Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Criminal Law (64)
- First Amendment (60)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (55)
- Courts (47)
- Law and Society (37)
-
- Jurisprudence (31)
- Criminal Procedure (30)
- Torts (30)
- Fourteenth Amendment (29)
- Tax Law (28)
- Legal History (27)
- Religion Law (27)
- State and Local Government Law (27)
- Law and Politics (26)
- Health Law and Policy (24)
- Taxation-State and Local (23)
- International Law (22)
- Supreme Court of the United States (22)
- Other Law (21)
- Education Law (18)
- Legislation (18)
- Judges (17)
- Administrative Law (16)
- Property Law and Real Estate (16)
- Litigation (15)
- Business Organizations Law (14)
- Civil Procedure (14)
- Land Use Law (13)
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Supreme Court (89)
- Constitutional law (76)
- Constitution (68)
- First Amendment (53)
- Constitutional Law (42)
-
- Due process (25)
- Section 1983 (25)
- Martin Schwartz (21)
- Schwartz (21)
- Federalism (18)
- Rights (17)
- Establishment Clause (16)
- Originalism (15)
- Abortion (14)
- Equal protection (14)
- Free speech (14)
- Religion (14)
- Separation of powers (14)
- Criminal law (13)
- Levine (13)
- Constitutional rights (12)
- Discrimination (12)
- First amendment (12)
- Martin A. Schwartz (12)
- Race (12)
- Civil rights (11)
- Congress (11)
- Federal (11)
- Fourteenth Amendment (11)
- Freedom of speech (11)
- Publication Year
Articles 271 - 300 of 625
Full-Text Articles in Constitutional Law
The Partially Prudential Doctrine Of Mootness, Matthew I. Hall
The Partially Prudential Doctrine Of Mootness, Matthew I. Hall
Scholarly Works
The conventional understanding of mootness doctrine is that it operates as a mandatory bar to federal court jurisdiction, derived from the "cases or controversies" clause of the United States Constitution, Article III. In two crucial respects, however, this Constitutional model - which was first adopted by the Supreme Court less than 45 years ago - fails to account for the manner in which courts actually address contentions of mootness. First, the commonly-applied exceptions to the mootness bar are not derived from the "cases or controversies" clause and cannot be reconciled with the Constitutional account of mootness. Second, courts regularly consider …
The Supreme Court's Hands-Off Approach To Religious Doctrine: An Introduction, Samuel J. Levine
The Supreme Court's Hands-Off Approach To Religious Doctrine: An Introduction, Samuel J. Levine
Scholarly Works
Although the current state of the United States Supreme Court's Religion Clause jurisprudence is an area of considerable complexity, the Court's approach is largely premised upon a number of basic underlying principles and doctrines. This Symposium issue explores an underlying principle of the Supreme Court's current Religion Clause jurisprudence, the Court's hands-off approach to questions of religious practice and belief. The Symposium is based on the program of the Law and Religion Section at the 2008 Annual Meeting of the Association of American Law Schools, in which a panel of leading scholars was asked to evaluate the Court's approach. The …
Of Inkblots And Omnisignificance: Conceptualizing Secondary And Symbolic Functions Of The Ninth Amendment, In A Comparative Hermeneutic Framework, Samuel J. Levine
Of Inkblots And Omnisignificance: Conceptualizing Secondary And Symbolic Functions Of The Ninth Amendment, In A Comparative Hermeneutic Framework, Samuel J. Levine
Scholarly Works
In this Essay, Levine focuses on a particular hermeneutic approach common to the interpretation of the Torah and the United States Constitution: a presumption against superfluity. This presumption accords to the text a considerable degree of omnisignificance, requiring that interpreters pay careful attention to every textual phrase and nuance in an effort to find its legal meaning and implications. In light of this presumption, it might be expected that normative interpretation of both the Torah and the Constitution would preclude a methodology that allows sections of the text to remain bereft of concrete legal application. In fact, however, both the …
The Framers' Search Power: The Misunderstood Statutory History Of Suspicion & Probable Cause, Fabio Arcila, Jr.
The Framers' Search Power: The Misunderstood Statutory History Of Suspicion & Probable Cause, Fabio Arcila, Jr.
