Constitutional Law Commons^™

Reforming The Federal Grand Jury And The State Preliminary Hearing To Prevent Conviction Without Adjudication, Peter Arenella

Michigan Law Review

It is this Article's thesis that the substitution of plea-bargaining for the criminal trial as our primary method for determining legal guilt requires a fundamental reassessment of our pretrial screening processes. In a system where the prosecutor's decision to file charges is usually followed by a negotiated guilty plea, we can no longer pretend that the pretrial process does not adjudicate the defendant's guilt. Accordingly, this Article argues that it no longer makes sense to rely primarily on the trial to safeguard essential accusatorial principles when pretrial screening devices like the preliminary hearing and the grand jury perform the only …

A Peek In Pandora's Box: Folding Carton And The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination In Civil Antitrust Actions, David D. Gregg

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The purpose of this article is to examine the dimensions of an individual's Fifth Amendment privilege in a civil antitrust action where the person has not yet been guaranteed that criminal prosecution is no longer possible. Two issues are apparent: first, under what conditions may a civil antitrust defendant properly invoke the privilege; second, if a civil antitrust plaintiff seeks to discover information privileged under the Fifth Amendment, what is the proper response to the problem? Folding Carton provides an excellent example of the process of antitrust litigation and demonstrates the tensions involved. Using that case as an example, the …

Is There Life For Erie After The Death Of Diversity?, Peter Westen, Jeffrey S. Lehman

Michigan Law Review

This Article is essentially an elaboration of these three themes. Section I sets forth the fundamental principles, or "axioms," that determine whether a particular federal rule is pertinent and valid. Once these axioms are understood, it should become apparent that Erie problems, if not easy, are not uniquely difficult either; instead, they are the kinds of "ordinary" problems that are commonplace in other areas of law. Section II applies these axioms to cases in diversity to determine the validity of various kinds of federal rules of decision. Section III examines the validity of federal rules of decision in federal question …

Federalism And Social Change, Terrance Sandalow

Articles

A familiar passage in Professors Hart and Wechsler's casebook likens the relationship between federal and state law to that which exists between statutes and the common law. The underlying idea is that federal law rests upon a substructure of state law. "It builds upon legal relationships established by the states, altering or supplanting them only so far as necessary for [its] special purpose."' A similar relationship exists between state and federal judicial systems. State courts are courts of general jurisdiction, assumed to have authority to adjudicate controversies unless Congress has displaced them by conferring exclusive jurisdiction on federal courts. Federal …

Judicial Competence And Fundamental Rights, Earl S. Maltz, Ira C. Lupu

Michigan Law Review

In the April 1979 issue of the Michigan Law Review, Professor Ira Lupu added his valuable contribution to the continuing debate on the problem of defining the nature of fundamental rights under the Constitution. In many respects his article is a wholly admirable piece of scholarship, both well-researched and carefully reasoned. However, on one issue - the question of judicial competence to identify the values he defines as fundamental - Professor Lupu's discussion is seriously deficient. This letter will examine the problem of judicial competence and conclude that it is fatal to Professor Lupu's conception of the appropriate role …

Parental Notification As A Prerequisite For Minors' Access To Contraceptives: A Behavioral And Legal Analysis, Michael N. Finger

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This article examines whether the constitutional right of parents to determine what is best for their children prevents the state from permitting minors access to contraceptives without notifying their parents. Part I examines the effect of the presence or absence of a notice requirement upon the interests of parents, minors, and the state. Part II reviews the development of the constitutional right of privacy and the impact of parental rights and state interests on the extension of privacy rights to minors. Part III considers the manner in which the interests of minors, parents, and the state should be balanced. The …

The Abortion-Funding Cases And Population Control: An Imaginary Lawsuit (And Some Reflections On The Uncertain Limits Of Reproductive Privacy), Susan Frelich Appleton

Michigan Law Review

Two issues are before us today: (I) the meaning of the term "medically necessary" in a public hospital's charter and (II) the constitutionality of state action that provides free medical treatment to indigent pregnant women seeking an abortion but denies them such assistance for prenatal care and childbirth. On the basis of recent Supreme Court authority, we find that such action violates neither the hospital's charter nor the United States Constitution.

