Constitutional Law Commons^™

Home Equity Theft: A Right Without A Just Remedy, Mitchell F. Crusto

William & Mary Law Review Online

Several local governments throughout the country have confiscated homeowners’ real property for overdue real property taxes, sold those properties to investors at a discount, and pocketed millions of dollars in profits from the sales. The victims of such “home equity theft” are disproportionately elderly, African American homeowners in gentrified urban communities. One such victim, Geraldine Tyler, a vulnerable ninety-four-year-old African American woman living in a nursing home, claimed that the government’s taking of her property’s value violated the U.S. Constitution. In response, both a federal district court and a federal appellate court denied her claim, declaring that she lacked a …

The Unconstitutionality Of Governor Youngkin's Felon Re-Enfranchisement Scheme (Or Lack Thereof): An Examination Of Hawkins V. Youngkin'S Challenge To Virginia's Current Felon Re-Enfranchisement Scheme, Olivia Rovin

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

This Note argues that Governor Youngkin’s felon re-enfranchisement “scheme” violates the Constitution. Ultimately, I will be evaluating the argument made in Hawkins v. Youngkin, formerly known as Nolef Turns v. Youngkin, noting its strengths and its weaknesses. Part I describes both American history and Virginia’s specific history of denying people convicted of felonies their right to vote. It also details the Supreme Court case, Richardson v. Ramirez, in which the Court held that denying people convicted of a felony the right to vote is constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. Part I also gives a brief history …

Climate Change And Constitutional Overreach, Jonathan H. Adler

Faculty Publications

The failure of the political process to produce meaningful climate mitigation policies has encouraged activists to pursues aggressive and innovative litigation strategies. An increasing number of climate-related lawsuits seek to control greenhouse gas emissions, impose liability on fossil fuel producers, or otherwise force greater action on climate change. In many of these cases, litigants have made aggressive constitutional claims that stretch the bounds of existing constitutional doctrine and threaten to entrench climate policies outside of the traditional political process. This Article critically assesses some of the constitutional arguments made in climate cases, including Massachusetts v. EPA and Juliana v. U.S. …

What Did Gitlow Do?, James Y. Stern

Faculty Publications

Gitlow is generally regarded as the first modern incorporation case, the genesis of both federal free speech curbs on state action and the larger project of making the same limitations that the federal Constitution imposes on the federal government applicable to the states. In both respects, moreover, it can also be seen as an important milestone in the larger twentieth century transformation of federal court practice and constitutional understanding centered on the assertion of individual rights. That linkage is no accident. For all the talk about federalism and state sovereignty in the U.S. Reports, the modern jurisprudence of constitutional rights …

History's Identity Crisis, Allison Orr Larsen

Faculty Publications

Lower court judges across the country are struggling to manage the Supreme Court’s new “history and tradition” test that applies to Second Amendment challenges. This Article articulates one fundamental reason for the struggle: nobody is quite sure what a judge is actually doing when she evaluates claims about what happened in the past. Is it traditional legal reasoning— weighing evidence and looking for patterns? Is it fact-finding of the sort we think expert historians should testify about—conveying to a trial judge the best evidence we have about the purpose of colonial gun laws? Or is it a different sort of …

The Ugly Rhetoric Of Dobbs, Or, Why Jack Balkin Is History, Andrew Koppelman

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Essay has three claims. First, I want to emphasize an underappreciated ethical virtue elicited by the practice of rhetoric: it demands that the speaker get out of his own head and focus on his audience and what they care about. History matters because it speaks to us. It tells us who we are and why we are doing what we are doing. The rhetorical deployment of historical narrative in political discourse can help to forge a collective identity in which we all can recognize ourselves, and so make the polity more inclusive. Second, if this aspect of rhetoric is …

Originalism's Selection Problem, Darrell A.H. Miller

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Essay examines the problem of selection with any originalist theory and what it means for constitutional adjudication. Part I surveys the major branches of originalism, explains how each share a commitment to the pursuit of objective, knowable, falsifiable fact, and then use that fact as a fixed point to constrain discretion. Part II discusses how each of these theories are vulnerable to methodological challenges familiar to all empirical projects. Part III explores the implications of these methodological challenges for originalism in particular and for constitutional doctrine and theory more generally.

This abstract has been taken from the author's introduction.

