Constitutional Law Commons^™

Brief Of Committee Of Law Professors And Historians As Amici Curaie, In Support Of Plaintiffs-Appellant, Coalition To Defend Affirmative Action V. Brown, 674 F.3d 1128 (2012) (No. 11-15100, 11-15241), Wilson Huhn

Con Law Center Amicus Briefs

The purpose of this brief is to place the dispute over affirmative action in California’s public universities within a broader historical context.  State constitutional amendments such as Proposition 209 are not uncommon in American history.  In reaction to calls for reform from a minority group – whether it be the end of slavery, the enactment of non-discrimination laws, or the adoption of voluntary programs of racial integration – the majority has often responded by attempting to prevent the debate from occurring, by denying members of the minority group the opportunity to participate in the political process, or by making it …

January 12, 2012: The New Foundations Of The Ministerial Exception, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “The New Foundations of the Ministerial Exception“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

Gal-On V. Attorney General (Summary), Eliezer Rivlin, Asher Grunis, Miriam Naor, Elyakim Rubinstein, Hanan Melcer, Neal Hendel, Dorit Beinisch, Edmond E. Levy, Edna Arbel, Salim Joubran, Esther Hayut

Translated Opinions

By a majority of six justices out of a panel of eleven, the High Court of Justice rejected petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Citizenship and Entry to Israel Act. The majority justices acknowledged there was a constitutional right for family life, which derives from the right to human dignity, but held that the scope of the right does not extend to realizing the right specifically in Israel. It was also held that to the extent that constitutional rights have been violated, including the right to equality, it is a violation that passes muster under the test of the Limitations …

Failed Exactions, Mark Fenster

UF Law Faculty Publications

This symposium essay considers the doctrinal quandary created by 'failed exactions' - regulatory conditions on property development that government agencies contemplate but that are never finalized or enforced, usually because the property owner rejects them. A narrow but conceptually challenging issue to the relationship between the unconstitutional conditions doctrine and regulatory takings law, failed exactions could prove profoundly unsettling to current land use practices. A decade ago, the issue of whether failed exactions deserve heightened scrutiny prompted Justice Scalia to issue a dissent from a denial of petition for certiorari in which he stated, somewhat tentatively, that an extortionate demand …

January 10, 2012: The Ministerial Exception Must Be Put On New Foundations, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “The Ministerial Exception Must be Put on New Foundations“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

Obamacare And The 'What Is A Tax?' Issue – Part I, Steve R. Johnson

Scholarly Publications

One of the hardiest perennials in the garden of state and local tax issues is the question whether particular revenue measures should be classified as taxes or some other type of exaction. The issue has been dispositive in numerous state and local tax cases and, befitting that significance, has been the topic of many reports in this journal.

Given the frequency of the decisions and commentary, authorities cited on the issue constantly evolve. State courts, omnivorous in their search for precedents and rationales, often cite federal cases. Recognizing this, a recent article in State Tax Notes examined decisions of the …

Minneci V. Pollard And The Uphill Climb To Bivens Relief, Elliot J. Weingarten

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

No abstract provided.

On Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Eleventh Circuit, Brief For Private Petitioners On Severability, National Federation Of Independent Business, Et Al., V. Kathleen Sebelius, Et Al., State Of Florida, Et Al., V. Department Of Health And Human Services, Et Al., Nos. 11-393, 11-400 (U.S. Jan. 6, 2012), Randy E. Barnett

U.S. Supreme Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

January 6, 2012: I Have A Soft Spot For Rick Santorum, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “ I Have a Soft Spot for Rick Santorum“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

January 3, 2012: Jacques Berlinerblau’S Anti-Religion List, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “Jacques Berlinerblau’s anti-Religion List“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

The End Of "One Hand": The Egyptian Constitutional Declaration And The Rift Between The "People" And The Supreme Council Of The Armed Forces, Kristen A. Stilt

Faculty Working Papers

By some point in the fall of 2011, Egyptians in large numbers no longer viewed the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) as the guardian of the revolution and even considered it the revolution's antagonist. "The army and the people are one" was a common slogan in the early days following Mubarak's ouster on February 11, 2011, but the situation had changed dramatically by the landmark date of October 9, when the military used violence against its own citizens, killing approximately twenty-five Christians at a protest outside Maspero, the headquarters of the Egyptian state television. Violence against protestors continued …

