Constitutional Law Commons^™

Mutual Fund Sales Notice Fees: Are A Handful Of States Unconstitutionally Exacting $200 Million Each Year, David M. Geffen

UC Law Constitutional Quarterly

This article examines the constitutionality of notice filing fees in six states. Although almost every state requires such fees to be paid by mutual funds, six of these states require fees that are highly disproportional to the amount of shares traded within their states. The filing fees in these states, accounting for 50 percent of the total paid nationwide, are considered as either "regulatory fees" or state taxes.

Regardless of whether these fees are categorized as regulatory fees or state taxes, they are unconstitutional under either the Due Process Clause or Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Not only would these …

Balancing Privacy, Autonomy, And Scientific Needs In Electronic Health Records Research, Sharona Hoffman, Andy Podgurski

Faculty Publications

The ongoing transition from paper medical files to electronic health records will provide unprecedented amounts of data for biomedical research, with the potential to catalyze significant advances in medical knowledge. But this potential can be fully realized only if the data available to researchers is representative of the patient population as a whole. Thus, allowing individual patients to exclude their health information, in keeping with traditional notions of informed consent, may compromise the research enterprise and the medical benefits it produces.

This Article analyzes the tension between realizing societal benefits from medical research and granting individual preferences for privacy. It …

What Is The Meaning Of Health? Constitutional Implications Of Defining 'Medical Necessity' And 'Essential Health Benefits' Under The Affordable Care Act, B. Jessie Hill

Faculty Publications

One consequence of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is that government will come to play a more extensive role in healthcare decision-making by individuals and their providers. The ACA does not directly regulate access to health services, but by means of a system of funding, mandates, and penalties, it essentially requires many employers to provide, and most individuals to carry, a certain minimum level of health insurance. Governmental decisions about which medical services qualify as medically necessary and appropriate may take on a new and greater importance, because government officials will be required to decide what sorts of procedures must …

Law Review Symposium 2011: Baker V. Carr After 50 Years: Appraising The Reapportionment Revolution: Introduction, Jonathan L. Entin

Faculty Publications

Introduction to Law Review Symposium 2011: Baker V. Carr after 50 Years: Appraising the Reapportionment Revolution, Cleveland, OH

Does The Lawyer Make A Difference? Public Defender V. Appointed Counsel, Peter A. Joy, Kevin C. Mcmunigal

Faculty Publications

A recent study found that poor criminal defendants in Philadelphia who were represented by court-appointed private lawyers were more often found guilty and sentenced to more time in prison than similarly situated defendants represented by public defenders. In this column, we review the details of the study, its findings, and its ethical and constitutional implications.

Democracy And Productivity: The Glass-Steagall Act And The Shifting Discourse Of Financial Regulation, K. Sabeel Rahman

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Framers' Federalism And The Affordable Care Act, 44 Conn. L. Rev. 1071 (2012), Steven D. Schwinn

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

Federalism challenges to the Affordable Care Act ("ACA") are inspired by the relatively recent resurgence in federalism concerns in the Supreme Court's jurisprudence. Thus, ACA opponents seek to leverage the Court-created distinction between encouragement and compulsion (in opposition to Medicaid expansion), and the Court-created federalism concern when Congress regulates in a way that could destroy the distinction between what is national and what is local (in opposition to universal coverage).

But outside the jurisprudence, the text and history of constitutional federalism tell another story. The text and history suggest that the Constitution created a powerful federal government, of the people …

The Birthright Citizenship Controversy: A Study Of Conservative Substance And Rhetoric, 18 Tex. Hisp. J. L. & Pol'y 49 (2012), Allen R. Kamp

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

This essay is a critique of the conservative rhetoric used in attack of birthright citizenship--as granted by Clause One of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” The rhetoric of that attack violates the traditional canons of conservative argumentation and interpretation, such as original intent and textualism. As such, conservatives' arguments call into question the seriousness of their allegiance to these canons.

This article will not discuss the pros and cons of what we …

Selling Land And Religion, Eang Ngov

Faculty Articles

Thousands of religious monuments have been donated to cities and towns. Under Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, local, state, and federal governments now have greater freedom to accept religious monuments, symbols, and objects donated to them for permanent display in public spaces without violating the Free Speech Clause. Now that governments may embrace religious monuments and symbols as their own speech, the obvious question arises whether governments violate the Establishment Clause by permanently displaying a religiously significant object. Fearing an Establishment Clause violation, some governmental bodies have privatized religious objects and the land beneath them by selling or transferring the …

Citizen Participation In Japanese Criminal Trials: Reimagining The Right To Trial By Jury In The United States, Jon J. Lee

Faculty Articles

If the United States were to reform contemporary jury trials to match the Founders’ conception of the right to trial by jury, how might they look? In recent years, we have gained insight into how to answer that question from an unlikely source: Japan. This Article examines the introduction of citizen participation into the Japanese judicial system (the saiban-in seido) from a different perspective. Rather than focusing on the contemporary American jury system, this Article evaluates the Japanese reforms in light of the Founders’ conception of the right to trial by jury. It is this conception of the right to …

Does A Broad Free Exercise Right Require A Narrow Definition Of Religion, 39 Hastings Const. L.Q. 357 (2012), Donald L. Beschle

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

In the 1990 case of Employment Division v. Smith, a sharply divided Supreme Court abandoned the routine application of strict scrutiny when considering Free Exercise Clause claims seeking exemption from generally applicable legal duties or prohibitions. The Court returned to an older view of the Free Exercise Clause as protecting believers only from government acts that were aimed specifically at beliefs, and that grew out of hostility to the religion rather than a desire to further legitimate secular goals.

