Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- First Amendment (63)
- Courts (61)
- Criminal Procedure (48)
- Criminal Law (41)
- Law and Society (39)
-
- Legislation (37)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (36)
- Religion Law (34)
- Jurisprudence (29)
- Legal History (29)
- President/Executive Department (28)
- State and Local Government Law (27)
- Fourteenth Amendment (26)
- Evidence (23)
- Judges (23)
- Law and Politics (23)
- Education Law (18)
- Jurisdiction (17)
- Juvenile Law (17)
- Law and Gender (17)
- Torts (17)
- Legal Remedies (15)
- Litigation (15)
- Administrative Law (14)
- Law Enforcement and Corrections (14)
- Civil Procedure (13)
- Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility (13)
- Property Law and Real Estate (13)
- Keyword
-
- Constitutional law (61)
- First Amendment (48)
- Supreme Court (33)
- Constitution (32)
- Federalism (25)
-
- United States Supreme Court (24)
- Constitutional Law (22)
- Religion (20)
- California (19)
- Abortion (16)
- Equal protection (15)
- Evidence (15)
- Congress (14)
- Privacy (13)
- Separation of powers (13)
- United States (13)
- Fourth Amendment (12)
- Right to counsel (11)
- Due Process (10)
- Fourteenth Amendment (10)
- Legislation (10)
- Separation of Powers (10)
- Defendant (9)
- Due process of law (9)
- Eminent domain (9)
- Fifth Amendment (9)
- Government (9)
- Speech (9)
- Crime (8)
- Criminal procedure (8)
Articles 1 - 30 of 332
Full-Text Articles in Constitutional Law
Public Use On The Loose: Clarifying The Takings Clause’S Public Use Requirement, Megan Hoefs
Public Use On The Loose: Clarifying The Takings Clause’S Public Use Requirement, Megan Hoefs
Pepperdine Law Review
The Fifth Amendment permits the taking of private property for “public use,” but modern courts refuse to question legislative determinations of that use. Although the Supreme Court has implicitly reserved a prohibition on takings done under a “mere pretext of public purpose,” lower courts are unsure of how to identify or evaluate such pretext. This Comment argues that the Public Use Clause requires a showing of good faith to be constitutionally sufficient. By reframing public use around good faith, this Comment offers a modest but necessary clarification that preserves the structure of existing doctrine while restoring the Clause’s function as …
Open And Shut: Non-Removal Statutesand Door-Closing Penalties, Isaac Zwerling
Open And Shut: Non-Removal Statutesand Door-Closing Penalties, Isaac Zwerling
Pepperdine Law Review
There is a longstanding tension in the Court’s treatment of non-removal statutes and door-closing penalties. On the one hand, the Court has held non-removal statutes—business registration statutes that condition a foreign corporation’s license on that corporation’s right to remove cases brought against it to federal court—pose an unconstitutional limit on federal court access. On the other, the Court has extended door-closing penalties statutes prohibiting unregistered foreign corporations from initiating an action in the forum state—to federal courts sitting in diversity. This Article surveys how the Court arrived at this puzzling result. It does so by analyzing each line of cases …
The Interpretive Force Of Alexander Hamilton’S Early Expositions Of Presidential Power, Michael Stokes Paulsen
The Interpretive Force Of Alexander Hamilton’S Early Expositions Of Presidential Power, Michael Stokes Paulsen
Pepperdine Law Review
The most important, rightly influential, early interpretations of the Constitution on presidential power concerning matters of war, peace, and foreign affairs flowed from the able pen of Alexander Hamilton in three sets of pseudonymous public essays: as “Publius” in The Federalist (1787–1788); as “Pacificus” (1793–1794); and “Camillus” (1795–1796). As Publius, Hamilton expounded a broad understanding of presidential constitutional power generally and of presidential power in war and foreign affairs specifically, including an essentially plenary Commander-in-Chief power over the conduct of authorized war (but with no constitutional power to initiate war: that power being explicitly and exclusively assigned to Congress). As …