We Are All Cafeteria Originalists Now (And We Always Have Been), Jack M. Balkin

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In Memory and Authority, I argue that Americans, both in politics and in constitutional culture, are "‘cafeteria originalists.’ They pick and choose when to follow the views of the founders, framers, or adopters (as they understand them) and often artfully recharacterize these principles to support contemporary political and legal arguments.” Like customers in a cafeteria who take the chocolate cake and leave the boiled kale, Americans pick the features of the framers they like to support their arguments, and leave other, less savory, features behind.

[...]

My central claim is that cafeteria originalism is not a pathology or a …

The Griffin's Case Phenomenon And The Problem Of Historical Knowledge In Legal Arguments, Rachel A. Shelden

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The sudden relevance of a formerly little-known historic case is surely not new; much of legal history is necessarily about discovery and rediscovery of the past. Still, I think the clarity with which we can outline the development of the Griffin’s Case phenomenon offers an opportunity to think carefully about the role of history in constitutional conversation. What follows, then, is a short exploration of the case’s recent (re)entry into our historical consciousness. Tracing this phenomenon highlights (at least for me) some potential difficulties embedded in the interaction between legal advocacy and what we know about the past.

This abstract …

In Praise Of Ignoring Facts, Stephen E. Sachs

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Treating every use of legal rhetoric as equally probative of American law is fatal to the theoretical project—including to [Jack] Balkin’s own “thin” theory of constitutional law, which stretches itself past the breaking point in the hopes of accommodating the changing winds of social movements. Rather than take advocates’ rhetorical moves for granted, we scholars have the indulgence and time to look for the implicit theories underlying these moves, to air those theories explicitly, to identify what might make them true or false, and to assess how plausible they are on those grounds. Constitutional theories need microfoundations: a theory of …

Learning To Read Like An Eighteenth-Century Lawyer: The Historical Critique Of Originalism Revisited, Saul Cornell

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Historians have been among the fiercest critics of originalism. Among the many virtues of Jack Balkin’s book, Memory and Authority, is the deft way he analyzes and dismantles these efforts to insulate originalism from historical critique. In a short essay, it would be impossible to fully acknowledge the sophistication of Balkin’s analysis. Instead, I would like to build on his impressive achievement by pointing out additional problems with the originalist response to historical critique.

This abstract has been taken from the author's opening paragraph.

Memory, Resistance, And Doubt, Richard Primus

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The Burroughs Court did not identify any enumerated power that warranted the Corrupt Practices Act, I suggest, because the Burroughs Court did not subscribe to the enumeration principle. The Justices did not believe—or at least, did not consistently believe— that every federal law must be grounded in some enumerated power. As I have explained at length elsewhere, the text of the Constitution does not actually prescribe the enumeration principle: it can be read to support that idea, but it need not be. And at various moments in American constitutional history, judges and other people have taken the view that Congress …

Shared Memories And Constitutional Foundations, Sanford Levinson

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

It is significant that the first word in the title of Jack Balkin’s new book [Memory and Authority] is “memory.” A repeated theme of the book is that what binds a nation—or a constitutional order—together is shared memories around which diverse individuals can gather together and therefore establish themselves as a community. Balkin refers to an impressive array of sources with regard to the topic of “public memory,” but I want to concentrate on one of them, which is cited but not extensively discussed. That is Ernest Renan’s famous speech, delivered at the Sorbonne in Paris on March …

Invocations Of Memory In State Constitutional Law, Fred O. Smith Jr.

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Symposium Essay discusses the roles of history and memory within the realm of state constitutional law. Building on Professor Balkin’s observations, I offer two claims. The initial argument, delineated in Part I, is descriptive. While the practice of state constitutional law often mirrors that of federal constitutional interpretation, the use of history in state constitutional interpretation has unique characteristics, both with respect to text and ethos. Regarding textual analysis, understanding the language of a state constitution often involves engaging with a concept referred to by some scholars as “interconstitutionalism.” This phenomenon occurs when a single governmental body has operated …

Constitutional Federalism And The Nature Of The Union, Anthony J. Bellia Jr., Bradford R. Clark

William & Mary Law Review

Federalism is an essential feature of the Constitution’s design and structure, but the Constitution does not spell out every respective authority of the federal government and the States in precise detail. This omission has led some observers to embrace broad—if not unlimited—federal power and reject certain longstanding federalism doctrines—such as state sovereign immunity, the anti-commandeering doctrine, and the equal sovereignty of the States. The objection to such doctrines is that the Constitution does not affirmatively grant States these sovereign rights and powers. This charge overlooks long-forgotten background context essential to faithful interpretation of the Constitution. The former British Colonies in …

