Constitutional Law Commons^™

Excavating Miranda, Samuel J. Levine

Scholarly Works

Sixty years after it was decided, Miranda v. Arizona remains one of the most significant and renowned cases—as well as, arguably, one of the most controversial cases—in the history of the United States. Chief Justice Earl Warren’s majority opinion, establishing the eponymous Miranda warnings for custodial interrogation of criminal suspects, has prompted voluminous and continuing commentary, among both critics and supporters. This Article is part of an ongoing project exploring a particular aspect of Chief Justice Warren’s majority opinion: a footnote referencing Jewish legal sources, documenting an important passage at the start of a pivotal section of the opinion.

Building …

Abandoning Press Freedom, Ronnell Andersen Jones, Sonja R. West

Scholarly Works

Among elected officials and the broader public, attitudes toward the press are deeply polarized along ideological lines. Polling shows that most liberals favor the press, while conservatives view it more negatively— a partisan divide that has widened significantly over the past decade. Conventional wisdom suggests that the same ideological split is also at work at the Supreme Court, with liberal Justices championing the work of the press while their conservative colleagues express more skepticism. This perception is reinforced by historical examples of liberal Justices advancing press rights alongside broader democracy-engagement and social-justice issues. Recent calls from some conservative Justices to …

Gienapp's Big Book: Conceptual Rupture, Modernism, And The End Of Originalism, Logan E. Sawyer Iii

Scholarly Works

For decades, we have lived in an age of partisan jurisprudence, in which nearly every Republican has embraced originalism, and nearly every Democrat has rejected it. One can mark the start of that era in multiple places, but one good choice is November 11th, 1977. That day, in the pages of National Review, William F. Buckley previewed Government by Judiciary, Raoul Berger’s originalist critique of the Warren Court’s rights revolution. The review, entitled “Berger’s Big Book,” was highly complimentary. Berger’s rebuke of Warren Court activism was, Buckley thought, “devastating.” And he was not alone. Following the publication of Government by …

Press Freedom's History And Tradition, Ronnell Andersen Jones, Sonja R. West

Scholarly Works

Backward-looking, history-and-tradition analysis is gaining greater prominence at the U.S. Supreme Court. While the Court has not yet explicitly applied its history-and-tradition framework to press freedom questions, the methodology’s dominance across other areas, coupled with some urgent concerns about the scope of newsgatherer protections and some Justices’ interest in reconsidering long-established precedent, suggest that this application could be imminent. In anticipation of that moment, we set out to empirically map the Court’s engagement with the history and tradition of press freedom in its rhetoric over time. Our goals were to explore, both quantitatively and qualitatively, how the Court’s Justices have …

Qui Tam Legislation And Article Ii: State Constitutional Precursors To The “Take Care” Clause, Randy Beck

Scholarly Works

Anglo-American legislation since the fourteenth century has often authorized “popular” or “qui tam” enforcement, in which an uninjured “common informer” litigates to collect a forfeiture for violation of a statute. Popular enforcement has become considerably less common than in earlier centuries, but remains important because of the qui tam provisions of the federal False Claims Act (FCA). In Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens, the Supreme Court rejected an Article III standing challenge to qui tam litigation, concluding that the long history of popular enforcement means qui tam suits present cognizable “cases and controversies of …

Adequate Representation In Group Litigation, Elizabeth Chamblee Burch

Scholarly Works

This article examines the inherent tension between the legal system's desire for "global peace" (finality) and the constitutional requirement for adequate representation in collective lawsuits. While Rule 23 class actions provide structural safeguards—such as judicial oversight of counsel and settlement, and opt-out rights—alternative mechanisms like multidistrict litigation (MDL) and parens patriae suits often lack these protections . Using the In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation as a primary case study, the article illustrates how informal, "backroom" leadership selection in MDLs empowers a small circle of elite "repeat players" at the expense of marginalized groups, such as Native American tribes and …

Child-Taking Justice And The Federal Indian Boarding School Initiative, Diane Marie Amann

