Constitutional Law Commons^™

But First, (Don’T) Let Me Take A Selfie: New Hampshire’S Ban On Ballot Selfies And First Amendment Scrutiny, Emily Wagman

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Forging Ahead From Ferguson: Re-Evaluating The Right To Assemble In The Face Of Police Militarization, Ashley M. Eick

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The Lesser Of Two Evils: Exploring The Constitutionality Of Indefinite Detentions Of Terror Enemy Combatants Following The End Of “Combat Operations” In Afghanistan, Justin A. Thatch

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Due Process As Choice Of Law: A Study In The History Of A Judicial Doctrine, Matthew J. Steilen

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article argues that procedural due process can be understood as a choice of-law doctrine. Many procedural due process cases require courts to choose between a procedural regime characteristic of the common law—personal notice, oral hearing, neutral judge, and jury trial—and summary procedures employed in administrative agencies.

This way of thinking about procedural due process is at odds with the current balancing test associated with the Supreme Court’s opinion in Mathews v. Eldridge. This Article aims to show, however, that it is consistent with case law over a much longer period, indeed, most of American history. It begins with a …

Confrontation As A Rule Of Production, Pamela R. Metzger

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Fissures, Fractures & Doctrinal Drifts: Paying The Price In First Amendment Jurisprudence For A Half Decade Of Avoidance, Minimalism & Partisanship, Clay Calvert, Matthew D. Bunker

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article comprehensively examines how the U.S. Supreme Court’s adherence to principles of constitutional avoidance and judicial minimalism, along with partisan rifts among the Justices, have detrimentally affected multiple First Amendment doctrines over the past five years. The doctrines analyzed here include true threats, broadcast indecency, offensive expression, government speech, and strict scrutiny, as well as the fundamental dichotomy between content-based and contentneutral regulations.

Implications On The Constitutionality Of Student Cell Phone Searches Following Riley V. California, Ross Hoogstraten

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Stanley V. Illinois’S Untold Story, Josh Gupta-Kagan

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Stanley v. Illinois is one of the Supreme Court’s more curious landmark cases. The holding is well known: the Due Process Clause both prohibits states from removing children from the care of unwed fathers simply because they are not married and requires states to provide all parents with a hearing on their fitness. By recognizing strong due process protections for parents’ rights, Stanley reaffirmed Lochner-era cases that had been in doubt and formed the foundation of modern constitutional family law. But Peter Stanley never raised due process arguments, so it has long been unclear how the Court reached this decision. …

Attorney’S Fees, Nominal Damages, And Section 1983 Litigation, Thomas A. Eaton, Michael L. Wells

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Can plaintiffs recover attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 when they establish constitutional violations but recover only nominal damages or low compensatory damages? Some federal appellate courts have concluded that no fee, or a severely reduced fee, should be awarded in such circumstances. This position, which we call the “low award, low fee” approach, rests primarily on the Supreme Court’s 1992 opinion in Farrar v. Hobby.

We argue that a “low award, low fee” approach is misguided for two main reasons. First, the majority opinion in Farrar is fragmented, and the factual record is opaque regarding what and how …

The (Not So Dire) Future Of The Necessary And Proper Power After National Federation Of Independent Business V. Sebelius, Celestine Richards Mcconville

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The Eighth Amendment And Tax Evasion: Whether Fatca Non-Compliance Fines And Fbar Penalties Are Excessive, Tyler R. Murray

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Sex Offender Residency Restrictions: Government Regulation Of Public Health, Safety, And Morality, John Kip Cornwell

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Sex offender residency restrictions have proliferated throughout the United States over the past decade. A number of commentators have likened these laws to medieval banishment, when political outcasts and undesirables are exiled to remote areas where they cannot threaten civilized society. This Article argues first that likening modern residency restrictions to “banishment” largely misconstrues this practice as it has been practiced historically. Instead, these statutory initiatives are better understood as an assertion of governments’ police power to protect public health, safety, and morality. Seen through this lens, this Article evaluates the laws’ constitutional sufficiency with attention to their allegedly punitive …

Incorporation, Total Incorporation, And Nothing But Incorporation?, Christopher R. Green

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Kurt T. Lash’s The Fourteenth Amendment and the Privileges and Immunities of American Citizenship (2014) defends the view that the Fourteenth Amendment’s “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” cover only rights enumerated elsewhere in the Constitution. My own book, however, Equal Citizenship, Civil Rights, and the Constitution: The Original Sense of the Privileges or Immunities Clause (2015), reads the Clause to guarantee equality broadly among similarly situated citizens of the United States. Incorporation of an enumerated right into the Fourteenth Amendment requires, I say, national consensus such that an outlier state’s invasion of the right would produce …

Habeas Corpus Petitions In Federal And Tribal Courts: A Search For Individualized Justice, Carrie E. Garrow

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Adjusting The Benefits And Burdens Of Economic Life For The Public Good: The Aca's Medical Loss Ratio As A Constitutional Regulation Of Health Insurance Companies, Susanne Cordner

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Section 1983 Litigation: The Maze, The Mud, And The Madness, Karen M. Blum

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Historically Unappealing: Boumediene V. Bush, Appellate Avoidance Mechanisms, And Black Holes Extending Beyond Guantanamo Bay, Dennis Schmelzer

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Sovereign Impunity: The Supreme Court Of Georgia’S False Textualism Expands The Doctrine Of Sovereign Immunity In The State, Laura R. Dove

