Constitutional Law Commons^™

Applying History As Law: The Role Of Historical Facts In Implementing Constitutional Doctrine, Joseph Blocher, Brandon L. Garrett

Faculty Scholarship

The U.S. Supreme Court has long relied on historical evidence in constitutional cases, but recent years have seen a major change in how it does so: not only to interpret the meaning of constitutional text, but to establish doctrinal tests that call for historical evidence to be used in the application of those tests going forward. Broadly speaking, originalism has moved from the realm of legal interpretation to that of law declaration and then to law application. This transformation in the legal significance of history raises important questions for originalism as a practice of constitutional adjudication, not simply a theory …

Disconsents, Daryl J. Levinson, David E. Pozen

Faculty Scholarship

Consent is an indispensable standard and organizing principle in any liberal legal order that prizes self-directed autonomy, self-identified preferences, and collective agreement. Yet consent’s capacity to advance those values has become increasingly uncertain in a society beset by power imbalances, information asymmetries, and multiple forms of polarization. In this Article, we document how the rise of neoliberalism has led to greater reliance on consent throughout U.S. law, while at the same time leading to greater doubts about its moral efficacy and empirical feasibility. Connecting and generalizing pathologies of consent-based regulation that have been identified within myriad domains, the Article identifies …

The Foreign Commerce Power, Kathleen Claussen, Timothy Meyer

Faculty Scholarship

This Article is the first to scrutinize presidential trade authority under the Constitution. The Constitution grants the President no independent power to regulate foreign commerce. That conclusion, while apparent from a straightforward reading of Articles I and II, stands in stark contrast to executive conduct of U.S. trade policy in recent years. This Article traces the roots of this constitutional distortion to a confluence of doctrinal drift and academic oversight. Courts and commentators have increasingly relied on an expansive conception of executive power grounded in a perceived general foreign affairs authority. In doing so, they have blurred the line between …

Spending Programs And The New Roberts Court, Nicole Huberfeld

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court is poised to place new limits on Congress’s spending power at the urging of states vying for regulatory dominance, particularly in health care and public health. This article is the first to highlight and catalog the throughlines of argumentation, which sparked after states successfully challenged the ACA but have grown into opposing more than Medicaid’s cooperative federalism. This means federal and state programs that heavily rely on federal spending power are at risk, so studying this pattern is imperative. The article begins with a descriptive account of increasing spending power challenges, which make use of converging factors …

The Unitary Theorists' Appointments Clause Problems, Jed Handelsman Shugerman

Faculty Scholarship

The unitary executive theorists’ recent retreat to the Appointments Clause as a basis for unconditional presidential removal power is contradicted by the text and by overwhelming originalist evidence.

It is a surprising argument for a power of presidential removal, because the text of the Appointments Clause plainly requires both the President and Senate to appoint. The noncommon sense reading, that the president alone appoints, and thus the president can remove, was not in any of the Trump Administration’s briefs, but it was in a single amicus brief, and it was picked up in oral argument and the mainstream media.

This …

The Missing Constitutional Law Of Executive Conditions, Nicole Huberfeld, Matthew B. Lawrence

Faculty Scholarship

This Article contributes to development of the constitutional law of executive conditions. Courts are wrestling with the constitutionality of federal efforts to encourage what the federal government cannot mandate—speech on particular subjects, participation in cooperative federalism programs, and so on—but have failed to appreciate an important distinction. Binding statutory conditions articulated by Congress or an executive branch delegee (statutory conditions) and non-binding executive conditions articulated by executive branch actors engaged in regulation by deal (executive conditions) are different in constitutionally salient ways that can and should inform the development of workable doctrine. Yet courts, advocates, and scholars have only begun …

Five Lessons From Ken Kersch’S Conservatives And The Constitution For The Present Moment, James E. Fleming, Linda C. Mcclain

Faculty Scholarship

Timothy Snyder’s On Tyranny, a New York Times bestseller, has the subtitle, “Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century.” Ken Kersch’s Conservatives and the Constitution: Imagining Constitutional Restoration in the Heyday of American Liberalism (2019) provides at least twenty lessons from the second half of the Twentieth Century about the development of conservative constitutional thought and activism. Although conservatism has changed in many ways since the 1954-1980 period on which Kersch’s book focuses, these lessons are relevant for understanding the present political moment, filled with concerns that the U.S., during the second Trump Administration, is lurching toward tyranny, authoritarianism, and …