Reaction to Smith was largely negative, and legislative and state court responses followed, seeking to restore strict scrutiny as the appropriate …

Tavern Talk And The Origins Of The Assembly Clause: Tracing The First Amendment's Assembly Clause Back To Its Roots In Colonial Taverns, Baylen J. Linnekin

UC Law Constitutional Quarterly

The First Amendment to the Constitution is "a cluster of distinct but related rights." The freedom of assembly protected therein is one right that Americans exercise every day. With perhaps the exception of speech, assembly is the most widely and commonly practiced action that is enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

This freedom is also one of our least understood and least considered rights. Sometimes ignored and other times grouped with other freedoms, the right of those in America to come together peaceably deserves to be studied, respected, and celebrated.

To better understand the freedom of assembly in America, one …

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

Catholic University Law Review

No abstract provided.

American School Finance Litigation And The Right To Education In South Africa, Scott R. Bauries

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

This paper addresses the South African Constitution's invitation to the Constitutional Court to 'consider foreign law' when interpreting its provisions. Focusing on the education provisions found in section 29 of the Constitution, I make two claims. Firstly, contrary to the developing consensus, American state supreme court jurisprudence in school funding cases makes a poor resource to aid the interpretation of the basic South African right to education, regardless of the quantum of education that the Constitutional Court decides is encompassed by the word 'basic'. Secondly, however, certain aspects of these same American decisions, particularly the space they provide for a …

Anonymously Provided Sperm And The Constitution, Mary P. Byrn, Rebecca Ireland

Faculty Scholarship

Obtaining sperm to use in Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) is relatively simple. Hospitals, clinics, and sperm banks throughout the United States are in the business of selling sperm from literally thousands of men. Once a man is approved to provide sperm, he contracts with the sperm bank to supply sperm for a specified period of time and designates himself as either an anonymous or open-identity sperm provider. When a man chooses to provide his sperm anonymously, both the sperm provider and intended parents agree to complete anonymity – that is, the sperm provider can never know the parents or any …

An Essay On Originalism And The 'Individual Mandate': Rounding Out The Government’S Case For Constitutionality, Dan T. Coenen

Scholarly Works

The Supreme Court now has under advisement the landmark federal health care law case. Much attention has focused on the law’s minimum coverage provision—or so-called “individual mandate” — and, in particular, its constitutionality under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. In a separate and much lengthier article, I offer two main observations about the arguments made to the Court on that issue. First, I show that the challengers of the minimum coverage provision emphasized originalist reasoning in their briefs and oral arguments, while the federal government did not. Second, I explain why — contrary to the impression …

A Madisonian Case For Disclosure, Anthony Johnstone

Faculty Law Review Articles

This article suggests that Citizens United provides an opportunity to reconsider the relationship between campaign finance disclosure and the First Amendment and that unless that relationship is strengthened at a constitutional level, this opportunity may be lost beneath an accretion of poorly developed doctrine. The article points out that new legislation and litigation is already testing the disclosure issue in the lower courts and will arrive at the Supreme Court in due course. The article questions whether the shallow roots of the information interest now underlying disclosure may fully support the kinds of rules necessary to make disclosure of sophisticated …

Government May Not Speak Out-Of-Turn, Steven H. Goldberg

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association5 was about whether government could compel individual beef producers to pay for general beef advertising credited to "America's Beef Producers;" even if they disagreed with the message and wanted to spend their advertising money to distinguish their certified Angus or Hereford beef. That "compelled subsidy" case became the unlikely authority for a doctrine invented in Pleasant Grove City, Utah v. Summum6 that government could discriminate, based on viewpoint, on a subject for which it had no power to act. Each case has been criticized in its own right, but the attempt to make Johanns precedent …

Privacy And The Right Of Free Expression, John A. Humbach

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

Nobody likes to be talked about but everybody likes to talk. Trying to stop the dissemination of private information is, however, an impingement on free expression and the freedom to observe. A freestanding “right of privacy” that violates these interests is constitutionally permissible only if it can be justified using one of the standard bases for allowing restrictions on First Amendment rights. The three most likely possibilities are that the law in question: (1) can pass strict scrutiny, (2) fall within a recognized “categorical” exception, or (3) places only an “incidental” burden on First Amendment interests. Of these three, only …

