Constitutional Law Commons^™

A Theory In Search Of A Court, And Itself: Judicial Minimalism At The Supreme Court Bar, Neil S. Siegel

Michigan Law Review

According to the prevailing wisdom in academic public law, constitutional theory is a field that seeks to articulate and evaluate abstract accounts of the nature of the United States Constitution. Theorists offer those accounts as guides to subsequent judicial construction of constitutional provisions. As typically conceived, therefore, constitutional theory tends to proceed analytically from the general to the particular; its animating idea is that correct decisions in constitutional cases presuppose theoretical commitments to the methodological principles that should guide constitutional interpretation and the substantive values such interpretation should advance. In its enthusiasm for abstraction, constitutional theory has, at times, generated …

The Free Exercise Of Religion And Public Schools: The Implications Of Hybrid Rights On The Religious Upbringing Of Children, Michael E. Lechliter

Michigan Law Review

This Note argues that parents have a fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution to direct the religious upbringing of their children and that courts interpreting Smith have systematically misunderstood and misapplied the Supreme Court's confusing hybrid rights language. Part I explains how Yoder and Smith create and preserve parents' right to direct the religious upbringing of their children. The essential point is that the free exercise right and the parental right are not examined independently and simply added together, but instead are incorporated together to provide a specific bite to the free exercise claim. Part I also examines the lower …

Regulating Section 527 Organizations, Gregg D. Polsky, Guy-Uriel E. Charles

Scholarly Works

In this Essay, we consider whether the Federal Election Commission (FEC) has the authority to regulate independent 527 organizations (e.g., Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, Moveon.org, etc.) as political committees under the Federal Election Campaign Act. This issue, which was hotly debated during the last election cycle when it was considered and ultimately tabled by the FEC, is an extremely complex one that requires a deep understanding of election, tax, administrative, and constitutional law. After considering how these areas of law intersect, we conclude that the FEC lacks the authority to regulate independent 527 organizations as political committees.

Swancc'S Clear Statement: A Delimitation Of Congress's Commerce Clause Authority To Regulate Water Pollution, Matthew B. Baumgartner

Michigan Law Review

Perhaps the most controversial aspect of federal water pollution law is wetland regulation. Wetlands are typically marshy or swampy areas with hydrologic soils and vegetation. Their ecological value is widely recognized, but wetlands often stand in the way of lucrative commercial development projects. Thus, the battle over the validity of federal wetland regulation is a classic fight between environmentalists and industry. The wetlands controversy is also paradigmatic of the perpetual struggle to define the constitutional limits to federal regulation. The country's main water pollution control law, the Clean Water Act (CWA), purports to regulate all "navigable waters," which it defines …

A Theory In Search Of A Court, And Itself: Judicial Minimalism At The Supreme Court Bar, Neil S. Siegel

Faculty Scholarship

Cass Sunstein has prominently and provocatively advocated a theory of judicial minimalism. He has claimed that minimalism provides both an accurate descriptive account of how the Supreme Court decides constitutional cases and a persuasive normative theory of how the Justices should exercise their power of judicial review. In fact, he has written that the October 2003 Term demonstrates the Court's commitment to judicial minimalism.

In this Article, I demonstrate a deep tension between Professor Sunstein's aspiration that minimalism serve as an empirically testable (and thus descriptively accurate) account of the Supreme Court's work, and his ambition that minimalism provide a …

Najar V. State Of Israel, Elyakim Rubinstein, Miriam Naor, Yonatan Adiel

Translated Opinions

Facts: The appellant, a Bedouin, stabbed his sister to death. Initially, he said that the reason why he did this was that his sister, who was unmarried, intended to travel alone to Egypt, and this would dishonour the family. At his trial, the appellant testified that in addition his sister had made a statement questioning his paternity of his children. The appellant claimed that the killing of his sister was the result of provocation, and therefore he should be convicted of manslaughter rather than murder. Inter alia he argued that the court should take into account the fact that in …

House Resolution On The Appropriate Role Of Foreign Judgments In The Interpretation Of The Constitution Of The United States: Hearing Before The Subcommittee On The Constitution, House Committee On The Judiciary, 109th Cong., July 19, 2005 (Statement Of Viet D. Dinh, Prof. Of Law, Geo. U. L. Center), Viet D. Dinh

Testimony Before Congress

No abstract provided.

House Resolution On The Appropriate Role Of Foreign Judgements In The Interpretation Of The Constitution Of The United States: Hearing Before The Subcomm. On The Constitution, H. Comm. On The Judiciary, 109th Cong., July 19, 2005 (Statement Of Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, Prof. Of Law, Geo. U. L. Center), Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz

Testimony Before Congress

No abstract provided.

Race Against The Machine: An Argument For The Standardization Of Voting Technology, Jason Belmont Conn

ExpressO

In this article/note, I examine a lingering question from the court cases arising out of the 2000 election: Does Bush v. Gore and the relevant equal protection case law open the door for a legal challenge to a state’s use of different voting machines/technologies and how do racial disparities in machine error rates impact this analysis? In addition to reviewing the current literature and case law on voting machine standardization, I also present an unrecognized and undocumented connection between the “all deliberate speed” order in Brown and the Court’s discussion of voting technology in Bush v. Gore.

