Constitutional Law Commons^™

The First Amendment And The Commencement Provocateur, Duncan Hosie

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article explores an untheorized area of First Amendment doctrine: students’ graduation speeches at public or private universities that embrace free speech principles, either by state statute, state constitutional law, or internal policy. Responding to recent graduation speech controversies, it develops a two-tier theory that reconciles a multiplicity of values, including students’ expressive interests, universities’ institutional interests in curating commencement ceremonies and preventing reputational damage and political reprisals, and the interests of captive audiences in avoiding speech they deem offensive or profane. The Article challenges the prevailing view that university students’ graduation speeches implicate individual First Amendment rights. It develops …

But For A Free Press: A Response To Press Freedom Skeptics, Patrick J. Charles, Kevin Francis O'Neill

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article is divided into three Parts. Part I will outline the history-in-law case for why the historical record sufficiently supports recognizing distinct constitutional press freedoms. Part II then provides a history-in-law response to some of the most common arguments made by press freedom skeptics as to why distinct constitutional press freedoms should not be recognized by the courts. Lastly, Part III makes the case for why the recognition of distinct constitutional press freedoms should become a jurisprudential reality and provides a roadmap to accomplish this.

This abstract has been taken from the authors' introduction.

Second Amendment Principles, Jamie G. Mcwilliam

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In United States v. Rahimi, the Supreme Court explained that firearm regulations “must comport with the principles underlying the Second Amendment.” This Article examines what those principles are, how to derive them, and how to apply them in concrete cases. It begins with the Second Amendment’s core principle of defense of self and community, which traces its lineage back to classical thinkers like Aquinas and Grotius. The tradition of firearm regulation that surrounded the adoption of the Second Amendment depended on this fundamental principle. But it also developed subsidiary principles that implement the defense principle in specific ways. This …

Understanding Dobbs V. Jackson Women's Health Organization: How The Modern Supreme Court Broke From Tradition And Changed The Original Meaning Of Due Process, Matthew W. Lunder

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

What follows here describes and criticizes the modern liberal and conservative approaches to substantive due process. Part I shows how substantive due process came about in the mid-twentieth century as the union of two extant doctrines: incorporation and fundamental rights. Part II then describes how modern conservatism used the doctrine to arrive at the deeply rooted-in-history-and-tradition test and shows the deliberate reconfiguration of the jurisprudence during the latter twentieth century into the novel patchwork of the modern-conservative method applied in Dobbs. Part III offers a contrast, describing and explaining the traditional due-process analysis of medieval origin and the concept of …

The Bare-Majority Requirement Of The Delaware Judiciary And Its Unfortunate Violation Of The First Amendment, Tyler Mayhew

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Note will attempt to remedy the circuit split on the issue of whether judges are policymakers for purposes of the First Amendment, and if they are not—as this Note concludes—whether the Delaware Constitution is in violation of the First Amendment through its major-party and bare-majority requirement.

First, this Note will analyze the development of the only challenge to article IV, section 3 of the Delaware Constitution as it proceeded from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware to the U.S. Supreme Court where it was thrown out on standing. Second, this Note will argue that judges are …

Hunting For Meaningful Boundaries: Virginia's Dog Retrieval Statute And Defining Per Se Regulatory Takings Under Cedar Point, Mason Miller

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Note will begin with a summary of the [Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid] decision. Next, it will provide an overview of Virginia’s dog retrieval statute and discuss a recent case challenging the same. The Note will then analyze the statute by applying the Cedar Point standard, with special attention given to the exceptions, to determine if the law constitutes a per se taking. Finally, the Note will conclude by exploring some implications of the analysis, again emphasizing the effect of the amorphous exceptions.

This abstract has been taken from the author's introduction.

The Next Generation Of Free Expression Scholarship: A Very Short Manifesto (In Memory Of Fred Schauer), Mark Tushnet

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Manifesto begins with a discussion of the accomplishments of the prior generation of free expression scholarship. The core of the Manifesto starts with a description of the idea of epistemic authority and draws upon Leiter’s analysis to show its importance in free expression theory. It emphasizes, with Leiter, that epistemic authority is relational: between and among epistemic authorities, and between such authorities and “ordinary” citizens (that is, those who aren’t near the core of an epistemic community that, as a collective, defines the community’s core and boundaries).

