Constitutional Law Commons^™

Government Speech In Transition, Helen Norton

Publications

This symposium essay explores the legacy of the Supreme Court’s decision in Johanns v. Livestock Mktg. Ass’n. There the Court offered its clearest articulation to date of its emerging government speech doctrine. After characterizing contested expression as the government’s, the Court then held such government speech to be exempt from free speech clause scrutiny. In so doing, the Court solved at least one substantial problem, but created others that remain unresolved today. On one hand, Johanns marked the Court’s long overdue recognition of the ubiquity and importance of government speech, appropriately exempting the government’s own expressive choices from free …

Inextricably Political: Race, Membership, And Tribal Sovereignty, Sarah Krakoff

Publications

Courts address equal protection questions about the distinct legal treatment of American Indian tribes in the following dichotomous way: are classifications concerning American Indians "racial or political?" If the classification is political (i.e., based on federally recognized tribal status or membership in a federally recognized tribe) then courts will not subject it to heightened scrutiny. If the classification is racial rather than political, then courts may apply heightened scrutiny. This Article challenges the dichotomy itself. The legal categories "tribe" and "tribal member" are themselves political, and reflect the ways in which tribes and tribal members have been racialized by U.S. …

The Market As A Legal Concept, Justin Deystone

Publications

In the wake of the recent financial crisis of 2008, and in the run-up to what some are calling a perfect fiscal storm, there is no shortage of commentary on the need for fundamental market reform. Though there are certainly disagreements about where the real problems are and what to do, almost all the commentary remains wedded to an old and entirely false image of “free competition.” Of course, there is hardly consensus about whether markets require the heavy hand of regulative control, or are better left to regulate themselves, but a belief in the distinction between these two images …

Falsely Shouting Fire In A Global Theater: Emerging Complexities Of Transborder Expression, Timothy Zick

Faculty Publications

We have entered an era in which potentially harmful expression can be distributed around the world in an instant. In the emerging global theater, speakers and audiences are connected through new and proliferating media; communicative space and time are compressed to an extraordinary degree; domestic expression can implicate national security and foreign affairs concerns; and a new model of global information dissemination is developing in which speakers are sometimes located beyond the jurisdiction of nations that may be harmed by their communications and disclosures.

This Article examines the First Amendment complexities associated with the dissemination of potentially harmful information in …

Recovering The Assembly Clause, Timothy Zick

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Racial Cartels And The Thirteenth Amendment Enforcement Power, Darrell A. H. Miller

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Territory, Wilderness, Property, And Reservation: Land And Religion In Native American Supreme Court Cases, Kathleen Sands

American Indian Law Review

In two trilogies of Supreme Court Decisions, both involving Native Americans, land is a key metaphor, figuring variously as property, territory, wilderness, and reservation. The first trilogy, written by Chief Justice John Marshall, comprises Johnson v. M'Intosh (1823), Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831), and Worcester v. Georgia (1832). The second trilogy concerns Native American claims for religious freedom under the First Amendment and includes Bowen v. Roy (1986), Lyng v. Northwest Cemetery Protective Association (1988), and Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith (1990). The Marshal cases attempted to legitimate the transformation of land from wilderness to territory and property, and …

On Avoiding Avoidance, Agenda Control, And Related Matters, Henry Paul Monaghan

Faculty Scholarship

Legal scholars have long posited that, heuristically at least, two basic adjudicatory models – the dispute resolution model and the law declaration model – compete for the Court's affection along a wide spectrum of issues. The former focuses upon judicial resolution of actual disputes between litigants. Historically, that model has been underpinned by a premise, reflected in a wide range of doctrines, that significant barriers rightly exist to judicial review of the constitutionality of governmental conduct. By contrast, the law declaration model focuses on the Court itself not the litigants. Emphasizing the judicial authority to say what the law is, …

Confrontation Clause Curiosities: When Logic And Proportion Have Fallen Sloppy Dead, Randolph N. Jonakait

Articles & Chapters

No abstract provided.

