Constitutional Law Commons^™

Holmes On The Lochner Court, Gerald F. Leonard

Faculty Scholarship

For this symposium on Lochner, I examined the jurisprudence of the man commonly thought to be the Lochner majority's fiercest foe, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. Holmes wrote the famous dissent in Lochner and other cases of the era. But as Barry Cushman notes in his contribution to this symposium, Holmes joined many a Lochner-era majority in striking down any number of economic regulations. Holmes's Fourteenth Amendment opinions suggest: 1) that, while Holmes advocated a somewhat more pointed rule of deference to legislatures than did most of his colleagues, his language in this respect was far less radical than is …

Is Obtaining An Arrestee's Dna A Valid Special Needs Search Under The Fourth Amendment? What Should (And Will) The Supreme Court Do?, Tracey Maclin

Faculty Scholarship

An increasing number of states are enacting laws authorizing the forcible taking and analysis of DNA from certain categories of arrestees. For example, California's Proposition 69 requires state law enforcement officials to obtain DNA samples from certain arrestees. By 2009, Proposition 69 will require a DNA sample from every adult arrested for or charged with a felony. This article addresses the constitutionality, under the Fourth Amendment, of taking DNA samples from persons subject to arrest. In particular, the article focuses on the statutes of Virginia and Louisiana, which have authorized DNA sampling of persons arrested for violent crimes and sex …

The Misplaced Flight To Substance, Thomas W. Merrill

Faculty Scholarship

Courts and commentators have struggled for years to come up with a substantive test for what kinds of condemnations are for a "public use." Does public use mean government ownership and control of property after it is taken? This would preclude delegation of eminent domain to common carriers and utilities. Does public use mean public access to the property after it is taken? This would preclude using eminent domain to acquire facilities off-limits to the public, like prisons.

Faced with these problems of under-inclusion, courts have gravitated to the idea that public use means public purpose. The U.S. Supreme Court …

Discretion As Delegation: The "Proper" Understanding Of The Nondelegation Doctrine, Gary S. Lawson

Faculty Scholarship

Does the Constitution limit the extent to which Congress can grant discretion to other actors? The traditional nondelegation doctrine says yes, though advocates of the doctrine strongly disagree about the source of that principle and the location of the line between permissible and impermissible discretion. A number of modern scholars and judges, however, doubt whether the Constitution contains any such principle. This article demonstrates that the Constitution constrains Congress's ability to grant discretion to other actors through the requirement that laws for carrying federal power into execution must be "necessary and proper." The words "necessary" and "proper" have distinct constitutional …

Three Strikes And You're Outside The Constitution: Will The Guantanamo Bay Alien Detainees Be Granted Fundamental Due Process?, Michael Greenberger

Faculty Scholarship

The United States Supreme Court has agreed to take up its first case arising from the War on Terror by hearing the consolidated appeals of two groups of foreign aliens who are or who had been detained at the United States Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba: Rasul v. Bush (No. 03-334) and Al Odah v. United States (No. 03-343). The cases stem from the United States' capture of several hundred prisoners in Afghanistan and Pakistan and their subsequent imprisonment at Guantanamo Bay. The prison began operation in January 2002, and approximately 90 detainees have been freed up to this time, …

Regulate, Don't Eliminate, 527s, Donald B. Tobin

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Not For Attribution: Government's Interest In Protecting The Integrity Of Its Own Expression, Helen L. Norton

Faculty Scholarship

Public entities increasingly maintain that the First Amendment permits them to ensure that private speakers’ views are not mistakenly attributed to the government. Consider, for example, Virginia’s efforts to ban the Sons of Confederate Veterans’ display of the Confederate flag logo on state-sponsored specialty license plates. Seeking to remain neutral in the ongoing debate over whether the Confederate flag is a symbol of “hate” or “heritage,” Virginia argued that the state would be wrongly perceived as endorsing the flag if the logo appeared on a state-issued plate adorned by the identifier “VIRGINIA.” The Fourth Circuit was unpersuaded, holding that the …

A Constitution For Judicial Lawmaking, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

