Constitutional Law Commons^™

Unconstitutional Cruelty, Michael R. Ulrich

William & Mary Law Review

Despite the long history of transgender people and transgender care, state legislatures suddenly rushed to pass a wave of bans on gender-affirming medical care for trans youth over a three-year period beginning in 2021—an alarming surge within a flurry of legal attacks on the transgender community. In analyzing the constitutionality of these bans, courts and scholars have focused their attention on how to characterize the nature of the rights implicated, and therefore the level of scrutiny warranted. This focus reacts to, and often follows, the current Supreme Court majority’s approach to questions about the rights of historically oppressed and marginalized …

Rethinking The Scope Of State Power: Territorial Jurisdiction, Popular Sovereignty, And Extraterritorial Legislation, Jeffrey Schmitt

William & Mary Law Review

The Supreme Court applies the territorial framework of international law to resolve disputes over the reach of state power. Under this framework, a state’s power is coterminous with its borders, such that a state’s regulatory power within its territory is limited only by federal law. The Court recently used this framework to overrule an obscure line of Dormant Commerce Clause cases that held that a state regulation of local conduct could have impermissible extraterritorial effects.

This Article argues that the territorial model of state power from international law does not account for the division of sovereignty within our federal system. …

Article Iii's Constraints On The Legislative Power, Elizabeth Earle Beske

William & Mary Law Review

Article III’s heightened concreteness standard for statutory harms takes federal judges deep into legislative terrain, jeopardizing statutory damage provisions and confining Congress to post hoc solutions rather than preemptive strikes. The Supreme Court has insisted that creating a cause of action is a legislative function. At the same time, its recent standing cases instruct lower federal courts to permit suit on statutory injuries only when they find actual harm that bears a tight connection to injuries recognized at common law. This new harm requirement rests uneasily with countless statutes featuring statutory damage provisions that are in place precisely because damages …

Keynote: Going Forward After Grants Pass, Joseph W. Mead

William & Mary Law Review

In this keynote, I explain the decision—and the stakes—of City of Grants Pass v. Johnson. In Grants Pass, the Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause posed no barrier to cities making it a crime for their homeless residents to sleep outdoors with as little as a blanket, even when those residents have no other option. Grants Pass, Oregon undertook an aggressive campaign to drive unhoused residents out of the city through punitive ordinances that criminalized unavoidable human conduct, such as sleeping with a blanket. The plaintiffs challenged the narrowest version of these …

Grants Pass And The Innocence Limit, Gregory Cui, Emily Clark

William & Mary Law Review

This Article examines City of Grants Pass v. Johnson as an important development in the Supreme Court’s doctrine concerning the Constitution’s “innocence limit.” This limit is a fundamental boundary on the state’s power to punish; it provides that criminal punishment may only apply to that which is morally culpable or blameworthy and thus may not apply to wholly innocent conduct. This principle was famously expressed in Robinson v. California, but this Article identifies a broader network of cases in which the Court has consistently effectuated the innocence limit and intervened against prosecutions of the innocent. This Article observes that …

The Presence And Persistence Of Social Rights In U.S. Constitutional Law, Mila Versteeg, Emily Zackin

William & Mary Law Review

Although the U.S. Constitution is widely described as lacking enforceable social rights, a recent line of cases from the Ninth Circuit recognizes a limited right to shelter. Relying on the Eighth Amendment, the Ninth Circuit held that individuals who lack access to shelter have a limited right to stay on public land with their belongings. The Supreme Court reversed in 2024, portraying the Ninth Circuit’s approach as an anomalous departure from accepted constitutional norms.

This Article argues that the Ninth Circuit’s decisions were not an aberration but instead exemplify a longstanding and globally common mode of social-rights adjudication. The common …

After Grants Pass: The Case For Recentering The Criminal Legal System And Its Constitutional Constraints, Scout Katovich

William & Mary Law Review

In City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, the Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment does not prohibit cities from punishing unhoused people for sleeping outside when they have nowhere else to go. While the holding was legally narrow, the Court’s rhetoric framed criminalization as sound policy rather than punishment, obscuring the criminal legal system implications at the heart of the case. Cities responded not to the narrow holding but to the rhetorical message: In the year following the decision, they enacted hundreds of new laws criminalizing homelessness and dramatically intensified enforcement.

