Constitutional Law Commons^™

2003-2004 Supreme Court Term: Another Losing Season For The First Amendment, Joel Gora

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Free Exercise And The Problem Of Symmetry, Nelson Tebbe

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

“Testimonial” And The Formalistic Definition: The Case For An “Accusatorial” Fix, Robert P. Mosteller

Faculty Scholarship

The definition that the Supreme Court ultimately gives to the concept of testimonial statements will obviously be of critical importance in determining whether the new Confrontation Clause analysis adopted by Crawford affects only a few core statements or applies to a broader group of accusatorial statements knowingly made to government officials and perhaps private individuals at arm's length from the speaker. I contend that the broader definition is more consistent with the anti-inquisitorial roots of the Confrontation Clause when that provision is applied in the modern world. If my sense of the proper scope of the clause is roughly correct, …

Regulating Section 527 Organizations, Guy-Uriel Charles, Gregg D. Polsky

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Reflections On The Teaching Of Constitutional Law, William W. Van Alstyne

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Congressional Authorization And The War On Terrorism, Curtis A. Bradley, Jack L. Goldsmith

Faculty Scholarship

This Article presents a framework for interpreting Congress's September 18, 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), the central statutory enactment related to the war on terrorism. Although both constitutional theory and constitutional practice suggest that the validity of presidential wartime actions depends to a significant degree on their relationship to congressional authorization, the meaning and implications of the AUMF have received little attention in the academic debates over the war on terrorism. The framework presented in this Article builds on the analysis in the Supreme Court's plurality opinion in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, which devoted significant attention to the …

Ten Commandments, Nine Judges, And Five Versions Of One Amendment - The First. (“Now What?”), William W. Van Alstyne

Faculty Scholarship

This article explores the variety of opinions expressed by the Justices in the two “Ten Commandments” cases, specifically Justice O’Connor’s dissent and Justice Breyer’s concurrence in Van Orden v. Perry.

Just Blowing Smoke? Politics, Doctrine, And The Federalist Revival After Gonzales V. Raich, Ernest A. Young

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Jacksonian Makings Of The Taney Court, Mark A. Graber

Faculty Scholarship

Many twentieth century commentators regard the willingness of Taney Court majorities to declare laws unconstitutional as proof that the justices on that tribunal adjured Jacksonian partisanship upon taking the bench. Old Republicans during the 1820s fulminated against judicial review of state legislation and sought to repeal Section 25 of the Judiciary Act of 1787, but they were apparently frustrated by a Taney Court which continued imposing contract clause and dormant commerce clause limits on state power. This paper demonstrates that Jacksonians in office supported judicial power. Jacksonian animus was more directed at McCulloch v. Maryland than either Marbury v. Madison …

The Market Participant Doctrine And The Clear Statement Rule, David S. Bogen

Faculty Scholarship

This paper argues that the market participant exception to the dormant commerce clause reflects the same concerns that led to the clear statement doctrine for application of general legislation to the operations of state governments. The genius of the Constitution was to make federal law directly applicable to individuals instead of through state governments – this made enforcement easier and avoided confrontation between the state and nation. Confrontation in which the federal authorities order the state to act in a particular way should be a result of consideration of the need to do so. But the dormant commerce clause by …

Revenge Of Mullaney V. Wilbur: United States V. Booker And The Reassertion Of Judicial Limits On Legislative Power To Define Crimes, The, Ian Weinstein

Faculty Scholarship

This article offers a historically grounded account of the twists and turns in the Supreme Court's sentencing jurisprudence from the end of World War II to the Court's stunning rejection of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. The doctrinal shifts that have roiled this area of the law can best be understood as the Court's effort to respond to the changing political and social landscape of crime in America. In the mid 1970's, legislative activity in the criminal law was largely focused on Model Penal Code influenced recodification. In that era, the Supreme Court took power from an ascendant judiciary and gave …

Hamdi Meets Youngstown: Justice Jackson's Wartime Security Jurisprudence And The Detention Of Enemy Combatants, Sarah H. Cleveland

Faculty Scholarship

More than any Justice who has sat on the United States Supreme Court, Associate Justice Robert H. Jackson explained how our Eighteenth Century Constitution – that "Eighteenth-Century sketch of a government hoped for" – struggles both to preserve fundamental liberties and to protect the nation against fundamental threats. Drawing upon his collective experience as a solo practitioner with only one year of formal legal education at Albany Law School; government tax and antitrust lawyer, Solicitor General, and Attorney General in the Roosevelt Administration; Associate Justice to the Supreme Court; and Representative and Chief of Counsel for the United States at …

Congress's Power To Enforce Fourteenth Amendment Rights: Lessons From Federal Remedies The Framers Enacted , Robert J. Kaczorowski