Bolling, Equal Protection, Due Process, And Lochnerphobia, David E. Bernstein

George Mason University School of Law Working Papers Series

In Brown v. Board of Education, the United States Supreme Court invalidated state and local school segregation laws as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. That same day, in Bolling v. Sharpe, the Court held unconstitutional de jure segregation in Washington, D.C.'s public schools under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Fifty years after it was decided, Bolling remains one of the Warren Court's most controversial decisions.

The controversy reflects the widespread belief that the outcome in Bolling reflected the Justices' political preferences and was not a sound interpretation of the Due Process Clause. The Bolling Court …

American Constitutional Fantasies: Escape From Difference Through Escape From Government, David C. Williams

Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies

Back to Government?: The Pluralistic Deficit in the Decisionmaking Processes and Before the Courts, Symposium. University of Trento, Italy, June 11-12, 2004.

Miranda And Reasonableness, Peter B. Rutledge

Scholarly Works

Last term's decisions in Yarborough v. Alvarado and Missouri v. Seibert shed important light on the state of the Miranda doctrine in the Supreme Court. In Yarborough, a slim majority held that a state appellate court's failure to consider a defendant's age and history of contact with law enforcement in its “custody” determination was not “contrary to” or an “unreasonable application of” clearly established Supreme Court case law. In Seibert, a fractured majority affirmed the Missouri Supreme Court's decision to exclude a defendant's confession where police officers strategically withheld a suspect's Miranda rights at the outset of a …

Supreme Court Watch, Reginald Oh

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

Discusses the March 1, 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision regarding the constitutionality of the death penalty in Roper v. Simmons, 125 S. Ct. 1183 (2005). The Court held that the death penalty cannot be applied to individuals under the age of eighteen at the time the crime was committed without violating the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

The Treaty Establishing A Constitution For Europe And The Democratic Legitimacy Of The European Union, Elisabeth Zoller

Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies

No abstract provided.

Back To Government?: The Pluralistic Deficit In The Decisionmaking Process And Before The Courts, Fulvio Cortese, Marco Dani, Francesco Palermo

Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies

Back to Government?: The Pluralistic Deficit in the Decisionmaking Processes and Before the Courts, Symposium. University of Trento, Italy, June 11-12, 2004.

Functional Participation In Eu Delegation Regulation: Lessons From The United States And The Eu's "Constitutional Moment:, Stijn Smismans

Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies

Back to Government?: The Pluralistic Deficit in the Decisionmaking Processes and Before the Courts, Symposium. University of Trento, Italy, June 11-12, 2004.

Civil And Criminal Recidivists: Extraterritoriality In Tort And Crime, Wayne A. Logan

Scholarly Publications

Historically, punitive damage awards and criminal sentences have shared the common justifications of punishment and deterrence, with the culpability of tortfeasors and criminals alike being enhanced as a result of repeat misconduct. The Supreme Court’s 2003 decision in State Farm v. Campbell suggests, however, that the parallels now in effect stop at the state line. The extraterritorial misconduct of tortfeasors is permitted to play a very limited role, if any, in the assessment of punitive damage awards. Meanwhile, such misconduct continues to be used by courts to significantly enhance the sentences of criminal defendants, an asymmetry accentuated by California v. …

Europe's Darker Legacies; Notes On Mirror Reflections, The Constitution As Fetish, And Other Such Linkages Between The Past And The Future Darker Legacies Of Law In Europe; The Shadow Of National Socialism And Fascism Over Europe And Its Legal Traditions Edited, By Christian Joerges And Navraj Singh Ghaleigh (Eds); European Constitutionalism Beyond The State, By J. H. H. Weiler And Marlene Wind (Eds), Peer Zumbansen

Osgoode Hall Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Fair Representation On Juries In The Eastern District Of Michigan: Analyzing Past Efforts And Recommending Future Action, Andrew J. Lievense

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Note builds on past recommendations to reform jury selection systems to make juries more representative of the community. Juries representing a fair cross section of the community are both a statutory and constitutional requirement, as well as a policy goal. How a judicial district designs and implements its jury selection system is important to meeting this requirement.