Judicial Appointments Before Vacancies, Vasan Kesavan
Judicial Appointments Before Vacancies, Vasan Kesavan
Pepperdine Law Review
Appointments are about power—presidential power. There is no greater presidential appointment power than the power to appoint federal judges who are expected to serve for life. Judicial appointments allow the President to shape one branch of the federal government for decades to come, perhaps decisively, thereby helping to define his legacy. Of all judicial appointments, there is nothing more significant than appointments to the Supreme Court, if the President even has the opportunity during his term. But these appointments are the most difficult for the President to make in the most partisan political period in our lifetimes. May a President, …
Correcting Confusion Over Commandeering, Supremacy, And Preemption: A User’S Guide To Modern Federalism, Vikram David Amar
Correcting Confusion Over Commandeering, Supremacy, And Preemption: A User’S Guide To Modern Federalism, Vikram David Amar
Pepperdine Law Review
Current disputes between state/local entities and the Trump administration, some of which build on flare-ups over the past few decades, place in sharp relief the key doctrinal features of modern federalism, many of which seem to confound the Supreme and lower courts, to say nothing of political actors and legal analysts. The mistakes being made run in both directions; sometimes states are wrongly confined, and in other episodes states are given (or are seeking) more than they are constitutionally due. In this Essay, I use several case studies—some from recent weeks or months and others from recent years or decades—to …
The Executive’S Takeover Of Independent Agencies: How Institutional Design Gave Way To Political Will, Neal Devins
The Executive’S Takeover Of Independent Agencies: How Institutional Design Gave Way To Political Will, Neal Devins
Pepperdine Law Review
The anticipated demise of the independent agency is a saga that implicates Congress as much as it does the President or the Supreme Court. By capitulating to presidential initiatives and failing to defend their institutional prerogatives, Congress has facilitated presidential control of the administrative state. Indeed, irrespective of whether the Court formally repudiates Humphrey’s Executor, Congress has largely acquiesced to a regime whereby presidents essentially control independent agencies. By highlighting the competing incentives of Congress and the White House, this Essay explains the rise of presidential unilateralism vis-à-vis independent agencies. This Essay also casts light on a critically important but …
The Imperious Presidency: Brazen Power Plays And Executive Overreach, Daniel Farber
The Imperious Presidency: Brazen Power Plays And Executive Overreach, Daniel Farber
Pepperdine Law Review
The Trump Administration has been prone to brazen power plays. These actions have three basic characteristics: they are dramatic deviations from conventional governance, generating headlines and online clicks; their legal (and sometimes factual) foundations are tenuous; and they are potentially effective even if they are ultimately held lawful. This Essay analyzes this phenomenon. It argues that such power plays can be a rational strategy for a president under certain circumstances. Power plays can help dominate the news flow and energize the political base. They can also cause behavior shifts in their targets, even when litigation would be likely to overturn …
“The Future Of Executive Power”: An Overview, Robert J. Pushaw Jr.
“The Future Of Executive Power”: An Overview, Robert J. Pushaw Jr.