Faculty Scholarship

Professor Robert Kaczorowski argues for an expansive originalist interpretation of Congressional power under the Fourteenth Amendment. Before the Civil War Congress actually exercised, and the Supreme Court repeatedly upheld plenary Congressional power to enforce the constitutional rights of slaveholders. After the Civil War, the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment copied the antebellum statutes and exercised plenary power to enforce the constitutional rights of all American citizens when they enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and then incorporated the Act into the Fourteenth Amendment. The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment thereby exercised the plenary power the Rehnquist Court claims the …

Are Filipina/Os Asians Or Latina/Os?: Reclaiming The Anti-Subordination Objective Of Equal Protection After Grutter And Gratz, Victor C. Romero

Faculty Scholarship

In this piece, I explore two avenues of political action - self-identification for affirmative action purposes and longer-term solutions to educational inequity - in an attempt to develop a coherent and effective post-Grutter and Gratz strategy for promoting equal educational opportunities consistent with the demands of equal protection. I use the experiences of Filipina/o-Americans as a vehicle for exploring these issues. I hope to show that diversity as the underlying goal of affirmative action fails to capture the core of modern equal protection jurisprudence implicit in Brown v. Board of Education and Loving v. Virginia: that treating all …

Asians, Gay Marriage, And Immigration: Family Unification At A Crossroads, Victor C. Romero

Faculty Scholarship

Family unification has long been a significant component of U.S. immigration policy, and the Asian Pacific American (APA) community has long been a champion of laws that strengthen America's commitment to this goal. The recent emergence of same-gender marriages among state and local governments has caused society to consider more closely its definition of the family, challenging the traditional notion that only civil unions between heterosexuals should be celebrated. But because U.S. immigration law does not include a gay or lesbian partner within its statutory definition of spouse, binational same-gender couples may not legally remain in the country together, even …

Rescuing Federalism After Raich: The Case For Clear Statement Rules, Thomas W. Merrill

Faculty Scholarship

The Rehnquist Court's federalism jurisprudence began with a focus on clear statement rules, but then turned to prohibitory limits on the scope of federal power. This Article specifies the differences between clear statement rules and prohibitory limitations, and outlines some of the factors courts should consider in determining which strategy to pursue in any given context. The Article argues that the scope of the Commerce Clause is an issue that should be resolved using clear statement rules. The Court's decision in United States v. Lopez to follow a prohibitory approach was both strategically mistaken and poorly executed. Although the principles …

The Return Of Spending Limits: Campaign Finance After Landell V. Sorrell, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

On August 18, 2004, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the First Amendment, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo, does not preclude mandatory limitations on campaign expenditures.In Landell v. Sorrell, the court concluded that limitations imposed by the state of Vermont on candidate spending in state election campaigns are "supported by [the state's] compelling interests in safeguarding Vermont's democratic process from 1) the corruptive influence of excessive and unbridled fundraising and 2) the effect that perpetual fundraising has on the time of candidates and elected officials.^" To …

Medellin V. Dretke: Federalism And International Law, Curtis A. Bradley, Lori Fisler Damrosch, Martin Flaherty

Faculty Scholarship

This is an edited version of a debate held at Columbia Law School on February 21, 2005.

War And Uncertainty, Lori Fisler Damrosch

Faculty Scholarship

When the current phase of our conflict with Iraq began in March 2003, much was unknown. Our political leaders based the case for war on the conviction that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD) that had not been eliminated despite twelve years of grinding sanctions. Congress voted in October 2002 to authorize renewed use of military force against Iraq, acting on the basis of representations by the Bush Administration that Iraq had been actively concealing WMD stockpiles and programs from the United Nations inspectors who had a mandate to verify the complete destruction of Iraq's WMD capability. Facts were …

Originalism, Stare Decisis And The Promotion Of Judicial Restraint, Thomas W. Merrill

Faculty Scholarship

If we consider constitutional law as a practice, it is clear that both originalism and precedent play an important role. Neither one is going to vanquish the other, at least not any time soon. We can engage in academic debate about originalism versus stare decisis, as if they were rival modes of interpretation that could operate to the exclusion of the other. But the question of practical importance is one of degree and emphasis: in cases where these two sources of authority arguably point in different directions, which one should have a greater claim to our allegiance?

Originalism – interpreting …

The Story Of United States V. Salerno: The Constitutionality Of Regulatory Detention, Daniel C. Richman

Faculty Scholarship

Is it constitutional for the government to lock up people without waiting to convict them at trial? If it is, what are the limits on the government's power to lock up anyone it deems dangerous? These are issues raised by preventive detention provisions in bail statutes, and addressed in United States v. Salerno. The controversy about these bail statutes, once so hotly contested, has died down. But the broader questions about the government's power to detain suspected criminals without giving them the benefit of full criminal process remain unresolved, and have taken on a new urgency as the nation confronts …

Untied States: American Expansion And Territorial Deannexation, Christina Duffy Ponsa-Kraus