This Article argues for the recentering of …

Setting The Stage For Grants Pass (& A Moral Constitutional Reckoning), Sara K. Rankin

William & Mary Law Review

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson marked a seismic shift in the legal landscape governing homelessness throughout the country. By permitting the criminalization of involuntary acts, such as sleeping or resting in public when no shelter is available, the Court foreclosed constitutional protections under the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause and signaled judicial deference to punitive local policies targeting unhoused people. But Grants Pass was not spontaneous; it was seeded over time. This Article situates Grants Pass within the broader legal and nonlegal contexts that made its outcome possible. Part I explores …

Unacceptable In Any Era: The Unusual And Unconstitutional Effort To Criminalize Sleeping While Homeless, Joseph W. Mead, Shelby Calambokidis

William & Mary Law Review

Grants Pass, Oregon, effectively made it a crime for some of its homeless residents to sleep—a universal and unavoidable biological necessity. In a 2024 decision, the Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause posed no obstacle to this law, but it emphasized that other constitutional provisions could place important limits on how cities treat their homeless residents.

This Article argues that modern laws criminalizing sleeping— especially when no shelter is available—represent an unprecedented and unconstitutional departure from centuries of American legal tradition. Tracing the evolution of vagrancy, poor relief, and settlement laws from the Statute …

Not Born A Democracy: Constitutional Preconditions, Martha Minow

William & Mary Law Review

Beneath growing perceptions of constitutional crisis and democratic fragility in the United States lies a fundamental conundrum. Critical preconditions for effective self-government are either weak or missing in action, and our constitutional system, at least for now, stands in the way of actions to strengthen or build those preconditions. This Article focuses on three essential predicates for constitutional democracy that face jeopardy: education, reliable news, and security against lethal violence. As basic as these elements may be, repeated efforts to secure a federal constitutional right to education have failed in the courts. Because of a confluence of legal, technological, and …

Taking Back The Takings Clause: The Case For Compensating Innocent Property Owners Caught In The Crossfire Of Police Activity, Kathleen Collins

William & Mary Law Review

Part I of this Note will provide an overview of the history of the Takings Clause, the role of the police power in takings jurisprudence, and the necessity exception to takings. Specifically, Part I will demonstrate that (1) the gravity of physical government intrusions has led the Supreme Court to consistently treat such intrusions as per se takings, (2) any distinction between eminent domain and the police power exists in the context of regulatory takings, and (3) the necessity exception rests on a shaky foundation as a common law tort doctrine. Part II will refute Lech’s conclusion that law …

Constitutional Federalism And The Nature Of The Union, Anthony J. Bellia Jr., Bradford R. Clark

William & Mary Law Review

Federalism is an essential feature of the Constitution’s design and structure, but the Constitution does not spell out every respective authority of the federal government and the States in precise detail. This omission has led some observers to embrace broad—if not unlimited—federal power and reject certain longstanding federalism doctrines—such as state sovereign immunity, the anti-commandeering doctrine, and the equal sovereignty of the States. The objection to such doctrines is that the Constitution does not affirmatively grant States these sovereign rights and powers. This charge overlooks long-forgotten background context essential to faithful interpretation of the Constitution. The former British Colonies in …

The Fourteenth Amendment And The Vénus Noire, Farah Peterson

William & Mary Law Review

This Essay makes two points. The first is that originalism is not a promising path for progressive causes. The second is that as the Constitution is amended, the meaning of the entire document is altered, and earlier text should be interpreted in light of what has changed. But instead of making these observations in the usual law review style, I’m calling on a figure out of nineteenth-century art, the Vénus Noire, to serve as our companion and guide.

This abstract has been taken from the author's introductory paragraphs.

Emergency Powers For Good, Elena Chachko, Katerina Linos

William & Mary Law Review

Emergency powers are widely, and justly, criticized as threats to the rule of law. In the United States, forty-three declared emergencies give the executive vast authority to exercise power unencumbered by standard legal and procedural requirements. A long tradition of executive use of emergency powers to erode civil liberties amplifies fears of executive overreach.

Yet this, we argue, is only part of the picture. We examine how emergency powers can be used for good. We argue that under certain limited conditions, political actors can legitimately invoke emergency powers to transform public policy. In addition to widely accepted requirements of crisis …

The Road Not Taken: A Critical Juncture In Racial Preferences For Naturalized Citizenship, Ming Hsu Chen

William & Mary Law Review

In The “Free White Person” Clause of the Naturalization Act of 1790 as Super-Statute, Gabriel Jack Chin and Paul Finkelman argue that racist results in naturalization have arisen despite, or maybe because of, the race neutral interpretation. This happened in a manner that could have been predicted by the federal government’s attitudes toward non-White persons in the Naturalization Act of 1790 and the nearly unbroken chain of legal developments. This leads them to think of the law as a “super-statute.” While I agree that this is the path actually taken in history, I view the mid-1960s civil rights era …

State Sovereign Immunity And The New Purposivism, Anthony J. Bellia Jr., Bradford R. Clark

