Constitutional Law Commons^™

A Third Parallel Primrose Path: The Supreme Court's Repeated, Unexplained, And Still Growing Regulation Of State Courts' Criminal Appeals, Russell M. Coombs

ExpressO

Recently the United States Supreme Court has ruled, in a series of cases beginning with Ornelas v. United States, that decisions of certain mixed questions of federal constitutional law and fact, arising under various amendments, must be reviewed de novo on direct appeal. The Court has not specified that state courts are bound by these rulings, but has used conflicting language relevant to that issue. Faced with this ambiguity, the courts of a number of states have departed from their prior practices by following these rulings, at least some because they consider themselves bound to do so, and have extended …

A State's Power To Enter Into A Consent Decree That Violates State Law Provisions: What "Findings" Of A Federal Violation Are Sufficient To Justify A Consent Decree That Trumps State Law?, David W. Swift

ExpressO

In the last forty years federal courts have played a prominent role in reshaping our public institutions. And while some scholars question the efficacy of these structural injuctions, the authority of federal courts to order such relief is generally unquestioned. What is open to debate, however, is whether state officials can agree to a remedy they would not have had the authority to order themselves; and if so, to what extent must an underlying constitutional violation be proved so as to justify the remedy?

This article discusses the competing theories and concludes that a remedy that violates state law may …

'You'd Better Be Good': Congressional Threats Of Removal Against Federal Judges, Marc O. Degirolami

ExpressO

In the attached article, I argue that congressional threats of removal against federal judges are increasing in prevalence and forcefulness and that as a result the strained relationship between the judiciary and Congress – a topic of recent attention and debate – will continue to deteriorate in the coming years. I examine two bills, the Feeney Amendment to the PROTECT Act and House of Representatives Resolution 568 (in which Congress would disavow citation in judicial decisions to foreign law), to demonstrate this thesis.

I next ask what explains the phenomenon of congressional threats of removal, deploying first Thomas Hobbes’ state-of-nature …

A Case Study In The Banning Of Political Parties: The Pan-Arab Movement El Ard And The Israeli Supreme Court, Ron Harris

ExpressO

Attempts to outlaw political groups that are alleged to approve the use of violence, to limit the expression of views that challenge the core values of democratic nation-states, and to ban radical, separatist, or religious political parties are more widespread in recent years than at any other time since 1945. They gave rise in the last few years to litigation in Constitutional Courts and Supreme Courts in Spain, Germany, Turkey, France, Israel, and Latvia, as well as in the European courts.

The present article tells the story of the encounter in the years 1959-1965 between the Pan-Arab national movement El …

The Birth Of A Logical System: Thurman Arnold And The Making Of Modern Administrative Law, Mark Fenster

ExpressO

Much of what we recognize as contemporary administrative law emerged during the 1920s and 1930s, a period when a group of legal academics attempted to aid Progressive Era and New Deal regulatory efforts by crafting a legitimating system for the federal administrative state. Their system assigned competent, expert institutions—most notably administrative agencies and the judiciary—well-defined roles: Agencies would utilize their vast, specialized knowledge and abilities to correct market failures, while courts would provide a limited but crucial oversight of agency operations. This Article focuses both on this first generation of administrative law scholarship, which included most prominently Felix Frankfurter and …

Brown And Tee-Hit-Ton, Earl Maltz

ExpressO

No abstract provided.

Another Limit On Federal Court Jurisdiction? Immigrant Access To Class-Wide Injunctive Relief, Jill E. Family

ExpressO

This article examines a statute that may embody another limit on the power of the federal courts. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) implemented sweeping changes that substantially restrict federal court review of administrative immigration decisions. One provision implemented as a part of IIRIRA, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1), appears, at least at first glance, to prohibit courts from issuing class-wide injunctive relief in immigration cases. Such a restriction would be significant because federal courts have issued class-wide injunctions in the past to stop unconstitutional immigration practices and policies of the federal government. The Supreme Court …

Litzman V. Knesset Speaker, Aharon Barak, Asher Grunis, Salim Joubran

Translated Opinions

Facts: Various irregularities occurred during votes in the Knesset, in which certain Knesset members voted instead of other Knesset members. The petitioner asked the court to void the votes in which the irregularities occurred.

Held: Judicial scrutiny of legislative proceedings in the Knesset should be done with great caution, and only when the defect in the proceedings goes to the heart of the matter. In this case, the irregularities did not affect the outcome of the voting, and therefore judicial intervention was unwarranted.

Petition denied.