The Process Before The Promise: Ensuring Indigenous Recognition From The Chilean Constitution, Michaela Mazzeo

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Part I of this Note provides a background and overview of the relatively recent surge in the constitutionalization of indigenous rights and recognition in Latin America, and the state of constitutional reform in Chile. Part II lays out a theoretical understanding of the powers of a constitution as a mechanism for societal reformation and as a platform for bringing legal claims, as played out in Brazil and Bolivia. Part III demonstrates the ways in which practical manifestation of that theoretical power stops short. More specifically, both intentional and incidental barriers dampen the effectiveness of the constitutional mechanism for ensuring indigenous …

Is The Constitution Of 1787 A White Supremacist Document? Against Essentialism In Constitutional Interpretation, David S. Schwartz

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

A curious convergence is emerging in legal academia around the conclusion that the 1787 Constitution is a white supremacist document. Although most originalists would deny that contention, their methodology strongly favors, if it does not compel, an agreement with progressive, “neo-Garrisonian” scholars that the Constitution of 1787 is indeed a white supremacist document. Both the neo-Garrisonian and originalist elements of this implicit convergence stem from their “essentialism” in Constitutional interpretation: the idea that the Constitution or its terms or provisions carry a uniquely and objectively correct meaning, invariant over time, and independent of our evolving normative commitments.

This Article argues …

Section Three Of The Fourteenth Amendment: Insurrection, Mark A. Graber

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The public, scholarly, and legal debate over whether former president Donald Trump is eligible to hold office under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment has focused far more on technical legal questions than on whether Trump engaged in an insurrection. Scholarly and public commentary rarely examines the constitutional/ common law of insurrection, preferring instead to examine whether Trump is exempt from Section Three because Section Three either exempts presidents or the presidency from disqualification or because Section Three is not self-executing. Trump v. Anderson (2024) focused on state incapacity to disqualify “oathbreaking insurrectionists” rather than on whether Trump was an …

Life, Liberty, And Freedom From Non-Consensual Pelvic Exams?, Michaela Cotton

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

[T]here is a need for the federal government to intervene and finally ban the practice of performing non-consensual pelvic exams, and it can do so under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees the right to refuse involuntary medical treatment. Part I will provide a brief overview of pelvic exams and informed consent; Part II draws on policy considerations for banning this practice and tackles counter-arguments; Part III will discuss the relevant federal law and case precedent; Part IV demonstrates how federal law applies to non-consensual pelvic exams; and, finally, Part V will further explain the need …

Balancing Tradition And Inclusion: Framework Principles For An Afghan Accord, M. Hamed Isar

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article examines the turbulent constitutional history of Afghanistan and proposes a pragmatic constitutional framework balancing Islamic principles with rights, protections, and constraints on power. After analyzing the Taliban’s current extraconstitutional rule and ideological objections to an inclusive order, it makes the case for principled compromise. The first step to constitutional reform for Afghanistan is to recognize that Afghans, the Taliban, and the international community pay a high price for disregarding law and accountability in governance. To that end, this Article canvasses the many factors that could motivate the Taliban to accept the rule of law, despite the constraints it …

Excluded But Equal, Gali Racabi

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Work law is excessively exclusionary. Canonical examples include agriculture workers, independent contractors, and domestic workers. But work law excludes far more workers and employers than those familiar categories. Whole sectors, occupations, business sizes, wage arrangements, geographical areas, and more are excluded from the basic tenets of economic citizenship, including federal, state, and local minimum wage; overtime; and safety and labor protection laws.

Equal protection claims govern the authority of legislatures to determine who is in and who is out of work laws. Excluded workers and included employers now routinely use state and federal constitutional equal protection arguments against exclusionary work …

The First Amendment In Education: May Faculty At Public Schools Be Disciplined For Political Hate Speech?, Ken M. Levy

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

At a House hearing on December 5, 2023, the presidents of three universities— Harvard, MIT, and the University of Pennsylvania—refused to state that certain kinds of hate speech, specifically calls for genocide of Jews, are prohibited on their campuses. The backlash against two of them, Harvard’s Claudine Gay and Penn’s Liz Magill, was swift and devastating; both were successfully pressured to resign. Still, while Professors Gay’s and Magill’s responses were widely criticized as tone-deaf, they were legally correct. At many private, and all public, colleges and universities, even the worst hate speech is generally protected unless it is accompanied by …

The Fourteenth Amendment And The Vénus Noire, Farah Peterson

William & Mary Law Review

This Essay makes two points. The first is that originalism is not a promising path for progressive causes. The second is that as the Constitution is amended, the meaning of the entire document is altered, and earlier text should be interpreted in light of what has changed. But instead of making these observations in the usual law review style, I’m calling on a figure out of nineteenth-century art, the Vénus Noire, to serve as our companion and guide.

