Constitutional Law Commons^™

Striding Out Of Babel: Originalism, Its Critics, And The Promise Of Our American Constitution, André Leduc

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article pursues a therapeutic approach to end the debate over constitutional originalism. For almost fifty years that debate has wrestled with the question whether constitutional interpretations and decisions should look to the original intentions, expectations, and understandings with respect to the constitutional text, and if not, what. Building on a series of prior articles exploring the jurisprudential foundations of the debate, this Article characterizes the debate over originalism as pathological. The Article begins by describing what a constitutional therapy is.

The debate about originalism has been and remains sterile and unproductive, and the lack of progress argues powerfully for …

What Trump Misses About Free Speech, Timothy Zick

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Section 1: Moot Court: Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd., Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Scholars Of The History And Original Meaning Of The Fourth Amendment As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioner, Margaret Hu

Briefs

No abstract provided.

Restroom Use, Civil Rights, And Free Speech "Opportunism", Timothy Zick

Faculty Publications

Commentators have expressed concerns that litigants are invoking the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause strategically, in order to compensate for the weakness or futility of other constitutional claims. The phenomenon has been given a label- "opportunism "-and scholars have examined some of its causes and consequences. This Article takes a closer and somewhat skeptical look at the concept offree speech "opportunism." It imagines that the Free Speech Clause will be invoked in challenges to laws or policies that restrict public restroom use based on a person's gender. Would such challenges be "opportunistic, " as the term has been defined? What …

The Government Speech Doctrine In Walker’S Wake: Early Rifts And Reverberations On Free Speech, Viewpoint Discrimination, And Offensive Expression, Clay Calvert

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article examines the immediate effects on free expression of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling in Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc. involving the government speech doctrine. In Walker, a sharply—and largely partisanly—divided Court upheld, in the face of a First Amendment challenge, Texas’s decision denying a private organization’s application for a specialty license plate featuring Confederate battle flag imagery. This Article initially reviews the government speech doctrine and Walker. It then analyzes Walker’s impact on cases that, like it, involve specialty license plate programs. Next, this Article explores lower court efforts stretching …

Hiding In Plain View: A Path Around Sovereign Immunity For State Government Employees, William J. Rich

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

“Time Enough” For Scrutiny: The Second Amendment, Mental Health, And The Case For Intermediate Scrutiny, Benjamin A. Ellis

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Combating Thieves Of Valor: The Stolen Valor Act Of 2013 Is Constitutional Yet Unenforced, Mary E. Johnston

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Excessively Unconstitutional: Civil Asset Forfeiture And The Excessive Fines Clause In Virginia, Rachel Jones

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Semantic Vagueness And Extrajudicial Constitutional Decisionmaking, Anthony O'Rourke

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article integrates two scholarly conversations to shed light on the divergent ways in which courts and legislatures implement constitutional texts. First, there is a vast literature examining the different ways in which courts and extrajudicial institutions, including legislatures, implement the Constitution’s textually vague expressions. Second, in recent years legal philosophers have begun to use philosophy of language to elucidate the relationship between vague legal texts and the content of laws. There is little scholarship, however, that uses philosophy of language to analyze the divergent ways in which legislatures and courts implement vague constitutional provisions. This Article argues that many …

The Commercial Difference, Felix T. Wu

William & Mary Law Review

When it comes to the First Amendment, commerciality does, and should, matter. This Article develops the view that the key distinguishing characteristic of corporate or commercial speech is that the interest at stake is “derivative,” in the sense that we care about the speech interest for reasons other than caring about the rights of the entity directly asserting a claim under the First Amendment. To say that the interest is derivative is not to say that it is unimportant, and one could find corporate and commercial speech interests to be both derivative and strong enough to apply heightened scrutiny to …

Rights Dynamism, Timothy Zick

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Power Canons, Lisa Heinzerling