Scholarly Works
Originalist analyses of the Framers’ views about governmental search power have devoted insufficient attention to the civil search statutes they promulgated for regulatory purposes. What attention has been paid concludes that the Framers were divided about how accessible search remedies should be. This Article explains why this conventional account is mostly wrong and explores the lessons to be learned from the statutory choices the Framers made with regard to search and seizure law. In enacting civil search statutes, the Framers chose to depart from common law standards and instead largely followed the patterns of preceding British civil search statutes. The …
Torture, Necessity, And Supreme Emergency: Law And Morality At The End Of Law, Zachary R. Calo
Torture, Necessity, And Supreme Emergency: Law And Morality At The End Of Law, Zachary R. Calo
Scholarly Works
This paper employs Michael Walzer's concept of "Supreme Emergency" to address the permissibility of torture under conditions of necessity. It proposes moving beyond both utilitarian and deontological approaches to legal authority in order to understood necessity as a moral category. A full account of right action under conditions of necessity therefore demands taking account of the distinct yet cooperative function provided by legal and moral norms. A political official might therefore possess moral but not legal warrant to act in contravention of binding legal norms. Preserving the validity of law is essential to the economy of social reconstitution in the …
Taking History Seriously: Reflections On A Critique Of Amar’S Treatment Of The Ninth Amendment In His Work On The Bill Of Rights, Thomas B. Mcaffee
Taking History Seriously: Reflections On A Critique Of Amar’S Treatment Of The Ninth Amendment In His Work On The Bill Of Rights, Thomas B. Mcaffee
Scholarly Works
Dean William Treanor critiques constitutional textualism, contending that it pays too much attention to the words, grammar, and placement of clauses in the Constitution, and too little to the history leading to the adoption of the interpreted language. An important illustration is Professor Amar's treatment of the Ninth Amendment in his well-known book on the Bill of Rights. This treatment shares the perspective that history frequently sheds light on the meaning of constitutional text, but contends that the history yielding the Ninth Amendment demonstrates that it was drafted to secure the rights retained by the granting of limited federal powers—and …
Same-Sex Marriage In The Heartland: The Case For Legislative Minimalism In Crafting Religious Exemptions, Ian C. Bartrum
Same-Sex Marriage In The Heartland: The Case For Legislative Minimalism In Crafting Religious Exemptions, Ian C. Bartrum
Scholarly Works
This commentary cousels legislative caution in creating exemptions to Iowa's nondiscrimination law for those with religious objections to same-sex marriage.
The Constitutional Canon As Argumentative Metonymy, Ian C. Bartrum
The Constitutional Canon As Argumentative Metonymy, Ian C. Bartrum
Scholarly Works
This article builds on Philip Bobbitt's Wittgensteinian insights into constitutional argument and law. The author examines the way that we interact with canonical texts as we construct arguments in the forms that Bobbitt has described. The author contends that these texts serve as metonyms for larger sets of associated principles and values, and that their invocation usually is not meant to point to the literal meaning of the text itself. This conception helps explain how a canonical text's meaning in constitutional argument can evolve over time, and hopefully offers the creative practitioner some insight into the kinds of arguments that …
Pleasant Grove V. Summum: Losing The Battle To Win The War, Ian C. Bartrum
Pleasant Grove V. Summum: Losing The Battle To Win The War, Ian C. Bartrum
Scholarly Works
This short essay explores the potential doctrinal implications of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Pleasant Grove v. Summum.
Of Historiography And Constitutional Principle: Jefferson’S Letter To The Danbury Baptists, Ian C. Bartrum
Of Historiography And Constitutional Principle: Jefferson’S Letter To The Danbury Baptists, Ian C. Bartrum
Scholarly Works
This article examines the ways that the Supreme Court has used Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists (a wall of separation between church and state) as a rhetorical symbol. It finds the letter at the heart of the Court's debate over competing theories of religious neutrality. The article then explores the treatment the letter has received in several leading academic histories, and concludes that professional historians have largely tailored their arguments to match the Supreme Court's ideological divide. The article concludes that, because the goals of historical argument and legal argument are fundamentally different, this incestuous kind of relationship …
Supreme Court § 1983 Decisions-October 2008 Term, Martin A. Schwartz
Supreme Court § 1983 Decisions-October 2008 Term, Martin A. Schwartz
Scholarly Works
No abstract provided.