Pepperdine Law Review
This symposium overview examines the rapid expansion of presidential power in the modern era, culminating in what the author and contributors describe as an unprecedented assertion of Article II authority during President Trump’s second term. It argues that the Constitution’s original separation-of-powers framework—designed to prioritize legislative authority and constrain the executive—has been inverted due to the growth of presidential control over foreign affairs, the administrative state, and policymaking. The article traces this shift through historical developments such as the New Deal, the rise of independent agencies, and the emergence of the “unitary executive” theory, while also analyzing recent Supreme Court …
The Ministerial Exception And Defamation: Navigating Churches’ Autonomy And Their Communications, Zachary Runge
The Ministerial Exception And Defamation: Navigating Churches’ Autonomy And Their Communications, Zachary Runge
Pepperdine Law Review
In two recent cases, the Supreme Court has adopted what scholars and lower courts have called the “ministerial exception.” The Court only addressed the ministerial exception’s application to employment discrimination claims. But the Court did not foreclose the possibility of its application to other claims. This Comment argues that the ministerial exception applies to defamation claims arising out of a minister’s termination. After providing the background for the ministerial exception, this Comment explains the current state of the law. Then, this Comment argues that the ministerial exception, as a form of the church autonomy doctrine, applies to the defamation claims …
Ayahuasca And Religious Freedom, Andrew C. Michaels
Ayahuasca And Religious Freedom, Andrew C. Michaels
Pepperdine Law Review
Ayahuasca is an ancient and powerful psychedelic brew that has been used for many centuries in the Amazon rainforest, and over past decades has been gaining popularity in western countries such as the United States. The ayahuasca brew contains dimethyltryptamine (DMT) and accordingly is banned by the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). But some groups working with ayahuasca have applied for exemptions under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), and so far, at least five such groups have received exemptions, either via court decision or via agreement with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). However, the factors that courts and the DEA …
Standing In The Shadows: Member Anonymity In Associational Standing Cases, Mitchell Brost
Standing In The Shadows: Member Anonymity In Associational Standing Cases, Mitchell Brost
Pepperdine Law Review
Associational standing serves several benefits for plaintiff members: associations often have expertise in a certain field that guides the representation of their members, they have greater resources that allow them to bring lawsuits in the first place, and they can serve as the public face of the lawsuit to shield the plaintiff member from serious retaliation that may result from bringing the claim. But due to some imprecise language in Justice Scalia’s majority opinion in Summers v. Earth Island Institute, circuit courts are divided over whether associational members can remain anonymous at all. Thus, individuals who have legitimate legal claims, …
Jealously Guarded: The Right To Trial By Jury In Federal Court Under California’S Unruh Civil Rights Act, Denis Bogatin
Jealously Guarded: The Right To Trial By Jury In Federal Court Under California’S Unruh Civil Rights Act, Denis Bogatin
Pepperdine Law Review
Since California adopted heightened pleading standards for high-frequency litigants alleging violations of the Unruh Act in state court, federal district courts have seen a surge of ADA and Unruh Act claims filed together to secure subject matter jurisdiction. Most courts dismissed the Unruh claims under their discretionary authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, but they remained divided on whether plaintiffs in these cases have a right to jury trial—statutory or constitutional. In 2025, the Ninth Circuit resolved part of the split in In re Tsay, holding that the Unruh Act provides a constitutional right to a jury trial because it …
The Power To Declare Peace, Michael Stokes Paulsen
The Power To Declare Peace, Michael Stokes Paulsen
Pepperdine Law Review
The Constitution gives Congress the power “to declare War.” The meaning of that grant of power is much debated, but its converse is much neglected: To whom does the Constitution assign the power to declare peace? This Article comprehensively examines the Constitution’s various assignments of the power(s) to make peace—constitutional powers to end, as a practical matter and as a binding legal matter, a prior legal condition of war. Both the President and Congress possess several such powers. The President has the power, with the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senate, to make treaties, including peace treaties that …