A Tort Statute, With Aliens And Pirates, Eugene Kontorovich

Faculty Working Papers

The pirates of the Caribbean are back. Not in another fantastical film but in the litigation over the reach of the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). For the first time since they dealt with the legal issues raised by a wave of maritime predation in the Caribbean in the early nineteenth century, Supreme Court justices are seriously discussing piracy. This crime has emerged as the test case for evaluating the major controversies about the reach of the statute -- namely, extraterritorial application and the existence of corporate liability. At oral argument in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Shell, justices of all persuasions …

The Structural Constitutional Principle Of Republican Legitimacy, Mark D. Rosen

All Faculty Scholarship

Representative democracy does not spontaneously occur by citizens gathering to choose laws. Instead, republicanism takes place within an extensive legal framework that determines who gets to vote, how campaigns are conducted, what conditions must be met for representatives to make valid law, and many other things. Many of the “rules-of-the-road” that operationalize republicanism have been subject to constitutional challenges in recent decades. For example, lawsuits have been brought against “partisan gerrymandering” (which has led to most congressional districts not being party-competitive, but instead being safely Republican or Democratic) and against onerous voter identification requirements (which reduce the voting rates of …

Prosecution Appeals Of Court-Ordered Midtrial Acquittals: Permissible Under The Double Jeopardy Clause?, David S. Rudstein

All Faculty Scholarship

This article considers whether a statute or rule of court allowing the prosecution to appeal a directed verdict of not guilty, or its equivalent, would be constitutional under the Double Jeopardy Clause.

Martin Welker: Ohio's Unsung Hero, Aaron Boothby

The 39th Congress Project

No abstract provided.

Stare Decisis And Foreign Affairs, Michael P. Van Alstine

Faculty Scholarship

This article examines whether the jurisprudential and institutional premises of the doctrine of stare decisis retain their validity in the field of foreign affairs. The proper role of the judicial branch in foreign affairs has provoked substantial scholarly debates—historical, institutional, normative—since the very founding of the republic. Precisely because of the sensitivity of the subject, the Supreme Court itself has both cautioned about the judicial branch’s comparative lack of expertise in the field and recognized a web of deference doctrines designed to protect against improvident judicial action. Notwithstanding all of this, however, neither the Supreme Court nor any scholar has …

Defining Corruption And Constitutionalizing Democracy, Deborah Hellman

Faculty Scholarship

The central front in the battle over campaign finance laws is the definition of corruption. The Supreme Court has allowed restrictions on giving and spending money in connection with elections only when they serve to avoid corruption or its appearance. The constitutionality of such laws, therefore, depends on how the Court defines corruption. Over the years, campaign finance cases have conceived of corruption in both broad and narrow terms, with the most recent cases defining it especially narrowly. While supporters and critics of campaign finance laws have argued for and against these different formulations, both sides have missed the more …

Redeeming And Living With Evil, Mark A. Graber

Faculty Scholarship

Jack Balkin’s Constitutional Redemption and Sandy Levinson’s Constitutional Faith understand the problem of constitutional evil quite differently than Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil. Balkin and Levinson regard constitutional redemption and faith as rooted in the possibility that Americans will eventually defeat evil. Constitutional Evil takes the far more pessimistic view that evil will never be defeated. Constitutional faith and redemption in our permanently fallen state is rooted in the possibility that Americans will find ways of living with each other peaceably knowing that the price of union is the continual obligation to make what the abolitionist …

The Constitutional Bounding Of Adjudication: A Fuller(Ian) Explanation For The Supreme Court's Mass Tort Jurisprudence, Donald G. Gifford

Faculty Scholarship

In this Article, I argue that the Supreme Court is implicitly piecing together a constitutionally mandated model of bounded adjudication governing mass torts, using decisions that facially rest on disparate constitutional provisions. This model constitutionally restricts common law courts from adjudicating the rights, liabilities, and interests of persons who are neither present before the court nor capable of being defined with a reasonable degree of specificity. I find evidence for this model in the Court’s separate decisions rejecting tort-based climate change claims, global settlements of massive asbestos litigation, and punitive damages awards justified as extra-compensatory damages. These new forms of …