When courts decide cases, the decisions make law because they become precedent that binds future courts under the doctrine of stare decisis. This article argues that some principles governing judicial lawmaking are functionally constitutional principles because they go to the validity of a particular attempt at judicial lawmaking (just as the constitutional principles governing legislative lawmaking determine the validity of lawmaking by legislatures). Because even poorly reasoned judicial decisions can still be effective lawmaking acts, it is important to distinguish between constitutional and non-constitutional principles and arguments. While a non-constitutional principle can be a basis for examining the wisdom or …

Lawrence's Republic, James E. Fleming

Faculty Scholarship

I am delighted and honored to participate in this symposium critiquing and celebrating the remarkable scholarship of Frank Michelman. I was a student of Frank-but of course we all are students of Frank. I also have had the good fortune to be a colleague of Frank-he has been a distinguished visiting professor at Fordham and has generously participated in a number of our conferences there. The only problem I had in preparing for the symposium is that Frank's scholarship is so rich and wide-ranging that it was difficult to decide what to write about. I initially planned to write a …

Securing Deliberative Democracy, James E. Fleming

Faculty Scholarship

The brochure for the conference frames the questions for our panel on The Constitutional Essentials of Political Liberalism as "What are the implications of Rawls's conceptions of justice as fairness and political liberalism for constitutional theory? Might his account of constitutional essentials provide a useful guiding framework for conceiving the scheme of basic liberties embodied in the American Constitution? How thin are the commitments of our Constitution as compared with our richer commitments to constitutional justice and political justice? What are the implications of Rawls's work for theory of judicial review and for enforcement of constitutional rights and obligations outside …

The Sway Of The Swing Vote: Justice Sandra Day O'Connor And Her Influence On Issues Of Race, Religion, Gender And Class: Foreword, Paula A. Monopoli

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Slaughter-House Five: Views Of The Case, David S. Bogen

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Principles To Guide The Office Of Legal Counsel, Walter E. Dellinger Iii, Christopher H. Schroeder, Dawn Johnsen, Randolph Moss, Joseph Guerra, Beth Nolan, Todd Peterson, Cornelia Pillar

Faculty Scholarship

Former members of Office of Legal Counsel ("OLC") in the Department of Justice offer guidance for their successors. Among the document's recommendations are suggestions that the OLC "provide an accurate and honest appraisal of applicable law, even if that advice will constrain the administration’s pursuit of desired policies;" and "publicly disclose its written legal opinions in a timely manner, absent strong reasons for delay or nondisclosure."

Affirmative Action And Colorblindness From The Original Position, Guy-Uriel Charles

Faculty Scholarship

In this Article, the author explores Grutter v. Bollinger from the vantage point of the colorblindness principle. He posits that the Grutter decision is noteworthy for two reasons. First, the Court rejected the argument that the Constitution is colorblind and that the classifications based on race are per se unconstitutional. Second, the Court explicitly recognized that racial categorizations are not all morally equivalent. The author uses classical liberalism as a heuristic for exploring whether the colorblindness argument is necessarily a moral imperative. He ultimately concludes that the Court adopted the correct approach in Grutter in rejecting the allure of the …

In Defense Of Deference, Guy-Uriel Charles, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

English Constitutionalism Circa 2005, Or, Some Funny Things Happened After The Revolution, Ernest A. Young

Faculty Scholarship

reviewing Adam Tompkins, Public Law (2003)

The Federal Role In Managing The Nation's Groundwater, John D. Leshy

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The New Formalism: Requiem For Tiered Scrutiny?, Calvin R. Massey

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

A Property Clause For The Twenty-First Century, John D. Leshy

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Doing Originalism, Henry Paul Monaghan

Faculty Scholarship

It is an honor to participate in celebrating Justice Ginsburg's tenth anniversary on the Court. She is a Justice whom I admire on many fronts; moreover, she continues to be a vital part of this school as this Symposium itself attests. But an invitation to participate also presents a challenge: This session is about her and her contributions to various aspects of the Court's jurisprudence. I know Justice Ginsburg well enough to believe that nothing would cause her more discomfort than to be in an audience with herself as the sole topic. So I thought that my remarks should be …

