's practical effect. Through a comparative analysis of Mexico's new constitutional framework and judicial electoral systems in the United States, the Article demonstrates that the reform incorporates structural safeguards—including balanced nomination powers, nonpartisan elections, restrictions on campaign financing, and continued judicial training—that set it apart from comparable American models. While acknowledging legitimate concerns regarding implementation and …

The Intertemporal Law Doctrine's Application To The Acquisition Of Colonies In The Americas, Kent Mcneil

Notre Dame Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

The Original Meaning And Understanding Of The Investigative Power Of The Grand Jury In The Constitution Of Alaska, Savannah Shoffner, Richard W. Garnett

Journal Articles

The investigatory, or reporting, power of grand juries refers to the body’s ability to issue statements on wide-ranging matters of public policy, generally aimed at exposing “inefficiency, neglect, or criminal or quasi-criminal conduct” by government officials. Grand jurors may propose an investigation themselves or respond to a request from a citizen. The reports produced by these investigations need not be tied to a specific indictment to be released.

Text, history, and tradition reveal that the grand jury has been understood as an intermediary between the government and the people, empowered to make public statements on the people’s behalf and entrusted …

Brief Of First Amendment Scholars As Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioner, Joseph M. Terry, Stephen J. Fuzesi, James N. Sasso, Langston E. Ward, Richard W. Garnett

Court Briefs

No. 25-927
Richard Lowery v. Lillian Mills

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

From the Summary of Argument

The suppression of constitutionally protected speech violates the First Amendment. A speaker need not be punished to be able to state a cause of action if the government has suppressed or threatens to suppress his or her speech through other means. This Court, across decades, and in a range of contexts, repeatedly has reaffirmed that principle. It has done so in cases affirming that a party may challenge a criminal statute …

Brief Of Notre Dame Education Law Project, Notre Dame Program On Church, State & Society, And Lindsay And Matt Moroun Religious Liberty Clinic Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioners, Richard W. Garnett, Nicole Stelle Garnett, John A. Meiser

Court Briefs

No. 25-802
Foothills Christian Ministries v. Kim Johnson

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

From the Summary of Argument

The First Amendment guarantees religious institutions the power to conduct their internal affairs. Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey- Berru, 591 U.S. 732, 746 (2020). See also Cath. Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Lab. & Indus. Review Comm'n, 605 U.S. 238, 249 (2025); id. at 255 (Thomas, J., concurring). This principle of self-governance, known as the church autonomy doctrine, is an essential feature of the Constitution’s …

The Extradition Treaty Between The United States Of America And The Republic Of Colombia: Public International Law And The Judicial Substitution Paradox, Andrés Téllez-Núñez

Notre Dame Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

From Pirates To Corporations: The Evolving Battleground Of The Alien Tort Statute, Marin Larkin

Notre Dame Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Federalism, Treaty Norms, And The U.N. Report On American Education, Jorge Barrera-Rojas

Notre Dame Journal of International & Comparative Law

United Nations Special Rapporteurs assess national compliance with international human rights obligations, including educational rights articulated in treaties such as the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights ("ICESCR"). These evaluations typically involve treaty-bound states with explicit international commitments. However, the applicability of such assessments is less straightforward in non-ratifying federal states, such as the US, which rely on diverse state-level constitutional provisions rather than federal treaty obligations.

This Article critically examines the 2025 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education, following the Rapporteur's first official visit specifically addressing U.S. K-12 education policy. The analysis identifies …

Private Rights Of Action For Election Litigation In The Federal Courts, Derek T. Muller

Journal Articles

Election litigation is surging. But just as litigants pursue more election claims in federal courts than ever before, federal courts are growing more skeptical about their authority to hear them. This Essay, a contribution to the 2025 Arnold Lecture at the University of Arkansas Little Rock, William H. Bowen School of Law, examines the narrowing landscape of private rights of action in election law with a particular focus on claims brought ahead of the 2024 election. It traces the Supreme Court's shift toward formalism, the heavy emphasis on remedies found in federal statutes, and the diminishing avenues for private enforcement …

Brief Of Lindsay And Matt Moroun Religious Liberty Clinic As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Appellants, John A. Meiser, Meredith Holland Kessler

Court Briefs

Nos. 25-2575, 25-2662
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. President United States of America

On Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
No. 2:17-cv-04540-WB (Hon. Wendy Bettlestone)

From the Summary of the Argument

The agencies’ promulgation of the Religious and Moral Rules challenged in this case was neither arbitrary nor capricious. Widespread litigation against the agencies’ contraceptive mandate under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act— and multiple trips to the Supreme Court—made clear that the mandate violates the federally protected rights of organizations like the Little Sisters of the Poor. After years of failed efforts to alleviate that …

It Takes A Village . . . But Let The Teenagers Vote, Joseph Fishkin

Notre Dame Law Review

In their article Give Parents the Vote, Kleinfeld and Sachs argue that we ought to give parents extra votes to cast by proxy on behalf of their minor children. In this response, I argue that their proposal misconceives the nature of voting itself. Unlike a child’s personal medical or financial decisions, which we entrust to those most responsible for a child’s care, voting is a collective act by which a political community makes collective choices. Each of us is obligated to cast our vote in the way we think best for the whole community. And each voter—whether a parent …

Habeas Corpus And Void Judgments, David Kinnaird

Notre Dame Law Review

In a string of recent opinions, Justice Gorsuch and Justice Thomas have posited that postconviction relief upon a writ of habeas corpus was historically unavailable except where the judgment of conviction was issued by a court lacking jurisdiction. In light of this history, Justices Gorsuch and Thomas have argued for a reconsideration of the modern scope of the writ, which generally allows for relitigation of alleged constitutional error in the course of criminal trial.

This Article argues that Justices Gorsuch and Thomas have the history half right. They are correct to assert that a valid judgment of conviction was a …

Give Parents The Vote, Joshua Kleinfeld, Stephen E. Sachs

Notre Dame Law Review

Many of America’s most significant policy problems, from failing schools to the aftershocks of COVID shutdowns to national debt to climate change, share a common factor: the weak political power of children. Children are twenty-three percent of all citizens; they have distinct interests; and they already count for electoral districting. But because they lack the maturity to vote for themselves, their interests don’t count proportionally at the polls. The result is policy that observably disserves children’s interests and violates a deep principle of democratic fairness: that citizens, through voting, can make political power respond to their interests.

Yet there’s a …

Give Young Adults The Vote, Nicholas O. Stephanopoulos

Notre Dame Law Review

Joshua Kleinfeld and Stephen Sachs make a significant contribution to the literature on children’s disenfranchisement by describing and defending parental proxy voting: empowering parents to vote on their children’s behalf. The authors’ democratic critique of the status quo is particularly persuasive. Children’s exclusion from the franchise indeed distorts public policies by omitting children’s preferences from the set that policymakers consider. However, Kleinfeld and Sachs’s proposal wouldn’t do enough to correct this distortion. This is because contemporary parents diverge politically from their children, holding, on average, substantially more conservative views. The proxy votes that parents cast for their children would thus …

What Is Voting For?, Joshua Kleinfeld, Stephen E. Sachs

Notre Dame Law Review

Responding to these views requires some reflection on the nature of voting and parenting both. At root, Stephanopoulos and Fishkin don’t think parents are the right people to represent their children politically, and we do. We unpack these theoretical differences as to both voting and parenting in Part I. In Part II, we address Stephanopoulos’s and Fishkin’s concrete policy proposals.

A last note: While our response below naturally focuses on points of disagreement, as that is the way of these things, that focus shouldn’t detract from the crucial fact that all four of us—from different political perspectives—think the status quo …

Appropriations By Any Other Name: The Illegality And Unconstitutionality Of Supplemental Environmental Projects, Andrew Olson

Notre Dame Law Review

This Note fleshes out the history of SEPs and the recent arguments against them. First, Part I traces the history of SEPs, from the early use of third-party payments, through the development of formal policies governing SEPs, to the Trump and Biden administrations’ dueling approaches to them. Then Part II explains what’s wrong with SEPs. Expanding on the arguments made in the various Justice Department memoranda, this Note argues that SEPs contravene both the Miscellaneous Receipts Act (MRA) and the Antideficiency Act (ADA). Next, the Note argues that while their illegality might be remedied by statute, SEPs also present deeper—and …