Scholarly Works

The focus of this article is the 2022–2024 Federal Indian Boarding School Initiative undertaken the U.S. Executive Branch. The article chronicles this three-year process, which included sessions with survivors and their descendants, and which resulted in a two-volume report, in an apology by President Joe Biden, and in designation of a national memorial at one of the most notorious school sites. This article examines the initiative as an example of “child-taking justice”; that is, as a process of what is called “transitional justice”, done in an effort to redress the takings of children from their community, followed by efforts to …

Stand-In Standing, Matthew I. Hall

Scholarly Works

When the interests of a state, or of the federal government, are at issue in a lawsuit, those interests are typically represented by the Executive branch. But not always: The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that states, and the federal government, may delegate their claims to non-governmental litigants in some circumstances. But the Court has never defined the exact boundaries of when stand-in standing is permitted. And states have recently begun to exploit this doctrinal uncertainty, by enacting laws that are arguably, and in some cases flagrantly, unconstitutional, but outsourcing the enforcement of those laws to private individuals. The avowed …

Whither Leviathan? The Seepage Of Constitutional Law Into Public-Private Arbitration In The United States, Peter B. Rutledge

Scholarly Works

The chapter analyses how constitutional law influences private-public arbitration in the United States. Its central thesis is that constitutional law exerts a powerful indirect influence on arbitration law. While the US Constitution does not directly regulate arbitration, its underlying norms—such as separation of powers, federalism, and individual rights—impact arbitration law indirectly. The chapter explores the ways in which these constitutional principles influence public-private arbitration through statutory interpretation, treaty design, and private protocols reflecting constitutional norms. This pattern of influence manifests itself in public arbitration (i.e. arbitration involving states or state-owned entities) just as it does in private arbitration. Highlighting how …

Ecarrots: Prison Control And Profits From Correctional Tablets, Justin Iverson

Scholarly Works

In recent years, tablets have gained tremendous popularity behind bars for their ability to expand access to educational and rehabilitative services for people in prison. However, there are downsides to tablet implementation, including high costs at the expense of a captive population and shifting power dynamics resulting in possible volatility. This Article examines the use of correctional tablets in jails and prisons as mechanisms for administrative control and profit-making in an era of beleaguered correctional budgets. It also considers legal and policy implications related to the disproportionately negative impact of the introduction of tablets on people in poverty, increased dependency …

"A Plain Denial”: Reclaiming Equal Protection In American Juvenile Law, Addie C. Rolnick, David S. Tanenhaus, Justin Iverson, Danielle L. Silvestri

Scholarly Works

Juvenile courts are based on the premise that children are different from adults and should therefore be treated differently. Children may be treated more informally by courts, punished for different purposes, and brought before the court for different behaviors. Since In re Gault, the Supreme Court has been clear that there are limits to how different juvenile courts can be. Juveniles are entitled to many of the same procedural protections as adult criminal defendants, although the Court has preserved some procedural differences where it has determined that their benefit is outweighed by the need to preserve the informality, flexibility, …

A Right To Be Born?: What Dobbs Could Mean For Artificial Reproductive Technologies, Stewart Chang

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Structural Originalism: A Second Amendment Case Study, Ian C. Bartrum

Scholarly Works

“Originalism” is having a national moment, even if it is not entirely clear what the word means. What should we be originalist about? The leading academic approach asks us to parse the communicative content of text ratified in a very different linguistic culture; then construct a modern legal meaning consistent with our semantic speculations. Too often the result enforces policy judgments made in a radically different moral and technological world. This makes very little sense.

In this paper I recommend a more perspicuous and coherent use of constitutional history, which I call “structural originalism.” Rather than saddle ourselves with the …

How To Teach A Course On Land Use And Anti-Jewish Discrimination, Michael Lewyn

Scholarly Works

In 2022, I was asked to teach a one-week mini-course within a broader course on "Structural Barriers and the Pursuit of Equity," a course focusing on various forms of structural discrimination. The course is typically taught by over a dozen professors from various parts of Touro University, each of whom teaches for a week on a different topic. I chose to teach on issues related to land use law (because my scholarship focuses on that area) and in particular how land use law has been used by and against traditionally observant Jews (because that is the religious tradition I am …

