Constitutional Law Commons^™

Feeding The Machine: Policing, Crime Data, & Algorithms, Elizabeth E. Joh

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Carpenter V. United States And The Fourth Amendment: The Best Way Forward, Stephen E. Henderson

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

We finally have a federal ‘test case.’ In Carpenter v. United States, the Supreme Court is poised to set the direction of the Fourth Amendment in the digital age. The case squarely presents how the twentieth-century third party doctrine will fare in contemporary times, and the stakes could not be higher. This Article reviews the Carpenter case and how it fits within the greater discussion of the Fourth Amendment third party doctrine and location surveillance, and I express a hope that the Court will be both a bit ambitious and a good measure cautious.

As for ambition, the Court …

The Unreasonable Rise Of Reasonable Suspicion: Terrorist Watchlists And Terry V. Ohio, Jeffrey Kahn

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Terry v. Ohio’s “reasonable suspicion” test was created in the context of domestic law enforcement, but it did not remain there. This Essay examines the effect of transplanting this test into a new context: the world of terrorist watchlists. In this new context, reasonable suspicion is the standard used to authorize the infringement on liberty that often results from being watchlisted. But nothing else from the case that created that standard remains the same. The government official changes from a local police officer to an anonymous member of the intelligence community. The purpose changes from crime prevention to counterterrorism. …

Notice And Standing In The Fourth Amendment: Searches Of Personal Data, Jennifer Daskal

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In at least two recent cases, courts have rejected service providers’ capacity to raise Fourth Amendment claims on behalf of their customers. These holdings rely on longstanding Supreme Court doctrine establishing a general rule against third parties asserting the Fourth Amendment rights of others. However, there is a key difference between these two recent cases and those cases on which the doctrine rests. The relevant Supreme Court doctrine stems from situations in which someone could take action to raise the Fourth Amendment claim, even if the particular third-party litigant could not. In the situations presented by the recent cases, by …

Horizontal Cybersurveillance Through Sentiment Analysis, Margaret Hu

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Essay describes emerging big data technologies that facilitate horizontal cybersurveillance. Horizontal cybersurveillance makes possible what has been termed as “sentiment analysis.” Sentiment analysis can be described as opinion mining and social movement forecasting. Through sentiment analysis, mass cybersurveillance technologies can be deployed to detect potential terrorism and state conflict, predict protest and civil unrest, and gauge the mood of populations and subpopulations. Horizontal cybersurveillance through sentiment analysis has the likely result of chilling expressive and associational freedoms, while at the same time risking mass data seizures and searches. These programs, therefore, must be assessed as adversely impacting a combination …

All Employers Must Wash Their Speech Before Returning To Work: The First Amendment & Compelled Use Of Employees’ Preferred Gender Pronouns, Tyler Sherman

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Striding Out Of Babel: Originalism, Its Critics, And The Promise Of Our American Constitution, André Leduc

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article pursues a therapeutic approach to end the debate over constitutional originalism. For almost fifty years that debate has wrestled with the question whether constitutional interpretations and decisions should look to the original intentions, expectations, and understandings with respect to the constitutional text, and if not, what. Building on a series of prior articles exploring the jurisprudential foundations of the debate, this Article characterizes the debate over originalism as pathological. The Article begins by describing what a constitutional therapy is.

The debate about originalism has been and remains sterile and unproductive, and the lack of progress argues powerfully for …

The Government Speech Doctrine In Walker’S Wake: Early Rifts And Reverberations On Free Speech, Viewpoint Discrimination, And Offensive Expression, Clay Calvert

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article examines the immediate effects on free expression of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling in Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc. involving the government speech doctrine. In Walker, a sharply—and largely partisanly—divided Court upheld, in the face of a First Amendment challenge, Texas’s decision denying a private organization’s application for a specialty license plate featuring Confederate battle flag imagery. This Article initially reviews the government speech doctrine and Walker. It then analyzes Walker’s impact on cases that, like it, involve specialty license plate programs. Next, this Article explores lower court efforts stretching …

Hiding In Plain View: A Path Around Sovereign Immunity For State Government Employees, William J. Rich

