Constitutional Law Commons^™

The Monster In The Courtroom, Sonja R. West

Scholarly Works

It is well known that Supreme Court Justices are not fans of cameras — specifically, video cameras. Despite continued pressure from the press, Congress, and the public to allow cameras into oral arguments, the Justices have steadfastly refused.

The policy arguments for allowing cameras in the courtroom focus on cameras as a means to increased transparency of judicial work. Yet these arguments tend to gloss over a significant point about the Court — it is not secretive. The Court allows several avenues of access to its oral arguments including the presence of the public and the press in the audience, …

Fiscal Federalism In The United States, Walter Hellerstein

Presentations and Speeches

This presentation explores the fiscal powers of U.S. Federal and State governments with respect to taxation and spending.

Self-Conscious Dicta: The Origins Of Roe V. Wade’S Trimester Framework, Randy Beck

Scholarly Works

One of the controversies arising from Roe v. Wade (1973), has concerned whether the conclusions undergirding the opinion's “trimester framework” should be considered part of the holding of the case, or instead classified as dicta. Different Supreme Court opinions have spoken to this question in different ways. This article reviews materials from the files of Justices who participated in Roe, seeking insight as to what the Court thought about the issue at the time. The article concludes that Justices in the Roe majority understood the opinion’s trimester framework to consist largely of dicta, unnecessary to a ruling on the constitutionality …

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's Appointment With Trouble, Kent H. Barnett

Scholarly Works

This article considers whether the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Director’s appointment of the Bureau’s Deputy Director comports with the Appointments Clause. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act established the Bureau in July 2010, as well as the offices of the Bureau’s Director and Deputy Director, to coordinate the regulation and enforcement of federal consumer-financial-protection laws. Under that act, the Director appoints the Deputy Director. The Appointments Clause permits “Heads of Departments” to appoint inferior officers like the Deputy Director. But it is unclear if the Bureau is a “department” and thus if the Director is a department …

Awakening The Press Clause, Sonja R. West

Scholarly Works

The Free Press Clause enjoys less practical significance than almost any other constitutional provision. While recognizing the structural and expressive importance of a free press, the Supreme Court has never recognized explicitly any right or protection as emanating solely from the Press Clause. Recently in the Court’s Citizens United decision, Justices Stevens and Scalia reignited the 30-year-old debate over whether the Press Clause has any function separate from the Speech Clause.

The primary roadblock to recognizing independent meaning in the Press Clause is the definitional problem - who or what is the “press”? Others have attempted to define the press, …

May It Please The Senate: An Empirical Analysis Of The Senate Judiciary Committee Hearings Of Supreme Court Nominees, 1939-2009, Lori A. Ringhand, Paul M. Collins Jr.

Scholarly Works

This paper examines the questions asked and answers given by every Supreme Court nominee who has appeared to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee since 1939. In doing so, it uses a new dataset developed by the authors. This database, which provides a much-needed empirical foundation for scholarship in emerging areas of constitutional law and political science, captures all of the statements made at the hearings and codes these comments by issue area, subissue area, party of the appointing president, and party of the questioning senator. The dataset allows us to quantify for the fist time such things as which …

Grossly Disproportional To Whose Offense? Why The (Mis)Application Of Constitutional Jurisprudence On Proceeds Forfeiture Matters, Amanda S. Bersinger

Georgia Law Review

To pass constitutional muster, fines-of which punitive
forfeitures are one type-must not be grossly
disproportional to the gravity of the offense from which
they arise. Currently, the United States Courts of Appeals
exhibit a split in their treatment of forfeiture of proceeds
acquired incident to a criminal enterprise. A majority of
courts to address the issue have held that proceeds
forfeitures are not punitive fines and thus escape
constitutional scrutiny. Other courts, including the
Fourth Circuit in the recent case United States v.
Jalaram, Inc., have concluded that proceeds forfeiture, like

that of instrumentalities of a crime, is punitive and …

Imprisoned By Liability: Why Bivens Suits Should Not Be Available Against Employees Of Privately Run Federal Prisons, Isabella R. Edmundson