That discussion is followed by a description of challenges to the idea …

Dobbs And The New Doctrine Of Stare Decisis, Russell A. Miller

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Alongside the historic and troubling annulment of the half-century-old Substantive Due Process right to abortion, Dobbs produced another significant outcome. To get its substantive constitutional law result, the Court’s majority also had to reconceive—and significantly weaken—the doctrine of stare decisis. This was necessary because, following Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, the constitutional right to abortion largely depended on respect for precedent as the basis for its survival. To overturn Roe, the Dobbs majority had to blast through the established practice of precedent and articulate a new doctrine of stare decisis. It seems that precedent …

Ai And The Press Clause, Jared Schroeder

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Generative AI took a massive leap forward in late 2022 and early 2023 with the introduction of public access to ChatGPT and Bard. OpenAI, whose ChatGPT tool garnered more than 100 million users in fewer than two months, upgraded to GPT-4 in March 2023. These AI tools, and those who create and use them, almost certainly represent the vanguard of a new generation of publishers, which will join the long queue of communicators who have challenged courts to define the role and place of the Press Clause. AI publishers raise substantial legal questions in fields including defamation, intellectual property, and …

The Article V Convention Threat Awakens: Looking Within, Abroad, And Ahead, Willow Hasson

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The Convention of States (COS) movement likely represents the passionate factions that Founders, like Madison, warned against and should thus be taken seriously. COS is now practicing its Article V Convention simulations every few years so that when it reaches its threshold of captured state legislatures, its processes will be fine-tuned, and there will be no going back. Not only could COS one day succeed, as evidenced by their supporters reaching new heights of politics, but their concerns are also worth focusing on as they point to an American constitutional flaw. Their frenzy for change is misdirected, and they aim …

Camera-Shy Courtrooms: Balancing Extraordinary Transparency And The Appearance Of Justice, Caroline Olsen

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

High-profile trials alert us to the dissonance between transparency and accountability in the federal judiciary. This Note will explore this tension and argue that when policymakers respond to calls for “extraordinary transparency,” transparency should be subordinate to fairness. Part I will discuss the principles underlying public adjudication and how, through various constitutional challenges, the limits of public access have changed over time. Analyzing modern high-profile trials, Part II will demonstrate how those very principles are inadequately protected in jurisdictions that allow unrestrained public access to the courtroom. Part III will describe how transparency, when conflated with accountability, threatens procedural due …

Fame, Fakes, And The First Amendment: A Three-State Analysis Of The Right Of Publicity In Addressing Deepfakes, Alexandra Reilly

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Part I of this Note will set the scene of current concerns with deepfakes by those in media and pending changes in the right of publicity landscape. Part II discusses the standing of the right of publicity in three states. Parts III and IV address the current balancing tests for the First Amendment and intellectual property statutes. Part V examines the pathway for expansion of the right of publicity federally to combat the threat posed by deepfakes and Part VI analyzes the interplay with intellectual property doctrines and the First Amendment.

This abstract has been taken from the author's introduction.

The Ugly Rhetoric Of Dobbs, Or, Why Jack Balkin Is History, Andrew Koppelman

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Essay has three claims. First, I want to emphasize an underappreciated ethical virtue elicited by the practice of rhetoric: it demands that the speaker get out of his own head and focus on his audience and what they care about. History matters because it speaks to us. It tells us who we are and why we are doing what we are doing. The rhetorical deployment of historical narrative in political discourse can help to forge a collective identity in which we all can recognize ourselves, and so make the polity more inclusive. Second, if this aspect of rhetoric is …

Originalism's Selection Problem, Darrell A.H. Miller

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Essay examines the problem of selection with any originalist theory and what it means for constitutional adjudication. Part I surveys the major branches of originalism, explains how each share a commitment to the pursuit of objective, knowable, falsifiable fact, and then use that fact as a fixed point to constrain discretion. Part II discusses how each of these theories are vulnerable to methodological challenges familiar to all empirical projects. Part III explores the implications of these methodological challenges for originalism in particular and for constitutional doctrine and theory more generally.

This abstract has been taken from the author's introduction.

We Are All Cafeteria Originalists Now (And We Always Have Been), Jack M. Balkin

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In Memory and Authority, I argue that Americans, both in politics and in constitutional culture, are "‘cafeteria originalists.’ They pick and choose when to follow the views of the founders, framers, or adopters (as they understand them) and often artfully recharacterize these principles to support contemporary political and legal arguments.” Like customers in a cafeteria who take the chocolate cake and leave the boiled kale, Americans pick the features of the framers they like to support their arguments, and leave other, less savory, features behind.

[...]