Brief Of Amicus Curiae Lindsay And Matt Moroun Religious Liberty Clinic In Support Of Plaintiff-Appellant, John A. Meiser, Meredith Holland Kessler

Court Briefs

No. 25-5641
Roderick E. Theis, II v. InterMountain Education Service District Board of Directors

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon
No. 2:25-cv-00865-HL

From the Introduction

The First Amendment promises religious believers, of all faiths, the right “to participate on equal terms” in public life. Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 852–53 (1995) (Thomas, J., concurring). The Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected the idea that individuals sacrifice those rights by accepting government employment. See, e.g., Pickering v. Bd. of Educ. of Twp. High Sch. Dist. 205, …

The Persistence Of The Unconstitutional Status/Use Distinction In Federal Grants To Religious Nonprofits, Nicole Stelle Garnett, Cameron Grinnell

Books

Manhattan Institute Memo

Unfinished Liberties, Inevitable Balancing, Sherif Girgis

Journal Articles

From the Article

In constitutional liberties cases, the Supreme Court has tried to reduce balancing, understood loosely to mean determining a right’s contours based on sweeping political-moral considerations, not just text and history. It fears that today’s balancing would displace a balance struck by the Founders. Balancing is indeed problematic—but this campaign to end it is bound to fail. Though avoidable for many constitutional rights, balancing is inevitable for general liberties like religion, the Second Amendment, and speech. This inevitability arises not from gaps in text or history but from these liberties’ special role.

General liberties are irreducibly open-ended—not reducible …

In Defense Of The Major Questions Doctrine, Louis J. Capozzi Iii

Notre Dame Law Review

The major questions doctrine, which requires agencies claiming important powers to identify clear authority from Congress, is transforming administrative law. Breaking with recent practice, the doctrine prevents the executive branch from issuing laws addressing pressing, novel issues without Congress’s affirmative consent.

In response, scholars have generally criticized the doctrine and questioned its legitimacy. Critics have alleged that the doctrine was fabricated by the Supreme Court without proper justification, is incapable of principled application, frustrates the intent of past Congresses to delegate broad power to agencies, aggrandizes judicial power, and hinders desirable executive branch lawmaking.

This Article disagrees with those criticisms …

May Federal Courts Answer Questions When Not Deciding Cases?, Benjamin B. Johnson

Notre Dame Law Review

Conventional wisdom says that Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement prevents federal courts from answering legal questions when they are not deciding cases. This is only partially correct. This Article shows conditions under which a federal court may answer questions even when not deciding a case. To do so, it traces the appellate power back to its origins in English common law courts and through the early American judiciary. For centuries, common law judges have answered questions sent to them by lower courts when doing so would help those lower courts to decide pending cases. In England, the “case stated” procedure facilitated …

When Religious Exercise And Private Rights Collide, Brent J. Nymeyer

Notre Dame Law Review

This Note proposes that the state action doctrine—where state statutory and common law, or the judicial finding of liability thereunder, is government burdening to the same extent that a criminal law or prosecution is government burdening—should extend to always allow religious exercise claims and defenses in disputes involving only private parties. Part I lays out the development of religious exercise jurisprudence under the federal and state systems and the current landscape of jurisdictions’ treatment of religious exercise claims and defenses in private disputes.

Part II proceeds in two sections: Section A presents representative cases from criminal law and relevant areas …

303 Creative, Exclusive Private Enforcement, And Blue-State Revenge, Howard M. Wasserman, Charles W. “Rocky” Rhodes

Journal of Legislation

Red states have made exclusive private enforcement schemes targeting locally unpopular but constitutionally protected conduct a cornerstone of culture-war legal strategy. Laws such the Texas Heartbeat Act (“S.B. 8”) in 2021 and anti-“WOKE” laws forego public enforcement in favor of private enforcement; this forces targeted federal rights-holders to vindicate their rights by raising the law’s constitutional invalidity as a defense to liability rather than through pre-enforcement offensive litigation against the government or government officials responsible for enforcing the law. This threatens rights-holders with a wave of costly and burdensome litigation and liability.

