Constitutional Law Commons^™

State Empowerment And The Compact Clause, James F. Blumstein, Thomas J. Cheeseman

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Epilogue: From Too Tall To Trim And Small, Mark A. Drumbl

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Other Lands And Other Skies: Birthright Citizenship And Self-Government In Unincorporated Territories, John Vlahoplus

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The Esquire Case: A Lost Free Speech Landmark, Samantha Barbas

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

A Reparative Justice Approach To Assessing Ancestral Classifications Aimed At Colonization’S Harms, Susan K. Serrano

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The Superior Solution To The “Denominator Problem” — Comparing The Majority And Dissent’S Property Benchmark Tests In Murr V. Wisconsin With A Focus On Property Owners’ Reasonable Expectations, Rosemary K. Mcguirk

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The Father Of Modern Constitutional Liberalism, John Lawrence Hill

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Who’S Your Sovereign?: The Standing Doctrine Of Parens Patriae & State Lawsuits Defending Sanctuary Policies, Lexi Zerrillo

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The New Jim Crow’S Equal Protection Potential, Katherine Macfarlane

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In 1954, the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education opinion relied on social science research to overturn Plessy v. Ferguson’s separate but equal doctrine. Since Brown, social science research has been considered by the Court in cases involving equal protection challenges to grand jury selection, death penalty sentences, and affirmative action. In 2016, Justice Sotomayor cited an influential piece of social science research, Michelle Alexander’s The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness, in her powerful Utah v. Strieff dissent. Sotomayor contended that the Court’s holding overlooked the unequal racial impact of suspicionless …

Silencing State Courts, Jeffrey Steven Gordon

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In state courts across the Nation, an absolutist conception of the First Amendment is preempting common law speech torts. From intentional infliction of emotional distress and intrusion upon seclusion, to intentional interference with contractual relations and negligent infliction of emotional distress, state courts are dismissing speech tort claims on the pleadings because of the broad First Amendment defense recognized by Snyder v. Phelps in 2011. This Article argues, contrary to the scholarly consensus, that Snyder was a categorical departure from the methodology adopted by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the landmark 1964 case that first applied the First …

A Historical Examination Of The Constitutionality Of The Federal Estate Tax, Henry Lowenstein, Kathryn Kisska-Schulze

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act At 25: A Quantitative Analysis Of The Interpretive Case Law, Lucien J. Dhooge

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Dear Colleague: Due Process Is Not Under Attack At Colleges And Universities, As Shown Through A Comparative Analysis Of College Disciplinary Committees And American Juries, Mara Emory Shingleton

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The Common Law Endures In The Fourth Amendment, George C. Thomas Iii

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The text of the Fourth Amendment provides no guidance about what makes a search unreasonable or when warrants are required to make a search reasonable. The Supreme Court has had to craft a doctrine based on intuition, policy goals, and halfhearted stabs at history. This Article argues that the Court’s Fourth Amendment doctrine is stable when it roughly tracks the eighteenth-century common law protection of property, privacy, and liberty. When the Court has sought to provide more protection than the common law provided, the result has been an erratic doctrine that has gradually receded almost back to the common law …

Adapting Bartnicki V. Vopper To A Changing Tech Landscape: Rebalancing Free Speech And Privacy In The Smartphone Age, Andrew E. Levitt

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Beyond Headlines & Holdings: Exploring Some Less Obvious Ramifications Of The Supreme Court’S 2017 Free-Speech Rulings, Clay Calvert

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Digging behind the holdings, this Article analyzes less conspicuous, yet highly consequential aspects of the United States Supreme Court’s First Amendment rulings during the opening half of 2017. The four facets of the opinions addressed here—items both within individual cases and cutting across them—hold vast significance for future free-speech battles. Nuances of the justices’ splintering in Matal v. Tam, Packingham v. North Carolina, and Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman are examined, as is the immediate impact of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s Packingham dicta regarding online social networks. Furthermore, Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s solo concurrence in the threats case of Perez …

The Unconstitutionality Of Criminal Jury Selection, Brittany L. Deitch

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The criminal defendant’s right to a jury trial is enshrined within the U.S. Constitution as a protection for the defendant against arbitrary and harsh convictions and punishments. The jury trial has been praised throughout U.S. history for allowing the community to democratically participate in the criminal justice system and for insulating criminal defendants from government oppression. This Article asks whether the jury selection process is consistent with the defendant-protection justification for the Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury. Currently, the prosecution and defense share equal control over jury selection. Looking to the literal text of the Sixth Amendment, …

A Tale Of Two Clauses: Search And Seizure, Establishment Of Religion, And Constitutional Reason, Perry Dane