The Same Side Of Two Coins: The Peculiar Phenomenon Of Bet-Hedging In Campaign Finance, Jason Cohen

ExpressO

The paper addresses the propensity of large donors to give to competing candidates or competing party organizations during the same election cycle – for example, giving money to both Bush and Kerry during the 2004 presidential race – a practice here termed 'bet-hedging.' Bet-hedging is analyzed in strategic and game-theoretic terms. The paper explores the prevalence of bet-hedging, the possible motivations behind the practice, and the informational concerns surrounding it. The paper argues that bet-hedging, out of all donation practices, carries with it a uniquely strong implication of ex post favor-seeking: if a donor prefers one side over the other, …

On Brown V. Board Of Education's 50th Anniversary: To Integrate Or Separate Is Not The Question, Thomas Kleven

ExpressO

By ending official apartheid, Brown represented a great victory in the struggle for racial justice in the United States. Following more than a decade of inaction as a result of its “all deliberate speed” formulation, and in response to the then prevailing sentiment among the proponents of Brown, the Supreme Court began to push for the integration of school districts that engaged in segregation by law or practice. This integrationist push lasted from the late 1960s to the late 1970s. Beginning in the mid-1970s the Court began to limit the remedies for segregation by law or practice, and beginning in …

Affirmative Action: More Efficient Than Color Blindness, Abraham L. Wickelgren

ExpressO

One of the most compelling reasons against affirmative action is the principle of color blindness, that is, the idea that race is an irrelevant characteristic that should not affect higher education admissions or hiring decisions. Despite its intuitive appeal, this paper shows that adherence to this principle impedes economic efficiency when there has been past discrimination based on color. Past discrimination creates inefficiencies in the economy that persist across generations. Because of this persistence, race is not an irrelevant characteristic for firms and universities looking to hire or admit the best candidates. Affirmative action, not color-blindness, is necessary to reduce …

Milo V. Minister Of Defense, Ayala Procaccia, Edmond E. Levy, Eliahu Mazza

Translated Opinions

[This abstract is not part of the Court's opinion and is provided for the reader's convenience. It has been translated from a Hebrew version prepared by Nevo Press Ltd. and is used with its kind permission.]

Petitioner 1 applied for an exemption from military service for reasons of conscience due to her objection to IDF policy in the territories, which contravened her humanistic, moral ideology. The military authorities rejected the exemption request, and the Supreme Court denied her petition in the matter. Inter alia, the Court addressed the question of the test employed by the military authorities for deciding the …

The Alley Behind First Street, Northeast: Criminal Abortion In The Nation's Capital 1873-1973, Douglas R. Miller

ExpressO

The thirtieth anniversary of Roe v. Wade found our country no less divided over abortion than it was during the era of its prohibition. As the bitter struggle over judicial nominations throughout the present administration suggests, abortion’s future remains at the forefront of American political debate.

In their push for increased limitations, abortion opponents generally overlook the historical consequences of prohibition. Abortion rights proponents often invoke history in their opposition to new restrictions, but tend to do so superficially, and only in a manner that supports their position.

This article attempts a more complex study of criminal abortion’s legal and …

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

San Diego Law Review

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 …

Recovering (From) Enlightenment?, Steven D. Smith

San Diego Law Review

The American Constitution at its founding is often associated with "the Enlightenment," and modern liberal constitutionalism continues to be associated with what Bruce Ackerman refers to as "the spirit of the Enlightenment." This article contrasts the essential features of the classical or historical Enlightenment with those of the modern Enlightenment, as reflected in the thinking of theorists like Rawls, Dworkin, and others and as embodied in a good deal of modern constitutional doctrine. The article argues that the modern Enlightenment is more accurately viewed as an inversion than a continuation of the classical Enlightenment. Moreover, this inversion threatens to undermine …

“Politics As Markets” Reconsidered: Economic Theory, Competitive Democracy And Primary Ballot Access , David N. Schleicher

ExpressO

No abstract provided.

Summary Of Heller V. Legislature, 120 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 51, Keith Brown

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

On April 2, 2004, The Honorable Dean Heller, Secretary of State of the State of Nevada, sought an original petition for a writ of mandamus by the Nevada Supreme Court to compel the state Legislature (as a whole) to enforce separation of powers. The Secretary challenged whether state government employees’ service in the state Legislature (dual service) violated the constitutional separation of powers doctrine and questioned whether local government employees’ service in the Legislature also violated the separation of powers. The petition asked the court to: (1) find that service in the Legislature by “certain,” unidentified state executive branch employees …

The First Amendment, The Public-Private Distinction, And Nongovernmental Suppression Of Wartime Political Debate, Gregory P. Magarian

Working Paper Series

This article proposes a major expansion in the scope of First Amendment law and offers a fresh way of understanding the public-private distinction. It contends that the Supreme Court should invoke the First Amendment to enjoin nongovernmental behavior that substantially impedes public political debate during times of war and national emergency. As the article explains, the present campaign against international terrorism has seen employers, property owners, and media corporations restrict political discussion more frequently and aggressively than the government has. If political debate is the most important object of First Amendment protection – which the article contends it is – …

Religious Organizations And Free Exercise: The Surprising Lessons Of Smith, Kathleen A. Brady