Georgia Law Review

With the increasing privatization of prisons, a growing
issue is whether individual employees in private federal
prisons are liable through a Bivens suit for violating the
constitutional rights of inmates. Four circuits have
confronted the issue. Three circuits have held that no
Bivens action is available; but recently the Ninth Circuit
has held the contrary.
The Supreme Court's Bivens case law offers mixed
messages as to whether an implied cause of action should
be available in this situation. One view is that, despite an
initial willingness to expand Bivens, the Supreme Court
has consistently moved away from recognizing new Bivens …

The Judicial Power And The Inferior Federal Courts: Exploring The Constitutional Vesting Thesis, A. Benjamin Spencer

Georgia Law Review

The Third Branch of our federal government has
traditionally been viewed as the least of the three in
terms of the scope of its power and authority. This
view finds validation when one considers the
extensive authority that Congress has been permitted
to exercise over the Federal Judiciary. From the
beginning, Congress has understood itself to possess
the authority to limit the jurisdiction of inferior
federal courts. The Supreme Court has acquiesced to
this understanding of congressional authority
without much thought or explanation.
It may be possible, however, to imagine a more
robust vision of the Judicial Power through closer …

Extra! Read All About It: Why Notice By Newspaper Publication Fails To Meet Mullane's Desire-To-Inform Standard And How Modern Technology Provides A Viable Alternative, Jennifer L. Case

Georgia Law Review

Decades ago the Supreme Court articulated that due
process requires adopting a means of service that one
would naturally adopt if he actually desired to inform
another. For generations newspaper publication has been
allowed where the party to be notified is not known or
cannot be located. But, given the rapid transformation

of information dissemination over our country's recent
history, are newspapers a method that anyone would use if
they truly wanted to relay information to another person?
This Note examines the shift in how American's receive
news and information in our modern society. It explores
the decline in newspaper …

Fueling Controversy, Randy Beck

Scholarly Works

In a recent Yale Law Journal article, Linda Greenhouse and Reva Siegel question the received wisdom that the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade generated a political backlash, inflaming conflict over abortion and damaging the political process. The evidence they highlight shows that political conflict over abortion predated the Roe opinion, spurred by the Catholic Church and by Republican Party strategists seeking to foster party realignment. This enriched picture of the political and social landscape at the time of the decision undermines any simplistic suggestion that Roe served as “the sole cause of backlash” or “single-handedly caused societal polarization …

Rational Coercion: Citizens United And A Modern Day Prisoner's Dilemma, Anne M. Tucker

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Foreign States Are Foreign States: Why Foreign State-Owned Corporations Are Not Persons Under The Due Process Clause, Frederick W. Vaughan

Georgia Law Review

If foreign states are not "persons"under the Due Process
Clause, do foreign state-owned corporations still enjoy the
same protections as their privately owned counterparts?
This is an important question because state-owned entities
are a prevalent fixture in an increasingly global economy.
Courts confronted with the issue, however, have attempted
to resolve it by resorting to a policy-based analysis. In
doing so, they have distorted fundamental constitutional
principles.
This Note explains this distortion by discussing the
trend among leading courts of not recognizing states as
"persons" under the Due Process Clause and by examining
the meaning of "foreign state" under the …

What Mcdonald Means For Unenumerated Rights, A. Christopher Bryant

Georgia Law Review

In June a splintered Supreme Court held in McDonald
v. City of Chicago that the Second Amendment applied to
state and local governments. But the case was about

much more than handguns. It presented the Court with
an unprecedented opportunity to correct its own erroneous
precedent and revive the Fourteenth Amendment's
Privileges or Immunities Clause. The plurality declined
the offer not, as Justice Alito's opinion suggested, out of a
profound respect for stare decisis, but rather because at
least four Justices like the consequences of that ancient
error, especially insofar as unenumerated rights are
concerned. This observation in turn raises …

Aliens On The Bench: Lessons In Identity, Race And Politics From The First "Modern" Supreme Court, Lori A. Ringhand

Scholarly Works

Every time a Supreme Court vacancy is announced, the media and the legal academy snap to attention. Even the general public takes note; in contrast to most of the decisions issued by the Court, a majority of Americans are aware of and have opinions about the men and women who are nominated to sit on it. Moreover, public opinion about the nominee has a strong influence on a senator's vote for or against the candidate. If the confirmation hearing held before the Senate Judiciary Committee is largely an empty ritual, why do so many people seem so enthralled by it? …

The Story Of Us: Resolving The Face-Off Between Autobiographical Speech And Information Privacy, Sonja R. West

Scholarly Works

Increasingly more “ordinary” Americans are choosing to share their life experiences with a public audience. In doing so, however, they are revealing more than their own personal stories, they are exposing private information about others as well. The face-off between autobiographical speech and information privacy is coming to a head, and our legal system is not prepared to handle it.