Roe V. Wade And The Lesson Of The Pre-Roe Case Law, Richard Gregory Morgan

Michigan Law Review

The politically unsettled and judicially confused law of abortion in 1971 and 1972, when the Court twice heard arguments and deliberated Roe, should have warned it not to decide the case. By doing so; the Court thrust itself into a political debate and stunted the development of a thoughtful lower-court case law. If the Court did perceive the warnings but continued toward a decision anyway, perhaps trusting that its own considerable wits would devise an answer the lower courts had not, the result suggests that the judicial system's axioms deserve more respect than they received. This Article, by showing …

Rewriting Roe V. Wade, Donald H. Regan

Articles

Roe v. Wade is one of the most controversial cases the Supreme Court has decided. The result in the case - the establishment of a constitutional right to abortion - was controversial enough. Beyond that, even people who approve of the result have been dissatisfied with the Court's opinion. Others before me have attempted to explain how a better opinion could have been written. It seems to me, however, that the most promising argument in support of the result of Roe has not yet been made. This essay contains my suggestions for "rewriting" Roe v. Wade

The Future Of Confrontation, Peter K. Westen

Michigan Law Review

The Supreme Court seems to be setting the stage for a long-awaited examination of the confrontation clause. It has been ten years since the Court endeavored in Dutton v. Evans to reconcile the evidentiary rules of hearsay with the constitutional commands of confrontation. Dutton came at the tail end of a string of confrontation cases that the Court had resolved without apparent difficulty. Not surprisingly, the Court approached Dutton in the evident belief that it could resolve the constitutional problems of hearsay once and for all. Instead, after oral argument in 1969 and a rehearing in 1970, the Court found …

Philosophical Perspectives On Affirmative Action, Kenneth W. Simons

Michigan Law Review

A Review of Equality and Preferential Treatment: A Philosophy & Public Affairs Reader edited by Marshall Cohen, Thomas Nagel, and Thomas Scanlon

Do Defendants Have An Attorney When They Have A Public Defender, James Eisenstein

Michigan Law Review

A Review of Counsel for the Poor: Criminal Defense in Urban America by Robert Hermann, Eric Single, and John Boston

Reflections On Unconstitutionality In Futuro: Shavers V. Attorney General And Robinson V. Cahill, Philip H. Hecht

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This article will argue that holdings of unconstitutionality in futuro are difficult to reconcile with the separation of powers doctrine because they foster impermissible intrusions on the ability of the legislative and executive branches to act independently of the judiciary. It is further argued that in the two cases where courts have adopted the unconstitutionality in futuro approach, the failure to satisfy all of the proposed standards for the appropriateness of unconstitutionality in futuro and the further considerations of judicial legitimacy and competency should have led the courts to consider other less drastic alternatives before deciding to use unconstitutionality in …

Due Process And Parole Revocation, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

In Morrissey, the Court set the level of due process needed in parole revocations. Specifically, it held that the parolee facing •revocation has a right (a) to receive written notice of the claimed parole violations; (b) to hear the evidence against him; (c) to be heard in person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence; (d) to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses (unless the hearing officer specifically finds good cause for not allowing the confrontation); (e) to have a neutral and detached hearing body, members of which need not be judicial officers or lawyers; and (f) to be given …

Pleas Of Guilty And The Loss Of Constitutional Rights: The Current Price Of Pleading Guilty, Stephen A. Saltzburg

Michigan Law Review

This Article proposes the same basic rule as Westen's to explain the Supreme Court's decisions, but for very different reasons which require several modifications of the Westen rule. I argue that all the guilty-plea cases, properly viewed, are consistent with, and therefore can be read as evidence of, a theory more easily applied than articulated by the Court: that some constitutional rights are largely premised on notions of litigation avoidance, that their "avoidance" rationales must be respected, and that these rights therefore prevent governments from establishing procedural rules that force criminal defendants to go to trial-to choose more rather than …

Forfeiture By Guilty Plea--A Reply, Peter Westen

Michigan Law Review

I will begin by describing what I think Professor Saltzburg and I both mean by a ''legal theory." I then apply that standard to test the validity of the two theories at issue here, first Professor Saltzburg's, then mine. I next discuss a third theory that is independent of both Professor Saltzburg's and mine, viz., that whether a constitutional claim survives a guilty plea depends on whether it is ''jurisdictional." Finally, I comment generally on the concept of forfeiture and its influence on the way one conceives of constitutional rights.

