Constitutional Law Commons^™

Principles And Passions: The Intersection Of Abortion And Gun Rights , Nicholas J. Johnson

Faculty Scholarship

In this article, Professor Nicholas J. Johnson explores the parallels between the right of armed self-defense and the woman's right to abortion. Professor Johnson demonstrates that the theories and principles advanced to support the abortion right intersect substantially with an individual's right to armed self-defense. Professor Johnson uncovers common ground between the gun and abortion rights - two rights that have come to symbolize society's deepest social and cultural divisions - divisions that prompt many to embrace the abortion right while summarily rejecting the gun right. Unreflective disparagement of the gun right, he argues, threatens the vitality of the abortion …

Balancing State Sovereignty And Competition: An Analysis Of The Impact Of Seminole Tribe On The Antitrust State Action Immunity Doctrine, Susan Beth Farmer

Faculty Scholarship

The great impact of the Seminole Tribe v. Florida decision will likely be felt in the range of federal causes of action that have exclusive remedies in federal court. Antitrust cases are among such causes of action. In seeking to avoid antitrust liability, defendants have invoked the protections of the antitrust state action doctrine, which immunizes only that anticompetitive activity imposed and supervised by states. This immunity bars suits against state and private actors alike. After Seminole Tribe, state defendants will escape all antitrust liability, whether or not the traditional requirements of the state action doctrine have been met. …

The Buck Does Not Stop Here: Supervisory Liability In Section 1983 Cases, Kit Kinports

Faculty Scholarship

The appropriate standard for supervisory liability in Section 1983 cases has been a source of considerable disagreement among federal courts of appeals. In the absence of established Supreme Court authority on the subject, courts have rejected vicarious and negligence liability in favor of a higher culpability requirement, but they have not agreed on precisely what form this higher standard should take. In this article, the Author addresses the need for a uniform standard consistent with the statute's twin goals of compensating the victims of constitutional violations and deterring constitutional infractions.

The author notes at the outset that lower courts have …

Congruence Principle Applied: Rethinking Equal Protection Review Of Federal Alienage Classifications After Adanrand Constructors, Inc. V. Peña, Victor C. Romero

Faculty Scholarship

This article suggests that the Supreme Court's 1995 decision in Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña constitutes a starting point for a renewed dialogue on the intersection of race, noncitizens' rights, and immigration law.

Part I of this Article examines the historical foundations of the plenary power doctrine up to the current dichotomy between judicial review of state and federal alienage classifications under equal protection. Part II reviews the Adarand decision, arguing that Justice O'Connor's congruence principle provides the bulwark for a revision of judicial review of federal legislation, especially in light of the historical and continuing perception of Asian- and …

Conservatives, Liberals, Romantics: The Persistent Quest For Certainty In Constitutional Interpretation, Frederick Mark Gedicks

Faculty Scholarship

Despite their considerable ideological differences, "conservative originalists" such as Robert Bork and "progressive originalists" such as Michael Perry both divide the process of understanding into cognitive (or "objective") and normative (or "subjective") aspects. The determination of the original meaning of the Constitution is methodologically separated from the question how this predetermined meaning should be applied in a particular case. This places both conservative and progressive originalists squarely in the tradition of Romantic hermeneutics, which sought to overcome the uncertainty and imprecision of textual interpretation by developing a "science of interpretation" which purported to be as epistemologically reliable as the methods …

Does Public Choice Theory Justify Judicial Activism After All?, Thomas W. Merrill

Faculty Scholarship

Some legal scholars have argued that public choice theory justifies certain kinds of judicial activism. Others have said it does not. Given the present state of the debate, it would appear that those finding no necessary support for judicial activism have the stronger argument. I will suggest, however, that if we tweak the analysis a little further, it may turn out that public choice theory provides limited support for judicial activism after all.

Recent Legislation: Constitutional Law – Congress Imposes New Restrictions On Use Of Funds By The Legal Services Corporation – Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions And Appropriations Act Of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321, Benjamin L. Liebman

Faculty Scholarship

Fierce political battles have raged about the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) for much of its twenty-three year history. Critics have attacked LSC for pursuing a "radical agenda" and for "engaging in dubious litigation that is of no real benefit to poor people," while supporters have termed LSC "the one program in the entire war on poverty that made a difference" and have decried the "campaign to deny the right of legal representation to the poor." Last year, in the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996 (OCRAA), Congress reduced LSC funding by thirty percent – to $278 million in …

Images Of Women And Capital Sentencing Among Female Offenders: Exploring The Outer Limits Of The Eighth Amendment And Articulated Theories Of Justice, Jenny E. Carroll

Faculty Scholarship

This Note explores the effect on women of this process of demarcating boundaries of unacceptable behavior within the context of a capital punishment system. Additionally, this Note explores the Eighth Amendment implications of these boundaries within capital jurisprudence. Part I examines the two most prominent theories put forth by feminist scholars to explain sentencing patterns among female capital offenders-the "chivalry theory" and the "evil woman" theory. These theories attempt to account for both the limited use of the death penalty for women and the presence of certain women on death row. In Part II, this Note considers the limited empirical …

Reading Holmes Through The Lens Of Schauer: The Abrams Dissent, Vincent A. Blasi

Faculty Scholarship

Even the best scholars rarely persuade. Mostly, they illuminate. They make us more discerning readers and interlocutors.