This abstract has been taken from the author's introductory paragraphs.

Terrorism Should Not Be A Crime: How Political Labels Are Dangerous To American Democracy, Abigail S. Grand

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

This Note calls for a dismantling of the United States’ current method of prosecuting terrorism, rejecting the “terrorism” label as a mechanism for charging crimes. Prosecutors should instead charge individuals in terrorism cases for their underlying criminal actions rather than rely on material support statutes and political innuendos to secure a conviction. By examining the implications of the terrorism label in post-9/11 America, this Note addresses how a moral panic enabled the executive branch to overstep its constitutional restraints and threatened the delicate balance of powers central to American democracy. Next, it proposes, as many have before, that Article III …

Emergency Powers For Good, Elena Chachko, Katerina Linos

William & Mary Law Review

Emergency powers are widely, and justly, criticized as threats to the rule of law. In the United States, forty-three declared emergencies give the executive vast authority to exercise power unencumbered by standard legal and procedural requirements. A long tradition of executive use of emergency powers to erode civil liberties amplifies fears of executive overreach.

Yet this, we argue, is only part of the picture. We examine how emergency powers can be used for good. We argue that under certain limited conditions, political actors can legitimately invoke emergency powers to transform public policy. In addition to widely accepted requirements of crisis …

Democratic Vibes, Jonathan Gingerich

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Who should decide who gets to say what on online social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube? American legal scholars have often thought that the private owners of these platforms should decide, in part because such an arrangement is thought to serve valuable free speech interests. This standard view has come under pressure with the enactment of statutes like Texas House Bill 20, which forbids certain platforms from “censoring” user content based on viewpoint. Such efforts to regulate the speech policies of online platforms have been challenged for undermining the editorial speech rights of these platforms and allowing the …

No Need To Wait: Congress Has The Power Under Section Five Of The Fourteenth Amendment To Abolish The Death Penalty In The States, Eric M. Freedman

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Reformers currently proposing the abolition of capital punishment by federal legislation have only targeted the federal death penalty. They are aiming too low. Concerns about the roughly 50 prisoners facing execution by the federal government should not cause advocates to ignore the approximately 2,400 on the combined Death Rows of the states. Congress has the authority to abolish the death penalty in the states, and good reason to exercise it.

This Article takes as a given the Supreme Court’s view that the death penalty is not itself unconstitutional.

But under existing law Congress would have no difficulty in compiling a …

Convening For (Climate) Change: The Constitutional Case For A U.S. Climate Assembly, Will Mccabe

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Note argues that a national U.S. Citizens’ Assembly for Climate would not violate the non-delegation doctrine which prevents Congress from improperly delegating its constitutional legislative power to another body. A climate assembly could potentially be authorized in several ways; this Note explores that of Congress convening a climate assembly through statute, either as an independent body or as a body under the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency. Part I examines the current state of American climate policy and the political debate surrounding it, putting forward a case for a novel approach, and also examines the concept of climate …

Federalism, Rebellion, And The Rule Of Law In Northern Syria And Western Kurdistan: Constitutions Against The Nation-State, Robert Woehrle

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Note will be examining the way in which this social contract, the “Social Contract of the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria,” and the social order it proposes, “Democratic Confederalism,” represents a significant departure from the constitutional order of ethnic nation-states that arose in the postcolonial, and particularly the post-Ottoman, Middle East.

[...]

This Note then contrasts the “Social Contract of the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria” with the Syrian constitutions, first the 1973 Constitution that had been in effect until the outbreak of the Syrian Civil War, followed by a brief look at the changes represented by the 2012 …

Constitutional Rights And Remedial Consistency, Katherine Mims Crocker

Faculty Publications

When the Supreme Court declined definitively to block Texas’s S.B. 8, which effectively eliminated pre-enforcement federal remedies for what was then a plainly unconstitutional restriction on abortion rights, a prominent criticism was that the majority would have never tolerated the similar treatment of preferred legal protections—like gun rights. This refrain reemerged when California enacted a copycat regime for firearms regulation. This theme sounds in the deep-rooted idea that judge-made law should adhere to generality and neutrality values requiring doctrines to derive justification from controlling a meaningful class of cases ascertained by objective legal criteria.

This Article is about consistency, and …