Constitutional Law Commons^™

Forfeiture Of The Confrontation Right After Crawford And Davis, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

So my topic this morning is on forfeiture of the confrontation right, which I think plays a central role in confrontation doctrine. And to try to present that, let me state the entirety of confrontation doctrine as briefly as I can. This is, at least, what I think the doctrine is and what it can be: A testimonial statement should not be admissible against an accused to prove the truth of what it asserts unless the accused either has had or will have an opportunity to confront the witness-which should occur at trial unless the witness is then unavailable-or has …

Crawford And Davis: A Personal Reflection, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

I have to say that when I stood up to argue Hammon I felt the wind at my back. I was basically a lawyer with an easy case, and there wasn't anything particularly unpredictable at the argument of Hammon. Now it got a little bit interesting, as I will explain later, because to a certain extent I was trying to argue the other case as well. But Hammon itself was sort of ordinary, normal law.

The Kerr Principle, State Action, And Legal Rights, Donald J. Herzog

Articles

A Baltimore library refused to admit Louise Kerr to a training program because she was black. Not that it had anything against blacks, but its patrons did. When Kerr launched a civil suit against the library alleging a violation of equal protection of the laws, the courts credited the library's claim that it had no racist purpose, but Kerr still prevailed-even though the case occurred before Title VII and Brown v. Board of Education. Here a neutral and generally applicable rule ("serve the patrons"), when coupled with particular facts about private parties (the white patrons dislike blacks), yielded an …

On The Fortieth Anniversary Of The Miranda Case: Why We Needed It, How We Got It--And What Happened To It, Yale Kamisar

Articles

Last year (the year I gave the talk on which this article is based) marked the fortieth anniversary of Miranda v. Arizona,' one of the most praised, most maligned-and probably one of the most misunderstood-Supreme Court cases in American history. It is difficult, if not impossible, to evaluate Miranda without looking back at the test for the admissibility of confessions that preceded it.

Condemned If They Do, Condemned If They Don't: Eminent Domain, Public Use Abandonment, And The Need For Condemnee Protections, Cristin Kent

Seattle University Law Review

This Comment is divided into six parts. Part II examines the historical and constitutional understandings and application of eminent domain and the public use requirement. Part III analyzes cases decided under the U.S. and Washington constitutions in which courts upheld condemnors' rights to abandon or fail to fulfill the public use of the condemned property. Part IV discusses cases outside of Washington in which courts have upheld the validity of takings even though the condemnor subsequently abandoned or failed to fulfill the public use. These cases illustrate the need for more substantive and procedural protections for condemnees. Part V argues …

Federalism And The Commerce Clause: A Comparative Perspective, Reuven S. Avi-Yonah

Articles

The U.S. Supreme Court has on numerous occasions addressed the constitutionality of state taxes under the U.S. Constitution (most often under the Commerce Clause, but sometimes under the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses). In general, the Supreme Court has granted wide leeway to the states to adopt any tax system they wish, only striking down the most egregious cases of discrimination against out-of-state residents. Thus, for example, the Court has generally refused to intervene against state tax competition to attract business into the state. It has twice upheld a method of calculating how much income of a multinational enterprise …

Les Papiers De La Liberté: Une Mère Africaine Et Ses Enfants À L'Époque De La Révolution Haïtienne, Rebecca Scott, Jean M. Hebrard

Articles

During the Louisiana Constitutional Convention of 1867-1868, the young Edouard Tinchant proposed measures to protect the civil rights of women. He suggested that the State adopt legal measures to allow all women, regardless of race or color, to more easily bring complaints in the event of a breach of a marriage promise. He also proposed additional measures to prevent women from being forced into “concubinage” against their will. While that constitutional Convention was open to men of color and guaranteed a number of the rights for which Tinchant and his friends were fighting, the assembly did not adopt his propositions …