Can He Legally Do That? Does The President Have Directive Authority Over Agency Regulatory Decisions?, Robert V. Percival

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Subtraction By Addition?: The Thirteenth And Fourteenth Amendments, Mark A. Graber

Faculty Scholarship

The celebration of the Thirteenth Amendment in many Essays prepared for this Symposium may be premature. That the Thirteenth Amendment arguably protects a different and, perhaps, wider array of rights than the Fourteenth Amendment may be less important than the less controversial claim that the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified after the Thirteenth Amendment. If the Fourteenth Amendment covers similar ground as the Thirteenth Amendment, but protects a narrower set of rights than the Thirteenth Amendment, then the proper inference may be that the Fourteenth Amendment repealed or modified crucial rights originally protected by the Thirteenth Amendment. The broad interpretation of …

United States V. Klein, Then And Now, Gordon G. Young

Faculty Scholarship

United States v. Klein, decided during Reconstruction, was the first Supreme Court case to invalidate a statutory restriction on federal courts’ jurisdiction. It is the only one to do so by finding a violation of Article III of the Constitution. Klein has been cited in thirty-three United States Supreme Court opinions, and roughly five hundred times each by lower federal courts and law journal articles. Recent commentators have read Klein both too broadly and narrowly. Its central holding is that Congress may not grant federal courts jurisdiction to decide a set of cases on the merits while depriving them …

Florida's First Constitution, M C. Mirow

Faculty Books

The central square of St. Augustine, Florida, the Plaza de la Constitución, is not named for the United States Constitution. Instead, its name comes from Florida’s first constitution, the Spanish Constitution of Cádiz of 1812. Daily political life in Florida’s Spanish colonial cities was governed by this document, and cities like St. Augustine ordered their activities around the requirements, rights, and duties expressed in this constitution. The Constitution of Cádiz was the first truly transatlantic constitution because it applied to the entire Spanish empire, of which St. Augustine and Pensacola were just a part. It was drafted by representatives from …

Brief For Prof. Leslie C. Griffin As Amica Curiae In Support Of Neither Party, Cannata V. Catholic Diocese Of Austin, Leslie C. Griffin

Supreme Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Brief For Prof. Leslie C. Griffin As Amica Curiae In Support Of Appellant, Scott V. Pierce, Leslie C. Griffin

Supreme Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Brief For Prof. Leslie C. Griffin Et Al. As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondents, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church And School V. E.E.O.C., Leslie C. Griffin

Supreme Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Categories, Tiers Of Review, And The Roiling Sea Of Free Speech Doctrine And Principle: A Methodological Critique Of United States V. Alvarez, Rodney A. Smolla

Scholarly Articles

None available.

Juror Privacy In The Sixth Amendment Balance, Melanie D. Wilson

Scholarly Articles

Some eight million citizens report for jury duty every year. Arguably, jury duty is one of the most significant opportunities to participate in the democratic process. For the accused, the jury acts as an indispensable safeguard against government overreaching. One might expect, therefore, that our justice system would treat potential jurors with care and tact. The opposite is true. During voir dire, prospective jurors are required to share insights into their own lives, quirks, proclivities, and beliefs. Litigants have probed jurors’ sexual orientation, criminal histories, criminal victimization, health, family relations, and beyond. A few scholars have chided the system for …

Toward A Meaning-Full Establishment Clause Neutrality, Bruce Ledewitz

Ledewitz Papers

Published scholarship collected from academic journals, law reviews, newspaper publications & online periodicals.

The Terms Of The Debate: Litigation, Argumentative Strategies, And Coalitions In The Same-Sex Marriage Struggle, Mary Ziegler

Scholarly Publications

Why, in the face of ongoing criticism, do advocates of same-sex marriage continue to pursue litigation? Recently, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, a challenge to California’s ban on same-sex marriage, and Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, a lawsuit challenging section three of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, have created divisive debate. Leading scholarship and commentary on the litigation of decisions like Perry and Gill have been strongly critical, predicting that it will produce a backlash that will undermine the same-sex marriage cause.

These studies all rely on a particular historical account of past same-sex marriage decisions and their …