Constitutional Law Commons^™

Tinkering Around The Edges: The Supreme Court's Death Penalty Jurisprudence, John Bessler

All Faculty Scholarship

This Essay examines America's death penalty forty years after Furman and provides a critique of the Supreme Court's existing Eighth Amendment case law. Part I briefly summarizes how the Court, to date, has approached death sentences, while Part II highlights the incongruous manner in which the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause has been read. For instance, Justice Antonin Scalia-one of the Court's most vocal proponents of "originalism" conceded that corporal punishments such as handbranding and public flogging are no longer constitutionally permissible; yet, he (and the Court itself) continues to allow death sentences to be imposed. The American Bar Association …

Expanding Stare Decisis: The Role Of Precedent In The Unfolding Dialectic Of Brady V. Maryland, Colin Starger

All Faculty Scholarship

Does stare decisis constrain the expansion of constitutional doctrine? Does existing precedent preclude the Supreme Court from expanding a criminal defendant’s right to exculpatory evidence? While commentators frequently clash on when stare decisis should prevent the Court from overruling its own precedents, the question of when fidelity to precedent should inhibit doctrinal expansion is surprisingly under-theorized. This Article begins to fill this gap through an in-depth case study of stare decisis and the expansion of criminal due process doctrine.

This Article analyzes the longstanding constitutional dialectic between procedural and substantive schools of criminal due process. Focus is on Brady v. …

Defining Religion Down: Hasanna-Tabor, Martinez, And The U.S. Supreme Court, Carl H. Esbeck

Faculty Publications

While two recent Supreme Court cases on religious freedom appear sharply at odds, in one material respect they harmonize around an understanding that religion is fully protected only when exercised in private. CLS v. Martinez involved Hastings College of Law. Hastings' regulation of extracurricular organizations was unusual in requiring that any student can join an organization. This all-comers rule had a discriminatory impact on organizations with exclusionary memberships, such as the Christian Legal Society (CLS) which required subscribing to a statement of faith and conduct. The Court acknowledged the discriminatory effect, but said that the Free Speech Clause protects speech …

Foreword: Academic Influence On The Court, Neal K. Katyal

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The months leading up to the Supreme Court’s blockbuster decision on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) were characterized by a prodigious amount of media coverage that purported to analyze how the legal challenge to Obamacare went mainstream. The nation’s major newspapers each had a prominent story describing how conservative academics, led by Professor Randy Barnett, had a long-term strategy to make the case appear credible. In the first weeks after the ACA’s passage, the storyline went, the lawsuit’s prospects of success were thought to be virtually nil. Professor (and former Solicitor General) Charles Fried stated that he would “eat a …

Due Process And The Post-Padilla Landscape: Balancing The Severity Of Deportation As A Collateral Consequence With A Court's Traditionally Narrow Obligation In Accepting A Plea, Orrie A. Levy

Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics Journal

The article examines the implications of the Supreme Court's decision in Padilla v. Kentucky, which established that defense attorneys must inform defendants of the immigration consequences of a guilty plea under the Sixth Amendment. It explores the tension between the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel and the Fifth Amendment due process obligations of trial courts, highlighting that while Padilla mandates attorney advice on immigration consequences, courts are not required to inform defendants of such consequences. The article argues against extending due process obligations to include severe collateral consequences, emphasizing the impracticality of requiring courts to foresee …

The False Promise Of The Converse-1983 Action, John F. Preis

Indiana Law Journal

The federal government is out of control. At least that’s what many states will tell you. Not only is the federal government passing patently unconstitutional legislation, but its street-level officers are ignoring citizens’ constitutional rights. How can states stop this federal juggernaut? Many are advocating a “repeal amendment,” whereby two-thirds of the states could vote to repeal federal legislation. But the repeal amendment will only address unconstitutional legislation, not unconstitutional actions. States can’t repeal a stop-and-frisk that occurred last Thursday. States might, however, enact a so-called “converse-1983” action. The idea for converse-1983 laws has been around for some time but …

The Myth Of Jus Tractatus In La Belle Province: Quebec's Gérin-Lajoie Statement, Stéphane Beaulac