Why Constitutional Argument Matters, Philip C. Bobbitt

Faculty Scholarship

The program for this symposium promised that I would be discussing the “descriptive grammar of constitutional law.” To put my purpose less benignly, I should say that I mean to attack the practice of limiting what I will call “modal analysis” to its descriptive virtues. Part of that attack will be the claim that courts and their commentators should pay closer attention to the modal requirements of the fundamental forms of constitutional discourse, but not because straying from this is a kind of grammatical faux pas. After all, if the system I have urged for constitutional analysis — the system …

Obituary For The Birth Certificate, Malinda L. Seymore

Faculty Scholarship

Have birth certificates outlived their usefulness? Birth certificates establish an individual’s name, identity, age, race, sex and gender, parental authority, and citizenship. In addition, the information collected at the time of birth and reflected on a long-form birth certificate provides data for public health policy, population statistics, internal migration, government planning, and resource allocation. Birth certificates are also the all-access pass to American life, necessary for many functions of modern life: registering a child in school, signing a child up for soccer, getting a driver’s license and passport, enlisting in the military, and applying for government benefits. All of this, …

“Quasi-Judicial”: A History And Tradition, By Beau J. Baumann & Jed H. Shugerman, Beau J. Baumann, Jed Handelsman Shugerman

Faculty Scholarship

“I do not say the office is either Executive or Judicial; I think it rather distinct from both, though it partakes of each, and therefore some modification, accommodated to those circumstances ought to take place.” – James Madison on the Comptroller, June 29, 1789

On Monday, December 8th, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Trump v. Slaughter. The case presents a pivotal challenge to Humphrey’s Executor, the New Deal precedent underpinning so-called independent agencies. In Humphrey’s, the Hughes Court unanimously held that Congress could shield administrators from presidential removal if they exercised “quasi-judicial” or …

The Value Of Jury Rights, Philip A. Hamburger

Faculty Scholarship

The right to a civil jury trial is often dismissed as an inefficient anachronism ill suited to the complexities of modern litigation, and these efficiency concerns have long overshadowed any serious defense of the Seventh Amendment. This Article argues that such skepticism profoundly misunderstands the constitutional function and enduring value of civil jury rights. The Article observes that the Seventh Amendment’s jury right was adopted with the understanding that it would come with some inefficiencies and that contemporary concerns about its inefficiencies tend to be overstated. Ultimately, the Article finds that civil juries are essential for structural reasons such as …

Fact Checking Oral Argument In Slaughter, Lev Menand

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court heard argument on Monday in Trump v. Slaughter, a case in which the President seeks to override the power of Congress to limit, through legislation, presidential removal of federal administrators. The argument revealed some confusion about the law and history of federal offices and multiple precedents important to resolving the question. This post examines mistakes and misreadings with respect to: the design of the Federal Reserve System; the meaning of a fixed term; and the Court’s decisions in Marbury v. Madison, Ex Parte Hennen, and Parsons v. United States.

Slaughter, Parsons, And The Original Meaning Of A Term Of Years, Jane Manners, Lev Menand

Faculty Scholarship

This term the Supreme Court is hearing argument in two major cases regarding the law of federal offices. One — Trump v. Slaughter — may strip Congress of the power to place any restrictions on the President’s ability to remove administrators at will. Another — Trump v. Cook — will address how such restrictions work, assuming that the President has to follow them.

Quasi-Judicial: A History And Tradition, Beau J. Baumann, Jed Handelsman Shugerman

Faculty Scholarship

In challenging the historical assumptions underlying the unitary executive theory, scholars have made several seemingly unrelated discoveries. First, "judicial" power was conceived in English law as a subset of "executive" authority. Second, Congress at or near the Founding insulated certain court-like comissions from presidential control. Finally, the "quasi-judicial" and "quasi-legislative" powers that were central to the holding of Humphrey's Executor flowed from a forgotten nineteenth-century legal tradition was guiding Congress's construction of the modern state. This Essay connects these findings into a single claim: generations of American stretching back past the Founding have instinctively insulated administrators granted quasi-judicial functions from …

Presidential Removal As Article I, Not Article Ii, Gary Lawson, Jed Handelsman Shugerman

Faculty Scholarship

As a matter of original public meaning, Article I’s Necessary and Proper clause is the starting point for both Congress’s power to create offices and the limits on that power.