Mostly Unconstitutional: The Case Against Precedent Revisited, Gary S. Lawson

Faculty Scholarship

In Part I of this Article, the author briefly recaps the argument against precedent that the author sketched in The Constitutional Case Against Precedent. Although the author’s purpose here is to refine that argument, the author still believes that the original argument is right in most particulars, and it still functions as a prima facie case against the use of precedent in constitutional interpretation. In Part II, the author surveys different possible grounds for the practice of precedent. In Part III, the author dismisses the possibility that the Constitution or some other controlling legal source affirmatively commands the use of …

Mission Possible: Reciprocal Deference Between Domestic Regulatory Structures And The Wto, Elizabeth Trujillo

Faculty Scholarship

One of the goals of Article III of GATT is to invalidate domestic regulatory measures, including taxes and non-fiscal policies that amount to non-tariff barriers to trade (NTB) and therefore violate the principles of national treatment. While internal policies that directly discriminate between products based on nationality or origin are clearly in violation of national treatment principles, it is the facially neutral regulatory measures with protectionist and discriminatory effects that are more difficult to assess, even within transparent regulatory processes. However, with their emphasis on the likeness of the products in question, WTO panels run the risk of alienating member …

Double-Consciousness In Constitutional Adjudication, Richard A. Primus

Articles

Constitutional theorists are familiar with epistemic and consequentialist reasons why judges might allow their decision making to be shaped by strongly held public opinion. The epistemic approach treats public opinion as an expert indicator, while the consequentialistapproach counsels judges to compromise legally correct interpretations so as not to antagonize a hostile public. But there is also a third reason, which we can think ofas constitutive. In limited circumstances, the fact that the public strongly holds a given view can be one of the factors that together constitute the correct answer to a constitutional question. In those circumstances, what the public …

Holmes V. South Carolina Upholds Trial By Jury, Samuel R. Gross

Articles

Bobby Lee Holmes was convicted of a brutal rape-murder and sentenced to death. The only evidence that connected him to the crime was forensic: a palm print, and blood and fiber evidence. (Biological samples taken from the victim for two rape kits were compromised and yielded no identifiable evidence.) Holmes claimed that the state's forensic evidence was planted and mishandled, and that the rape and murder were committed by another man, Jimmy McCaw White. At a pretrial hearing three witnesses testified that they saw White near the victim's house at about the time of the crime, and four others testified …

Ingenious Arguments Or A Serious Constitutional Problem? A Comment On Professor Epstein's Paper, Philip A. Hamburger

Faculty Scholarship

In his observations about IRBs, Professor Richard Epstein makes persuasive arguments about the dangerous reach of the IRB laws, but he prefaces this policy analysis with a brief excursus into constitutional law that requires some comment. His view is that the constitutional debate over IRBs arises not so much from a substantial constitutional problem as from “ingenious arguments.” Yet this conclusion rests on mistaken assumptions – both about the IRB laws and about the constitutional objections – and because so much is at stake in the constitutional question, it is necessary to point out the inaccuracies.

The first set of …

Why Not A Miranda For Searches?, Gerard E. Lynch

Faculty Scholarship

I am delighted to be here today.

I am delighted to be at The Ohio State University, which has not only built a truly extraordinary criminal law and procedure faculty, including Professor Joshua Dressler, Alan Michaels, Sharon Davies, and Douglas Berman, but has also accumulated a large number of alumni of my home institution, Columbia Law School, including my former students, Professor Edward Foley and the aforesaid Professors Davies and Michaels, as well as Professor Deborah Jones Merritt, who is quite literally a daughter of Columbia, where her father is a distinguished emeritus member of the faculty, my esteemed senior …

Foreign Authority, American Exceptionalism, And The Dred Scott Case, Sarah H. Cleveland

Faculty Scholarship

At least since Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in 1831, the idea that America is distinctive from other nations has permeated much political and social commentary. The United States has been variously perceived as unique in its history, its culture, its national values, its social movements, and its social and political institutions. While the term technically refers only to distinctiveness or difference, "exceptionalism" may have positive or negative aspects – what Harold Koh has called "America's Jekyll-and-Hyde exceptionalism." In the legal realm, claims of exceptionalism have been offered to support what Michael Ingnatieff identifies as "legal isolationism" – or refusal by …