Scott V. Harris And The Role Of The Jury In Constitutional Litigation, Michael Wells
Scott V. Harris And The Role Of The Jury In Constitutional Litigation, Michael Wells
Scholarly Works
Suits brought under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 to recover damages for excessive force by the police bear some resemblance to common law tort litigation, since the key Fourth Amendment issue is whether the force was 'unreasonable.' In ordinary negligence law the jury typically decides whether an actor has exercised reasonable care, even when there is no dispute as to the facts. In section 1983 litigation the federal courts are badly split on the allocation of decision making between judge and jury, sometimes even within a particular circuit. The Supreme Court recently faced the judge-jury issue in Scott v. Harris, where …
Gonzales, Casey And The Viability Rule, Randy Beck
Gonzales, Casey And The Viability Rule, Randy Beck
Scholarly Works
Gonzales v. Carhart upheld a federal ban on intact D&E abortions. The dissenters in Gonzales accused the majority of ignoring the rule that a state may only prohibit abortion of a viable fetus, one capable of life outside the womb. The continuing discord over the viability rule highlights an issue that remains unsettled 34 years after Roe: Why may a state protect the life of a fetus after it reaches viability, but not before? Professor John Hart Ely long ago noted Roe's failure to justify the viability rule, observing that the Court's defense seems to mistake a definition for a …
The Supreme Courts Municipal Bond Decision And The Market-Participant Exception To The Dormant Commerce Clause, Dan T. Coenen
The Supreme Courts Municipal Bond Decision And The Market-Participant Exception To The Dormant Commerce Clause, Dan T. Coenen
Scholarly Works
Does it violate the dormant Commerce Clause for a state to exempt interest earned on its own bonds, but no others, from income taxation? In a recent decision, the Supreme Court answered this question in the negative. Six members of the Court found the case controlled by the state-self-promotion exception to the dormancy doctrine's antidiscrimination rule. Three of those Justices, however, went further by also invoking the longstanding market-participant exception to sustain the discriminatory state tax break. This Essay challenges that alternative line of analysis. According to the author, the plurality's effort to apply the market-participant principle: (1) invites a …
Arbitration And Article Iii, Peter B. Rutledge
Arbitration And Article Iii, Peter B. Rutledge
Scholarly Works
Does arbitration violate Article III? Despite the critical need for a coherent theory to answer this question, few commentators or courts have made serious attempts to provide one. For much of the country's history, federal courts conveniently could avoid this nettlesome question. Prior to the twentieth century, courts simply declined to enforce pre-dispute arbitration agreements as unenforceable attempts to appropriate their jurisdiction. From the early decades of the twentieth century (with the enactment of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) in 1925) through the 1960s, the non-arbitrability doctrine prevented arbitrators from resolving issues of federal statutory law. Notably, while both of …
Sanctionable Conduct: How The Supreme Court Stealthily Opened The Schoolhouse Gate, Sonja R. West
Sanctionable Conduct: How The Supreme Court Stealthily Opened The Schoolhouse Gate, Sonja R. West
Scholarly Works
The Supreme Court's decision in Morse v. Frederick signaled that public school authority over student expression extends beyond the schoolhouse gate. This authority may extend to any activity in which a student participates that the school has officially sanctioned. The author argues that this decision is unsupported by precedent, and could encourage schools to sanction more events in the future. Because the Court failed to limit or define the power of a school to sanction an activity, the decision could have a chilling effect on even protected student expression. The author commends the Court for taking up this issue after …
In The Trenches: Searches And The Misunderstood Common-Law History Of Suspicion And Probable Cause, Fabio Arcila
In The Trenches: Searches And The Misunderstood Common-Law History Of Suspicion And Probable Cause, Fabio Arcila
Scholarly Works
A detailed analysis of the common law during the Framers’ era, and of how it reflected the Fourth Amendment’s restrictions, shows that many judges believed they could issue search warrants without independently assessing the adequacy of probable cause, and that this view persisted even after the Fourth Amendment became effective. This conclusion challenges the leading originalist account of the Fourth Amendment, which Professor Thomas Davies published in the Michigan Law Review in 1999.
