Constitutional Law Commons^™

Of Laws And Men: An Essay On Justice Marshall's View Of Criminal Procedure, Bruce A. Green, Daniel C. Richman

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Textualism And The Future Of The Chevron Doctrine, Thomas W. Merrill

Faculty Scholarship

The last decade has been a remarkable one for statutory interpretation. For most of our history, American judges have been pragmatists when it comes to interpreting statutes. They have drawn on various conventions – the plain meaning rule, legislative history, considerations of statutory purpose, canons of construction – "much as a golfer selects the proper club when he gauges the distance to the pin and the contours of the course." The arrival of Justice Scalia on the Supreme Court has changed this. Justice Scalia is a foundationalist, insisting that certain interpretational tools should be permanently banned from judicial use. What …

Trivial Rights, Philip A. Hamburger

Faculty Scholarship

In the summer of 1789, when the House of Representatives was formulating the amendments that became the Bill of Rights, Theodore Sedgwick of Massachusetts argued against enumerating the right of assembly. The House, he urged, "might have gone into a very lengthy enumeration of rights; they might have declared that a man should have a right to wear his hat if he pleased, that he might get up when he pleased, and go to bed when he thought proper ... [Was] it necessary to list these trifles in a declaration of rights, under a Government where none of them were …

Free Speech And The Widening Gyre Of Fund-Raising: Why Campaign Spending Limits May Not Violate The First Amendment After All Symposium On Campaign Finance Reform, Vincent A. Blasi

Faculty Scholarship

Candidates for office spend too much of their time raising money. This is scarcely a controversial proposition. A major impetus for campaign finance reform is the frustration politicians now feel concerning how much time they must devote to courting potential donors, often by methods borrowed from the marketplace that can only be described as demeaning. The situation has gotten worse as electoral merchandising has grown ever more sophisticated and expensive.

The Rise And Rise Of The Administrative State, Gary S. Lawson

Faculty Scholarship

The post-New Deal administrative state is unconstitutional, and its validation by the legal system amounts to nothing less than a bloodless constitutional revolution. The original New Dealers were aware, at least to some degree, that their vision of the national government's proper role and structure could not be squared with the written Constitution: The Administrative Process, James Landis's classic exposition of the New Deal model of administration, fairly drips with contempt for the idea of a limited national government subject to a formal, tripartite separation of powers. Faced with a choice between the administrative state and the Constitution, the architects …

Hail Britannia?: Institutional Investor Behavior Under Limited Regulation, John C. Coffee Jr., Bernard S. Black

Faculty Scholarship

A central puzzle in understanding the governance of large American public firms is why most institutional shareholders are passive. Why would they rather sell than fight? Until recently, the Berle-Means paradigm – the belief that separation of ownership and control naturally characterizes the modern corporation – reigned supreme. Shareholder passivity was seen as an inevitable result of the scale of modern industrial enterprise and of the collective action problems that face shareholders, each of whom owns only a small fraction of a large firm's shares.

A paradigm shift may be in the making, however. Rival hypotheses have recently been offered …

Unburdening The Undue Burden Standard: Orienting Casey In Constitutional Jurisprudence, Gillian E. Metzger

Faculty Scholarship

"Liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt." With these words in the 1992 case, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme Court ushered in a new era of abortion regulation. Speaking through a joint opinion authored by Justices O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter, the Court indicated that from this point forth abortion regulations would be judged by an "undue burden" standard. According to this standard, an abortion regulation is unconstitutional if it "has the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion" of a nonviable fetus.

The Justices who wrote …

Brecht V. Abrahamson: Harmful Error In Habeas Corpus Law, James S. Liebman, Randy Hertz

Faculty Scholarship

For the past two and one-half decades, the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts have applied the same rule for assessing the harmlessness of constitutional error in habeas corpus proceedings as they have applied on direct appeal of both state and federal convictions. Under that rule, which applied to all constitutional errors except those deemed per se prejudicial or per se reversible, the state could avoid reversal upon a finding of error only by proving that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court adopted this stringent standard in Chapman v. California to fulfill the federal …

Reply To Professor Brewbaker, Thomas W. Merrill

Faculty Scholarship

Professor Brewbaker's thoughtful article on physician price controls raises many issues, large and small. Some – such as the relative merits of the regulatory takings standard and the fair return standard – have been dealt with in my principal article and I will not revisit them here. I will instead address four arguments advanced by Professor Brewbaker that are not anticipated in my article: (1) that the Constitution should not apply to physician price controls because physicians can fend for themselves in the political process; (2) that applying the Takings Clause to physician price controls would be tantamount to reviving …

"What About The 'Ism'?" Normative And Formal Concerns In Contemporary Federalism, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

Contemporary legal discourse concerning federalism has shifted from the formal to the normative, that is, from a focus on the fifty states as unique entities in the American constitutional firmament to a concern with the values of federalism. This normative turn has had some salutary effects. It has sharpened the debate over federalism, reminded us of the impact of the federal design on the substance of American governance, and underscored the interrelationship of government structure and individual rights. But the normative approach has also, paradoxically, moved the focus of federalism away from the states. Many of the arguments offered on …