Reckoning With Antisemitism In History And Tradition, Nathaniel Shaw Hay, Isaac Barnes May
Reckoning With Antisemitism In History And Tradition, Nathaniel Shaw Hay, Isaac Barnes May
Pepperdine Law Review
“History and tradition” has become a watchword of modern constitutional interpretation, shaping Supreme Court jurisprudence and framing ongoing debates over the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. Yet this interpretive framework remains under-theorized in one critical respect: how should it grapple with the prejudices embedded in the very traditions it invokes? This Article examines that question through the lens of anti-Jewish discrimination in Anglo-American law, using this history as a case study to examine both the perils and promise of relying on history as a source of constitutional authority. For centuries, the common law excluded Jews from full civic participation in …
Stipulations Of Law And Agency Independence, Jack Ferguson
Stipulations Of Law And Agency Independence, Jack Ferguson
Pepperdine Law Review
The Supreme Court granted certiorari in SEC v. Jarkesy to consider whether good-cause removal protections for SEC administrative law judges violate the Constitution, but ultimately left the question unanswered. The lower court holding that the removal protections are unconstitutional remains on the books for now, neither affirmed nor reversed. And a circuit split lives on. The removal power question is likely headed back to the Supreme Court before long. This Essay examines a key premise of the Jarkesy litigation and its leading precedent, the 2010 case Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Co. Accounting Oversight Board. In both cases, the parties …
An "Exceedingly Persuasive Justification": Affirmative Action As Protected By The Free Exercise Clause, Kristin O'Bryan Pereira
An "Exceedingly Persuasive Justification": Affirmative Action As Protected By The Free Exercise Clause, Kristin O'Bryan Pereira
Pepperdine Law Review
In 2023, the Supreme Court’s Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Harvard (SFFA) decision effectively outlawed the use of race-based affirmative action programs in higher education, holding that such programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Meanwhile, the current Supreme Court has been unprecedently friendly to claimants seeking Free Exercise Clause protection from government restraints on religious exercise. The intersection between these two areas of law has implications for a category of schools not explicitly considered in the SFFA decision—private, religious schools …
In The Age Of Garcetti: Public Teachers' Free Speech Rights Within The Transgender-Student Debates, Hannah Bradvica
In The Age Of Garcetti: Public Teachers' Free Speech Rights Within The Transgender-Student Debates, Hannah Bradvica
Pepperdine Law Review
A culture war over gender identity is playing out on the school playground, as conservative lawmakers across the country have introduced and implemented various pieces of anti-trans legislation focused on stripping away the privacy and expression of transgender students’ identities. An important question within this legislation remains: may public school teachers be exempt from following these policies? This Comment examines teachers’ free speech rights within two contexts: mandated parental notification of transgender-student policies and guidelines requiring teachers to adhere to students’ preferred pronouns. It considers the viability of compelled-speech claims brought by teachers, applying First Amendment jurisprudence and Garcetti v. …
Kennedy V. Louisiana And The Future Of The Eighth Amendment, Alexandra L. Klein
Kennedy V. Louisiana And The Future Of The Eighth Amendment, Alexandra L. Klein
Pepperdine Law Review
In 2023, Florida passed a law permitting the imposition of the death penalty for the rape of a child under twelve. Tennessee enacted a similar law in 2024. These laws conflict with Kennedy v. Louisiana, a 2008 decision in which the Supreme Court held that imposing the death penalty for the rape of a child violated the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause because it was inconsistent with the evolving standards of decency. Legislators in Florida and Tennessee have expressed their hope that the Supreme Court will overrule Kennedy v. Louisiana. These laws, which resemble state attempts to undo …
Is Snap Removal Unconstitutional?, Ryan H. Nelson
Is Snap Removal Unconstitutional?, Ryan H. Nelson
Pepperdine Law Review
In snap removal, an individual removes a civil action to federal district court from the courts of a state where one or more putative defendants are a citizen before any such putative defendant has been served with process. By removing before any forum-state defendants are served, the removal arguably eludes the forum-defendant rule, which prohibits removal based solely on the diversity or alienage jurisdiction statute if “any of the parties in interest properly . . . served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought.” For years, federal judges and legal academics have disputed …
