Constitutional Law Commons^™

Threshold Liberty, Dawinder S. Sidhu

Cardozo Law Review

The Supreme Court's Thirteenth Amendment precedent is no longer sustainable. For starters, that precedent - which holds that the Amendment prohibits the "badges and incidents" of slavery, and that Congress has the power to "rationally" determine what constitutes a "badge or incident" of slavery - raises serious federalism and separation of powers concerns. To make matters worse, the Court itself has recently restricted the enforcement provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment (in City of Boerne v. Flores) and Fifteenth Amendment (in Shelby County v. Holder), rendering the generous bounds of the Thirteenth Amendment enforcement power an outlier among the …

Taxing Legalized Marijuana: How Courts Should Treat Drug Tax Statutes In Light Of The Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause And Executive Non-Enforcement Of The Controlled Substances Act, Joseph A. Goldstein

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Title Ix Giveth And The Religious Exemption Taketh Away: How The Religious Exemption Eviscerates The Protection Afforded Transgender Students Under Title Ix, Amanda Bryk

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Eminent Domain Path Out Of A Public Pension Crisis, Adam Riff

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

For Whom The Data Tolls: A Reunified Theory Of Fourth And Fifth Amendment Jurisprudence, Bryan H. Choi

Cardozo Law Review

Data privacy demands a reunified theory of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Data technologies allow personal information to be disembodied from physical bodies and "possessed" simultaneously by both first persons and third parties. As a result, the government has been able to use a divide-and-conquer strategy to obtain incriminating evidence alternately from the data intermediary or from the suspect.

Currently, Fourth Amendment doctrine and Fifth Amendment doctrine work at cross-purposes. The privacy community has already sounded the alarm on the "third-party doctrine," which allows the government to sidestep the Fourth Amendment when demanding evidence from third parties. But few have …

Aggregation For Me, But Not For Thee: The Rise Of Common Claims In Non-Class Litigation, Maureen Carroll

Cardozo Law Review

When a plaintiff seeks an injunction or declaration based on a defendant's generally applicable policy or practice, the case has an inherently aggregate dimension, regardless of whether the plaintiff brings it as a class action or as an individual suit. Recent cases involving marriage rights for same-sex couples, affirmative action in higher education, the National Security Agency's metadata program, and the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive mandate - among others - have all taken the non-class form, notwithstanding the underlying claims' amenability to class treatment.

Difficult problems arise when a plaintiff brings a common claim in non-class litigation. The plaintiff might …

Public Danger, James Dawson

Cardozo Law Review

This Article provides the first account of the term "public danger," which appears in the Grand Jury Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Drawing on historical records from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the Article argues that the proper reading of "public danger" is a broad one. On this theory, "public danger" includes not just impending enemy invasions, but also a host of less serious threats (such as plagues, financial panics, jailbreaks, and natural disasters). This broad reading is supported by constitutional history. In 1789, the first Congress rejected a proposal that would have replaced the phrase "public danger" in the …

The Broken System Of Parallel Patent Proceedings: How To Create A Unified, One-Judgment System, Christopher Ilardi

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Holding The Line: Customs And Border Protection's Expansion Of The Border Search Exception And The Ensuing Destruction Of Interior Fourth Amendment Rights, Hannah Robbins

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Corporate Rights And Individual Interests: The Corporate Right To Privacy As A Bulwark Against Warrantless Government Surveillance, Kayla Robinson

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Adequacy Of Notice Under Cafra: Resolving Constitutional Due Process Challenges To Administrative Forfeitures, Rebecca Hausner

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Bills, Bills, Bills: The Effect Of A Rejected Settlement On Attorney's Fees Under The Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Award Act Of 1976, Melissa Ibrahim

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Defining "Navigability": Balancing State-Court Flexibility And Private Rights In Waterways, Maureen E. Brady

Cardozo Law Review

Over the course of American history, state courts have eliminated property rights in waterways through a quirk of public trust law: declaring the water in question to be "navigable" makes it public property, while declaring it "non-navigable" leaves the water subject to private control. The historical record is flooded with examples of these declarations by state courts. While some navigability rulings have protected public rights in waters against irrational private claims, others have abused this peculiarity to seize private property to placate irate, and even violent, interest groups.

The scope of this authority to craft navigability doctrine - especially whether …

Intrastate Interventions: The State Executive's Response To Local Nonenforcement, Rebecca D. Maller

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Letting Innocence Suffer: The Need For Defense Access To The Law Enforcement Dna Database, Jason Kreag

Cardozo Law Review

Law enforcement has gradually amassed a sizable DNA database that holds considerable promise for solving cold cases and identifying suspects. The Supreme Court has blessed this effort, allowing investigators to include profiles of arrestees as well as convicted persons in the database. At present, though, law enforcement has a near monopoly on use of the DNA database, leaving defendants at the whim of the law enforcement officials who control access to this tool. Legal scholars have alternatively praised and decried the database, but none has examined its prospects for proving defendants' innocence post-conviction. This Article fills that void by identifying …

The Intracorporate Conspiracy Trap, J. S. Nelson

Cardozo Law Review

In the recent case of Commonwealth v. Lynn, Pennsylvania prosecuted a Roman Catholic priest who had not abused children himself but who, to protect the archdiocese that employed him, covered up information about priests who had abused children and reassigned the priests to new parishes. This case was the first of its kind to bring criminal charges against an official of the Church solely for how he supervised the careers of priests to protect his employer.