Working Paper Series

Much has been written about the protections afforded by the Free Exercise Clause when government regulation impacts the religious practices of individuals, and if one looks for guidance from the Supreme Court, the rules are fairly clear. Prior to 1990, the Supreme Court had long employed a balancing approach that afforded—at least in theory—significant relief. Under this approach individuals were entitled to exemptions from laws which substantially burdened religious conduct unless enforcement was justified by a compelling state interest. In 1990, in Employment Division v. Smith, the Supreme Court abandoned this balancing test for all but a few categories of …

The Constitutional Floor Doctrine And The Right To A Speedy Trial, Darren Allen

Campbell Law Review

This article will begin with a quick description of the historical origins of the speedy trial right and the events marking its quiet evolution into a hallmark of our criminal justice system. It will then move into a discussion of the decisions articulating principles of new federalism which require that state courts defer to the federal interpretations of fundamental rights, before discussing of the controlling Supreme Court cases fashioning the test by which violations of the right are measured. Next, this article will showcase the critical differences between Spivey and Barker to demonstrate why North Carolina's speedy trial test intrudes …

The Logic And Experience Of Law: Lawrence V. Texas And The Politics Of Privacy, Danaya C. Wright

UF Law Faculty Publications

The U.S. Supreme Court's June 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas may prove to be one of the most important civil rights cases of the twenty-first century. It may do for gay and lesbian people what Brown v. Board of Education did for African-Americans and Roe v. Wade did for women. While I certainly hope so, my enthusiasm is tempered by the fact that discrimination on the basis of race or gender has not disappeared. Will Lawrence signal meaningful change, or will its revolutionary possibilities be stifled by endless cycles of excuse and redefinition? The case is important, but I …

Donating "Blood Money": Fundraising For International Terrorism By United States Charities And The Government's Efforts To Constrict The Flow, Montgomery E. Engel

Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law

The note examines the U.S. government's use of blocking orders against charitable organizations suspected of supporting terrorism, arguing that while such orders are effective in disrupting terrorist financing, they raise significant concerns about due process, transparency, and the equitable treatment of Muslim-American donors. The author advocates for a shift toward criminal prosecution as a more effective and equitable strategy, balancing national security with civil liberties.

Scuba Shellfishing Ban Withstands Challenge, Lance Young

Sea Grant Law Fellow Publications

No abstract provided.

After Bureaucracy, Michael C. Dorf

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Law—Separation Of Powers—Restoring The Constitutional Formula To The Federal Judicial Appointment Process: Taking The Vice Out Of "Advice And Consent", Jason Eric Sharp

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Relation Between Autonomy-Based Rights And Profoundly Disabled Persons, Norman L. Cantor

Rutgers Law School (Newark) Faculty Papers

“The Relation Between Autonomy-based Rights and Profoundly Mentally Disabled Persons” Competent persons have fundamental rights to decide about abortion, methods of contraception, and rejection of life-sustaining medical treatment. Profoundly disabled persons are so cognitively impaired that they cannot make their own serious medical decisions. Yet some courts suggest that the mentally impaired are entitled to “the same right” to choice regarding critical medical decisions as competent persons. This article discusses the puzzling question of how to relate autonomy-based rights to never-competent persons. It argues that while profoundly disabled persons cannot be entitled to make their own medical decisions, they have …

Solodkin V. Beit Shemesh Municipality, Aharon Barak, Eliahu Mazza, Mishael Cheshin, Jacob Turkel, Dorit Beinisch, Ayala Procaccia, Edmond E. Levy, Miriam Naor, Theodor Or

Translated Opinions

Facts: An enabling law of the Knesset empowers local authorities to enact bylaws that prohibit or restrict the sale of pig meat and meat products within the municipal boundaries. The respondent municipalities enacted such bylaws, which restricted or prohibited the sale of pig meat and meat products within their respective boundaries. The petitioners challenged these bylaws, arguing that they violated the freedom of occupation of the sellers of pig meat, and the liberty of the consumers to adopt whatever lifestyle they saw fit, without interference amounting to religious coercion.

Held: The purposes underlying the enabling law empower the local authorities …

Separation Of Powers And The Commander In Chief: Congress’S Authority To Override Presidential Decisions In Crisis Situations, Reid Skibell

ExpressO

This paper represents an in-depth examination of Separation of Power issues raised in the context of the Legislative and Executive Branch’s exercise of their War Powers. Specifically, the paper considers the argument raised by the Bush Administration that Congress cannot constitutionally infringe on the President’s exercise of his Commander in Chief Power in the fight against terrorism. Such an argument would effectively insulate most Presidential decisions related to terrorism from Congressional oversight. The implication being that even if Congress wanted to accomplish something like ending the detainment of detainees at Guatanamo Bay it would be outside their Constitutional authority. The …

“Which One Of You Did It?” Criminal Liability For “Causing Or Allowing” The Death Of A Child, Lissa Griffin

ExpressO

No abstract provided.

Human Agency, Negated Subjectivity, And White Structural Oppression: An Analysis Of Critical Race Practive/Praxis, Reginald Leamon Robinson

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.