My central claim is that cafeteria originalism is not a pathology or a …

The Griffin's Case Phenomenon And The Problem Of Historical Knowledge In Legal Arguments, Rachel A. Shelden

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The sudden relevance of a formerly little-known historic case is surely not new; much of legal history is necessarily about discovery and rediscovery of the past. Still, I think the clarity with which we can outline the development of the Griffin’s Case phenomenon offers an opportunity to think carefully about the role of history in constitutional conversation. What follows, then, is a short exploration of the case’s recent (re)entry into our historical consciousness. Tracing this phenomenon highlights (at least for me) some potential difficulties embedded in the interaction between legal advocacy and what we know about the past.

This abstract …

In Praise Of Ignoring Facts, Stephen E. Sachs

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Treating every use of legal rhetoric as equally probative of American law is fatal to the theoretical project—including to [Jack] Balkin’s own “thin” theory of constitutional law, which stretches itself past the breaking point in the hopes of accommodating the changing winds of social movements. Rather than take advocates’ rhetorical moves for granted, we scholars have the indulgence and time to look for the implicit theories underlying these moves, to air those theories explicitly, to identify what might make them true or false, and to assess how plausible they are on those grounds. Constitutional theories need microfoundations: a theory of …

Learning To Read Like An Eighteenth-Century Lawyer: The Historical Critique Of Originalism Revisited, Saul Cornell

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Historians have been among the fiercest critics of originalism. Among the many virtues of Jack Balkin’s book, Memory and Authority, is the deft way he analyzes and dismantles these efforts to insulate originalism from historical critique. In a short essay, it would be impossible to fully acknowledge the sophistication of Balkin’s analysis. Instead, I would like to build on his impressive achievement by pointing out additional problems with the originalist response to historical critique.

This abstract has been taken from the author's opening paragraph.

Memory, Resistance, And Doubt, Richard Primus

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The Burroughs Court did not identify any enumerated power that warranted the Corrupt Practices Act, I suggest, because the Burroughs Court did not subscribe to the enumeration principle. The Justices did not believe—or at least, did not consistently believe— that every federal law must be grounded in some enumerated power. As I have explained at length elsewhere, the text of the Constitution does not actually prescribe the enumeration principle: it can be read to support that idea, but it need not be. And at various moments in American constitutional history, judges and other people have taken the view that Congress …

Shared Memories And Constitutional Foundations, Sanford Levinson

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

It is significant that the first word in the title of Jack Balkin’s new book [Memory and Authority] is “memory.” A repeated theme of the book is that what binds a nation—or a constitutional order—together is shared memories around which diverse individuals can gather together and therefore establish themselves as a community. Balkin refers to an impressive array of sources with regard to the topic of “public memory,” but I want to concentrate on one of them, which is cited but not extensively discussed. That is Ernest Renan’s famous speech, delivered at the Sorbonne in Paris on March …

Invocations Of Memory In State Constitutional Law, Fred O. Smith Jr.

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Symposium Essay discusses the roles of history and memory within the realm of state constitutional law. Building on Professor Balkin’s observations, I offer two claims. The initial argument, delineated in Part I, is descriptive. While the practice of state constitutional law often mirrors that of federal constitutional interpretation, the use of history in state constitutional interpretation has unique characteristics, both with respect to text and ethos. Regarding textual analysis, understanding the language of a state constitution often involves engaging with a concept referred to by some scholars as “interconstitutionalism.” This phenomenon occurs when a single governmental body has operated …

The Process Before The Promise: Ensuring Indigenous Recognition From The Chilean Constitution, Michaela Mazzeo

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Part I of this Note provides a background and overview of the relatively recent surge in the constitutionalization of indigenous rights and recognition in Latin America, and the state of constitutional reform in Chile. Part II lays out a theoretical understanding of the powers of a constitution as a mechanism for societal reformation and as a platform for bringing legal claims, as played out in Brazil and Bolivia. Part III demonstrates the ways in which practical manifestation of that theoretical power stops short. More specifically, both intentional and incidental barriers dampen the effectiveness of the constitutional mechanism for ensuring indigenous …

Is The Constitution Of 1787 A White Supremacist Document? Against Essentialism In Constitutional Interpretation, David S. Schwartz

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

A curious convergence is emerging in legal academia around the conclusion that the 1787 Constitution is a white supremacist document. Although most originalists would deny that contention, their methodology strongly favors, if it does not compel, an agreement with progressive, “neo-Garrisonian” scholars that the Constitution of 1787 is indeed a white supremacist document. Both the neo-Garrisonian and originalist elements of this implicit convergence stem from their “essentialism” in Constitutional interpretation: the idea that the Constitution or its terms or provisions carry a uniquely and objectively correct meaning, invariant over time, and independent of our evolving normative commitments.