Wedlocked, Mary P. Byrn, Morgan L. Holcomb

Faculty Scholarship

For as long as marriage has existed in the United States, divorce has been its necessary opposite. So strong is the need for divorce that the Supreme Court has suggested it is a fundamental right, and every state in the country allows access to no-fault divorce. For opposite-sex couples, legally ending their marriage is possible as a matter of right. For married same-sex couples, however, state DoMAs (Defense of Marriage Acts) have been a stumbling block – preventing access to divorce in some states. Same-sex couples in numerous states are being told by attorneys and judges that they cannot terminate …

Cost-Benefit Federalism: Reconciling Collective Action Federalism And Libertarian Federalism In The Obamacare Litigation And Beyond, Abigail R. Moncrieff

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

This Article argues that most commentators have exaggerated all three of the relevant issues with Obamacare: its efficiency gains, its liberty costs, and its departure from the status quo ante's federalist balance. The collective action problem with state insurance regulation is not as bad as scholars of collective action federalism have argued; the liberty implications of the individual mandate are not as extreme as scholars of libertarian federalism have argued; and the shift from state to national power is not as significant as the litigants and courts have argued. Although I do not make the strong claim that Obamacare reaches …

Modeling The Second Amendment Right To Carry Arms (I): Judicial Tradition And The Scope Of "Bearing Arms" For Self-Defense, Michael P. O'Shea

American University Law Review

This Article sheds light on a major constitutional question opened up by the United States Supreme Court’s landmark decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago: Does the Second Amendment “right to bear arms” include a right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home? Some courts and commentators have declared that Heller held that the Second Amendment right is limited to the home, so that restrictions on handgun carrying do not even fall within the scope of the Second Amendment. Others assert that the potential applicability of the right to bear arms outside …

Oklahoma's Save Our State Amendment And The Conflict Of Laws, John T. Parry

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Article Iii And Removal Jurisdiction: The Demise Of The Complete Diversity Rule And A Proposed Return To Minimal Diversity, Rodney K. Miller

Oklahoma Law Review

The complete diversity rule is broken. Although easily applied in theory (federal courts can exercise subject matter jurisdiction over an action on diversity grounds only when no party is of the same citizenship as any adverse party), over time the number of judicially and legislatively created exceptions to the rule, as well as their varying and inconsistent application by the federal courts, has created an environment in which similarly situated parties are treated differently based solely on the forum in which the litigation is brought. In the removal context, depending upon the forum in which an action is filed, a …

Unlikely To Succeed: How The Second Circuit's Adherence To The Serious Questions Standard For The Granting Of Preliminary Injunctions Contradicts Supreme Court Precedent And Turns And Extraordinary Remedy Into An Ordinary One, Jacob S. Crawford

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Too Narrow Of A Holding? How—And Perhaps Why—Chief Justice John Roberts Turned Snyder V. Phelps Into An Easy Case, Clay Calvert

Oklahoma Law Review

This article analyzes the United States Supreme Court’s March 2011 decision in Snyder v. Phelps. Specifically, it demonstrates the narrow nature of the holding, and argues that while narrow framing, in the tradition of judicial minimalism, may have been a strategic move by Chief Justice John Roberts to obtain a decisive eight-justice majority, the resulting opinion failed to advance First Amendment jurisprudence significantly. Instead, the outcome simply—even predictably—fell in line with an established order of decisions. This article examines four tactics employed by the Chief Justice to narrow the case in such a way that its outcome was essentially …

Rights, Reservations, And Religion; International Human Rights Law And The Status Of Women, Mark Goldfeder

Scholarly Works

While human rights law in its current form is less than fifty years old, the issues that it grapples with are much, much older. People oftentimes dismiss religion or religious norms as being out of date, close-minded, or old-fashioned, and label religious views as discriminatory in theory or even in practice. In reality, religions have been dealing with human rights issues since ancient times, and in some ways have laid the groundwork for the very modern discussions that have supplanted them. The answers that religions give, therefore, deserve at the very least a careful and respectful analysis before they are …

The Case Of The Retired Justice: How Would Justice John Paul Stevens Have Voted In J. Mcintyre Machinery, Ltd. V. Nicastro?, Rodger D. Citron

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Adaptable Due Process, Jason Parkin

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

The requirements of procedural due process must adapt to our constantly changing world. Over thirty years have passed since the Supreme Court in Goldberg v. Kelly and Mathews v. Eldridge adopted what appears to be a dynamic, fact-intensive approach to determining the procedures required by the Due Process Clause. Federal, state, and local government agencies responded by establishing new procedural safeguards, many of which are virtually identical to those in use today. Yet, for public benefits programs such as welfare, the intervening decades have brought striking changes. The 1996 federal welfare law created new and powerful incentives to trim the …

Imagining A Right To Housing, Lying In The Interstices, Shelby D. Green

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

This article explores whether the philosophical and constitutional predicates for the recognition of a right to housing exist in some form in our nation’s jurisprudence and political order. Part II traces the evolution of the concept of “rights” from that embraced by the country’s founders to the present, how such a right to housing would fit within the dialogue of property rights, the notion of ownership, and the interest in liberty. Part III discusses the historical role of the court in protecting housing. Part IV discusses the notion of protecting rights to housing under existing equal protection and due process …