William & Mary Law Review

With three recent decisions—Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, King v. Burwell, and Michigan v. EPA—the Supreme Court has embraced a new trio of canons of statutory interpretation. When an agency charged with administering a long-existing statute asserts regulatory authority it has not previously used, in a matter having large economic and political significance, its interpretation will be met with skepticism. When an agency charged with administering an ambiguous statutory provision answers a question of large economic and political significance, one central to the statutory regime, and the Court believes the agency is not an expert …

Standing, Politics, And Exhaustion: A Response To Legislative Exhaustion, Heather Elliott

William & Mary Law Review Online

Professor Michael Sant’Ambrogio’s article, Legislative Exhaustion, usefully approaches the problem of “legislative standing” by abandoning the typical Article III standing analysis and making instead a separation-of-powers argument. His theory—that Congress may sue the President only when it has no legislative avenue for addressing its problems—provides both a workable account of and a limiting principle for suits by the legislative branch against the executive. His analysis, however, raises questions regarding the effect of legislative lawsuits on the constitutional balance of powers. This Essay suggests that these questions should be more fully explored before Professor Sant’Ambrogio’s approach can be adopted. It concludes …

The “True Man” And His Gun: On The Masculine Mystique Of Second Amendment Jurisprudence, C. D. Christensen

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

The Supreme Court’s recent Second Amendment jurisprudence raises serious normative questions for the use of self-defense with a firearm. This jurisprudence also implicates our prevailing social norms with respect to socially constructed and structurally pervasive gender roles. I argue that a peculiarly American conception of masculinity underpins the judicial construction of the Second Amendment’s core purpose as guaranteeing the right to armed defense of one’s self and one’s home. The Court’s recent Second Amendment rulings create an individual protection for gun ownership and incorporate the same against the States. But the Court’s reasoning entangles this protection with an implicit valuation …

Judicial Supremacy Revisited: Independent Constitutional Authority In American Constitutional Law And Practice, Mark A. Graber

William & Mary Law Review

The Supreme Court exercises far less constitutional authority in American law and practice than one would gather from reading judicial opinions, presidential speeches, or the standard tomes for and against judicial supremacy. Lower federal court judges, state court justices, federal and state elected officials, persons charged with administering the law, and ordinary citizens often have the final say on particular constitutional controversies or exercise temporary constitutional authority in ways that have more influence on the parties to that controversy than the eventual Supreme Court decision. In many instances, Supreme Court doctrine sanctions or facilitates the exercise of independent constitutional authority …

The Annoying Constitution: Implications For The Allocation Of Interpretive Authority, Frederick Schauer

William & Mary Law Review

Constitutional constraints often restrict unwise or immoral official policies and actions, but also often invalidate laws and other official acts that are sound as a matter of both morality and policy. These second-order side constraints—or trumps—on even official acts that are sound as a matter of first-order policy reflect deeper or longerterm values, and they are central to understanding the very idea of constitutionalism. Moreover, once we see the Constitution as restricting not only the unsound and the unwise but also the sound and the wise, we can understand why expecting those whose sound ideas and policies are nevertheless unconstitutional …

Soft Supremacy, Corinna Barrett Lain

William & Mary Law Review

The debate over judicial supremacy has raged for more than a decade now, yet the conception of what it is we are arguing about remains grossly oversimplified and formalistic. My aim in this symposium contribution is to push the conversation in a more realistic direction; I want those who claim that judicial supremacy is antidemocratic to take on the concept as it actually exists. The stark truth is that judicial supremacy has remarkably little of the strength and hard edges that dominate the discourse in judicial supremacy debates. It is porous, contingent—soft. And the upshot of soft supremacy is this: …

Judicial Supremacy And Taking Conflicting Rights Seriously, Rebecca L. Brown

William & Mary Law Review

The best arguments in favor of judicial supremacy rely on its essential role of protecting rights in a democracy. The doctrinal technique of strict scrutiny, developed to do the work of judicial supremacy, has been an important tool in our constitutional jurisprudence in the service of rights protection. When the Supreme Court reviews laws that themselves seek to enhance or preserve constitutional rights, however, strict scrutiny does not provide the right approach. Rather, the Court should consider very carefully the rights claims in favor of the statute as well as those launched by a challenger. In such cases of conflicting …

