Constitutional Law Commons^™

Of Fat People And Fundamental Rights: The Constitutionality Of The New York City Trans-Fat Ban, Katharine Kruk

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The Sit-Ins And The State Action Doctrine, Christopher W. Schmidt

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

By taking their seats at “whites only” lunch counters across the South in the spring of 1960, African American students not only launched a dramatic new stage in the civil rights movement, they also sparked a national reconsideration of the scope of the constitutional equal protection requirement. The critical constitutional question raised by the sit-in movement was whether the Fourteenth Amendment, which after Brown v. Board of Education1 prohibited racial segregation in schools and other stateoperated facilities, applied to privately owned accommodations open to the general public. From the perspective of the student protesters, the lunch counter operators, and most …

The Constitutional Canon As Argumentative Metonymy, Ian Bartrum

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

A Promise The Nation Cannot Keep: What Prevents The Application Of The Thirteenth Amendment In Prison?, Raja Raghunath

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The walls of the prison are not solely physical. The doctrine of judicial deference to prison officials, which compels courts to defer to the discretion of those officials in almost all instances, obstructs the effective scrutiny of modern practices of punishment. Since its ratification, the Thirteenth Amendment—which prohibits slavery or involuntary servitude anywhere within the United States or its jurisdiction, except where imposed “as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted”1—has been seen by courts as one brick in this wall. This Article makes the novel argument that, properly read, the amendment should function instead …

Rescuing The Fourteenth Amendment Privileges Or Immunities Clause: How "Attrition Or Parliamentary Processes" Begat Accidental Ambiguity; How Ambiguity Begat Slaughter-House, Michael Anthony Lawrence

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The Bapcpa, The Gag Rule, And The First Amendment: A Proposal For Alignment Through Interpretive And Analytical Change, Cullen Ann Drescher

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Must God Be Dead Or Irrelevant: Drawing A Circle That Lets Me In, Richard M. Esenberg

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Some scholars claim that current Establishment Clause doctrine can increasingly be explained in terms of substantive neutrality-that is, the idea that government ought to treat religion and irreligion (or comparable secular activities) in the same way. Whether a product of the Court's commitment to the idea or an artifact of the positions of the "swing" Justices, this proposition has considerable explanatory power. The Supreme Court has, in recent years, permitted the government to make financial support equally available for religious uses, as long as it is done on a neutral basis and through the private choice of the recipients. It …

Prisoners For Sale: Making The Thirteenth Amendment Case Against State Private Prison Contracts, Ryan S. Marion

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The Unbearable Lightness Of Marriage In The Abortion Decisions Of The Supreme Court: Altered States In Constitutional Law, William W. Van Alstyne

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Solipsism: Toward A Thick Doctrine Of Article Iii Duty; Or Why The Federal Circuits' Nonprecedential Status Rules Are (Profoundly) Unconstitutional, Penelope Pether

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Guns And Speech Technologies: How The Right To Bear Arms Affects Copyright Regulations Of Speech Technologies, Edward Lee

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article examines the possible effect the Supreme Court's landmark Second Amendment ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller will have on future cases brought under the Free Press Clause.' Based on the text and history of the Constitution, the connection between the two Clauses is undeniable, as the Heller Court itself repeatedly suggested. Only two provisions in the entire Constitution protect individual rights to a technology: the Second Amendment's right to bear "arms" and the Free Press Clause's right to the freedom of the "press," meaning the printing press. Both rights were viewed, moreover, as pre-existing, natural rights to …

Making Sense Of High School Speech After Morse V. Frederick, Mark W. Cordes

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Judicial Confusion And Inconsistency In Handling Juror Misconduct: A New Proposal, Kristen D. Clardy

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The Sounds Of Silence: Reconsidering The Invocation Of The Right To Remain Silent Under Miranda, Marcy Strauss

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Unpleasant Speech On Campus, Even Hate Speech, Is A First Amendment Issue, Erwin Chemerinsky

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Separationism To The Extreme: The Mt. Soledad Cross And The Ninth Circuit's Crusade To Burden The Free Exercise Clause, Cameron M. Rountree