War Powers: An Essay On John Hart Ely's War And Responsibility: Constitutional Lessons Of Vietnam And Its Aftermath, Philip Chase Bobbitt

Faculty Scholarship

I approached John Ely's' new book with the anticipation of delight, qualified by a certain apprehensiveness. Delight because Ely is almost alone among writers in my solemn field in his ability to write with humor; indeed, he writes in a style that reminds me of the marvelous Joseph Heller. There is no reason, I suppose, for constitutional law professors to be incapable of writing amusing and fresh prose or exposing a false syllogism with the light touch of juxtaposition rather than the heavy bludgeon of irony, but how rare this is! More importantly, Ely's arguments have the satisfying feel of …

Reflections Inspired By My Critics, Philip Chase Bobbitt

Faculty Scholarship

The crucial idea in constitutional law is legitimacy; the crucial idea in jurisprudence is justification.

For some time, the academic debate about U.S. constitutionalism has looked for justifications for our practices, believing this would confer legitimacy on them. In my work, I have endeavored to derive legitimacy from the practices themselves, reserving the task of justification for other purposes.

By showing the way in which legitimacy is established and maintained in a constitutional system like ours, I hoped to derive solutions to a number of classical questions, all of which, I believe, are at bottom questions about legitimacy and legitimation. …

Two Social Movements, Thomas W. Merrill

Faculty Scholarship

Two social movements in the last fifty years have had a profound impact on our understanding of law and the role of the courts in our system of government. One is the civil rights movement. The demand for greater racial and gender equality and other civil rights has changed the face of the law in countless ways. For example, it has called into question – or at least required a fundamental revision in – the traditional understanding that the courts should interpret the Constitution and laws in accordance with their original meaning. Decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education …

Shouting Down The Voice Of The People: Political Parties, Powerful Pac's And Concerns About Corruption, Clarisa Long

Faculty Scholarship

The Federal Election Campaign Act limits the amount of financial support that political parties may give to candidates for federal office. Clarisa Long argues that these restrictions violate political parties' First Amendment rights of speech and association. Because the flow of money in the political process is a proxy for speech, the First Amendment requires that political actors have access to at least one unrestricted avenue of communication. While individuals' and PACs' First Amendment rights are protected because they may make unrestricted independent expenditures, parties do not have this opportunity. Courts have failed to protect party speech, rationalizing that the …

Constitutional Limits On Physician Price Control, Thomas W. Merrill

Faculty Scholarship

Proposals for the reform of the nation's health care system have highlighted the issue of rising health care costs. Concern about rising costs, in tum, has led to talk of imposing price controls on health care providers. Economists and other experts have condemned price controls as a way to control rising health care costs. They argue that price controls do nothing to alleviate the underlying causes of inflation; instead, price controls merely postpone or redirect price increases, and in the process introduce allocational distortions and inefficiencies. This Article will not elaborate on the policy arguments for or against medical price …

The Constitutional Case Against Precedent, Gary S. Lawson

Faculty Scholarship

A recent, and characteristically illuminating, article by Professor Henry Monaghan confidently announces that "[p] recedent is, of course, part of our understanding of what law is."1 As a descriptive matter, Professor Monaghan is entirely correct. Legal analysis-by lawyers, courts, and academics-typically begins and ends with precedent. Law students are meticulously trained in the art of reading, applying, and distinguishing cases. Court pinions, including Supreme Court opinions, on constitutional matters frequently consist entirely of discussions of past decisions, without so much as a reference to the Constitution itself.' Even in this era of law-and-metatheory, case analysis is still the mainstay of …

Constructing The Substantive Constitution, James E. Fleming

Faculty Scholarship

I. Introduction A. The Flights from Substance in Constitutional Theory A specter is haunting constitutional theory-the specter of Lochner v. New York.' In the Lochner era, the Supreme Court gave heightened judicial protection to substantive economic liberties through the Due Process Clauses.2 In 1937, during the constitutional revolution wrought by the New Deal, West Coast Hotel v. Parrish3 officially repudiated the Lochner era, marking the first death of substantive due process.4 Nevertheless, the ghost of Lochner has perturbed constitutional theory ever since, manifesting itself in charges that judges are "Lochnering" by imposing their own substantive fundamental values in the guise …

The Social Origins Of Property, Joseph William Singer, Jack M. Beermann

Faculty Scholarship

The takings clause of the United States Constitution requires government to pay compensation when private property is taken for public use.' When government regulates, but does not physically seize, property, the Supreme Court of the United States has had trouble defining when individuals have been deprived of property rights so as to give them a right to compensation. The takings clause serves "to bar Government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens that, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole."' To determine when a regulation amounts to a "taking" of property …

Supreme Court's Tilt To The Property Right: Procedural Due Process Protections Of Liberty And Property Interests, Jack M. Beermann, Barbara A. Melamed, Hugh F. Hall

Faculty Scholarship

The Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution provide important protections against government oppression. They provide that government may not deprive any person of "life, liberty or property" without due process of law. In recent decisions, the Supreme Court has appeared willing to strengthen its protection of traditional property interests yet weaken its protection of liberty interests.