In Defense Of Judicial Supremacy, Erwin Chemerinsky

William & Mary Law Review

“Judicial supremacy” is the idea that the Supreme Court should be viewed as the authoritative interpreter of the Constitution and that we should deem its decisions as binding on the other branches and levels of government, until and unless constitutional amendment or subsequent decision overrules them. This is desirable because we want to have an authoritative interpreter of the Constitution and the Court is best suited to play this role. Under this view, doctrines which keep federal courts from enforcing constitutional provisions—such as denying standing for generalized grievances, the political question doctrine, and the state secrets doctrine—are misguided and should …

Much Ado About Nothing: Signing Statements, Vetoes, And Presidential Constitutional Interpretation, Keith E. Whittington

William & Mary Law Review

During the Bush presidency, presidential signing statements became briefly controversial. The controversy has faded, but the White House continues to issue statements when signing legislation. Those statements frequently point out constitutional difficulties in new statutes and sometimes warn that the executive branch will administer the statutes so as to avoid those constitutional difficulties. This Article argues that the criticisms of signing statements were mostly misguided. Signing statements as such present few problems and offer some benefits to the workings of the American political system. While there might be reason to object to the substantive constitutional positions adopted in any given …

Doux Commerce, Religion, And The Limits Of Antidiscrimination Law, Nathan B. Oman

Faculty Publications

Recent cases involving religious businesses owners who object to providing services for same-sex weddings and resulting lawsuits have generated a vigorous academic and popular debate. That debate centers in part on the proper role of religion in the market. This article develops three theories of the proper relationship between commerce and religion and applies them to these conflicts. The first approach would apply the norms of liberal democratic governments to market actors. The second approach posits that any market outcome is legitimate so long as it results from voluntary contracts. These approaches yield contradictory and indeterminate advice on the conflicts …

The Return Of The Unprovided-For Case, Michael S. Green

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Justice Scalia And Abortion Speech, Timothy Zick

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Why Congress Does Not Challenge Judicial Supremacy, Neal Devins

William & Mary Law Review

Members of Congress largely acquiesce to judicial supremacy both on constitutional and statutory interpretation questions. Lawmakers, however, do not formally embrace judicial supremacy; they rarely think about the courts when enacting legislation. This Article explains why this is so, focusing on why lawmakers have both strong incentive to acquiesce to judicial power and little incentive to advance a coherent view of congressional power. In particular, lawmakers are interested in advancing favored policies, winning reelection, and gaining personal power within Congress. Abstract questions of institutional power do not interest lawmakers and judicial defeats are seen as opportunities to find some other …

Judicial Departmentalism: An Introduction, Kevin C. Walsh

William & Mary Law Review

This Article introduces the idea of judicial departmentalism and argues for its superiority to judicial supremacy. Judicial supremacy is the idea that the Constitution means for everybody what the Supreme Court says it means in deciding a case. Judicial departmentalism, by contrast, is the idea that the Constitution means in the judicial department what the Supreme Court says it means in deciding a case. Within the judicial department, the law of judgments, the law of remedies, and the law of precedent combine to enable resolutions by the judicial department to achieve certain kinds of settlements. Judicial departmentalism holds that these …

False Commercial Speech And The First Amendment: Understanding The Implications Of The Equivalency Principle, Martin H. Redish, Kyle Voils

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The Status Of The Hearer In Mr. Madison’S Neighborhood, Burt Neuborne

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

A Reverent Reflection Of The Splendid Scholarship Of Martin Redish—Does Reexamining Commercial Speech Shed Light On The Regrettable Reliance Upon Lie & Insult In Political Campaigns?, Douglas W. Kmiec

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.