William & Mary Law Review

Since the Constitution was first proposed, courts and commentators have debated the extent to which it alienated the States’ preexisting sovereign immunity from suit by individuals. During the ratification period, these debates focused on the language of the citizen-state diversity provisions of Article III. After the Supreme Court read these provisions to abrogate state sovereign immunity in Chisholm v. Georgia, Congress and the States adopted the Eleventh Amendment to prohibit this construction. The Court subsequently ruled that States enjoy sovereign immunity independent of the Eleventh Amendment, which neither conferred nor diminished it. In the late twentieth-century, Congress began enacting …

Why (And How) The Constitution Should Protect Prisoners From Gratuitous Disclosure Of Their Hiv/Aids Status, Dillon Schweers

William & Mary Law Review

This Note is not the first to advocate for prisoners’ constitutional privacy rights concerning their HIV/AIDS status, but it is the first to focus on isolated incidents of disclosure rather than general policies that tend to lead to disclosure like mandatory testing or segregation based on HIV/AIDS status. This Note argues that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause should protect prisoners from isolated disclosures, meaning prisoners should have a § 1983 cause of action against guards or other prison officials who disclose their HIV/AIDS status in a gratuitous manner.

[...]

The proceeding section of this Note, Part I, details the …

The Article Iii "Party" And The Originalist Case Against Corporate Diversity Jurisdiction, Mark Moller, Lawrence B. Solum

William & Mary Law Review

Federal courts control an outsize share of big-ticket corporate litigation. And that control rests, to a significant degree, on the Supreme Court’s extension of Article III’s Diversity of Citizenship Clause to corporations. Yet, critics have questioned the constitutionality of corporate diversity jurisdiction from the beginning.

In this Article and a previous one, we develop the first sustained critique of corporate diversity jurisdiction.

Our previous article demonstrated that corporations are not “citizens” given the original meaning of that word. But we noted this finding alone doesn’t sink general corporate diversity jurisdiction. The ranks of corporate shareholders include many undoubted “citizens.” And …

Qualified Knowledge: The Case For Considering Actual Knowledge In Qualified Immunity Jurisprudence As It Relates To The First Amendment Right To Record, Carly Laforge

William & Mary Law Review

This Note argues that this particular finding of the Frasier court is both pragmatically and philosophically problematic. By design, the qualified immunity doctrine seeks to shield police officers from civil rights lawsuits. However, prioritizing assumed knowledge over actual knowledge in determining what qualifies as a clearly established constitutional right harms the citizens that law enforcement officers have sworn to protect and serve. While traditional delineations of clearly established rights have involved appeals to precedent, public policy concerns are also important considerations in the qualified immunity analysis. In this way, Frasier is especially concerning in that it prioritizes the total defense …

Another Bite At The Apple Or The Same Bite? Characterizing Habeas Petitions On Appeal As Pending Instead Of Fully Adjudicated, Gregory Winder

William & Mary Law Review

[...] One of the Act's [Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act] most significant aspects is its restriction on the filing of successive habeas corpus petitions. Responding to this restriction, prisoners have attempted to circumvent the AEDPA through a number of different procedural routes with varying degrees of success.

This Note examines the circuit split that has emerged for one of those procedural attempts—motions to amend habeas petitions following adjudication on the merits and while on appeal in a circuit court. This Note argues that allowing amendment of habeas petitions on appeal is both consistent with the history of habeas corpus …

A World Without Roe: The Constitutional Future Of Unwanted Pregnancy, Julie C. Suk

William & Mary Law Review

With the demise of Roe v. Wade, the survival of abortion access in America will depend on new legal paths. In the same moment that Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization has constrained access to abortion in the United States, other constitutional democracies have moved in the opposite direction, expanding access to safe, legal, and free abortions. They have done so without reasoning from Roe’s vision of the private zone of unwanted pregnancy. The development of abortion law outside the United States provides critical insights that can inform future efforts to vindicate the constitutional rights of women facing …

Equal Dignity, Colorblindness, And The Future Of Affirmative Action Beyond Grutter V. Bollinger, Thomas P. Crocker

William & Mary Law Review

In Grutter v. Bollinger the Supreme Court held that diversity was a compelling interest for equal protection purposes that justifies limited consideration of race through affirmative action programs. But there was a catch. The Court predicted that diversity would cease to be a compelling interest within twenty-five years. This Article examines the surprising doctrinal and conceptual implications that would follow if, having both the motive and means, the Court were to overturn Grutter before its predicted 2028 sunset. Exploring internal tensions within existing doctrine, this Article argues that even if the Court were to overturn Grutter, a form of …

Preempting The States And Protecting The Charities: A Case For Nonprofit-Exempting Federal Action In Consumer Data Privacy, Sarah Fisher