Dalhousie Law Journal

There is much debate in Quebec challenging the traditional stance on jus tractatus," prevalent for nearly 100 years, to the effect that the federal government enjoys plenary power to enter into international treaties, whether the subject matter is federal or provincial. The paper argues that Quebec's Gdrin-Lajoie "doctrine" has become a myth over the years, liable to have a huge semiotic effect, creating the perception that there is an incontestably true legal basis for provincial treatymaking power After dwelling upon the ontological understanding of mythology, the author shows that the constitutional practice since the emancipation from Great Britain, as well …

Public Forum 2.1: Public Higher Education Institutions And Social Media, Robert H. Jerry Ii, Lyrissa Barnett Lidsky

UF Law Faculty Publications

Like most of us, public colleges and universities increasingly are communicating via Facebook, Second Life, YouTube, Twitter and other social media. Unlike most of us, public colleges and universities are government actors, and their social media communications present complex administrative and First Amendment challenges. The authors of this article — one the dean of a major public university law school responsible for directing its social media strategies, the other a scholar of social media and the First Amendment — have combined their expertise to help public university officials address these challenges. To that end, this article first examines current and …

Family Law's Challenge To Religious Liberty, Raymond C. O'Brien

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

Over time, the definition of family has shifted from being premised upon kinship to legal status. In modern times, family structure is based more upon function than form, seeking to derive its status as a family from the subjective intent of its members to act as a family. Many early settlers in the colonial territories came to America to escape religious persecution and practice their own religion.

For that reason, biblical language and religious doctrine formed the basis for common law, statutes, and practice. Today, there remains the notion among many Americans that the law represents a divine plan and …

Creating Hammer V. Dagenhart, Logan E. Sawyer Iii

Scholarly Works

Hammer v. Dagenhart is among the best known cases in the canon of constitutional law. It struck down the first federal child labor law on the grounds that Congress’s commerce power allowed it to prohibit the interstate shipment of harmful goods, like impure food and drugs, but not harmless goods, like the products of child labor. Withering criticism of the decision spread from Justice Holmes’s famous dissent to law reviews, treatises, casebooks, and constitutional law classes. For nearly a century the decision has been scorned as inconsistent with precedent, incoherent as policy, and driven solely by the Court’s reactionary commitment …

How To Choose The Least Unconstitutional Option: Lessons For The President (And Others) From The Debt Ceiling Standoff, Neil H. Buchanan, Michael C. Dorf

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

The federal statute known as the “debt ceiling” limits total borrowing by the United States. Congress has repeatedly raised the ceiling to authorize necessary borrowing, but a political standoff in 2011 nearly made it impossible to borrow funds to meet obligations that Congress had affirmed earlier that very year. Some commentators urged President Obama to ignore the debt ceiling, while others responded that such borrowing would violate the separation of powers and therefore that the president should refuse to spend appropriated funds.

This Article analyzes the choice the president nearly faced in summer 2011, and which he or a successor …

Proportionality In Interpreting Constitutions: A Comparison Between Canada, The United Kingdom And Singapore And Its Implications For Vietnam, Jack Tsen-Ta Lee

Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law

Few rights that are guaranteed by constitutions and bills of rights are expressed to be absolute. In many jurisdictions, the legislature is permitted to impose restrictions on rights for specified reasons and under particular conditions. However, constitutional or bill of rights text often do not expressly indicate how the courts should determine that applicants’ rights have been legitimately restricted. To this end, courts in jurisdictions such as Canada and the United Kingdom have adopted the European doctrine of proportionality. Essentially, this requires them to balance opposing types of public interests – the interest sought to be protected by the rights …

Comparativist-Structural Approaches To Interpretation Of The Post-Obamacare Spending Power, Michelle Biddulph, Dwight G. Newman

Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has significant implications for the federal spending power, a topic that has received limited scholarly attention. The article argues that understanding this aspect of the ACA ruling is crucial for comprehending its impact on future federal programs and legislative approaches. By examining the spending power frameworks in Canada and Australia, the article highlights how different federal systems balance central authority with regional autonomy, offering valuable lessons for the U.S. legal framework.