Part I of this Note analyzes the history and development of the representativeness interest on juries, explains how the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan attempted to meet this interest in the 1980s and 1990s, and reports and …

Foreign Law And The U.S. Constitution, Kenneth Anderson

Popular Media

The use of foreign law and unratified international treaty law by U.S. courts in U.S. constitutional adjudication has emerged as a major debate among justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, with Justice Anthony Kennedy writing for a majority approving the practice in the March 2005 decision of Roper v. Simmons, and Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer undertaking an unusual public discussion of the practice in January 2005 at American University law school. This article examines the arguments made by Justices Kennedy, Scalia, and Breyer for and against the practice, setting them in the broader context of constitutional theory. It …

Judicial Selection By The Numbers, Michael J. Gerhardt

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Constitutional Limits To Court-Stripping, Michael J. Gerhardt

Faculty Publications

This Article is part of a colloquy between Professor Michael J. Gerhardt and Professor Martin Redish about the constitutionality of court-stripping measures. Court-stripping measures are laws restricting federal court jurisdiction over particular subject matters. In particular, the authors discuss the constitutionality of the Marriage Protection Act of 2004. Professor Gerhardt argues that the Act is unconstitutional and threatens to destroy the principles of separation of powers, federalism and due process. It prevents Supreme Court review of Congressional action and hinders the uniformity and finality of constitutional law. Furthermore, the Act violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment Due …

Fourth Amendment Federalism? The Court's Vacillating Mistrust And Trust Of State Search And Seizure Laws, Kathryn R. Urbonya

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

A Government Of Limited Powers, Carl E. Schneider

Articles

Roscoe C. Filburn owned a small farm in Ohio where he raised poultry, dairy cows, and a modest acreage of winter wheat. Some wheat he fed his animals, some he sold, and some he kept for his family's daily bread. The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 limited the wheat Mr. Filburn could grow without incurring penalties, but his 1941 crop exceeded those limits. Mr. Filburn sued. He said Claude Wickard, the Secretary of Agriculture, could not enforce the AAI's limits because Congress lacked authority to regulate wheat grown for one's own use. He reasoned: In our federal system, the states …

Despite Alarmists, 'Kelo' Decision Protects Property Owners And Serves The General Good, John R. Nolon, Jessica A. Bacher

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

The United States Supreme Court’s decision in Kelo v. City of New London, has spurred national debate, as many people portray the court’s decision as a damaging blow to private property rights. In Kelo, the court confirmed local government’s ability to condemn property in an area designated as blighted by the state, in order to encourage economic development. This article highlights several positive examples of this sort of condemnation in New York case law, where the public interest was served by economic redevelopment. The article goes further, to distinguish several legal decisions from Kelo, where courts invalidated condemnations upon a …

Applying 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 To Claims Of Consumer Discrimination, Abby Morrow Richardson

ExpressO

This Comment explores several interesting legal questions regarding the proper interpretation 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, which prohibits racial discrimination in contracting, when discrimination arises in the context of a consumer retail contract. It explores how the Fifth Circuit’s and other federal courts’ narrow interpretation of section 1981’s application in a retail setting, which allows plaintiffs to invoke the statute only when they have been prevented from completing their purchase, is contrary to the statute’s express language, Congressional intent, and to evolving concepts of contract theory, all of which encompass our society’s deep commitment to combating racial discrimination through strict enforcement …

'Takings' Clarified: U.S. Supreme Court Provides Clear Direction, John R. Nolon, Jessica A. Bacher

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

The United States Supreme Court holding in Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. clarified years of takings jurisprudence and overturned a controversial decision in the case of Agins v. City of Tiburon. This article discusses how the Lingle court denounced the “substantially advances” test created in Agins, as a due process inquiry rather than a proper takings test. The Lingle court instead opted to create a clear four-category paradigm for takings cases, which focuses on the burden the government places on private property rights in order to distinguish takings categories.

The Chief Prosecutor, Sai Prakash

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

Since Watergate, legal scholars have participated in a larger debate about the President’s constitutional relationship to prosecutions. In particular, many legal scholars sought to debunk the received wisdom that prosecution was an executive function subject to presidential control. Revisionist scholars cited early statutes and practices meant to demonstrate that early presidents lacked control over prosecution. Among other things, scholars asserted that early presidents could not control either the federal district attorneys or the popular prosecutors who brought qui tam suits to enforce federal law. In fact, many of the revisionist claims are wrong and others are beside the point. Despite …

Pursuing Justice For The Mentally Disabled, Grant H. Morris

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

This article considers whether lawyers act as zealous advocates when they represent mentally disordered, involuntarily committed patients who wish to assert their right to refuse treatment with psychotropic medication. After discussing a study that clearly demonstrates that lawyers do not do so, the article explores the reasons for this inappropriate behavior. Michael Perlin characterizes the problem as “sanism,” which he describes as an irrational prejudice against mentally disabled persons of the same quality and character as other irrational prejudices that cause and are reflected in prevailing social attitudes of racism, sexism, homophobia, and ethnic bigotry. The article critiques Perlin’s characterization …

Dickerson V. United States: The Case That Disappointed Miranda's Critics--And Then Its Supporters, Yale Kamisar

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

It is difficult, if not impossible, to discuss Dickerson v. United States intelligently without discussing Miranda, whose constitutional status Dickerson reaffirmed (or, one might say, resuscitated). It is also difficult, if not impossible, to discuss the Dickerson case intelligently without discussing cases the Court has handed down in the five years since Dickerson was decided. The hard truth is that in those five years the reaffirmation of Miranda’s constitutional status has become less and less meaningful.

In this paper I want to focus on the Court’s characterization of statements elicited in violation of the Miranda warnings as not actually “coerced” …