William & Mary Law Review

This Note argues that Congress should use its Commerce Clause power to pass a consumer data privacy measure that (1) preempts state law and (2) explicitly exempts 501(c)(3) organizations from compliance. Such preemptive action with a narrow 501(c)(3) carve-out would avoid the potential harm of exempting too broad a group of nonprofit entities while ensuring charitable organizations’ continued existence, would be more protective of both the individual privacy right and 501(c)(3) existence than merely adjusting the revenue dollar threshold at which entities must comply, and would properly balance the individual right to control personal data with the societal good served …

No Child Left Behind Bars: Applying The Principles Of Strict Scrutiny When Sentencing Juveniles Tried As Adults, Max Chu

William & Mary Law Review

The Commonwealth of Virginia was the first in the nation to pass legislation that provides judges with the discretion to veer away from the mandatory minimum sentence and to impose trauma-informed and age-appropriate sentences for juvenile offenders convicted of felonies and tried as adults. Although Virginia’s new law, House Bill 744 (HB 744), is a pioneering step in the right direction, this Note argues that the law may now provide judges with too much discretion. In other words, HB 744 alone, without more guidance, does not go far enough to protect the rights of juvenile offenders.

Therefore, this Note proposes …

Fourth Amendment Infringement Is Afoot: Revitalizing Particularized Reasonable Suspicion For Terry Stops Based On Vague Or Discrepant Suspect Descriptions, Caroline E. Lewis

William & Mary Law Review

In Terry v. Ohio, the Supreme Court granted law enforcement broad power to perform a limited stop and search of someone when an officer has reasonable suspicion that the person is engaged in criminal activity. The resulting “Terry stop” created a way for police officers to investigate a suspicious person without requiring full probable cause for an arrest. The officer need only have “reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts” based on the circumstances and the officer’s policing “experience that criminal activity may be afoot.” Reasonable suspicion is—by design—a broad standard, deferential to police officers’ judgment. Law enforcement officers …

The Constitutional Right To Carry Firearms On Campus, Jared A. Tuck

William & Mary Law Review

Do individuals have the fundamental right under the Second Amendment to carry firearms on the campus of a public university? Additionally, can a public university totally ban firearms on its campus without impeding on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment? This Note will argue that individuals have a narrow, but constitutionally guaranteed, right to carry firearms on the campus of a public university. Therefore, it is beyond the power of states and public universities to totally ban firearms from campus premises.

Recovering The Lost General Welfare Clause, David S. Schwartz

William & Mary Law Review

The General Welfare Clause of Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution enumerates a power to “provide for the common defense and general welfare.” A literal interpretation of this clause (“the general welfare interpretation”) would authorize Congress to legislate for any national purpose, and therefore to address all national problems— for example, the COVID-19 pandemic—in ways that would be precluded under the prevailing understanding of limited enumerated powers. But conventional doctrine rejects the general welfare interpretation and construes the General Welfare Clause to confer the so-called “Spending Power,” a power only to spend, but not to regulate, for …

Regulating Armed Private Militia Gatherings: A Constitutional State-Level Proposal To Promote Public Safety In A Post-Heller World, Sean Tenaglia

William & Mary Law Review

“Yesterday, in my view, was one of the darkest days in the history of our nation.” President Joseph R. Biden spoke these words following the January 6, 2021 riots at the U.S. Capitol Building that left five people, including a police officer, dead. The mob that stormed the Capitol sought to prevent Congress from certifying then-President-elect Biden’s Electoral College victory. In the weeks following the riot, investigators began arresting rioters associated with extremist right-wing militia groups, such as the Oath Keepers and Three Percenters. While January 6, 2021, can accurately be labeled a dark day in American history, the events …

Board Gender Diversity: A Path To Achieving Substantive Equality In The United States, Kimberly A. Houser, Jamillah Bowen Williams

William & Mary Law Review

While the European Union (EU) was founded on the concept of equality as a fundamental value in 1993, the United States was created at a time when women were considered legally inferior to men. This has had the lasting effect of preventing women in the United States from making inroads into positions of power. While legislated board gender diversity (BGD) mandates have been instituted in some EU countries, the United States has been loath to take that route, relying instead on the goodwill of corporate boards, with little progress. On September 30, 2018, however, California enacted a law that has …

Manufacturing Sovereign State Mootness, Daniel Bruce

William & Mary Law Review

The idea that public defendants should receive any special treatment in the mootness context has been subject to intense criticism among commentators. Most notably, in the lead-up to the New York Rifle decision, Joseph Davis and Nicholas Reaves—two prominent First Amendment litigators from the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty—urged the Supreme Court to take the opportunity to correct the lower courts’ practice of blessing government abuse of the voluntary cessation doctrine. Indeed, the Supreme Court has never adopted a presumption in favor of government defendants such as the one applied by the Seventh Circuit in Killeen, and it failed to …