Texting While Driving Meets The Fourth Amendment: Deterring Both Texting And Warrantless Cell Phone Searches, Adam M. Gershowitz

Faculty Publications

Recent laws criminalizing texting while driving are under-inclusive, ambiguous, and impose light punishments that are unlikely to deter. At the same time, the laws empower police to conduct warrantless searches of drivers’ cell phones. Texting while driving is dangerous and should be punished with stiff fines, possible jail time, license suspensions, and interlock devices that prevent use of phones while driving. However, more severe punishment will not eliminate police authority to conduct warrantless cell phone searches. This Article therefore proposes that legislatures allow drivers to immediately confess to texting while driving in exchange for avoiding a search of their phones. …

Separate But Equal: Miranda's Rights To Silence And Counsel, Steven P. Grossman

All Faculty Scholarship

Three decades ago, the Supreme Court created a dubious distinction between the rights accorded to suspects in custody who invoke their right to silence and who invoke their right to counsel. This distinction significantly disadvantages those who do not have the good sense or good fortune to specify they want an attorney when they invoke their right to remain silent. This article argues that this distinction was flawed at its genesis and that it has led to judicial decisions that are inconsistent, make little sense, and permit police behavior that substantially diminishes the right to silence as described in Miranda …

September 30, 2012: Yes, You Can Be A Nonreligious, Nonzionist Jew, But What Is The Point?, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “Yes, You Can Be a Nonreligious, Nonzionist Jew, But What is the Point?“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

Threading The Needle:Constitutional Ways For Local Governments To Refuse Cooperation With Civil Immigration Policies, Mary Cheh

University of the District of Columbia Law Review

On October 19, 2011, the mayor of Washington, D.C. issued an Executive Order to limit the District's cooperation with the federal government's Immigration and Naturalization Service in identifying and deporting undocumented residents.' In so doing, the mayor joined with many other communities' that, while specifically not shielding undocumented aliens engaged in criminal activity, want to maintain the trust and care of the many law-abiding immigrants within their borders. The mayor's Order is a direct response to the federal government's more aggressive effort to enlist local authorities in the roundup of undocumented aliens,' and raises the question which is the subject …

September 25, 2012: Tax Cuts Are Not A Policy, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “Tax Cuts Are Not a Policy“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

September 23, 2012: What’S So Bad About Technology?, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “ What’s So Bad About Technology?“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

September 21, 2012: The High Holy Days Without Religion, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “The High Holy Days Without Religion“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

Wrong Means To An Unjust End? The Eleventh Circuit’S Decision In First Vagabonds Church Of God, Fay O. Pappas

Florida Law Review

In 2005, Orlando Food Not Bombs (OFNB), a conglomeration of political activists who advocate a “right to food,” began conducting “food-sharing events” once a week in downtown Orlando, Florida. OFNB distributed free vegan meals in Lake Eola Park to the hungry and homeless. Soon, however, the City began receiving complaints related to the number of homeless individuals who would disperse into adjacent neighborhoods following the events. In response, the City enacted the Large Group Feeding Ordinance, which required a permit for any feeding event likely to attract twenty-five or more people.

Eighteenth Century Law, Twenty-First Century Problems: Jones, Gps Tracking, And The Future Of Privacy, Lauren Millcarek

Florida Law Review

In 2004, law enforcement officers began investigating Antoine Jones, a Washington, D.C. nightclub owner, for suspected drug trafficking. After gathering information through stakeouts, cameras, and a wiretap on Jones’ phone, the officers obtained a warrant to place a Global Positioning System (GPS) tracker on Jones’ wife’s car, which Jones possessed and used regularly. However, the officers failed to comply with the precise terms of the warrant, making the installation and use of the tracker warrantless. The officers tracked the car’s every movement, twenty-four hours per day, for an entire month. The data linked Jones to a stash house containing a …

Twombly In Context: Why Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 4(B) Is Unconstitutional, E. Donald Elliott

Florida Law Review

Rule 4(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure delegates to private parties state authority to compel a person to appear and answer civil charges in court without any preliminary state review or screening for reasonableness. This is argued to be unconstitutional as a unreasonable seizure of the person, a deprivation of private property without due process, and a standardless delegation of state power to a private party with a financial interest.