Wrtl And Randall: The Roberts Court And The Unsettling Of Campaign Finance Law, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

The first term of the Roberts Court was a potentially pivotal moment in campaign finance law. The Court both broke its pattern of deference to federal and state regulations that had marked the last half-dozen years and began to take a more critical approach to campaign finance restrictions. In Randall v. Sorrell, the Court struck down a Vermont law that sought to limit expenditures and to lower contributions in state and local elections. The expenditure restriction decision was no surprise, as it essentially reaffirmed the Court's rejection of expenditure limits in Buckley v. Valeo three decades ago. But the …

Congress, Article Iv, And Interstate Relations, Gillian E. Metzger

Faculty Scholarship

Article IV imposes prohibitions on interstate discrimination that are central to our status as a single nation, yet the Constitution also grants Congress broad power over interstate relations. This raises questions with respect to the scope of Congress's power over interstate relations, what is sometimes referred to as the horizontal dimension of federalism. In particular, does Congress have the power to authorize states to engage in conduct that otherwise would violate Article IV? These questions are of growing practical relevance, given recently enacted or proposed measures – the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) being the most prominent example – in …

The Best Defense: Why Elected Courts Should Lead Recusal Reform, Deborah Goldberg, James J. Sample, David Pozen

Faculty Scholarship

In recent years, we have seen an escalation of attacks on the independence of the judiciary. Government officials and citizens who have been upset by the substance of judicial decisions are increasingly seeking to rein in the courts by limiting their jurisdiction over controversial matters, soliciting pre-election commitments from judicial candidates, and drafting ballot initiatives with sanctions for judges who make unpopular rulings. Many of these efforts betray ignorance at best, or defiance at worst, of traditional principles of separation of powers and constitutional protections against tyranny of the majority.

The attacks are fueled in part by the growing influence …

Congressional Power To Extend Preclearance: A Response To Professor Karlan, Ellen D. Katz

Articles

Is the core provision of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional? Many people now think that the Act's preclearance requirement is invalid, but Professor Karlan is not among them. In part, that is because she is not convinced the problems that originally motivated Congress to impose preclearance have been fully remedied. Professor Karlan points out the many ways section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) shapes behavior in the jurisdictions subject to the statute--not just by blocking discriminatory electoral changes, but also by influencing less transparent conduct by various political actors operating in these regions. Do not be so sure, …

The Incoherence Of Dormant Commerce Clause Nondiscrimination: A Rejoinder To Professor Denning, Edward A. Zelinsky

Articles

A sound intuition animates Professor Denning's defense of the doctrinal status quo under the dormant commerce clause: the courts should not lightly abandon well-established constitutional canons. I nevertheless remain unconvinced by Professor Denning's effort to justify the long-standing interpretation of the dormant commerce clause as forbidding taxes which discriminate against interstate commerce. Whatever the historical justification for this constitutional precept, its past utility, or its visceral appeal, dormant commerce clause nondiscrimination is today doctrinally incoherent in tax contexts. The problem is not one of borderlines and close cases. Rather, at its core, the notion of dormant commerce clause tax nondiscrimination …

Taking The "Banks" Out Of Banks V. Gonzales: Dna Databanks And The Fourth Amendment Prohibition On Unreasonable Searches And Seizures, Heather Bennett

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

No abstract provided.

The Roots Of Law, Larry D. Barnett

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

No abstract provided.

Essential To The National Security: An Executive Ban On "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", Pamela Lundquist

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

No abstract provided.

Creeping Monism: The Judicial Trend Toward Interpretive Incorporation Of Human Rights Treaties, Melissa A. Waters

Scholarship@WashULaw

This Article offers a narrow lens analysis of a key debate over the role of foreign authority in U.S. courts: the use of international human rights treaties in interpreting domestic law. Professor Waters argues that recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions (including Roper v. Simmons) should be viewed as part of a transnational trend among common law courts, a trend that she calls creeping monism. Common law judges are increasingly abandoning their traditional dualist orientation to treaties and are beginning to utilize human rights treaties despite the absence of implementing legislation giving domestic legal effect to the treaties. By developing a …