Constitutional Law Commons^™

Public Use On The Loose: Clarifying The Takings Clause’S Public Use Requirement, Megan Hoefs

Pepperdine Law Review

The Fifth Amendment permits the taking of private property for “public use,” but modern courts refuse to question legislative determinations of that use. Although the Supreme Court has implicitly reserved a prohibition on takings done under a “mere pretext of public purpose,” lower courts are unsure of how to identify or evaluate such pretext. This Comment argues that the Public Use Clause requires a showing of good faith to be constitutionally sufficient. By reframing public use around good faith, this Comment offers a modest but necessary clarification that preserves the structure of existing doctrine while restoring the Clause’s function as …

Open And Shut: Non-Removal Statutesand Door-Closing Penalties, Isaac Zwerling

Pepperdine Law Review

There is a longstanding tension in the Court’s treatment of non-removal statutes and door-closing penalties. On the one hand, the Court has held non-removal statutes—business registration statutes that condition a foreign corporation’s license on that corporation’s right to remove cases brought against it to federal court—pose an unconstitutional limit on federal court access. On the other, the Court has extended door-closing penalties statutes prohibiting unregistered foreign corporations from initiating an action in the forum state—to federal courts sitting in diversity. This Article surveys how the Court arrived at this puzzling result. It does so by analyzing each line of cases …

The Interpretive Force Of Alexander Hamilton’S Early Expositions Of Presidential Power, Michael Stokes Paulsen

Pepperdine Law Review

The most important, rightly influential, early interpretations of the Constitution on presidential power concerning matters of war, peace, and foreign affairs flowed from the able pen of Alexander Hamilton in three sets of pseudonymous public essays: as “Publius” in The Federalist (1787–1788); as “Pacificus” (1793–1794); and “Camillus” (1795–1796). As Publius, Hamilton expounded a broad understanding of presidential constitutional power generally and of presidential power in war and foreign affairs specifically, including an essentially plenary Commander-in-Chief power over the conduct of authorized war (but with no constitutional power to initiate war: that power being explicitly and exclusively assigned to Congress). As …

Judicial Appointments Before Vacancies, Vasan Kesavan

Pepperdine Law Review

Appointments are about power—presidential power. There is no greater presidential appointment power than the power to appoint federal judges who are expected to serve for life. Judicial appointments allow the President to shape one branch of the federal government for decades to come, perhaps decisively, thereby helping to define his legacy. Of all judicial appointments, there is nothing more significant than appointments to the Supreme Court, if the President even has the opportunity during his term. But these appointments are the most difficult for the President to make in the most partisan political period in our lifetimes. May a President, …

Mister President & May It Please The Executive: Causal Barriers To Court-Packing, Mason Smith

Seaver College Research And Scholarly Achievement Symposium

As attacks on democracy have become increasingly ubiquitous, scholarship has begun to shed light on a common, effective, and inimical means of subverting governments accountable to the masses: court-packing. So, how can democracies prevent court-packing? Among many implicit causal theories taken from the extant research, which hasn’t directly tackled this problem, two seem the most plausible and ripe for analysis, suggesting that court-packing’s success turns on either the strength (i) of institutional constraints or (ii) of domestic judicial norms. To see which theory works better in practice, I use a narrowly tailored iteration of comparative process tracing, as it best …

Correcting Confusion Over Commandeering, Supremacy, And Preemption: A User’S Guide To Modern Federalism, Vikram David Amar

Pepperdine Law Review

Current disputes between state/local entities and the Trump administration, some of which build on flare-ups over the past few decades, place in sharp relief the key doctrinal features of modern federalism, many of which seem to confound the Supreme and lower courts, to say nothing of political actors and legal analysts. The mistakes being made run in both directions; sometimes states are wrongly confined, and in other episodes states are given (or are seeking) more than they are constitutionally due. In this Essay, I use several case studies—some from recent weeks or months and others from recent years or decades—to …

The Executive’S Takeover Of Independent Agencies: How Institutional Design Gave Way To Political Will, Neal Devins

Pepperdine Law Review

The anticipated demise of the independent agency is a saga that implicates Congress as much as it does the President or the Supreme Court. By capitulating to presidential initiatives and failing to defend their institutional prerogatives, Congress has facilitated presidential control of the administrative state. Indeed, irrespective of whether the Court formally repudiates Humphrey’s Executor, Congress has largely acquiesced to a regime whereby presidents essentially control independent agencies. By highlighting the competing incentives of Congress and the White House, this Essay explains the rise of presidential unilateralism vis-à-vis independent agencies. This Essay also casts light on a critically important but …

The Imperious Presidency: Brazen Power Plays And Executive Overreach, Daniel Farber

Pepperdine Law Review

The Trump Administration has been prone to brazen power plays. These actions have three basic characteristics: they are dramatic deviations from conventional governance, generating headlines and online clicks; their legal (and sometimes factual) foundations are tenuous; and they are potentially effective even if they are ultimately held lawful. This Essay analyzes this phenomenon. It argues that such power plays can be a rational strategy for a president under certain circumstances. Power plays can help dominate the news flow and energize the political base. They can also cause behavior shifts in their targets, even when litigation would be likely to overturn …

“The Future Of Executive Power”: An Overview, Robert J. Pushaw Jr.