The history of the writ of summons is reviewed. From the Founding until 1938, federal courts reviewed the grounds proposed for suit prior to service of a summons …

Grave Consequences For Economic Liberty: The Funeral Industry's Protectionist Occupational Licensing Scheme, The Circuit Split, And Why It Matters, Lana Harfoush

The Journal of Business, Entrepreneurship & the Law

This article examines a current circuit split regarding the constitutionality of restrictive occupational licensing schemes that exist only for protectionist purposes. The Sixth Circuit in Craigmiles v. Giles and the Tenth Circuit case Powers v. Harris, are cases that revolve around similar facts but reach opposite outcomes. The two cases profile state funeral industry licensing restrictions. In both cases, the plaintiffs were penalized for selling caskets without state-issued licenses. Though licensing restrictions in the funeral industry affect most Americans as consumers, the scope of this circuit split reaches into nearly every industry. When businesses lobby governments to enact legislation, they …

Violence Is Never The Answer, Or Is It? Constitutionality Of California's Violent Video Game Regulation, Laura Black

The Journal of Business, Entrepreneurship & the Law

In 2011, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the California law proscribing the sale of violent video games to minors violated the First Amendment and was, therefore, unconstitutional. Because this is the first video game case to be heard by the Supreme Court, the decision marked a significant milestone for the video game and entertainment industries. The beginning of this note will review the history leading up to the passage of the law as well as examine previous attempts by other states to regulate the distribution of violent video games to minors. Most importantly, this note will explore the …

Supreme Court Criminal Law Jurisprudence - October 2008 Term, Richard Klein

Touro Law Review

The last Term of the Supreme Court addressed the constitutionally protected rights of criminal defendants not only at trial but at the post-conviction stage as well. The Court dealt with the defendant's rights to a speedy trial and effective assistance of counsel in Vermont v. Brillon; the claim was that these constitutional protections were substantially frustrated by underfunded public defender offices, thereby leaving the defendant improperly incarcerated for three years. The Court also considered a case wherein the State had utilized a jailhouse snitch to elicit inculpatory statements from a defendant in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. …

Federal Governmental Power: Preemption From The October 2008 Term, Eileen Kaufman

Touro Law Review

In a stunning trifecta, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of consumers and held that federal law did not preempt state consumer claims. The three cases concerned patients injured by drugs, smokers misled by false advertising, and borrowers victimized by predatory lending practices. These cases represent the latest battle in the ongoing war between consumer advocates and business entities over whether federal laws should be interpreted to erect barriers against state consumer protection laws.

Wyeth v. Levine raised the issue of whether approval of a drug by the F.D.A. preempts a state tort claim based on failure to warn. Altria …

Federal Governmental Power: The Voting Rights Act, Michael C. Dorf

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Employment Discrimination Decisions From The October 2008 Term, Drew S. Days Iii

Touro Law Review

Several employment discrimination decisions were handed down this Term. They were Ricci v.DeStefano (Title VII); Gross v.FBL Financial Services, Inc. (Age Discrimination in Employment Act); AT & T Corp. v. Hulteen (Pregnancy Discrimination Act); and 14 Penn Plaza L.L. C. v. Pyett, which concerned the impact of arbitration agreements upon the reach of federal employment discrimination laws.

The October 2008 Term: First Amendment And Then Some, Burt Neuborne

Touro Law Review

Liberals must acknowledge a dirty little secret about American constitutional law; a secret that the Warren Court made apparent, though it had existed from the day John Marshall asserted the power of judicial review in a Constitution that says nothing about it. The secret is that there is no serious theory explaining or justifying what courts actually do when they strike down a statute as unconstitutional.

The Warren years were enormously important in moving the country forward. I do not know what we would have done without the wisdom and courage of the Court. But when you start looking for …