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

“Time Enough” For Scrutiny: The Second Amendment, Mental Health, And The Case For Intermediate Scrutiny, Benjamin A. Ellis

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Combating Thieves Of Valor: The Stolen Valor Act Of 2013 Is Constitutional Yet Unenforced, Mary E. Johnston

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Excessively Unconstitutional: Civil Asset Forfeiture And The Excessive Fines Clause In Virginia, Rachel Jones

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Semantic Vagueness And Extrajudicial Constitutional Decisionmaking, Anthony O'Rourke

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article integrates two scholarly conversations to shed light on the divergent ways in which courts and legislatures implement constitutional texts. First, there is a vast literature examining the different ways in which courts and extrajudicial institutions, including legislatures, implement the Constitution’s textually vague expressions. Second, in recent years legal philosophers have begun to use philosophy of language to elucidate the relationship between vague legal texts and the content of laws. There is little scholarship, however, that uses philosophy of language to analyze the divergent ways in which legislatures and courts implement vague constitutional provisions. This Article argues that many …

False Commercial Speech And The First Amendment: Understanding The Implications Of The Equivalency Principle, Martin H. Redish, Kyle Voils

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The Status Of The Hearer In Mr. Madison’S Neighborhood, Burt Neuborne

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

A Reverent Reflection Of The Splendid Scholarship Of Martin Redish—Does Reexamining Commercial Speech Shed Light On The Regrettable Reliance Upon Lie & Insult In Political Campaigns?, Douglas W. Kmiec

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Introduction: The Moral Demands Of Commercial Speech, Andrew Koppelman

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Are Commercial Speech Cases Ideological? An Empirical Inquiry, Adam M. Samaha, Roy Germano

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The empirical study of judicial behavior continues to grow and mature. The live challenges include specification, such as constructing useful conceptions and measures of ideology, mapping particular domains in which identifiable forces influence decisions, and quantifying the magnitudes of those influences. To make progress on these challenges, we roll out new and expanded datasets that build on the work of Cass Sunstein, Lee Epstein, Gregory Sisk, and others, and we report on the character of constitutional litigation today. Our datasets cover U.S. Court of Appeals decisions in five domains: (1) commercial speech, (2) gun rights, (3) abortion rights, (4) establishment …

Preemption As A Consistency Doctrine, Jesse Merriam

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Commercial Speech And The Perils Of Parity, Frederick Schauer

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The Coverage/Protection Distinction In The Law Of Freedom Of Speech—An Essay On Meta-Doctrine In Constitutional Law, Mark Tushnet

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Fixer Upper: Reforming Vergara’S Teacher Tenure Statutes, Abigail Hoglund-Shen

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

No Regrets (Almost): After Virginia Board Of Pharmacy, Alan B. Morrison

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Warning: Stop-And-Frisk May Be Hazardous To Your Health, Josephine Ross

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The Flawed Reasoning Behind Johnson V. United States And A Solution: Why A Facts-Based Approach Should Have Been Used To Interpret The Residual Clause Of The Armed Career Criminal Act, Jake Albert

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The Most Loved, Most Hated Magazine In America: The Rise And Demise Of Confidential Magazine, Samantha Barbas

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The Lawfulness Of The Same-Sex Marriage Decisions: Charles Black On Obergefell, Toni M. Massaro

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Is The “Arising Under” Jurisdictional Grant In Article Iii Self-Executing?, David R. Dow

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Deconstructing Juryless Fact-Finding In Civil Cases, Shaakirrah R. Sanders

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In many states, legislatures have mandated juryless fact-finding in common law–based civil cases by imposing compensatory damage caps that effectively lessen the jury’s traditional and historic role as injury valuator. The primary purpose of most caps was to reign in “excessive” civil jury verdicts, which allegedly caused “skyrocketing” medical malpractice insurance premiums and litigation costs. But no legislatively imposed cap is triggered by a preliminary finding of excessiveness. Trial judges have no authority to determine whether application of a cap is just or fair to the (often) severely injured plaintiff. Despite a shared interpretive methodology with regards to the nature …

Real Bite: Legal Realism And Meaningful Rational Basis In Dog Law And Beyond, Ann L. Schiavone

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.