Learned treatises in particular, and to a lesser extent a few case decisions, had articulated a judicial duty to monitor probable cause. But it is a mistake …
A Response To Professor Steinberg’S Fourth Amendment Chutzpah, Fabio Arcila
A Response To Professor Steinberg’S Fourth Amendment Chutzpah, Fabio Arcila
Scholarly Works
Professor David Steinberg believes that the Fourth Amendment was intended only to provide some protection against physical searches of homes through imposition of a specific warrant requirement because the Framers' only object in promulgating the Fourth Amendment was to ban physical searches of homes under general warrants or no warrants at all. This response essay takes issue with his thesis by (1) discussing its implications, (2) reviewing some concerns with his methodology in reviewing the historical record, and (3) examining the theoretical implication underlying his thesis that, except as to homes, we have a majoritarian Fourth Amendment, and questioning whether …
Overcoming Lochner In The Twenty-First Century: Taking Both Rights And Popular Sovereignty Seriously As We Seek To Secure Equal Citizenship And Promote The Public Good, Thomas B. Mcaffee
Overcoming Lochner In The Twenty-First Century: Taking Both Rights And Popular Sovereignty Seriously As We Seek To Secure Equal Citizenship And Promote The Public Good, Thomas B. Mcaffee
Scholarly Works
Professor McAffee reviews substantive due process as the textual basis for modern fundamental rights constitutional decision-making. He contends that we should avoid both the undue literalism that rejects the idea of implied rights, as well as the attempt to substitute someone’s preferred moral vision for the limits, and compromises, that are implicit in—and intended by—the Constitution’s text. He argues, moreover, that we can largely harmonize the various goals of our constitutional system by taking rights seriously and understanding that securing rights does not exhaust the Constitution’s purpose.
The Automobile Exception In Nevada: A Critique Of The Harnisch Cases, Thomas B. Mcaffee, John P. Lukens, Thaddeus J. Yurek Iii
The Automobile Exception In Nevada: A Critique Of The Harnisch Cases, Thomas B. Mcaffee, John P. Lukens, Thaddeus J. Yurek Iii
Scholarly Works
This Article offers a critique of Nevada's Harnisch cases and calls for the Nevada Supreme Court to reconsider its ruling. The authors begin by examining the historical development of the automobile exception, beginning with Carroll v. United States. There the Supreme Court reasoned that both probable cause and the exigency of the mobility of automobiles justified a search without a warrant. But almost seventy-five years later, in Maryland v. Dyson, the Court clarified its conclusion that the automobile exception has no separate exigency requirement. In turn, the authors will then examine Nevada's application of the automobile exception prior to 1998's …
The "Foundations" Of Anti-Foundationalism — Or, Taking The Ninth Amendment Lightly: A Comment On Farber's Book On The Ninth Amendment, Thomas B. Mcaffee
The "Foundations" Of Anti-Foundationalism — Or, Taking The Ninth Amendment Lightly: A Comment On Farber's Book On The Ninth Amendment, Thomas B. Mcaffee
Scholarly Works
The Ninth Amendment has served two purposes in constitutional discourse - to refute textualists and originalists, and to supply the historical grounds for reading the Constitution as a rights-foundationalist document. Professor McAffee's review of Professor Farber's book on the amendment raises the question whether, given Farber's prior rejection of foundationalism, it is possible for him to reconcile these two ends. It also suggests that, even if the amendment did grow from the environment that gave us the Declaration of Independence, the history gives reason to doubt that its purpose was to provide for the legal enforcement of unstated moral claims, …
The Political Origins Of Secular Public Education: The New York School Controversy 1840-1842, Ian C. Bartrum
The Political Origins Of Secular Public Education: The New York School Controversy 1840-1842, Ian C. Bartrum
Scholarly Works
As the title suggests, this article explores the historical origins of secular public education, with a particular focus on the controversy surrounding the Catholic petitions for school funding in nineteenth-century New York City. The article first examines the development of Protestant nonsectarian common schools in the northeast, then turns to the New York controversy in detail, and finally explores that controversy's legacy in state constitutions and the Supreme Court. It is particularly concerned with two ideas generated in New York: (1) Bishop John Hughes' objection to nonsectarianism as the 'sectarianism of infidelity'; and (2) New York Secretary of State John …
Metaphors And Modalities: Meditations On Bobbitt’S Theory Of The Constitution, Ian C. Bartrum
Metaphors And Modalities: Meditations On Bobbitt’S Theory Of The Constitution, Ian C. Bartrum
Scholarly Works