The Eighteenth-Century Background Of John Marshall's Constitutional Jurisprudence, William E. Nelson

Michigan Law Review

This analysis of Marshall's constitutional jurisprudence avoids the pitfalls of previous theories. It does not see the Federalist political program as the source of Marshall's constitutional doctrines and thus does not need to explain how Marshall qualified his political principles or how he convinced non-Federalist judges to accept them. Instead, this essay argues that legal, not political, principles underlay Marshall's jurisprudence, but it attempts to understand those principles in a manner consistent with the unavoidable twentieth-century assumption that law is a body of flexible rules responsive to social reality rather than a series of immutable, unambiguous doctrines derived from a …

Equal Protection: A Closer Look At Closer Scrutiny, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

This Note proposes to restore means-end analysis to legal respectability through a comprehensive integrated approach to purpose, misfit, and balancing. The search for a rational basis is meaningless if there are no constraints on the kind of purpose which may justify a classification. Therefore, this Note initially explores ways in which a court can more rigorously scrutinize statutory purpose. The next significant question is how a court should evaluate the degree of coincidence between the class picked out by the law and the class which would be picked out if the law were to achieve its goals. Such "misfit" analysis …

Brewer V. Williams, Massiah And Miranda: What Is 'Interrogation'? When Does It Matter?, Yale Kamisar

Articles

On Christmas Eve, 1968, a ten-year-old girl, Pamela Powers, disappeared while with her family in Des Moines, Iowa.2 Defendant Williams, an escapee from a mental institution and a deeply religious person, 3 was suspected of murdering her, and a warrant was issued for his arrest.4 Williams telephoned a Des Moines lawyer, McKnight, and on his advice surrendered himself to the Davenport, Iowa, police.5 Captain Learning and another Des Moines police officer arranged to drive the 160 miles to Davenport, pick up Williams, and return him directly to Des Moines. 6 Both the trial court 7 and the federal district court8 …

Juvenile Curfew Ordinances And The Constitution, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

Recognizing that a legislature must decide whether to enact a juvenile curfew without the benefit of conclusive data on the effectiveness of such laws, the remainder of this Note will focus primarily upon the constitutional issues raised by such ordinances. The freedom of movement that is limited by a curfew is, it will be argued, an unenumerated right protected by the ninth and fourteenth amendments. The constitutional rights of juveniles, however, -are not necessarily coextensive with those of adults. Certain characteristics of juveniles-in particular, their lesser capacity for reason and self-control-imply that the strength of their right to freedom of …

State Taxation And The Supreme Court: Toward A More Unified Approach To Constitutional Adjudication?, Walter Hellerstein

Michigan Law Review

The first section of this Article examines three recent cases, each addressed to a different constitutional limitation on the scope of state tax power, that may be read as signifying a new approach: Michelin Tire Corp. v. Wages, which concerned the import-export clause; United States v. County of Fresno, which concerned the supremacy clause; and Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, which concerned the commerce clause. Section II considers the implications of these decisions and explores -the possibility that they share an underlying doctrinal unity.

Away From Waiver: A Rationale For The Forfeiture Of Constitutional Rights In Criminal Procedure, Peter Westen

Michigan Law Review

Ten years ago, when I was a student in law school, I learned that it was difficult for a criminal defendant to lose completely his right to assert constitutional defenses. The only way he could relinquish his constitutional defenses, I was told, was by actually "waiving" them. Moreover, in order to establish that a defendant had waived his defenses, the state faced a rigorous test: it had to show, in the famous phrase, that his waiver was "knowing, intelligent, and voluntary." In other words, before the state could permanently prevent a defendant from asserting constitutional defenses, it had to show …