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Giving Dissenters Back Their Rights: How The White House Presidential Advance Manual Changes The First Amendment And Standing Debates, Kimberly Albrecht-Taylor

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Gatekeeping Vs. Balancing In The Constitutional Law Of Elections: Methodological Uncertainty On The High Court, Christopher S. Elmendorf, Edward B. Foley

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Essay examines the methodological upheaval created by the quartet of constitutional election law cases decided during October Term 2007. Prior to this Term, the ascendant analytic approach called for a threshold characterization of the burden on the plaintiff's rights, which characterization determined whether the court would apply strict scrutiny or lax, rational-basis-like review. The characterization was generally formal in nature. But in light of the Supreme Court's latest decisions, it is now open to a lower court adjudicating a First Amendment or Equal Protection challenge to an election law-absent a Supreme Court precedent squarely on point- (1) to engage …

Freedom To Err: The Idea Of Natural Selection In Politics, Schools, And Courts, Paul D. Carrington

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Metaphors And Modalities: Meditations On Bobbit's Theory Of The Constitution, Ian C. Bartrum

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Changing State Laws To Prohibit The Display Of Hangman's Nooses: Tightening The Knot Around The First Amendment?, Allison Barger

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The Continuing Threshold Test For Free Exercise Claims, Andy G. Olree

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

When a claimant challenges some governmental law or action under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, courts have long required the claimant to make out a prima facie case that the government has burdened the exercise of the claimant's sincerely held religious beliefs. This requirement has been referred to as the threshold test for free exercise claims, since claimants must make this showing as a threshold matter before courts will proceed to evaluate the burden and the governmental interest at stake under some standard of scrutiny. This Article argues that although the Supreme Court of the United States …

Justifying Motive Analysis In Judicial Review, Gordon G. Young

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Motives concern us in ordinary life and in the law of torts and crimes, and that concern is justified by consequentialist ethics. Despite occasional judicial protestations, motive analysis pervades large parts of constitutional law. Illegitimate motives aimed at suspect classes, or "designed to strike" at any number of rights identified as fundamental, presumptively invalidate the official actions that they animate. The consequentialist arguments for the use of motive review in this class of cases are relatively simple. Such illegitimate official motives tend to cause bad distributions of tangible benefits and burdens, or cause direct cognitive or emotional harm to the …

Civil Procedure And The Establishment Clause: Exploring The Ministerial Exception, Subject-Matter Jurisdiction, And The Freedom Of The Church, Gregory A. Kalscheur

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

What sort of defense is provided by the ministerial exception to employment discrimination claims? The ministerial exception bars civil courts from reviewing the decisions of religious organizations regarding the employment of their ministerial employees. While the exception itself is widely recognized by courts, there is confusion with respect to the proper characterization of the defense provided by the exception: should it be seen as a subject matter jurisdiction defense, or as a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the plaintiff's claim? This Article argues that articulating the right answer to this question of civil procedure is crucial to a proper …

Introduction: Universities And The First Amendment, William P. Marshall

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The Cross At College: Accomodation And Acknowledgment Of Religion At Public Universities, Ira C. Lupu, Robert W. Tuttle

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Free Expression And Education: Between Two Democracies, Stephen M. Feldman

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Higher Education, Harassment, And First Amendment Opportunism, Kenneth L. Marcus

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Intelligent Design In Public University Science Departments: Academic Freedom Or Establishment Of Religion, Frank S. Ravitch

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Falsity, Insincerity, And The Freedom Of Expression, Mark Spottswood

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Three decades ago, the Supreme Court announced that false statements of fact are devoid of constitutional value, without providing either a reasoned explanation for that principle or any supporting citations. This assertion has become one of the most frequently repeated dogmas of First Amendment law and theory, endlessly repeated and never challenged. Disturbingly, this idea has provided the theoretic foundation for a regime in which some speakers can be penalized for even honestly believed factual errors. Even worse, this dogma is flat wrong.

False statements often have value in themselves, and we should protect them even in some situations where …