Pepperdine Law Review

This symposium overview examines the rapid expansion of presidential power in the modern era, culminating in what the author and contributors describe as an unprecedented assertion of Article II authority during President Trump’s second term. It argues that the Constitution’s original separation-of-powers framework—designed to prioritize legislative authority and constrain the executive—has been inverted due to the growth of presidential control over foreign affairs, the administrative state, and policymaking. The article traces this shift through historical developments such as the New Deal, the rise of independent agencies, and the emergence of the “unitary executive” theory, while also analyzing recent Supreme Court …

The Ministerial Exception And Defamation: Navigating Churches’ Autonomy And Their Communications, Zachary Runge

Pepperdine Law Review

In two recent cases, the Supreme Court has adopted what scholars and lower courts have called the “ministerial exception.” The Court only addressed the ministerial exception’s application to employment discrimination claims. But the Court did not foreclose the possibility of its application to other claims. This Comment argues that the ministerial exception applies to defamation claims arising out of a minister’s termination. After providing the background for the ministerial exception, this Comment explains the current state of the law. Then, this Comment argues that the ministerial exception, as a form of the church autonomy doctrine, applies to the defamation claims …

Ayahuasca And Religious Freedom, Andrew C. Michaels

Pepperdine Law Review

Ayahuasca is an ancient and powerful psychedelic brew that has been used for many centuries in the Amazon rainforest, and over past decades has been gaining popularity in western countries such as the United States. The ayahuasca brew contains dimethyltryptamine (DMT) and accordingly is banned by the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). But some groups working with ayahuasca have applied for exemptions under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), and so far, at least five such groups have received exemptions, either via court decision or via agreement with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). However, the factors that courts and the DEA …

An Alternative Sacrifice: Religious Arbitration Agreements In Ministerial Employment Contracts, Grace E. Brandt

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

After decades of development in lower courts, the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the ministerial exception in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. E.E.O.C. (2012) and provided additional guidance in Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru (2020). The precise contours of the exception remain uncertain, but the doctrine—grounded in the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment—effectively bars civil courts from reviewing claims against religious institutions that implicate ministerial employment decisions. Thus, ministers are unable to pursue redress for legitimate harms that occur within the scope of their religious employment, even if unrelated to religious doctrine. This …

Hiding Elephants In Mouseholes: Judicial (Mis)Application Of The Federal Arbitration Act To Attorney-Client Arbitration Agreements, Gregory L. Smith

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

This article criticizes cases and commentary that assume, without argument, that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and its decidedly pro-arbitration jurisprudence apply to determine the enforceability of private attorney-client arbitration agreements, thus preempting state bar rules governing disclosures that lawyers must otherwise provide to clients when proposing private, binding arbitration in place of bar-sponsored arbitration regimes. The author argues that applying the FAA and its jurisprudence to attorney-client arbitration agreements raises significant constitutional issues regarding the states’ recognized authority to regulate the legal profession—an issue that courts and commentators have simply ignored.

Standing In The Shadows: Member Anonymity In Associational Standing Cases, Mitchell Brost

Pepperdine Law Review

Associational standing serves several benefits for plaintiff members: associations often have expertise in a certain field that guides the representation of their members, they have greater resources that allow them to bring lawsuits in the first place, and they can serve as the public face of the lawsuit to shield the plaintiff member from serious retaliation that may result from bringing the claim. But due to some imprecise language in Justice Scalia’s majority opinion in Summers v. Earth Island Institute, circuit courts are divided over whether associational members can remain anonymous at all. Thus, individuals who have legitimate legal claims, …

Jealously Guarded: The Right To Trial By Jury In Federal Court Under California’S Unruh Civil Rights Act, Denis Bogatin

Pepperdine Law Review

Since California adopted heightened pleading standards for high-frequency litigants alleging violations of the Unruh Act in state court, federal district courts have seen a surge of ADA and Unruh Act claims filed together to secure subject matter jurisdiction. Most courts dismissed the Unruh claims under their discretionary authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, but they remained divided on whether plaintiffs in these cases have a right to jury trial—statutory or constitutional. In 2025, the Ninth Circuit resolved part of the split in In re Tsay, holding that the Unruh Act provides a constitutional right to a jury trial because it …