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article dissects two developments in widely separate areas of American constitutional law—the “reasonable expectation of privacy” test for the Fourth Amendment’s Search and Seizure Clause and the “endorsement” test for the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. These two stories might seem worlds apart, and they have not previously been systematically examined together. Nevertheless, the Article argues that they have in common at least three important symptoms of our legal culture’s deep malaise. These three phenomena occur in other contexts, too, but they appear with special clarity and a stark cumulative force in the two stories on which this Article focuses. …

Not Today, Satan: Re-Examining Viewpoint Discrimination In The Limited Public Forum, Daniel Cutler

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

An Illiberal Union, Sonu Bedi

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article breaks new ground by applying the philosophical framework of liberal neutrality (most famously articulated by John Rawls) to the United States Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on marriage. At first blush, the Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges—the culmination of marriage rights—seems to affirm a central principle of liberalism, namely equal access to marriage regardless of sexual orientation. Gays and lesbians can finally take part in an institution that celebrates the union of two committed individuals. But perversely, in its attempt to expand access to marriage, the Court has simultaneously entrenched values that are antithetical to the basic tenants …

Highway Robbery: Due Process, Equal Protection, And Punishing Poverty With Driver’S License Suspensions, Thomas Capretta

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The Visibility Value Of The First Amendment, Brian C. Murchison

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Schuette And Antibalkanization, Samuel Weiss, Donald Kinder

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Justice Kennedy’s controlling plurality revised the political process doctrine and ended the practice of affirmative action in Michigan. In this opinion, Kennedy followed in the Court’s tradition of invoking antibalkanization values in equal protection cases, making the empirical claims both that antibalkanization motivated the campaign to end affirmative action in Michigan and that the campaign itself would, absent judicial intervention, have antibalkanizing effects.

Using sophisticated empirical methods, this Article is the first to examine whether the Court’s claims on antibalkanization are correct. We find they are not. Support for the Michigan …

The Bergdahl Block: How The Military Limits Public Access To Preliminary Hearings And What We Can Do About It, Eric R. Carpenter

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl and Private First Class Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning have something in common. Military officials unlawfully closed all or portions of their preliminary hearings to the public. When doing so, military officials exploited two unusual features of the military justice system, thereby denying the accused and the media of their respective Sixth Amendment and First Amendment rights to a public hearing.

The first feature is that the military justice system does not include a standing trial-level court. If there is a problem at the preliminary hearing, the accused and media have nowhere to go for help. The accused …

Legitimacy, Authority, And The Right To Affordable Bail, Colin Starger, Michael Bullock

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Bail reform is hot. Over the past two years, jurisdictions around the country have moved to limit or end money bail practices that discriminate against the poor. Although cheered on by many, bail reform is vehemently opposed by the powerful bail-bond industry. In courts around the country, lawyers representing this industry have argued that reform is unnecessary, and even unconstitutional. One particularly insidious argument advanced by bail-bond apologists is that a “wall of authority” supports the proposition that “bail is not excessive merely because the defendant is unable to pay it.” In other words, authority rejects the right to affordable …

Fifty Shades And Fifty States: Is Bdsm A Fundamental Right? A Test For Sexual Privacy, Elizabeth Mincer

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Quitting Cold Turkey?: Federal Preemption Doctrine And State Bans On Fda-Approved Drugs, Thomas A. Costello

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Protecting The Silence Of Speech: Academic Safe Spaces, The Free Speech Critique, And The Solution Of Free Association, Trevor N. Ward

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Private Actors, Corporate Data And National Security: What Assistance Do Tech Companies Owe Law Enforcement?, Caren Morrison

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

When the government investigates a crime, do citizens have a duty to assist? This question was raised in the struggle between Apple and the FBI over whether the agency could compel Apple to defeat its own password protections on the iPhone of one of the San Bernardino shooters. That case was voluntarily dismissed as moot when the government found a way of accessing the data on the phone, but the issue remains unresolved.

Because of advances in technology, software providers and device makers have been able to develop almost impenetrable protection for their customers’ information, effectively locking law enforcement out …

The Fourth Amendment Disclosure Doctrines, Monu Bedi

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The third party and public disclosure doctrines (together the “disclosure doctrines”) are long-standing hurdles to Fourth Amendment protection. These doctrines have become increasingly relevant to assessing the government’s use of recent technologies such as data mining, drone surveillance, and cell site location data. It is surprising then that both the Supreme Court and scholars, at times, have associated them together as expressing one principle. It turns out that each relies on unique foundational triggers and does not stand or fall with the other. This Article tackles this issue and provides a comprehensive topology for analyzing the respective contours of each …