Blue states and liberal scholars and advocates have …

Severability And Liberty, Randy J. Kozel

Journal Articles

In US federal courts and the courts of many states, the presumption of statutory severability leads judges to separate a statute’s unlawful elements from its lawful ones. This article contends that the presumption becomes problematic when the effect of severing is to restrict the constitutional rights of a group whom the legislature exempted from regulation. Presumptive severability draws on a conception of judicial review that aspires to minimize interference with enacted legislation. But there is a countervailing constitutional interest in protecting exempted groups from restrictions on their liberty unless and until the legislature directs otherwise. It is these competing strands …

Administering Presidential Elections And Counting Electoral Votes After Trump V. Anderson, Derek T. Muller

Journal Articles

In the landmark case Trump v. Anderson, the Supreme Court unanimously held that states lack the unilateral power to exclude presidential candidates from the ballot on the basis of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But while the Court was united in its essential holding, the Justices fractured in their reasoning, leaving significant questions about Congress's role in enforcing Section 3 against presidential candidates.

This Article examines the fault lines in Trump v. Anderson and analyzes how Congress's power to count electoral votes under the Twelfth Amendment intersects with its authority to enforce Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. …

Understanding Brady Violations, Jennifer Mason Mcaward

Journal Articles

This largest-ever study of adjudicated violations of Brady v. Maryland provides a detailed and nuanced understanding of who suppresses material evidence in criminal cases, as well as why, how, where, and how often. Its findings complicate the conventional wisdom that Brady violations are the work of nefarious prosecutors who intentionally withhold material evidence from criminal defendants. While it is true that “bad faith” permeates this area of constitutional noncompliance, a substantial minority of Brady cases stem from “good faith” errors by prosecutors and suppression by law enforcement officers. Most Brady violations occur in a small number of states, and most …

The Abuses Of History In Constitutional Interpretation, Sherif Girgis

Journal Articles

From the Article

Jack Balkin’s Memory and Authority powerfully describes the kaleidoscopic quality of historical arguments in constitutional law. The book also moves easily between description and prescription. This Essay explores whether it moves too easily from one to the other. I consider whether the book’s analysis is so keen to capture our actual practices that it leaves itself too few resources for evaluating them—whether its account of history’s uses, made expansive by a zeal to fit how lawyers actually reason, crowds out any robust account of how they ought not to reason. While I am inclined to think so, …

Gerard V. Bradley And The American Law Of Church And State, Richard W. Garnett

Journal Articles

This paper provides an overview and appreciation of Prof. Gerard V. Bradley’s scholarly contributions to the American constitutional law of church and state. The Supreme Court of the United States has, in recent years, handed down a number of closely watched and much-remarked-on rulings in cases involving the First Amendment’s Religion Clause and various religion-related statutes. The Court has moved the law of religious freedom and church–state relations toward coherence and clarity, and better aligned it with American history, tradition, and practice, and with an appropriate understanding of judges’ capacities and of the judicial role in a democracy. It appears …

Litigating Climate Vulnerability: Climate Change Reparations In Global Jurisprudence And Empirical Results From The Notre Dame Climate Change Reparations Dataset, Diane A. Desierto, Anibal Perez-Linan, Faisal Yamil Meneses, Yuta Inada, Rachael Degaugh, Andrew Marciano

Journal Articles

From the article

The global surge in climate change litigation provokes inquiry into the nature, frequency, and scope of climate change reparations that international, regional, and national courts, as well as arbitral tribunals and other adjudicative bodies such as UN treaty body mechanisms, determine to be adequate, both on legal merits as well as intrinsic claims of justice, for the resolution of disputes brought by climate vulnerable persons, groups, and constituencies against States, multinational corporations, and other actors. Our findings from the Notre Dame Climate Change Reparations Dataset reveal a broad spectrum of pecuniary and non-pecuniary reparations being adjudicated in …

Venality: A Strangely Practical History Of Unremovable Offices And Limited Executive Power, Jed Handelsman Shugerman

Notre Dame Law Review

The Roberts Court has asserted that Article II’s “executive power” implied an “indefeasible” or unconditional presidential removal power. In response to counterevidence from the Founding era, unitary executive theorists have claimed a “British Backdrop” of a general removal power under the English Crown and European “executive power.” These assumptions are incorrect.

This Article shows that many powerful executive officers through the late eighteenth century, especially high English Treasury offices and even “department heads” in the cabinet, were unremovable. A long common law tradition protected many English offices as freehold property rights. Moreover, this Article explains why it was widely understood …