The Power To Declare Peace, Michael Stokes Paulsen

Pepperdine Law Review

The Constitution gives Congress the power “to declare War.” The meaning of that grant of power is much debated, but its converse is much neglected: To whom does the Constitution assign the power to declare peace? This Article comprehensively examines the Constitution’s various assignments of the power(s) to make peace—constitutional powers to end, as a practical matter and as a binding legal matter, a prior legal condition of war. Both the President and Congress possess several such powers. The President has the power, with the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senate, to make treaties, including peace treaties that …

Reckoning With Antisemitism In History And Tradition, Nathaniel Shaw Hay, Isaac Barnes May

Pepperdine Law Review

“History and tradition” has become a watchword of modern constitutional interpretation, shaping Supreme Court jurisprudence and framing ongoing debates over the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. Yet this interpretive framework remains under-theorized in one critical respect: how should it grapple with the prejudices embedded in the very traditions it invokes? This Article examines that question through the lens of anti-Jewish discrimination in Anglo-American law, using this history as a case study to examine both the perils and promise of relying on history as a source of constitutional authority. For centuries, the common law excluded Jews from full civic participation in …

Transactional And Autocratic Leadership In Practice: The Case Of Trump’S Attempt To Redefine Birthright Citizenship, Ruolan Huang, Liwei Fang, Jingzhe Zhang, Anna Zaldivar

The Scholarship Without Borders Journal

This case study investigates how President Donald Trump's autocratic and transactional leadership style influenced the conception, implementation, and social impact of the 2025 executive order seeking to revoke birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants. This study employs the case study approach and applies thematic analysis of public documents, legal texts, and media reports. The study identifies five major themes, including autocratic leadership and executive overreach, racialized policy implementation, media manipulation, legal resistance, and a broader crisis of democratic legitimacy. The findings suggest that while the executive order aims at framing a legal structure, it disproportionately affects marginalized immigrant communities, …

Stipulations Of Law And Agency Independence, Jack Ferguson

Pepperdine Law Review

The Supreme Court granted certiorari in SEC v. Jarkesy to consider whether good-cause removal protections for SEC administrative law judges violate the Constitution, but ultimately left the question unanswered. The lower court holding that the removal protections are unconstitutional remains on the books for now, neither affirmed nor reversed. And a circuit split lives on. The removal power question is likely headed back to the Supreme Court before long. This Essay examines a key premise of the Jarkesy litigation and its leading precedent, the 2010 case Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Co. Accounting Oversight Board. In both cases, the parties …

An "Exceedingly Persuasive Justification": Affirmative Action As Protected By The Free Exercise Clause, Kristin O'Bryan Pereira

Pepperdine Law Review

In 2023, the Supreme Court’s Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Harvard (SFFA) decision effectively outlawed the use of race-based affirmative action programs in higher education, holding that such programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Meanwhile, the current Supreme Court has been unprecedently friendly to claimants seeking Free Exercise Clause protection from government restraints on religious exercise. The intersection between these two areas of law has implications for a category of schools not explicitly considered in the SFFA decision—private, religious schools …

In The Age Of Garcetti: Public Teachers' Free Speech Rights Within The Transgender-Student Debates, Hannah Bradvica

Pepperdine Law Review

A culture war over gender identity is playing out on the school playground, as conservative lawmakers across the country have introduced and implemented various pieces of anti-trans legislation focused on stripping away the privacy and expression of transgender students’ identities. An important question within this legislation remains: may public school teachers be exempt from following these policies? This Comment examines teachers’ free speech rights within two contexts: mandated parental notification of transgender-student policies and guidelines requiring teachers to adhere to students’ preferred pronouns. It considers the viability of compelled-speech claims brought by teachers, applying First Amendment jurisprudence and Garcetti v. …

Kennedy V. Louisiana And The Future Of The Eighth Amendment, Alexandra L. Klein

Pepperdine Law Review

In 2023, Florida passed a law permitting the imposition of the death penalty for the rape of a child under twelve. Tennessee enacted a similar law in 2024. These laws conflict with Kennedy v. Louisiana, a 2008 decision in which the Supreme Court held that imposing the death penalty for the rape of a child violated the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause because it was inconsistent with the evolving standards of decency. Legislators in Florida and Tennessee have expressed their hope that the Supreme Court will overrule Kennedy v. Louisiana. These laws, which resemble state attempts to undo …

Is Snap Removal Unconstitutional?, Ryan H. Nelson

Pepperdine Law Review

In snap removal, an individual removes a civil action to federal district court from the courts of a state where one or more putative defendants are a citizen before any such putative defendant has been served with process. By removing before any forum-state defendants are served, the removal arguably eludes the forum-defendant rule, which prohibits removal based solely on the diversity or alienage jurisdiction statute if “any of the parties in interest properly . . . served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought.” For years, federal judges and legal academics have disputed …