It has long been accepted, albeit with controversy, that due process has both procedural and substantive elements. This essay concerns the procedural elements. Procedural due process analysis asks two questions: first, whether there exists a liberty …

The Nonmajoritarian Difficulty: Legislative Deference To The Judiciary, Mark A. Graber

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

A Constitutional Conspiracy Unmasked: Why "No State" Does Not Mean "No State", Mark A. Graber

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Federal Court Abstention And State Administrative Law From Burford To Ankenbrandt: Fifty Years Of Judicial Federalism Under Burford V. Sun Oil Co. And Kindred Doctrines, Gordon G. Young

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Enslaved To Judicial Supremacy?, H. Jefferson Powell

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Rule Of Too Much Law? The New Safety/Soundness Rulemaking Responsibilities Of The Federal Banking Agencies, Lawrence G. Baxter

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Chase Court And Fundamental Rights: A Watershed In American Constitutionalism, The , Robert J. Kaczorowski

Faculty Scholarship

Three weeks before he died in May 1873, the frail and ailing Salmon P. Chase joined three of his brethren in dissent in one of the most important cases ever decided by the United States Supreme Court, the Slaughter-House Cases.1 This decision was a watershed in United States constitutional history for several reasons. Doctrinally, it represented a rejection of the virtually unanimous decisions of the lower federal courts upholding the constitutionality of revolutionary federal civil rights laws enacted in the aftermath of the Civil War. Institutionally, it was an example of extraordinary judicial activism in overriding the legislative will of …

Historical Framework For Reviving Constitutional Protection For Property And Contract Rights , James L. Kainen

Faculty Scholarship

Post-New Deal constitutionalism is in search of a theory that justifies judicial intervention on behalf of individual rights while simultaneously avoiding the charge of "Lochnerism."' The dominant historical view dismisses post-bellum substantive due process as an anomalous development in the American constitutional tradition. Under this approach, Lochner represents unbounded protection for economic rights that permitted the judiciary to read laissez faire, pro-business policy preferences into the constitutional text. Today's revisionists have mounted a substantial challenge to the dismissive views of traditionalists. Indeed, some claim Lochner reached the right result, but for the wrong reason. The revisionists characterize substantive due process …

Defendants' Brief In The School Finance Case: Mcduffy V. Robertson: An Excerpt And A Summary, Douglas H. Wilkins, Robert H. Blumenthal, Mary Connaughton

Faculty Scholarship

The wisdom of promoting public education in the Commonwealth was recognized by the earliest settlers, the framers of the Constitution, and many subsequent legislatures, officials, educators and citizens. The opinions of the Department, the Secretary of Education, the Governor and various educators, contained in the stipulation, demonstrate that a policy of supporting public education is as important today as ever.²

The implementation of this policy goal by the Legislature and municipalities involves choices that are at the heart of representative government: how much public money to raise, how best to allocate the money among education and the many other …

Foreword: Two Visions Of The Nature Of Man, Steven G. Calabresi, Gary S. Lawson

Faculty Scholarship

This year, for the first time in its ten-year history, The Federalist Society convened in a world no longer haunted by the specter of a global communist empire. Seventy-four years after its creation, Lenin's Union of Soviet Socialist Republics had shattered into many fragments; more importantly, his political philosophy had taken its well-deserved place on the "ash heap of history."

The Item Veto In State Courts, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

Contemporary debates about state constitutional law have concentrated on the role of state constitutions in the protection of individual rights and have paid less attention to the state constitutional law of government structure.This is ironic since the emergence of a state jurisprudence of individual rights has been hampered by the similarity of the texts of the state and federal constitutional provisions concerning individual rights, whereas many state constitutional provisions dealing with government structure have no federal analogues, and thus state jurisprudence in this area is free to develop outside the dominating shadow of the Federal Constitution and the federal courts. …

Constitutional Law--First Amendment--No Constitutional Right To Vote For Donald Duck: The Supreme Court Upholds The Constitutionality Of Write-In Voting Bans In Burdick V. Takushi, Jeanne M. Kaiser

Faculty Scholarship

This Note examines the Supreme Court decision in Burkick v. Takushi in detail and questions the Court's conclusion that the voters' interest in casting write-in votes is so slight that write-in bans are presumptively valid. The Note concludes that the Burdick decision is both inconsistent with the Court's previous ballot access jurisprudence, and restricts the electoral process at a time when voters are clamoring for more diverse choices in the voting booth. Section I of this Note briefly reviews a number of cases that considered the constitutionality of legislation governing candidate access to election ballots. The ballot access cases are …