We believe that many legal scholars have demonstrated that, as a matter of original public meaning, the term “executive power” did not imply a presidential removal power, and Article II did not imply an indefeasible (unconditional) presidential removal power. By contrast, Article I’s Necessary and Proper Clause is a basis for limiting congressional power that is more historically grounded in original public meaning and in early practice. Tenure protections and …

Per Se Non-Takings, Nestor M. Davisdson, Timothy M. Mulvaney

Faculty Scholarship

In the discourse on the Takings Clause, disputes over methodology have long formed a kind of proxy war, with per se rules ordinarily underwriting strong constitutional protection for property rights and ad hoc standards more often vindicating public interests. At a moment when the Supreme Court is increasingly embracing the rules end of this rules-standards spectrum, this Article offers a novel perspective to challenge the conventional link between categorical reasoning and classical liberal conceptions of constitutional property.

To do so, the Article excavates a vast body of law denying takings liability through rule-like reasoning, an approach the Article calls per …

Local Government Standing As State Standing, Katharine Cooney, Katherine Mims Crocker

Faculty Scholarship

It is increasingly common, and controversial, for local governments to bring lawsuits as plaintiffs in federal court. Many questions about this practice raise matters that sound in policy. But some, including the issue of standing to sue, also raise issues of constitutional law. How local governments fit into standing rules should reflect how they fit into the U.S. constitutional system more broadly. As the Supreme Court put it in the famous (and infamous) 1907 case Hunter v. City of Pittsburgh, "[m]unicipal corporations are political subdivisions of the State, created as convenient agencies for exercising such of the governmental powers of …

Presidents, Opinions, And Independent Officers, Jed Handelsman Shugerman

Faculty Scholarship

The Opinions in Writing Clause is a persistent textual problem for the claim that Article II implies an indefeasible removal power: If the Framers believed they had given the president an unconditional removal power, why would they also specify a lesser power merely to ask for opinions? New historical research confirms this textual problem was also contextual: early state constitutions, the Ratification debates, and the First Congress indicate that the Opinions Clause’s original public meaning signaled independence of department heads, or at least the possibility of congressional requirements like good cause.

Legal scholars have already shown that the texts of …

Beyond Mass Deportation, Nancy Plankey-Videla, Huyen Pham, Angela D. Morrison, Luz E. Herrera

Faculty Scholarship

Donald Trump’s threats to carry out the mass deportation of unauthorized immigrants helped propel him to a second term as President of the United States. For the estimated 11 million people in the U.S. without lawful status, those threats have increased fears of forced returns to their countries of origin. While American immigration law is heavily focused on the legal processes leading to deportation, little attention has been paid to the post-deportation experiences of individuals who must reintegrate into their home countries. This gap in understanding is especially alarming given the high stakes of reintegration. A successful transition can empower …

The Constitutional Fight Over The Nlra And The Nlrb: A 90 Year Reprise, Kate Andrias

Faculty Scholarship

This article traces renewed constitutional challenges to the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), placing them in historical and doctrinal context. Contemporary attacks — advanced by major corporations and the Trump Administration — revive the constitutional conflicts of the 1930s. Drawing on arguments rooted in the unitary executive theory, as well as Article III and the Seventh Amendment, the current challenges threaten not only the NLRB’s independence but the broader administrative state and the system of labor rights it sustains. At stake is more than institutional design: the dispute reflects a deeper contest over …

Skrmetti Beyond Scrutiny, Kate Redburn

Faculty Scholarship

In United States v. Skrmetti, the Supreme Court upheld Tennessee Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), a state law that prohibits transgender minors from accessing gender-affirming care. For the first time, the Court considered a fundamental question in civil rights law: How does the Fourteenth Amendment regard transgender people? The Court gave little guidance. It did not sort out principles for deciding when anti-transgender discrimination classifies by sex, nor whether transgender people are a suspect class. Instead, the Court held that “[i]n the medical context, the mere use of sex-based language does not sweep a statute within the reach of …

Criminal Court's Disability, Zohra Ahmed

Faculty Scholarship

Do criminal courts meaningfully accommodate psychiatric disability? A review of competency proceedings across the United States suggests not. In competency to stand trial proceedings, criminal court actors offer a narrow vision of psychiatric disability that excludes many defendants. Ultimately, the institutional context of criminal court undermines even the meagre accommodations that the competency framework provides.