In a prior article, I established that autobiographical speech is a unique and important category of speech that is at risk of being undervalued under current law. This article builds on my earlier work by addressing the emerging conflict between …

Constitutional Interpretation? There's No App For That., Sonja R. West

Popular Media

The confirmation hearings of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan begin Monday, and court watchers are steeling themselves for another round of the vacuous Q&A that has become the stuff of modern confirmation hearings.

What she will likely talk about—if she's anything like other recent nominees—is that, if confirmed, she promises to become Kagan the Robot. She will find 100 different ways to assure us that when deciding cases she will do nothing more than mechanically apply the law to the facts. And this is where Kagan needs to throw away the script. The absence of any dialogue on substantive law …

State Constitutionalism And The Right To Health Care, Elizabeth Weeks Leonard

Scholarly Works

This Article examines state constitutions and health care rights. Notably, close to a third of states’ constitutions recognize health while the U.S. Constitution contains no reference. Ample scholarly commentary exists on the absence of a right to health care under the U.S. Constitution but little attention has been paid to state constitutional law. This Article begins by explaining the absence of a federal right and the rationale for looking to state constitutional protections for health. The Article then provides a comprehensive survey of state constitutional provisions and judicial decisions enforcing or interpreting them. The survey reveals certain common themes and …

John Paul Stevens And Equally Impartial Government, Diane Marie Amann

Scholarly Works

This article is the second publication arising out of the author's ongoing research respecting Justice John Paul Stevens. It is one of several published by former law clerks and other legal experts in the UC Davis Law Review symposium edition, Volume 43, No. 3, February 2010, "The Honorable John Paul Stevens."

The article posits that Justice Stevens's embrace of race-conscious measures to ensure continued diversity stands in tension with his early rejections of affirmative action programs. The contrast suggests a linear movement toward a progressive interpretation of the Constitution’s equality guarantee; however, examination of Stevens's writings in biographical context reveal …

Where United Haulers Might Take Us: The State-Self-Promotion Exception To The Dormant Commerce Clause Rule, Dan T. Coenen

Scholarly Works

Fourteen years ago, in C & A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a local government had unconstitutionally discriminated against interstate commerce when it forced its citizens to purchase all waste-transfer services from a single local private supplier. In a recent decision, United Haulers Ass'n v. Oneida- Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority, the Court refused to extend the principle of Carbone to a law that required citizens to purchase these same services from a local government-operated facility. The Court thereby engrafted on the dormant Commerce Clause a new state-selfpromotion exception, which receives its first …

Congressional End-Run: The Ignored Constraint On Judicial Review, Luke M. Milligan

Georgia Law Review

This Article identifies an untended connection between
the research of legal academics and political scientists. It
explains how recent developments in constitutional theory,
when read in good light, expose a gap in the judicial
politics literature on Supreme Court decision making. The
gap is the "congressional end-run."
End-runs occur when Congress mitigates the policy cost
of adverse judicial review through neither formal limits on
the Court's autonomy nor substitution of its constitutional

interpretationfor that of the Court, but through a different
decision which cannot, as a practical if not legal matter,
be invalidated by the Court. End-runs come in several …

Reconstructing The Individual Mandate As An Escrow Account, Gregg Polsky

Scholarly Works

This short essay in Michigan Law Review First Impressions describes how the individual mandate could be reconstructed as an escrow account. Such a restructuring would ameliorate policy concerns regarding the mandate while still deterring the opportunistic behavior that would otherwise occur as a result of the nondiscrimination rules imposed on insurers.

