Constitutional Law Commons^™

The Peculiar Federal Marriage Amendment, Scott Dodson

Faculty Publications

In this essay, I discuss the Constitution's commitment to three themes - state power over familial matters, individual liberty, and equality - and then demonstrate how the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment is uniquely contrary to all three. I do not intend to go so far as to suggest that the FMA would be an unconstitutional amendment, if such things are possible, nor do I mean to suggest that same-sex marriage is or should be affirmatively protected by the Constitution. I mean only to suggest that proposed amendments altering the Constitution's commitment to multiple existing themes in the Constitution should be …

Statehood As The New Personhood: The Discovery Of Fundamental "States' Rights", Timothy Zick

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Judicial Safeguards Of Federalism, Neal Devins

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Cross Burning, Hate Speech, And Free Speech In America, Edward J. Eberle

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Israel Poultry Farmers Association V. Government Of Israel, Dorit Beinisch, Aharon Barak, Mishael Cheshin

Translated Opinions

Petition to the Supreme Court sitting as the High Court of Justice

Facts: The Knesset enacted the Israel Economic Recovery Programme (Legislative Amendments for Achieving Budgetary Goals and the Economic Policy for the 2003 and 2004 Fiscal Years) Law, 5763-2003, which contained, in chapter 11, major changes to the regulation of the agricultural sector in Israel. This law, which contains many diverse provisions, was passed in a rushed process with very little debate either in the House or the committees of the Knesset.

The petitioners claimed, for a wide variety of reasons, that chapter 11, the ‘Agriculture Chapter,’ should be …

Mental Disorder And The Civil/Criminal Distinction, Grant H. Morris

University of San Diego Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series

This essay, written as part of a symposium issue to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the University of San Diego Law School, discusses the evaporating distinction between sentence-serving convicts and mentally disordered nonconvicts who are involved in, or who were involved in, the criminal process–people we label as both bad and mad. By examining one Supreme Court case from each of the decades that follow the opening of the University of San Diego School of Law, the essay demonstrates how the promise that nonconvict mentally disordered persons would be treated equally with other civilly committed mental patients was made and …

Teaching Race Without A Critical Mass: Reflections On Affirmative Action And The Diversity Rationale, Kathryn R.L Rand, Steven Andrew Light

Journal of Legal Education

No abstract provided.

Montesquieu's Mistakes And The True Meaning Of Separation, Laurence Claus

University of San Diego Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series

“The political liberty of the subject,” said Montesquieu, “is a tranquility of mind arising from the opinion each person has of his safety. In order to have this liberty, it is requisite the government be so constituted as one man needs not be afraid of another.” The liberty of which Montesquieu spoke is directly promoted by apportioning power among political actors in a way that minimizes opportunities for those actors to determine conclusively the reach of their own powers. Montesquieu’s constitution of liberty is the constitution that most plausibly establishes the rule of law. Montesquieu concluded that this constitution could …

The Tenuous Case For Conscience, Steven D. Smith

University of San Diego Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series

If there is any single theme that has provided the foundation of modern liberalism and has infused our more specific constitutional commitments to freedom of religion and freedom of speech, that theme is probably “freedom of conscience.” But some observers also perceive a progressive cheapening of conscience– even a sort of degradation. Such criticisms suggest the need for a contemporary rethinking of conscience. When we reverently invoke “conscience,” do we have any idea what we are talking about? Or are we just exploiting a venerable theme for rhetorical purposes without any clear sense of what “conscience” is or why it …

Supermajority Rules And The Judicial Confirmation Process, Michael B. Rappaport, John O. Mcginnis

University of San Diego Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series

In this paper we assess the effect of possible supermajority rules on the now contentious Senate confirmation process for judges. We deploy a formula for evaluating supermajority rules that we have developed in other papers. First, we consider a sixty-vote rule in the Senate for the confirmation of federal judges–an explicit version of the supermajority norm that may be emerging from the filibuster. While we briefly discuss how such a rule would affect the project of maximizing the number of originalist judges, for the most part we evaluate the rule on the realist assumption that judges will pursue their own …

Judges As Rulemakers, Larry A. Alexander, Emily Sherwin

University of San Diego Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series