Don’T Blame Crawford Or Bryant: The Confrontation Clause Mess Is All Davis’S Fault, Deborah Ahrens, John Mitchell

Faculty Articles

In Michigan v. Bryant, a dying victim lying in a parking lot provided responding officers with the identity of the man who shot him. In determining whether the subsequent use of the deceased declarant’s statement at trial violated the Confrontation Clause, the Bryant Court applied the testimonial versus nontestimonial analysis established in the Court’s previous decision, Crawford v. Washington. Holding that testimonial hearsay covered statements involving past events, while nontestimonial statements were directed at an “ongoing emergency,” the Bryant Court applied a multi-factor, totality of the circumstances analysis and found that the deceased declarant’s identification had been directed …

The Guardians Of Knowledge In The Modern State: Post’S Republic And The First Amendment, David M. Skover, Ronald K. L. Collins

Faculty Articles

Collins and Skover’s essay examines Yale Law School Dean Robert Post’s recent book, Democracy, Expertise, and Academic Freedom: A First Amendment Jurisprudence for the Modern State (Yale, 2012). Collins and Skover describe and examine Dean Post’s dichotomy between the realm of “democratic legitimation,” where the First Amendment should offer its strongest protections, and the realm of “democratic competence,” where the First Amendment should yield to the findings of knowledgeable experts. Questioning the theoretical premises of Dean Post’s book, they argue that a “harm principle” may better explain much of the First Amendment doctrine that Post attempts to reconcile with his …

From Smith To Smickle: The Charter's Minimal Impact On Mandatory Minimum Sentences, Debra Parkes

All Faculty Publications

This paper attempts to assess the impact that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has had, and may have in the near future, on mandatory minimum sentences and their legislated proliferation. To answer those questions, the paper first briefly reviews the Supreme Court of Canada case law on the constitutionality of mandatory minimum sentences. The next two sections will outline the approach taken in the recent Smickle decision in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice before moving on to argue that courts should subject the purported goals, justifications and implications of mandatory minimum sentences to a more searching form …

The 'Great Writ' Reinvigorated? Habeas Corpus In Contemporary Canada, Debra Parkes

All Faculty Publications

This short prelude to Professor James Oldham’s 2nd Annual DeLloyd J Guth Visiting Lecture in Legal History, “Habeas Corpus, Legal History and Guantanamo Bay,” discusses some of ways that the writ of habeas corpus plays an important role in promoting access to justice and protecting basic liberty interests in contemporary Canadian law. The focus will be on developments in the law since the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted, touching on two important features of a modern doctrine of habeas corpus, namely flexibility and gap-filling, both of which Professor Oldham also develops in his essay.

A Road Map Through The Supreme Court's Back Alley, Clarke D. Forsythe, Bradley N. Kehr

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Engaging In Good Faith: Ethics, Archives, And Critical Constitutionalisms, Penelope Pether

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Intentional Discrimination In Farrakhan V. Gregoire: The Ninth Circuit's Voting Rights Act Standard "Results In" The New Jim Crow, Jonathan Sgro

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Confrontation And Forensic Laboratory Reports, Round Four, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

Crawford v. Washington radically transformed the doctrine governing the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution. Before Crawford, a prosecutor could introduce against an accused evidence of a hearsay statement, even one made in contemplation that it would be used in prosecution, so long as the statement fit within a "firmly rooted" hearsay exception or the court otherwise determined that the statement was sufficiently reliable to warrant admissibility. Crawford recognized that the Clause is a procedural guarantee, governing the manner in which prosecution witnesses give their testimony. Therefore, a prosecutor may not introduce a statement that is testimonial …

The Constitutional Right Not To Kill, Mark L. Rienzi

Scholarly Articles

Federal and state governments participate in and/or permit a variety of different types of killings. These include military operations, capital punishment, assisted suicide, abortion and self-defense or defense of others. In a pluralistic society, it is no surprise that there will be some members of the population who refuse to participate in some or all of these types of killings. The question of how governments should treat such refusals is older than the Republic itself. Since colonial times, the answer to this question has been driven largely by statutory protections, with the Constitution playing a smaller role, particularly since the …

The First Amendment’S Borders: The Place Of Holder V. Humanitarian Law Project In First Amendment Doctrine, David Cole

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, the Supreme Court’s first decision pitting First Amendment rights against national security interests since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Court appears to have radically departed from some of the First Amendment’s most basic principles, including the maxims that speech may not be penalized because of its viewpoint, that even speech advocating crime deserves protection until it constitutes incitement, and that political association is constitutionally protected absent specific intent to further a group’s illegal ends. These principles lie at the core of our political and democratic freedoms, yet Humanitarian Law Project …