Judicial Protection Of Minorities, Terrance Sandalow

Articles

In United States v. Carolene Products Co., Justice Stone suggested by indirection that there "may be narrower scope for operation of the presumption of constitutionality" when courts are called upon to determine the validity "of statutes directed at particular religious . . . or national . . . or racial minorities."' In such cases, he explained, "prejudice against discrete and insular minorities may be a special condition, which tends seriously to curtail the operation of those political processes ordinarily to be relied upon to protect minorities, and which may call for a correspondingly more searching judicial inquiry."' Forty years later, …

Racial Preferences In Higher Education: Political Responsibility And The Judicial Role, Terrance Sandalow

Book Chapters

... Professors John Hart Ely and Richard Posner have established diametrically opposed positions in the debate. Their contributions are of special interest because each undertakes to answer the question within the framework of a theory concerning the proper distribution of authority between the judiciary and the other institutions of government

...Professor Ely [see pp. 208-216, herein] defends the constitutionality of racial preferences, essentially on the ground that the equal-protection clause should not be read to prevent a majority from discriminating between itself and a minority only to its own disadvantage. The predicate for an active judicial role is lacking, ... …

Congressional Power Under The Appointments Clause After Buckley V. Valeo, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

This Note examines the constitutional power of Congress to control the selection of government officers. It first discusses the article II grant itself and concludes that the Court in Buckley correctly interpreted that provision to prohibit direct appointment by Congress of officers who are found to possess "significant authority." The Note then explores possible means not explicitly foreclosed in Buckley by which Congress might influence such appointments and argues that these alternatives are restricted by the same constitutional principles that prohibit direct congressional appointments.

Taxpayer Rights In Noncustodial Irs Investigations After Beckwith V. United States, Curtis L. Christensen

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The recent Supreme Court decision in Beckwith v. United States, holding that Miranda does not extend to noncustodial tax investigations, has important implications with respect to the News Release doctrine and the involuntary consent grounds considered in motions to suppress evidence. This article will examine Beckwith and its potential significance with respect to these other doctrines, discussing the factors which the IRS and the courts should consider in order to assure fair treatment of taxpayers during investigations.

National League Of Cities V. Usery: Its Implications For The Equal Pay Act And The Age Discrimination In Employment Act, Ellen B. Spellman

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

In National League of Cities v. Usery, the Supreme Court invalidated the application of the FLSA minimum wage and maximum hours provisions to certain essential state government activities as an unconstitutional intrusion on state sovereignty. This article will explore the implications of that decision with respect to the application of the EPA and the ADEA to state and local governments.

Part I contains a brief discussion of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Amendments. Part II discusses National League with reference to traditional commerce clause interpretation. Part III analyzes the difficulties of applying the decision, particularly the problem of …

Foreword: Brewer V. Williams--A Hard Look At A Discomfiting Record, Yale Kamisar

Articles

In recent decades, few matters have split the Supreme Court, troubled the legal profession, and agitated the public as much as the police interrogation-confession cases. The recent case of Brewer v. Williams3 is as provocative as any, because the Supreme Court there revdrsed the defendant's conviction for the "savage murder of a small child" even though no Justice denied his guilt,4 he was warned of his rights no fewer than five times, 5 and any "interrogation" that might have occurred seemed quite mild.6

Adjudication Of Federal Causes Of Action In State Court, Martin H. Redish, John E. Muench

Michigan Law Review

The first section of this article considers the power of state courts to hear federal cases. Since it is now well established that state courts have the constitutional power to adjudicate federal causes of action if Congress so desires, the significant questions concern the method by which the judiciary is to decipher congressional intent. Although the courts have no difficulty where Congress has explicitly addressed the issue of state court jurisdiction, problems do arise in situations where Congress has remained silent on the question. The first section critically examines the traditional criteria employed by the courts for determining congressional intent …

Federal Preemption Of State Law: The Example Of Overbooking In The Airline Industry, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

Such complexity is common in the airline context, both because the Federal Aviation Act1 (FAA) and the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) do not purport to regulate all aspects of the industry and because airline activities are so varied that they come within the reach of numerous state statutory and common-law rules. This Note will consider the power of the CAB to preempt state law and thereby to insulate airline activities from state-law liability. It will suggest a framework for analyzing the problems of preemption by focusing on airline concealment of overbooking practices. Section I explains airline overbooking and demonstrates that …