This essay analyzes and compares different approaches to the problem of legal precedent. If judges reasoned flawlessly, the ideal approach to precedent would give prior judicial opinions only the weight they naturally carry in moral reasoning. Given that judges are not perfect reasoners, the best approach to precedent is one that treats rules established in prior decisions as authoritative for later judges. In comparison to the natural model of precedent, a rule-based model minimizes error. A rule-based model is also superior to several popular attempts at compromise, which call on judges to reason from the results of prior cases or …

The Hollowness Of The Harm Principle, Steven D. Smith

University of San Diego Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series

Among the various instruments in the toolbox of liberalism, the so-called “harm principle,” presented as the central thesis of John Stuart Mill’s classic On Liberty, has been one of the most popular. The harm principle has been widely embraced and invoked in both academic and popular debate about a variety of issues ranging from obscenity to drug regulation to abortion to same-sex marriage, and its influence is discernible in legal arguments and judicial opinions as well. Despite the principle’s apparent irresistibility, this essay argues that the principle is hollow. It is an empty vessel, alluring but without any inherent legal …

Grutter's First Amendment, Paul Horwitz

University of San Diego Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series

Most of the reaction to the Supreme Court's decision affirming the law school affirmative action policy at issue in Grutter v. Bollinger has focused on its Fourteenth Amendment implications. But Grutter also raises significant First Amendment issues. By reaffirming a First Amendment value of "educational autonomy," the Grutter Court raised a host of questions with implications not only for the constitutional law of academic freedom, but for First Amendment jurisprudence generally. This article therefore puts the Fourteenth Amendment to one side and provides a detailed analysis of the First Amendment implications of Grutter.

Some of the consequences of the Court's …

Competency To Stand Trial On Trial, Grant H. Morris, Ansar M. Haroun, David Naimark

University of San Diego Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series

This Article considers the legal standards for the determination of competency to stand trial, and whether those standards are understood and applied by psychiatrists and psychologists in the forensic evaluations they perform and in the judgments they make–judgments that are routinely accepted by trial courts as their own judgments. The Article traces the historical development of the competency construct and the development of two competency standards. One standard, used today in eight states that contain 25% of the population of the United States, requires that the defendant be able to assist counsel in the conduct of a defense “in a …

Strategic Judicial Lawmaking: An Empirical Investigation Of Ideology And Publication On The U.S. Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit, David S. Law

University of San Diego Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series

Previous studies have demonstrated that, in a number of contexts, federal appeals court judges divide along ideological lines when deciding cases upon the merits. To date, however, researchers have failed to find evidence that circuit judges take advantage of selective publication rules to further their ideological preferences - for example, by voting more ideologically in published cases that have precedential effect than in unpublished cases that lack binding effect upon future panels. This article evaluates the possibility that judges engage in strategic judicial lawmaking by voting more ideologically in published cases than in unpublished cases. To test this hypothesis, all …

Generic Constitutional Law, David S. Law

University of San Diego Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series

This paper seeks to articulate and explore the emerging phenomenon of generic constitutional law, here and in other countries. Several explanations are offered for this development. First, constitutional courts face common normative concerns pertaining to countermajoritarianism and, as a result, experience a common need to justify judicial review. These concerns, and the stock responses that courts have developed, amount to a body of generic constitutional theory. Second, courts employ common problem-solving skills in constitutional cases. The use of these skills constitutes what might be called generic constitutional analysis. Third, courts face overlapping influences, largely not of their own making, that …

National Security Capps Individual Civil Liberties In Times Of Crisis, Matthew D. Greenwell

ExpressO

This note attempts to objectively compare and contrast instances of past national emergencies with the ongoing “war on terror;” from the Supreme Court’s World War II decision of Korematsu, through the Warren Court and the Communist threat, then ending with the Rehnquist Court’s recent decisions of Hamdi, Rasul, and Padilla. In addition, the Computer Assisted Passenger Pre-screening System [CAPPS II] is used as an illustration of a current erosion of individual rights as a result of the “war on terror.” Finally, the note concludes by suggesting that when the war-making branches, based on a perceived threat to national security, infringe …