The Section 5 Power After Tennessee V. Lane, William D. Araiza

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Court, Congress And Equal Protection: What Brown Teaches Us About The Section 5 Power, William D. Araiza

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Marbury V. Madison As The First Great Administrative Law Decision, Thomas W. Merrill

Faculty Scholarship

Marbury v. Madison is our foremost symbol of judicial power. Not only is the decision regarded as the root of judicial authority to strike down statutes as violating the Constitution; it is also taken to mean that "the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the Constitution." In other words, Marbury has come to stand for the proposition that courts should enforce their own understanding of the meaning of the Constitution, without deferring or even paying much attention to the views of the other branches.

I will not in this essay engage in yet another analysis of Marbury's …

Supreme Court Of The United States As Quasi-International Tribunal: Reclaiming The Court's Original And Exclusive Jurisdiction Over Treaty-Based Suits By Foreign States Against States, The, Thomas H. Lee

Faculty Scholarship

The thesis of this Article is that the Constitution vests in the Supreme Court original and exclusive jurisdiction over suits brought by foreign states against States alleging violation of ratified treaties of the United States. The basis for non-immunity in suits by foreign states is the same theory of ratification consent that is presumed to justify suits against States by other States or the United States. Just as the States by ratifying the Constitution agreed to suits in the national court by other States and the national sovereign to ensure domestic peace, they agreed to suits by foreign states in …

Is There A First Amendment Defense For Bush V. Gore , Abner S. Greene

Faculty Scholarship

Could so many well-established scholars be wrong? Is it possible that Bush v. Gore is defensible, after all? The two pillars of the decision-the Equal Protection Clause justification for the merits holding and the "safe harbor" remedial ruling - indeed seem weak. The alternative merits view-that the Florida Supreme Court had engaged in statutory amendment under the guise of statutory interpretation, thus violating Article II of the federal Constitution-runs aground against the plausible (albeit not necessarily correct) readings of the state high court. If one agrees that these merits and remedial arguments are indefensible, then mustn't one agree with the …

In Praise Of A Skeletal Apa: Judicial Discretion, Remedies For Agency Inaction And Apa Amendment, William D. Araiza

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

First Amendment Decisions - 2002 Term, Joel Gora

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Overcoming Hiddenness: The Role Of Intentions In Fourth Amendment Analysis, Daniel B. Yeager

Faculty Scholarship

This Article rehearses a response to the problems posed to and by the Supreme Court's attempts to work out the meaning and operation of the word "search." After commencing Part II by meditating on the notion of privacy, I take up its relation to the antecedent suspicion or knowledge that Fourth-Amendment law requires as a justification for all privacy invasions. From there, I look specifically at that uneasy relation in Supreme Court jurisprudence, which has come to privilege privacy over property as a Fourth Amendment value. From there, Part III reviews the sources or bases that can tell us what …

Turning The Endangered Species Act Inside Out, Jud Mathews

Faculty Scholarship

Within a week, both the Fifth and D.C. Circuits upheld the takings prohibitions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as applied to species found only in single states, against Commerce Clause challenges. Both cases reach the same result, but the legal analysis used to get there could hardly be more different. In GDF Realty, the Fifth Circuit found the requisite "substantial impact" on commerce by treating the species themselves as commodities and aggregating the economic impact of all endangered species "takings". The D.C. Circuit, by contrast, held in Rancho Viejo that the true object of ESA regulation …

The Equal Access Act: Still Controversial After All These Years, Leora Harpaz

Faculty Scholarship

Over its twenty-year history, the Equal Access Act has continued to spark controversy. Despite a large number of court decisions that have interpreted the scope of the statute, those controversies have not yet subsided nor are they likely to for the foreseeable future. Interpretation of the Equal Access Act is complicated by ambiguities in the statute's language and the complex relationship that exists between the statute and the First Amendment's prohibition on religious establishments combined with its protection for freedom of expression. The delicate constitutional balancing act that the statute attempts to accomplish complicates the task of statutory interpretation in …