Faculty Scholarship

At the beginning of the twentieth century the United States laid claim to an overseas empire, consolidating its victory in the Spanish-American War by adopting novel structures of colonial rule over a brace of newly acquired island territories. A set of Supreme Court decisions known collectively as the Insular Cases established the legal authorization for this undertaking. As the traditional story goes, they did so by holding that the U.S. Constitution did not "follow the flag" to the recently annexed possessions in the Pacific Ocean and the Caribbean Sea: thus unfettered, an ambitiously imperial nation could attend to the business …

The First Amendment's Original Sin, Lee C. Bollinger

Faculty Scholarship

Times of war place considerable stress on civil liberties, especially ones protected by the First Amendment. When the nation must gather itself to fight an enemy who is intent on killing us, it is perhaps only natural that our tolerance for the usual disorder of dissent will decline. When everyone has to sacrifice for the common good, when fellow citizens are dying in that cause, the costs of speech are visible and serious. Dissent may dissuade or discourage soldiers from fighting; sowing doubt may weaken resolve just when it's needed most; falsehoods and misinformation may lead to catastrophic shifts of …

Rethinking Retroactivity, Robert J. Jackson Jr.

Faculty Scholarship

Under the stringent test set forth in Teague v. Lane,' defendants convicted of criminal offenses are generally unable to collaterally attack their convictions by invoking constitutional rules of criminal procedure announced after their convictions become final.2 The purported exception to this general principle is said to require that a new constitutional rule be "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty'3 for it to be applied to criminal cases decided before its pronouncement. Once a rule of criminal procedure is characterized as "new,"4 Teague prohibits the rule's invocation in habeas proceedings unless the rule both "assure[s] that no man has been …

Facial Challenges And Federalism, Gillian E. Metzger

Faculty Scholarship

This Essay addresses the question of whether challenges to legislation as exceeding Congress' powers should be assessed on a facial or an as-applied basis, a question that rose to the fore in the Supreme Court's recent decision in Tennessee v. Lane. The Essay begins by arguing that what distinguishes a facial challenge is that it involves an attack on some general rule embodied in the statute. Such challenges can take a broader or narrower form, and thus the terms 'facial" and "as-applied" are best understood as encompassing a range of possible challenges rather than as mutually exclusive terms. The …

Introduction, David J. Seipp

Faculty Scholarship

Have we come to bury Lochner, or to praise it? Lochner v. New York,' decided 100 years ago, gave its name to an era in which judges struck down popular statutes that regulated hours, wages, and conditions of work, on grounds that such labor regulations violated a constitutional liberty of contract. After 1937, Lochnerism and Lochnerizing were more or less uniformly condemned by judges and law professors alike. Recently, some scholars have tried to resurrect the Lochner approach, presumably as a way to render much of the twentieth-century regulatory state unconstitutional.

History As Ideology: Philip Hamburger's Separation Of Church And State, Kent Greenawalt

Faculty Scholarship

Here are three competing stories about how the idea of separation of church and state relates to the First Amendment clause that provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

Defining The Constitutional Question In Partisan Gerrymandering, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

Vieth v. Jubelirer is a significant setback to efforts to challenge partisan gerrymandering in court. Four members of the Supreme Court repudiated Davis v. Bandemer and concluded that partisan gerrymanders present a nonjusticiable question, while the fifth, Justice Kennedy, determined that the Court ought to "refrain from intervention" at this time, although he left open the hope that gerrymandering might become justiciable if the right standard of proving a gerrymander is ever found. Yet, strikingly, all nine members of the Supreme Court agreed that, justiciable or not, partisan gerrymanders do raise a constitutional question and some partisan gerrymanders are unconstitutional. …

Policing L.A.'S Skid Row: Crime And Real Estate Redevelopment In Downtown Los Angeles [An Experiment In Real Time], Bernard E. Harcourt

Faculty Scholarship

In this article, I document the present. I make a record, with photographs, interviews, maps, and observations of L.A.'s Skid Row as it is today. Drawing on the tradition and methods of critical socio-legal studies, I also explore the constitutive dimensions of deviance. I investigate the possible attraction that disorderliness and criminality may have to today's urban pioneers. I explore the idea that deviance and disorder may become, in some corners, a consumable good to urban dwellers. And I do this by drawing on numerous hours of personal observation on the streets of L.A.'s Skid Row, on interviews of service …

I Want To Live: Medicine Betrayed By Ideology In The Political Debate Over Terri Schaivo, George J. Annas

Faculty Scholarship

The public's view of the political intrusion into the medical care of Theresa Marie Schiavo is well illustrated by two political cartoons. The first, by Tony Auth, reprinted in the Boston Globe shortly after Congress passed a law authorizing intervention by the federal courts, pictures a horde of congressmen charging mindlessly out of the Capitol, all dressed as physicians-one carrying a saw, another an I.V. pole-with the caption, "Coming Soon to a Sickbed Near You . .. [tihe United States Congress." The second, by Tom Toles, published in the Washington Post shortly after the results of the autopsy report were …