The Problem With Direct Collateral Review, Jaden M. Lessnick
The Problem With Direct Collateral Review, Jaden M. Lessnick
Pepperdine Law Review
Federal habeas review of state convictions is sharply circumscribed for a reason: Granting the writ of habeas corpus disrupts the federalism and finality interests that lie at the heart of state sovereignty over criminal law. Both the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) and the Supreme Court’s equitable bars to relief reflect the structural dangers inherent in collateral review of state convictions. Given the increasing unavailability of federal habeas relief, state prisoners have turned to another vehicle for collateral federal review, one that bypasses AEDPA’s demanding standard: direct review of state post-conviction proceedings. And regrettably, the Court has entertained …
Quit Using Acquittals: The Unconstitutionality And Immorality Of Acquitted-Conduct Sentencing, Brenna Nouray
Quit Using Acquittals: The Unconstitutionality And Immorality Of Acquitted-Conduct Sentencing, Brenna Nouray
Pepperdine Law Review
This Comment examines the phenomenon of acquitted-conduct sentencing—a practice that allows a sentencing judge to enhance a criminal defendant’s sentence due to conduct for which he has already been acquitted. Seventeen-year-old Dayonta McClinton is one of many criminal defendants who have unjustly suffered at the hands of this practice when he received a thirteen-year enhancement because of conduct for which he already received a verdict of not guilty from a jury. This Comment argues that acquitted-conduct sentencing is unconstitutional, as it violates both the reasonable doubt standard required under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the jury …
The Post-Dobbs Reality: Privacy Expectations For Period-Tracking Apps In Criminal Abortion Prosecutions, Sophie L. Nelson
The Post-Dobbs Reality: Privacy Expectations For Period-Tracking Apps In Criminal Abortion Prosecutions, Sophie L. Nelson
Pepperdine Law Review
The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey in June 2022 was met with waves of both support and criticism throughout the United States. Several states immediately implemented or began drafting trigger laws that criminalize seeking and providing an abortion. These laws prompted several period-tracking app companies to encrypt their users’ data to make it more difficult for the government to access period- and pregnancy-related information for criminal investigations. This Comment explores whether the Fourth Amendment and U.S. privacy statutes protect users of period-tracking apps from government surveillance. More specifically, this Comment argues that …
The Nonexistent Speedy Trial Right, Colleen Cullen
The Nonexistent Speedy Trial Right, Colleen Cullen
Pepperdine Law Review
The United States Constitution and all fifty states guarantee a speedy trial right for individuals accused of crimes. The controlling United States Supreme Court case, decided over fifty years ago, described the Sixth Amendment as a fundamental right with Fourteenth Amendment Due Process implications. Although the right to a speedy trial is a universally recognized right, this Article compellingly demonstrates the right is actually nonexistent throughout the United States. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted and exacerbated this previously unrecognized problem in courthouses across the country, which has led to news outlets finally covering the issue of the nonexistent speedy trial. This …
The Supreme Court, Article Iii, And Jurisdiction Stuffing, James E. Pfander
The Supreme Court, Article Iii, And Jurisdiction Stuffing, James E. Pfander
Pepperdine Law Review
Reflecting on the state of the federal judiciary in the aftermath of the Biden Commission report and subsequent controversies, this Article identifies problems with the current operation of both the Supreme Court and the lower courts that make up the Article III judicial pyramid. Many federal issues have been assigned to non-Article III tribunals, courts poorly structured to offer the independent legal assessment that such Founders as James Wilson prized as they structured the federal judiciary. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court devotes growing attention to a slice of highly salient public law questions, including those presented on the shadow docket, thereby …
Jarkesy V. Sec: Are Federal Courts Pushing The U.S. Toward The Next Financial Crisis?, Jennifer Hill
Jarkesy V. Sec: Are Federal Courts Pushing The U.S. Toward The Next Financial Crisis?, Jennifer Hill
Pepperdine Law Review