The Problem With Direct Collateral Review, Jaden M. Lessnick

Pepperdine Law Review

Federal habeas review of state convictions is sharply circumscribed for a reason: Granting the writ of habeas corpus disrupts the federalism and finality interests that lie at the heart of state sovereignty over criminal law. Both the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) and the Supreme Court’s equitable bars to relief reflect the structural dangers inherent in collateral review of state convictions. Given the increasing unavailability of federal habeas relief, state prisoners have turned to another vehicle for collateral federal review, one that bypasses AEDPA’s demanding standard: direct review of state post-conviction proceedings. And regrettably, the Court has entertained …

Going Cashless: Privacy Implications For Gun Control In A Digital Economy, Liza Goldenberg

The Journal of Business, Entrepreneurship & the Law

This paper will examine how, given the United States’ shift toward a cashless economy, the country’s top credit-card companies’ potential decision to implement a new merchant code for firearm-related transactions as a method of gun control will backfire, jeopardizing consumer privacy and leading to unregulated transactions through cryptocurrencies. Since the majority of gun violence stems from firearm transactions not involving credit cards, credit-card companies should abandon the new merchant code that dissuades Americans from exercising their fundamental rights. The American economy should focus on slowing the shift toward a digital economy so that federal and state governments can implement legislation …

Quit Using Acquittals: The Unconstitutionality And Immorality Of Acquitted-Conduct Sentencing, Brenna Nouray

Pepperdine Law Review

This Comment examines the phenomenon of acquitted-conduct sentencing—a practice that allows a sentencing judge to enhance a criminal defendant’s sentence due to conduct for which he has already been acquitted. Seventeen-year-old Dayonta McClinton is one of many criminal defendants who have unjustly suffered at the hands of this practice when he received a thirteen-year enhancement because of conduct for which he already received a verdict of not guilty from a jury. This Comment argues that acquitted-conduct sentencing is unconstitutional, as it violates both the reasonable doubt standard required under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the jury …

The Post-Dobbs Reality: Privacy Expectations For Period-Tracking Apps In Criminal Abortion Prosecutions, Sophie L. Nelson

Pepperdine Law Review

The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey in June 2022 was met with waves of both support and criticism throughout the United States. Several states immediately implemented or began drafting trigger laws that criminalize seeking and providing an abortion. These laws prompted several period-tracking app companies to encrypt their users’ data to make it more difficult for the government to access period- and pregnancy-related information for criminal investigations. This Comment explores whether the Fourth Amendment and U.S. privacy statutes protect users of period-tracking apps from government surveillance. More specifically, this Comment argues that …

The Nonexistent Speedy Trial Right, Colleen Cullen

Pepperdine Law Review

The United States Constitution and all fifty states guarantee a speedy trial right for individuals accused of crimes. The controlling United States Supreme Court case, decided over fifty years ago, described the Sixth Amendment as a fundamental right with Fourteenth Amendment Due Process implications. Although the right to a speedy trial is a universally recognized right, this Article compellingly demonstrates the right is actually nonexistent throughout the United States. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted and exacerbated this previously unrecognized problem in courthouses across the country, which has led to news outlets finally covering the issue of the nonexistent speedy trial. This …

The Supreme Court, Article Iii, And Jurisdiction Stuffing, James E. Pfander

Pepperdine Law Review

Reflecting on the state of the federal judiciary in the aftermath of the Biden Commission report and subsequent controversies, this Article identifies problems with the current operation of both the Supreme Court and the lower courts that make up the Article III judicial pyramid. Many federal issues have been assigned to non-Article III tribunals, courts poorly structured to offer the independent legal assessment that such Founders as James Wilson prized as they structured the federal judiciary. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court devotes growing attention to a slice of highly salient public law questions, including those presented on the shadow docket, thereby …

Jarkesy V. Sec: Are Federal Courts Pushing The U.S. Toward The Next Financial Crisis?, Jennifer Hill

Pepperdine Law Review

In the wake of both the Great Depression and the Financial Crisis of 2008, Congress established and expanded the powers of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). As part of this expansion, the SEC in-house administrative proceedings, designed to adjudicate SEC violations before the SEC’s administrative law judges (ALJs), were born. These in-house proceedings have faced multiple constitutional attacks in the past decade. In the most recent iteration of such challenges, Jarkesy v. SEC, the Fifth Circuit held that the SEC’s in-house proceedings were unconstitutional on three grounds: (1) the in-house proceedings deprived petitioners of their constitutional right to jury …