Here I want to illustrate how Frederick Schauer's work on the law of free speech can help us to read what may be the single most influential judicial opinion ever written on that subject, Justice Holmes's famous dissent in Abrams v. United States. So far as I am aware, Schauer has not produced anything like a line-by-line parsing of the Holmes opinion. I claim nevertheless that a reader familiar with Schauer's ideas is far better prepared on that account to understand what Holmes …

Common Law Elements Of The Section 1983 Action, Jack M. Beermann

Faculty Scholarship

This Article explores the role of the common law in Supreme Court interpretation and application of § 1983, which grants a cause of action for violations of constitutional rights committed "under color of any [state] statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage."' I argue that the common law has served primarily to narrow the reach of § 1983, and that this is inappropriate in light of the broad statutory language and the absence of good evidence that the enacting Congress intended a narrower application than the statutory language indicates.

A Worthy Champion For Fourteenth Amendment Rights: The United States In Parens Patriae, Larry Yackle

Faculty Scholarship

When the Clinton Administration announced its intention to challenge Proposition 209, the new prohibition on affirmative action in California, the Justice Department declined to say whether the United States would formally intervene in the lawsuit already under way or merely file an amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs. Casual observers may have assumed that the Administration considered the form of its participation to raise further political and strategic considerations. That was undoubtedly true. It was also true, however, that Justice Department lawyers faced a legal question as well. According to the precedents on point, the United States required an authorizing statute …

Campaign Finance, The Parties And The Court: A Comment On Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee V. Federal Elections Commission, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

Last term, In Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court considered a direct attack on the constitutionality of the Federal Election Campaign Act's ("FECA") limits on political party expenditures. Colorado Republican was the Court's first campaign finance case in six years and the first in which the four Justices appointed by Presidents Bush and Clinton had an opportunity to participate. Colorado Republican was also the first case in the twenty-year regime of Buckley v. Valeo concerned with the constitutionality of restrictions on parties. Coming at a time of rising public concern, increased legislative activity, …

The Executive Power Of Constitutional Interpretation, Gary S. Lawson, Christopher D. Moore

Faculty Scholarship

It is emphatically the province and duty of the President to say what the law is, including the law embodied in the Federal Constitution. In the mid-1980s, a claim of this sort would have been received by the legal intelligentsia with some combination of bemusement and outrage. One would have heard, loudly and often, that it is the special province of the federal courts to declare the meaning of the Constitution, -Lnd that any attempt to question the judiciary's supreme interpretative role, especially in favor of an interpretative role for the President, was an attack on the rule of law …

A Feminist Revisit To The First-Year Curriculum, Anita Bernstein

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

How Outcome Voting Promotes Principled Issue Identification: A Reply To Professor John Rogers And Others, Maxwell L. Stearns

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Mistretta Versus Marbury: The Foundations Of Judicial Review, Maxwell L. Stearns

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Telling The Truth And Paying For It: A Comparison Of Two Cases - Restrictions On Political Speech In Australia And Commercial Speech In The United States, David S. Bogen

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Balanced Budget Amendment: Will Judges Become Accountants? A Look At State Experiences, Donald B. Tobin

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Text, Purpose And Facts: The Relationship Between Cercla Sections 107 And 113, William D. Araiza

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

A Championship Season For The First Amendment, Joel Gora

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Remembering Melville Nimmer: Some Cautionary Notes On Commercial Speech, William W. Van Alstyne

Faculty Scholarship

This examination concerns itself with two main questions: what qualifies as commercial speech and how much protection does commercial speech enjoy under the First Amendment when compared to other forms of speech. The trend of the Court indicates that commercial speech enjoys protections similar to political speech.