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Until recently, sovereign immunity—the doctrine that protects state entities from suit without the State’s consent—had been held by the Supreme Court of Georgia not to apply to suits seeking solely injunctive relief to prevent the State, its departments, or agencies from acting illegally or outside the scope of their authority. This rule stemmed partly from the fact that a significant policy basis for sovereign immunity is the protection of taxpayer funds, but also was grounded on the principle that the State may not “cloak itself in the mantle of sovereign immunity” to prevent its citizens from holding the State accountable …

The Architecture Of Constitutional Time, Richard Alexander Izquierdo

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Bruce Ackerman’s account in his We the People series urges the legal recognition of constitutional amendments enacted outside of Article V as part of a larger descriptive project concerning the creation of distinct republics within the Constitution of 1787. One of its limitations is that he and other scholars have not fully appreciated the way in which the original institutional design of the Constitution has facilitated—and perhaps even anticipated—the construction of subregimes during extraordinary times. This Article presents constitutional time and presidential incentives for a lasting legacy as the most important factors influencing constitutional meaning. It is constitutional time—the extraordinary …

What Did They Mean?: How Principles Of Group Communication Can Inform Original Meaning Jurisprudence And Address The Problem Of Collective Intent, W. Matt Morgan

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The Second Amendment In The Twenty-First Century: What Hath Heller Wrought?, Patrick J. Charles

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Diagnosed With Time Is Money: Arbitrary Medicare Provisions Differentiating Observation Services From Inpatient Admissions Violate Beneficiaries’ Due Process Rights, Stephanie Masaba

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

It’S Not Called Conduct Therapy; Talk Therapy As A Protected Form Of Speech Under The First Amendment, Warren Geoffrey Tucker

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Reviewing The Magic Pipes: Angelex Ltd. V. United States, Oily Water Separators, And Constitutional Review Of Coast Guard Action, Benjamin Abel

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Neither Tinker, Nor Hazelwood, Nor Fraser, Nor Morse: Why Violent Student Assignments Represent A Unique First Amendment Challenge, William C. Nevin

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article will both (1) explore a subset of violent student speech cases that could rightly be considered under Hazelwood if only the student expression bore the sign of official school sponsorship and (2) argue for the creation of a new standard based on Hazelwood to govern non-sponsored curricular speech. Furthermore, this new standard would operate much like the current Hazelwood analysis with one key distinction: where student speech is curricular and non-sponsored in nature, the only options available to school administrators would be those representing pedagogical counter-speech. Punitive discipline, such as the suspension seen in Cuff, would not be …

Magic Words, Kiel Brennan-Marquez

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Broadly speaking, this Article has two goals. The first is to demonstrate the prominence of functionalism in the interpretive practices of the Supreme Court. Reading a case like NFIB, it would be easy to conclude that the tension between labels and function reflects a deep rift in our legal order. On reflection, though, the rift turns out to be something of a mirage. While judicial opinions do occasionally employ the rhetoric of label-formalism, we are all functionalists at heart.

The Article’s second goal is to explore two exceptions to this norm. One is a faux exception—an exception to functionalism that …

Confronting Cops In Immigration Court, Mary Holper

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Part I of the Article outlines the police report problem by discussing the four situations in which police reports are used in immigration court, why police reports are unreliable, and the scope of the problem. Part II discusses criminal law’s treatment of police reports, focusing on the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, which provides the constitutional justification for excluding police reports in criminal cases. Part III discusses the use of hearsay evidence in immigration cases, where hearsay is allowed due to the characterization of removal proceedings as civil, not criminal. While there has been a trend to reject unreliable …

Snap: How The Moral Elasticity Of The Denaturalization Statute Goes Too Far, Aram A. Gavoor, Daniel Miktus

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Comprehensive immigration reform is a popular topic in Congress. While many reform bills have been offered, none have addressed the significant substantive and procedural issues surrounding denaturalization, the process where the federal government may seek to have a naturalized person’s citizenship revoked in federal court if his citizenship was unlawfully or fraudulently procured.Though denaturalization serves public policy as a final check on naturalization fraud, existing law also permits the government to denaturalize an individual solely for speech and expressive association that occurs after one acquires citizenship. This provision, 8 U.S.C. § 1451(c), violates naturalized citizens’ First Amendment rights to free …

Good Faith Discrimination, Girardeau A. Spann

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The Supreme Court’s current doctrinal rules governing racial discrimination and affirmative action are unsatisfying. They often seem artificial, internally inconsistent, and even conceptually incoherent. Despite a long and continuing history of racial discrimination in the United States, many of the problems with the Supreme Court’s racial jurisprudence stem from the Court’s willingness to view the current distribution of societal resources as establishing a colorblind, race-neutral baseline that can be used to make equality determinations. As a result, the current rules are as likely to facilitate racial discrimination as to prevent it, or to remedy the lingering effects of past discrimination. …

Scientizing Culpability: The Implications Of Hall V. Florida And The Possibility Of A “Scientific Stare Decisis”, Christopher Slobogin

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The Supreme Court’s decision in Hall v. Florida held that “clinical definitions” control the meaning of intellectual disability in the death penalty context. In other words, Hall “scientized” the definition of a legal concept. This Article discusses the implications of this unprecedented move. It also introduces the idea of scientific stare decisis—a requirement that groups that are scientifically alike be treated similarly for culpability purposes—as a means of implementing the scientization process.