This article builds on Philip Bobbitt's remarkable work in constitutional theory, which posits a practice-based constitution based in six accepted "modalities" of argument. I attempt to supplement Bobbitt's theory - which has a static and exclusive quality to it - with an account of interpretive evolution based in Max Black's interaction theory of metaphors. I suggest that we can (and do) create constitutional metaphors by deliberately overlapping Bobbitt's modalities of argument, and that through these creative acts we can grow the practice of American constitutionalism. I then present case studies of this metaphoric process at work in three fields of …
Accommodating Respectful Religious Expression In The Workplace, Nantiya Ruan
Accommodating Respectful Religious Expression In The Workplace, Nantiya Ruan
Scholarly Works
This Article makes the case for judicial recognition of respectful religious expression in the workplace as more consistent with the Court's Establishment Clause jurisprudence and also more true to the legislative intent of the religious accommodation provisions of Title VII. Respectful religious pluralism in the workplace should become the norm through judicial requirements of best practices in the workplace. Such a view should be wholly supported by the majority of the Justices because it is consistent with their expressed views, in the Establishment Clause case law, that religion fosters moral good and that in a pluralistic society religious expression cannot …
An Analysis Of Death Penalty Decisions From The October 2006 Supreme Court Term (Nineteenth Annual Supreme Court Review, October 2006 Supreme Court Term), Richard Klein
Scholarly Works
No abstract provided.
Federalism And Accountability: State Attorneys General, Regulatory Litigation, And The New Federalism, Timothy L. Meyer
Federalism And Accountability: State Attorneys General, Regulatory Litigation, And The New Federalism, Timothy L. Meyer
Scholarly Works
This Comment will examine how one particular state institution, state attorneys general (SAGs), has operated within a unique set of institutional and political constraints to create state-based regulation with nationwide impact in policy areas including consumer protection, antitrust, environmental regulation, and securities regulation. This state-based regulation casts doubt on one of the principle rationales advanced in the Supreme Court's anticommandeering line of cases for limiting federal power; namely, that such a move enhances electoral accountability, a concept central to our democracy. If in the absence of federal regulation a series of narrowly accountable state-based actors can create nationwide regulation in …
Judicial Activism: An Empirical Examination Of Voting Behavior On The Rehnquist Natural Court, Lori A. Ringhand
Judicial Activism: An Empirical Examination Of Voting Behavior On The Rehnquist Natural Court, Lori A. Ringhand
Scholarly Works
This paper attempts to quantify one of the most deeply contested terms in constitutional law: “judicial activism.” Most discussions of “judicial activism” define activism either in reference to a particular political ideology (such as complaints about “liberal activist judges”) or a particular method of constitutional interpretation (such as assertions that a decision was “activist” because it was not based on the original meaning of the Constitution). This paper sidesteps those debates, focusing instead on an empirical examination of how recent U.S. Supreme Court justices have in fact exercised their judicial power. I do this by examining the voting records of …
The Future Of Footnote Four, Dan T. Coenen
The Future Of Footnote Four, Dan T. Coenen
Scholarly Works
The Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Carolene Products Co. generated the most famous footnote-and perhaps the most famous passage-in all of the American Judiciary's treatment of constitutional law. Among other things, Footnote Four suggested that "prejudice against discrete and insular minorities may be a special condition, which tends seriously to curtail the operation of those political processes ordinarily to be relied upon to protect minorities, and which may call for a correspondingly more searching judicial inquiry." The importance of this principle cannot be overstated. It pervaded the work of the Warren Court and has played a prominent role …
The Essential Holding Of Casey: Rethinking Viability, J. Randy Beck
The Essential Holding Of Casey: Rethinking Viability, J. Randy Beck
Scholarly Works
The Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey plurality acknowledged an obligation to "justify the lines we draw." The corollary would seem to be an obligation to eschew lines that defy principled justification. In the decades since Roe v. Wade, the Court has offered no adequate rationale for the viability standard, notwithstanding persistent judicial and academic critiques. Exacerbating this country's divisions over abortion and placing us out of step with the world community, the viability rule seems a strong candidate for abandonment as the Court continues to rethink its abortion jurisprudence in the aftermath of Casey.
Death Penalty And Right To Counsel Decisions In The October 2005 Term, Richard Klein
Death Penalty And Right To Counsel Decisions In The October 2005 Term, Richard Klein
Scholarly Works
No abstract provided.