In the wake of both the Great Depression and the Financial Crisis of 2008, Congress established and expanded the powers of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). As part of this expansion, the SEC in-house administrative proceedings, designed to adjudicate SEC violations before the SEC’s administrative law judges (ALJs), were born. These in-house proceedings have faced multiple constitutional attacks in the past decade. In the most recent iteration of such challenges, Jarkesy v. SEC, the Fifth Circuit held that the SEC’s in-house proceedings were unconstitutional on three grounds: (1) the in-house proceedings deprived petitioners of their constitutional right to jury …
Who Let The Ghouls Out? The History And Tradition Test’S Embrace Of Neutrality And Pluralism In Establishment Cases, Jake S. Neill
Who Let The Ghouls Out? The History And Tradition Test’S Embrace Of Neutrality And Pluralism In Establishment Cases, Jake S. Neill
Pepperdine Law Review
In June of 2022, the Supreme Court decided in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District that an Establishment Clause inquiry “focused on original meaning and history” would replace Lemon’s endorsement test. But after announcing the test, the Court neglected to describe or apply it. This Comment attempts to fill that void. After analyzing the Court’s Establishment Clause jurisprudence, this Comment proposes tenets of the history and tradition test and applies those tenets to Allegheny County v. ACLU, a case decided under Lemon. Finally, this Comment concludes by arguing that the history and tradition inquiry supports pluralism, humility, tolerance, and a healthy …
Judicial Fidelity, Caprice L. Roberts
Judicial Fidelity, Caprice L. Roberts
Pepperdine Law Review
Judicial critics abound. Some say the rule of law is dead across all three branches of government. Four are dead if you count the media as the fourth estate. All are in trouble, even if one approves of each branch’s headlines, but none of them are dead. Not yet. Pundits and scholars see the latest term of the Supreme Court as clear evidence of partisan politics and unbridled power. They decry an upheaval of laws and norms demonstrating the dire situation across the federal judiciary. Democracy is not dead even when the Court issues opinions that overturn precedent, upends long-standing …
Does Federal Law Ban Mailing Abortion Drugs? A Textual Analysis Of 18 U.S.C. § 1461, Peter Allevato
Does Federal Law Ban Mailing Abortion Drugs? A Textual Analysis Of 18 U.S.C. § 1461, Peter Allevato
Pepperdine Law Review
As the regulation of abortion availability returned to the States, many have grappled with so-called trigger laws: dormant laws that were set to take effect to restrict or ensure access to abortion should constitutional protection be revoked. While the federal government has no true trigger law, it does have long-unenforced laws prohibiting the mailing of “[e]very article or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion.” 18 U.S.C. § 1461 is an old law, and it has not been enforced for at least fifty years. But the law’s potential effect on the growing practice of mail-distribution of chemical abortion pills …
Teacher Shortages And The Fundamental Right To Education In California, Chris Yarrell
Teacher Shortages And The Fundamental Right To Education In California, Chris Yarrell
Pepperdine Law Review
That a qualified teacher workforce functions as the most important factor affecting student learning and achievement is beyond dispute. Yet, the right to education—which is a state obligation codified within all fifty 50 state constitutions—has been vindicated largely within the province of school finance litigation. Indeed, for nearly five decades, education litigants have brought school finance disputes in virtually every state, succeeding in more than half of them. Despite the hard-won victories notched by education litigants over this time, however, courts adjudicating school finance disputes have largely failed to move beyond declaring simple proscriptions on facially unequal school funding regimes. …
The Power Of State Legislatures To Invalidate Private Deed Restrictions: Is It An Unconstitutional Taking?, Ken Stahl
Pepperdine Law Review
Over the past several years, state legislatures confronting a severe housing shortage have increasingly preempted local land use regulations that restrict housing supply in an effort to facilitate more housing production. But even where state legislatures have been successful, they now confront another problem: many of the preempted land use regulations are duplicated at the neighborhood or block level through private “covenants, conditions and restrictions” (CCRs) enforced by homeowners associations (HOAs). In response, California’s legislature has begun aggressively invalidating or “overriding” these CCRs. While many states have barred HOAs from prohibiting pets, clotheslines, signs, and flags, California has moved much …