This Article argues …

Section Three Of The Fourteenth Amendment: Insurrection, Mark A. Graber

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The public, scholarly, and legal debate over whether former president Donald Trump is eligible to hold office under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment has focused far more on technical legal questions than on whether Trump engaged in an insurrection. Scholarly and public commentary rarely examines the constitutional/ common law of insurrection, preferring instead to examine whether Trump is exempt from Section Three because Section Three either exempts presidents or the presidency from disqualification or because Section Three is not self-executing. Trump v. Anderson (2024) focused on state incapacity to disqualify “oathbreaking insurrectionists” rather than on whether Trump was an …

Life, Liberty, And Freedom From Non-Consensual Pelvic Exams?, Michaela Cotton

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

[T]here is a need for the federal government to intervene and finally ban the practice of performing non-consensual pelvic exams, and it can do so under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees the right to refuse involuntary medical treatment. Part I will provide a brief overview of pelvic exams and informed consent; Part II draws on policy considerations for banning this practice and tackles counter-arguments; Part III will discuss the relevant federal law and case precedent; Part IV demonstrates how federal law applies to non-consensual pelvic exams; and, finally, Part V will further explain the need …

Balancing Tradition And Inclusion: Framework Principles For An Afghan Accord, M. Hamed Isar

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article examines the turbulent constitutional history of Afghanistan and proposes a pragmatic constitutional framework balancing Islamic principles with rights, protections, and constraints on power. After analyzing the Taliban’s current extraconstitutional rule and ideological objections to an inclusive order, it makes the case for principled compromise. The first step to constitutional reform for Afghanistan is to recognize that Afghans, the Taliban, and the international community pay a high price for disregarding law and accountability in governance. To that end, this Article canvasses the many factors that could motivate the Taliban to accept the rule of law, despite the constraints it …

Excluded But Equal, Gali Racabi

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Work law is excessively exclusionary. Canonical examples include agriculture workers, independent contractors, and domestic workers. But work law excludes far more workers and employers than those familiar categories. Whole sectors, occupations, business sizes, wage arrangements, geographical areas, and more are excluded from the basic tenets of economic citizenship, including federal, state, and local minimum wage; overtime; and safety and labor protection laws.

Equal protection claims govern the authority of legislatures to determine who is in and who is out of work laws. Excluded workers and included employers now routinely use state and federal constitutional equal protection arguments against exclusionary work …

The First Amendment In Education: May Faculty At Public Schools Be Disciplined For Political Hate Speech?, Ken M. Levy

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

At a House hearing on December 5, 2023, the presidents of three universities— Harvard, MIT, and the University of Pennsylvania—refused to state that certain kinds of hate speech, specifically calls for genocide of Jews, are prohibited on their campuses. The backlash against two of them, Harvard’s Claudine Gay and Penn’s Liz Magill, was swift and devastating; both were successfully pressured to resign. Still, while Professors Gay’s and Magill’s responses were widely criticized as tone-deaf, they were legally correct. At many private, and all public, colleges and universities, even the worst hate speech is generally protected unless it is accompanied by …

Democratic Vibes, Jonathan Gingerich

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Who should decide who gets to say what on online social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube? American legal scholars have often thought that the private owners of these platforms should decide, in part because such an arrangement is thought to serve valuable free speech interests. This standard view has come under pressure with the enactment of statutes like Texas House Bill 20, which forbids certain platforms from “censoring” user content based on viewpoint. Such efforts to regulate the speech policies of online platforms have been challenged for undermining the editorial speech rights of these platforms and allowing the …

No Need To Wait: Congress Has The Power Under Section Five Of The Fourteenth Amendment To Abolish The Death Penalty In The States, Eric M. Freedman

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Reformers currently proposing the abolition of capital punishment by federal legislation have only targeted the federal death penalty. They are aiming too low. Concerns about the roughly 50 prisoners facing execution by the federal government should not cause advocates to ignore the approximately 2,400 on the combined Death Rows of the states. Congress has the authority to abolish the death penalty in the states, and good reason to exercise it.

This Article takes as a given the Supreme Court’s view that the death penalty is not itself unconstitutional.

But under existing law Congress would have no difficulty in compiling a …