Democracy And Feminism , Tracy E. Higgins

Faculty Scholarship

Although feminist legal theory has had an important impact on most areas of legal doctrine and theory over the last two decades, its contribution to the debate over constitutional interpretation has been comparatively small. In this Article, Professor Higgins explores reasons for the limited dialogue between mainstream constitutional theory and feminist theory concerning questions of democracy, constitutionalism, and judicial review. She argues that mainstream constitutional theory tends to take for granted the capacity of the individual to make choices, leaving the social construction of those choices largely unexamined. In contrast, feminist legal theory's emphasis on the importance of constraints on …

Constitutional Mass Torts: Sovereign Immunity And The Human Radiation Experiments (Note), Nestor M. Davidson

Faculty Scholarship

Part I of this Note explains why the present system does not allow individuals to recover damages against the federal government for violations of the Constitution. It first describes the doctrine of constitutional torts and its limitations. It then discusses sovereign immunity, and explains that Congress has retained sovereign immunity for constitutional torts. It concludes with a discussion of the Supreme Court's policy arguments for not creating a cause of action against the government for constitutional violations. Part II explores the Human Radiation Experiments as a case study in the remedial gaps created by the current scope of Bivens and …

Plenary Power And Constitutional Outcasts: Federal Power, Critical Race Theory, And The Second, Ninth, And Tenth Amendments , Nicholas J. Johnson

Faculty Scholarship

Rights and power in modern American constitutionalism are conceptually interdependent: "We have no way of thinking about constitutional rights independent of what powers it would be prudent or desirable for government to have." In an era where substantive boundaries on federal power seem ephemeral, this suggests that what we call rights may be primarily fair weather or illusory barriers to the exercise of power.From a majoritarian perspective, the shifting boundary between rights and powers, and the capacity of power to consume rights, may be unproblematic and even attractive. If the exercise of plenary power reflects majority will, then this exercise …

Tragic Irony Of American Federalism: National Sovereignty Versus State Sovereignty In Slavery And In Freedom, The Federalism In The 21st Century: Historical Perspectives, Robert J. Kaczorowski

Faculty Scholarship

A plurality on the Supreme Court seeks to establish a state-sovereignty based theory of federalism that imposes sharp limitations on Congress's legislative powers. Using history as authority, they admonish a return to the constitutional "first principles" of the Founders. These "first principles," in their view, attribute all governmental authority to "the consent of the people of each individual state, not the consent of the undifferentiated people of the Nation as a whole." Because the people of each state are the source of all governmental power, they maintain, "where the Constitution is silent about the exercise of a particular power-that is, …

From Expertise To Politics: The Transformation Of American Rulemaking, Peter L. Strauss

Faculty Scholarship

In this speech to be given on November 15, 1996, as the American contribution to the week-long conference on administrative law sponsored by the Fundaci6n Estudios de Derecho Administrativo in Caracas, Venezuela, Professor Peter L. Strauss addresses the history and developing political character of rulemaking in federal law over the fifty years since enactment of the Administrative Procedure Act. As a framework, Professor Strauss sets forth a hierarchy of institutional rulemaking, from constitution through informal advising. He then develops his discussion of rulemaking by tracing the federal process of rulemaking through time, beginning with the enactment of the Administrative Procedure …

Facilitating Choice: Judging The Physician's Role In Abortion And Suicide, George J. Annas

Faculty Scholarship

When I was invited to give this talk I thought, "I'll just give my standard slide show on death in America." I thought I would just talk about the right to die, something I can do in my sleep, and everybody would be happy. And you probably would, since it's a pretty good speech. I am going to give it at a Pennsylvania Judges Conference in a couple of weeks, and they will like it. But it is not very challenging, either for me or for you. So, what I want to explore with you today is how judges have …

Irreducible Constitution, The 1996 Jcli Religion Symposium, Abner S. Greene

Faculty Scholarship

No matter how hard they try, some constitutional theorists can't avoid being, at bottom, either democratic-foundationalists ("democrats") or rights-foundationalists. In the first part of this essay, I will offer a third way, insisting that at the heart of the American constitutional order is an irreconcilable conflict between these divergent accounts, that attempts to predicate constitutionalism on either democracy or rights cannot succeed. Our constitution (a term I will use to mean our constitutional order--text plus ... ) is, at the core, coreless. It cannot be resolved to a master predicate. It cannot be reduced to democracy or to rights. It …

Confusing Punishment With Custodial Care: The Troublesome Legacy Of Estelle V. Gamble, Philip Genty

Faculty Scholarship

For the better part of two centuries, imprisonment has been the primary means of punishment for non-capital offenses in the United States. A person, once convicted, is turned over to an institution that will regulate every minute of her or his life. Yet, despite the central role that prisons have long played in our society, the use of the Constitution to regulate conditions of confinement in prisons is a relatively recent phenomenon. Certainly, part of this has to do with the fact that constitutional litigation did not begin in earnest until the "rediscovery" of the Civil War era civil rights …

We The People[S], Original Understanding, And Constitutional Amendment, Henry Paul Monaghan

Faculty Scholarship

Recent legal and political activity and renewed academic discussion have focused considerable attention on the nature of the federal system that the founders created some two hundred years ago. In two important decisions in the 1994 Term, the Supreme Court addressed this issue. No fewer than fifteen states have recently passed resolutions reasserting the importance of the Tenth Amendment – the constitutional affirmation of the limits on national authority. Additionally, legal academics have advanced arguments intended to alter settled understandings about the constitutional framework established in 1789. This widespread reexamination of the nature and limitations of our federal system has …