Perfecting Our Submission? Mann And Trump, Ruffin And Roberts, Joseph S. Miller

Scholarly Works

Presidential power is vast, both under law and in practice. Who holds presidents accountable, and by what means? Courts wrestle with these intertwined questions of power and accountability. The majority opinion in the 2024 presidential immunity case, Trump v. United States, is eerily resonant, rhetorically, with a notorious judgment enhancing one person’s power over others by shielding that power utterly from criminal-law accountability. That judgment, from 1829, is Judge Thomas Ruffin’s infamous slavery-law opinion for the North Carolina Supreme Court in State v. Mann. I juxtapose the two opinions, which share jarringly similar claims about the nature of power, rule, …

Resisting Federal Preemption, Desiree Leclercq

Scholarly Works

One of the most pressing issues in constitutional law is how states may—and should—resist federal preempting laws and policies with which they disagree. It’s a problem faced by red and blue states alike in an age of extreme political polarization. Despite having legitimate reasons to resist the federal government on matters that affect local citizens and interests, states seem to have few options. Conventional wisdom is that they engage in either direct resistance through litigation that challenges the constitutionality of preempting laws, or evasion by quietly enacting arguably non-compliant laws hoping to avoid enforcement. Both strategies adopt a belligerent stance …

Confession And Confrontation, William Ortman

Scholarly Works

The constitutional law of confessions has a critical blind spot. In theory, the law serves two interests. First, it protects the autonomy of suspects by stipulating that they can be questioned while in custody only with their consent. Second, it restrains official misconduct by forbidding interrogation methods that overbear a suspect's will. Even if the law adequately safeguards those interests, something is missing: reliability. As false confessions emerge as a major source of wrongful convictions and as social scientists expose how standard interrogation tactics prompt innocent people to confess, the Supreme Court and conventional wisdom insist that the reliability of …

The Regulation Of Presidential Elections, Lori A. Ringhand

Scholarly Works

There is an unresolved dispute lingering just beneath the surface of a host of laws regulating our elections: does Congress have power under Articles I and II of the Constitution to legislate the nuts-and-bolts rules governing presidential elections? The issue exists because of a textual gap in congressional authority. Article 1 section 4 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to override a state's choices about the "times, places, and manner" of congressional elections held in the state. Article II section 1 gives the legislature of each state power to determine the “manner” in which its presidential electors are appointed, …

How To Impeach A Verdict: A Response To Melanie C. Regis, Cynara Hermes Mcquillan

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Restraints On Intrastate Distribution Of Taxing Authority, Walter Hellerstein

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Child Sacrifices: The Precarity Of Minors’ Autonomy And Bodily Integrity After Dobbs, Teri Dobbins Baxter

Scholarly Works

In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Supreme Court held that there is no constitutional right to abortion. The decision has had a devastating impact on people seeking abortions in many states, and it will have an even more profound effect on the rights and lives of minors. Pregnant minors face greater risks than pregnant adults when they are forced to continue a pregnancy that can harm their physical and mental health and their educational and financial futures. Very young minors are incapable of consenting to the sexual acts that result in pregnancy, but many states require even these …

Judicial Review In Public And Private Governance, Tomer S. Stein

Scholarly Works

In Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, the Supreme Court limited judicial deference to universities. In West Virginia v. EPA, the Court reduced deference to administrative agencies. In Coster v. UIP Cos., Inc., the Delaware Supreme Court narrowed deference to boards of directors, proclaimed a new standard of judicial review, and then seemingly retracted it. Common to these constitutional, administrative, and corporate law cases is unpredictability, uncertainty, and incoherence in the use and application of substantive standards of review. The resulting disarray is explicitly acknowledged by the very judges that formulate these standards of …

The Constitutional Meaning Of Financial Terms, Tomer S. Stein, Shelby Ponton

Scholarly Works

The Constitution has sixty-three financial terms. These financial terms include, for instance, “compensation,” “expenditures,” “debt,” “coin,” “revenue,” “securities,” and “bankruptcies”—all of which determine the elementary building blocks of our governmental makeup. When the Supreme Court interprets the meaning of these financial terms, it does so in isolation and without a consistent framework. This Article proposes a unified framework for the interpretation of financial terms in the Constitution, comprising of two fundamental canons of construction.