The Rave Act: A Specious Solution To The Serious Problem Of Increased Ecstasy Distribution Within The United States That Is Unconstitutionally Overbroad, Erin Treacy

ExpressO

The RAVE Act amends the 1986 "Crackhouse Statute" on the assumption that electronic music concerts are comparable to crackhouses. This article submits that the rationale behind the former Crackhouse statute does not logically support the RAVE Act and that the new law, as enacted, is unconstitutionally overbroad, infringing upon First Amendment rights. This article shows that the “rave culture,” its associated drug use and electronic music performances (sometimes known as raves) are not inextricably linked. The article also explores policy arguments that may be asserted against the RAVE Act and provides suggestions on how to amend the existing statute to …

The Police Power Revisited: Phantom Incorporation And The Roots Of The Takings Muddle, Bradley C. Karkkainen

ExpressO

This article traces the roots of the current muddle in the Supreme Court’s regulatory takings jurisprudence to an ill-considered “phantom incorporation” holding in Penn Central v. New York (1978), the seminal case of the modern regulatory takings era. The Penn Central Court anachronistically misread a long line of Fourteenth Amendment Substantive Due Process cases as Fifth Amendment Takings Clause cases, misattributing to Chicago Burlington & Quincy v. Chicago (1897) (“Chicago B & Q”) the crucial holding that the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause applied to the states. Like other cases of its era, Chicago B & Q was decided strictly on …

Apprendi's Limits, Roger Craig Green

ExpressO

This article argues that Blakely v. Washington did not decide (explicitly or implicitly) whether the Federal Sentencing Guidelines are constitutional. It also claims that the best interpretation of Apprendi v. New Jersey would uphold the Guidelines because they do not result in a punishment above the crime of conviction's statutory maximum. The notion that statutory maxima are constitutionally important stems from separation of power principles. Congress, not the Commission, is responsible for defining crimes, and thereby for prescribing how much punishment is authorized by a jury's guilty verdict.

Speech As Conduct: Generally Applicable Laws, Illegal Courses Of Conduct, “Situation-Altering Utterances,” And The Uncharted Zones, Eugene Volokh

ExpressO

In many recent free speech controversies -- over crime-facilitating speech, hostile environment harassment, child custody decisions, doctors’ recommending medical marijuana to their patients, pro-jury-nullification advocacy, and more -- defenders of the speech restriction have argued that the speech isn’t really speech, but is instead tantamount to conduct. Sometimes people argue that there’s no First Amendment problem when speech is restricted under a generally applicable law that covers both speech and conduct. Sometimes they argue that speech may be punished if it’s “an integral part of conduct in violation of a valid criminal statute.” Sometimes they argue that the speech should …

Crime-Facilitating Speech, Eugene Volokh

ExpressO

Many recent free speech controversies -- over Patriot Act subpoenas, contract murder manuals, encryption and decryption algorithms, contributory copyright infringement, publication of abortion providers’ names, discussions of gaps in security systems, certain kinds of invasion of privacy lawsuits, online term paper mills, and more -- turn out to be special cases of a general problem: Should there be a new First Amendment exception for speech that gives criminals information that can help them commit crimes? And, if so, how broad or narrow should this exception be?

Surprisingly, scholars have almost entirely ignored these broad questions, and the Supreme Court has …

Jurisprudence: Due Process Concerns For The Underrepresented Domestic Violence Victim, Rebecca Fialk, Tamara Mitchel

Buffalo Women's Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Foreword: Pursuing Equal Justice In The West, Lynne Henderson

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Interpreting Conflicting Provisions Of The Nevada State Constitution, William D. Popkin

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Constitution And The Public Trust, Robert G. Natelson

Buffalo Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Progress And Pitfalls Of Lawrence V. Texas, Nicole R. Hart

Buffalo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Citizenship And Suffrage: The Native American Struggle For Civil Rights In The American West, 1830-1965, Willard Hughes Rollings

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

"Perfect Good Faith", Erin Ruble, Gerald Torres

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Reconsidering The Constitutionality Of Federal Sentencing Guidelines After Blakely: A Former Commissioner's Perspective, Michael Goldsmith

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.