Flawed Assumptions: A Corporate Law Analysis Of Free Speech And Corporate Personhood In Citizens United, Anne M. Tucker

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

In Defense Of Ideology: A Principled Approach To The Supreme Court Confirmation Process, Lori A. Ringhand

Scholarly Works

In this paper, Professor Ringhand offers a principled defense of an ideological approach to the Supreme Court justice confirmation process. In constructing her argument, she does three things. First, she explores how the insights provided by recent empirical legal scholarship have created a need to re-think the role of the Supreme Court and, consequently, the process by which we select Supreme Court justices. In doing so, Professor Ringhand explains how these insights have called into question much of our conventional constitutional narrative, and how this failure of the conventional narrative has in turn undermined traditional objections to an ideologically-based confirmation …

State-Created Property And Due Process Of Law: Filling The Void Left By Engquist V. Oregon Department Of Agriculture, Michael Wells, Alice Snedeker

Scholarly Works

Several years ago, in Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, the Supreme Court recognized a 'class-of-one' Equal Protection theory, under which individuals charging that they were singled out for arbitrary treatment by officials may sue for vindication. Last term, in Engquist v. Oregon Department of Agriculture, the Court barred recourse to this type of claim on the part of government employees. The reasoning of Engquist, which emphasizes the discretionary nature of employment decisions, threatens to eliminate a wide range of class-of-one claims outside the employment area as well. There is a pressing need for an alternative. This article proposes another basis …

Medellin, Delegation And Conflicts (Of Law), Peter B. Rutledge

Scholarly Works

The case of Medellin v. Texas presented the Supreme Court with a recurring question that has bedeviled judges, legal scholars, and political scientists-what effect, if any, must a United States court give to the decision of an international tribunal, particularly where, during the relevant time, the United States was party to a treaty protocol that bound it to that tribunal's judgments. While the Supreme Court held that the International Court of Justice's ("ICJ") decision was not enforceable federal law, its decision reflected an important recognition that the issues presented in that case were not limited to the specific area of …

The Pros And Cons Of Politically Reversible 'Semisubstantive' Constitutional Rules, Dan T. Coenen

Scholarly Works

Most observers of constitutional adjudication believe that it works in an all-or-nothing way. On this view, the substance of challenged rules is of decisive importance, so that political decision makers may resuscitate invalidated laws only by way of constitutional amendment. This conception of constitutional law is incomplete. In fact, courts often use so-called “semisubstantive” doctrines that focus on the processes that nonjudicial officials have used in adopting constitutionally problematic rules. When a court strikes down a rule by using a motive-centered or legislative-findings doctrine, for example, political decision makers may revive that very rule without need for a constitutional amendment. …

The Partially Prudential Doctrine Of Mootness, Matthew I. Hall

Scholarly Works

The conventional understanding of mootness doctrine is that it operates as a mandatory bar to federal court jurisdiction, derived from the "cases or controversies" clause of the United States Constitution, Article III. In two crucial respects, however, this Constitutional model - which was first adopted by the Supreme Court less than 45 years ago - fails to account for the manner in which courts actually address contentions of mootness. First, the commonly-applied exceptions to the mootness bar are not derived from the "cases or controversies" clause and cannot be reconciled with the Constitutional account of mootness. Second, courts regularly consider …

The Original Meaning Of The Privileges And Immunities Clause, Robert G. Natelson

Georgia Law Review

The Constitution's Privileges and Immunities Clause drew on words and phrases common in Anglo-American law and law practice at the time the Clause was written. Modern courts and commentators have largely overlooked that law and practice, and thus have misinterpreted the Clause. It did not protect a right to travel, natural rights in general, colonial charter rights, or the "rights of Englishmen." The Clause meant only that if a state voluntarily bestowed positive legal benefits as incidents of its own citizenship, then that state had to grant those same benefits to visitors who were citizens of other U.S. states. This …

Scott V. Harris And The Role Of The Jury In Constitutional Litigation, Michael Wells

Scholarly Works

Suits brought under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 to recover damages for excessive force by the police bear some resemblance to common law tort litigation, since the key Fourth Amendment issue is whether the force was 'unreasonable.' In ordinary negligence law the jury typically decides whether an actor has exercised reasonable care, even when there is no dispute as to the facts. In section 1983 litigation the federal courts are badly split on the allocation of decision making between judge and jury, sometimes even within a particular circuit. The Supreme Court recently faced the judge-jury issue in Scott v. Harris, where …