First, this Article proposes that all financial terms in the Constitution should be interpreted with fiscal and monetary neutrality—interpreting financial terms in a way that does …

Religious Accommodations In The Dobbs Era, Ann C. Mcginley

Scholarly Works

Given the deep political divide in the U.S. and the emotional response to the abortion issue, workplaces may become hostile environments that harm workers based on their pro- or anti-abortion views or their out-of-work activism. Besides hostile environments, some workers may suffer workplace discipline based on their speech at work or refusals to engage in certain job requirements. Disciplining employees for engaging in workplace speech or refusal to perform parts of their jobs may violate workers’ rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which requires that employers grant religious accommodations in the workplace if doing so …

Extraordinary Punishment: Conditions Of Confinement And Compassionate Release, Meredith B. Esser

Scholarly Works

People experience severe forms of harm while incarcerated, including medical neglect, prolonged solitary confinement, sexual and physical violence, and a host of other ills. But civil rights litigation under the Eighth Amendment the most common vehicle through which people seek to redress these harms presents significant practical and doctrinal barriers to incarcerated plaintiffs. Most notably, the Eighth Amendment's "deliberate indifference" standard asks not whether a person has been harmed, but instead requires plaintiffs to demonstrate a criminally reckless mental state on the part of prison officials. Further, Eighth Amendment remedies are limited to damages or injunctions, which may not adequately …

Interpreting Religious Doctrine: The Third Rail That Wags The Dog In Religion Clause Jurisprudence, Samuel J. Levine

Scholarly Works

This Article is part of a broader project exploring and assessing the United States Supreme Court’s hands-off approach to interpreting religious doctrine. The mixed metaphor that constitutes the title of this Article incorporates various aspects of the project’s interrelated themes and claims. First, as a descriptive matter, the Supreme Court has repeatedly and increasingly refused to adjudicate issues that require the interpretation, evaluation, and resolution of substantive areas of religious practice and belief. Thus, like the third rail of train tracks, interpreting religious doctrine is deemed off-limits and better left untouched. Indeed, the Court’s justifications for the hands-off approach rely …

The Right To Trial By Jury Shall Remain Inviolate: Jury Trials In Civil Actions In Georgia’S Courts, David E. Shipley

Scholarly Works

Trials, though rare, “shape almost every aspect of procedure,” and the jury trial is a distinctive feature of civil litigation in the United States. The Seventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution ‘preserves’ the right to jury trial “[i]n suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars.” Even though this amendment does not apply to the states, courts in the states “honor the right to the extent it is created in their constitutions or local statutes.”

The Georgia Constitution provides that “[t]he right to trial by jury shall remain inviolate,” and Georgia’s appellate courts have shown …

A Theory Of Substantive Standards Of Review: The Case Of Corporate Law, Tomer S. Stein

Scholarly Works

In Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, the Supreme Court limited deference to universities. In West Virginia v. EPA, the Court reduced its deference to administrative agencies. In Coster v. UIP Cos., Inc., the Delaware Supreme Court limited deference to boards of directors, proclaimed a new standard of review, and then retracted the new standard of review (maybe). Common to these constitutional, administrative, and corporate law cases is unpredictability, uncertainty, and inconsistency in the use and application of substantive standards of review. This doctrinal chaos is explicitly acknowledged by the very judges that formulate …

The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly Of Us Antitrust, Maurice E. Stucke

Scholarly Works

This article examines the bad and ugly as the US federal agencies seek to rejuvenate competition. The bad is legislative hiatus to update the antitrust laws for the digital economy. The ugly is when courts push their own economic beliefs, without regard for the congressional intent and aims of the antitrust laws. Regardless of who wins, the rule of law (and those most dependent on the antitrust law) suffer. To correct America’s market power problem, the article proposes restoring the constitutional balance, where the courts adjudicate, the legislature legislates, and enforcers enforce.

The Future Of Ivf Post Dobbs, Rebecca Feinberg

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.