Because the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine prohibits it, the state - as is now typical of both state and federal jurisdictions around the country …

Hijacking Justice: Assessing The Emergency Driven Analysis Of Confrontation Clause Jurisprudence, Steven C. Berlowitz

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

How Wartime Detention Ends, Deborah N. Pearlstein

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Unintended Consequences: The Posse Comitatus Act In The Modern Era, Mark P. Nevitt

Cardozo Law Review

America was born in revolution. Outraged at numerous abuses by the British crown - to include the conduct of British soldiers in the colonists' daily lives - Americans declared their independence, creating a new republic with deep suspicions of a standing army. These suspicions were intensely debated at the time of the nation's formation and enshrined in the Constitution. But congressional limitations on the role of the military in day-to-day affairs would have to wait. This did not occur until after the Civil War when Southern congressmen successfully coopted the framers' earlier concerns of a standing army and passed a …

Eminent Domain Law And "Just" Compensation For Diminution Of Access, Ashley Mas

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Public Law At The Cathedral: Enjoining The Government, Michael T. Morley

Cardozo Law Review

Conventional wisdom provides that injunctive relief in public law cases is generally unnecessary, because a declaratory judgment and the threat of damages are enough to induce the government to comply with a court's ruling (except, perhaps, in the institutional reform context). Consistent with this prevailing understanding, most scholars to apply Calabresi and Melamed's Cathedral framework to public law have concluded that nearly all constitutional rights are protected by property rules, regardless of whether a rightholder actually is protected by an injunction, or instead merely has a substantial likelihood of obtaining one if she goes to court.

This Article challenges this …

From Wolves, Lambs (Part Ii): The Fourteenth Amendment Case For Gradual Abolition Of The Death Penalty, Kevin Barry

Cardozo Law Review

Can a state abolish its death penalty for future crimes while retaining it for those already on death row? This turns out to be a novel question in modern death penalty law, one that has not been answered in nearly a century. In 2014, in the case of State v. Santiago, the Connecticut Supreme Court will be the first court in modern times to answer the question. This Article predicts that the answer to the question will be yes.

Although the Connecticut Supreme Court will be the first court to answer this question in almost one hundred years, it …

Dirty Secrets: The First Amendment In Protective-Order Litigation, Dustin B. Benham

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Protecting The Family Home By Reunderstanding United States V. Bajakajian, Yan Slavinskiy

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

High Federalism: Marijuana Legalization And The Limits Of Federal Power To Regulate States, David S. Schwartz

Cardozo Law Review

The conflict between state marijuana legalization and the blanket federal marijuana prohibition of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) has created a federalism crisis in which the duties of state officials to adhere to state or federal law are unclear. Current federalism doctrine cannot even tell us whether or not a local police officer who encounters a person in state-authorized possession of marijuana must arrest the person and seize the marijuana. The two most clearly applicable federalism doctrines - the Tenth Amendment anti-commmandeering doctrine and federal preemption of state law under the Supremacy Clause - offer only unsatisfactory answers. Anti-commandeering doctrine …

Cosmopolitanism In Constitutional Law, Vlad Perju

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Contextual Expectations Of Privacy, Andrew D. Selbst

Cardozo Law Review

Fourth Amendment search jurisprudence is nominally based on a "reasonable expectation of privacy," but actual doctrine is disconnected from society's conception of privacy. Courts rely on various binary distinctions: Is a piece of information secret or not? Was the observed conduct inside or outside? While often convenient, none of these binary distinctions can adequately capture the complicated range of ideas encompassed by "privacy." Privacy theorists have begun to understand that a consideration of social context is essential to a full understanding of privacy. Helen Nissenbaum's theory of contextual integrity, which characterizes a right to privacy as the preservation of expected …

Beyond Bing: The Arthur Rule Lives On As The Touchstone For The New York State Right To Counsel, Adrienne Levy

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together: Domestic Violence Victims, Defendants, And Due Process, Jessica Miles

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Forfeiture And The Sixth Amendment: The Role Of The Jury At Common Law, Richard E. Finneran, Steven K. Luther

Cardozo Law Review

Throughout its recent jurisprudence after Apprendi v. New Jersey, the Supreme Court has emphasized that its analysis of the Sixth Amendment jury trial right centers upon the historical role of the jury at common law. Just last year, in Southern Union Co. v. United States, the Court extended the Sixth Amendment jury trial right to criminal fines after concluding that the jury's verdict determined the maximum fine that could be imposed at common law. The Court remained silent, however, with regard to another financial penalty commonly applied in the federal system: criminal forfeitures. Given that the Supreme Court …