Competency proceedings are the constitutional accommodations available to disabled defendants if they can establish that they are unable to consult with their lawyers or if they do not have a rational or factual understanding of the proceedings against them. After a finding of incompetency, the …

Amicus In Trump V. Cook: The Fed, Offices As Property, And The Meaning Of “Cause”, Jed Handelsman Shugerman

Faculty Scholarship

The Federal Reserve Act states that “each member shall hold office for a term of fourteen years from the expiration of the term of his predecessor, unless sooner removed for cause by the President.” 12 U.S.C. § 242. Based on the historical record, when Congress creates an office with a fixed term of years and protects against removal without “cause,” Congress has both granted “a constitutionally protected property interest” under the Fifth Amendment (that cannot be taken away without “due process”) and extended a statutory entitlement to receive fair notice and a meaningful opportunity to respond before any removal may …

Bank Supervision And Article Ii, Kathryn Judge

Faculty Scholarship

The administrative state is again at a cross roads. The Supreme Court seems poised to continue its march toward trying to fit all of government neatly into one of the three constitutionally enumerated branches. An important front of this shift has been a flattening of the mechanisms through which officers of the United States may be held appropriately accountable for their actions. Waning are the days when Congress had the flexibility to create the institutions it believed were “necessary and proper” for carrying into execution important policy aims and to determine the appropriate mechanisms for accountability in conjunction with considering …

Joinder, Not Jurisdiction: Toward A New Theory Of Standing, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

This Article builds on an important development in the Supreme Court’s standing jurisprudence to propose a novel theory that would allow more meaningful access to federal courts while vindicating legitimate separation-of-powers concerns. In its recent decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, the Supreme Court endorsed a theory of standing based on Article II, writing that litigation between private parties—even when explicitly authorized by Congress—can run afoul of the executive branch’s interest in “how to prioritize and how aggressively to pursue legal actions against defendants who violate the law.” This Article II move has been justifiably criticized. But it is …

A Conversation About Stare Decisis, Debra A. Livingston, John Q. Barrett

Faculty Scholarship

John Q. Barrett (“JQB”)

Chief Judge Debra Ann Livingston, welcome back to St. John’s.

The Chief Judge has been a friend to us for many years. It is an honor to host someone of her talent and someone in her position: the Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

We’re going to have a conversation for the first part of the program, about judging, her work, and stare decisis. But first, we need to meet you and hear a little bit about your background — where you are from — and the path that took …

"What Shall Be Orthodox" In Polarized Times: Overview And Response To Commentators, Linda C. Mcclain, James E. Fleming

Faculty Scholarship

“If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.” Justice Robert Jackson wrote this celebrated passage in his majority opinion in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), which protected the First Amendment right of Jehovah’s Witness children not to participate in a compulsory flag salute in public schools. In recent years, protests against imposed orthodoxy—usually invoking Barnette—have occurred in …

An Originalist Case For Birthright Citizenship Of Unlawful Immigrants' Children: Anti-Gypsy And Anti-Chinese Restrictions As Context, Jed Handelsman Shugerman

Faculty Scholarship

The Trump administration and other opponents of birthright citizenship for the children of “unlawful immigrants” make the following originalist claim about the Fourteenth Amendment: Even if the clause meant birthright citizenship, it applies today only to “lawful immigrants,” because the category of “unlawful immigrant” or “illegal immigrant” did not exist in the 1860s, when the clause was written and ratified. Opponents also argue that the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause originally implied a “loyalty” or “allegiance” requirement.

These assertions are historically inaccurate.

To the contrary, the concept of “unlawful immigrants” existed in the 1850s-60s, and Americans ratified birthright citizenship without indicating …

A Historical Case For A Robust But Non-Remedial Seventh Amendment, Jed Handelsman Shugerman

Faculty Scholarship

In Jarkesy, the Supreme Court rightly held that the Seventh Amendment required a jury trial for a case fundamentally similar to common law fraud, and it rightly limited the scope of the “public rights” exception to the Seventh Amendment. Grounded in historical and originalist methods, this essay makes four suggestions after Jarkesy:

1. Following Jarkesy, the judiciary should continue a more robust enforcement of the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. The courts should eliminate the “public rights” exception to the Seventh Amendment, which does not appear to have an original link to the Seventh Amendment. The …

Opinion: The Constitution - Not Trump - Demands Our Allegiance, Christian G. Fritz

Faculty Scholarship

Supporting the Constitution not only requires submission to constitutional authority but implies resistance to powers that are exercised unconstitutionally. Such resistance might take the form of brave individuals living up to their oath of office or courts defending the rule of law and the Constitution. But while the Supreme Court plays a key role in interpreting the Constitution and holding a president in check, it has long been recognized that others besides the court have always been necessary to help monitor America’s constitutional order. The practice of resisting unconstitutional acts of the federal government by sounding the alarm was described …