Judicial Formalism And The State Secrets Privilege, Sudha Setty

Faculty Scholarship

Congress has, in the last few years, toyed with the idea of attempting to rein in the executive’s increasing reliance on the state secrets privilege as a means of escaping the possibility of accountability. The Author examines one high-profile case, that of Binyam Mohamed and other plaintiffs claiming that they had been subject to extraordinary rendition, torture, and prolonged detention. The Mohamed litigation offers evidence of a disturbing trend of U.S. courts retreating to formalistic reasoning to extend unwarranted deference to the executive branch in security-related contexts. In this essay the Author limits her analysis to the recent jurisprudence surrounding …

Direct And Indirect U.S. Government Debt, Steven L. Schwarcz

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Incriminating Thoughts, Nita A. Farahany

Faculty Scholarship

The neuroscience revolution poses profound challenges to current selfincrimination doctrine and exposes a deep conceptual confusion at the heart of the doctrine. In Schmerber v. California, the Court held that under the Self- Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment, no person shall be compelled to “prove a charge [from] his own mouth,” but a person may be compelled to provide real or physical evidence. This testimonial/physical dichotomy has failed to achieve its intended simplifying purpose. For nearly fifty years scholars and practitioners have lamented its impracticability and its inconsistency with the underlying purpose of the privilege. This Article seeks to …

The War On Women's Fundamental Rights: Connecting U.S. Supreme Court Originalism To Rightwing, Conservative Extremism In American Politics, Donna J. King

Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights & Social Justice

The article argues that the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause, intended to protect fundamental rights for all citizens, including women, has been systematically undermined by the U.S. Supreme Court's originalist interpretations. This erosion, exemplified by cases like SlaughterHouse, has emboldened right-wing extremism and threatens women's rights, particularly in the context of unenumerated fundamental rights. The article contends that the Court's narrow constructions and disregard for legislative history have perpetuated inequality and stripped the Clause of its intended protective power.

Upside-Down Judicial Review, Corinna Barrett Lain

Law Faculty Publications

The countermajoritarian difficulty assumes that the democratically elected branches are majoritarian and the unelected Supreme Court is not. But sometimes the opposite is true. Sometimes it is the elected branches that are out of sync with majority will and the Supreme Court that bridges the gap, turning the conventional understanding of the Court's role on its head. Instead of a countermajoritarian Court checking the majoritarian branches, we see a majoritarian Court checking the not-so-majoritarian branches, enforcing prevailing norms when the representative branches do not. What emerges is a distinctly majoritarian, upside-down understanding of judicial review. This Article illustrates, explains, and …

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

Law Faculty Publications

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 …

Religious Neutrality In The Early Republic, Jud Campbell

Law Faculty Publications

Governmental neutrality is the heart of the modern Free Exercise Clause. Mindful of this core principle, which prevents the government from treating individuals differently because of their religious convictions, the Supreme Court held in Employment Division v. Smith that a neutral law can be constitutionally applied despite any incidental burdens it might impose on an individual’s exercise of religion. Conscientious objectors such as Quakers, for instance, do not have a constitutional right to be exempt from a military draft. Thus, neutrality now forms both the core and the outer limit of constitutionally guaranteed religious freedom. Judged according to founding-era views, …

Bridging The Great Divide--A Response To Linda Greenhouse And Reva B. Siegel's Before (And After) Roe V. Wade: New Questions About Backlash, Lolita Buckner Inniss

Publications

This essay discusses the history of Roe v. Wade as recently addressed by Linda Greenhouse and Reva B. Siegel. Going beyond their assertions, I suggest that an additional, more encompassing inquiry focuses on what factors are implicated in the politics of abortion and how these factors relate to larger social, political, and cultural conflicts both before and after Roe. By naming party politics and the Catholic Church, Greenhouse and Siegel posit two crucial elements that shaped the abortion debate. I assert, however, that what is not discussed in their Article is the way numerous other factors have figured into …

Unconstitutional Conditions: The Irrelevance Of Consent, Philip A. Hamburger

Faculty Scholarship

Unconstitutional conditions are a conundrum. On the one hand, if government can spend, why can't it place whatever conditions it wants on its spending? On the other hand, if it can place any conditions on spending, won't it be able to impose restrictions that evade much of the Constitution, including most constitutional rights? This enigma is notoriously complex, and unconstitutional conditions therefore are considered a sort of Gordian knot.

The standard solution is to slice through the knot with consent to conclude that consent excuses otherwise unconstitutional restrictions. This solution, however, is problematic, for it concedes that the government can …

Excerpts From Chief Justice Roberts' Opinion In Nfib V. Sebelius, Wilson Huhn

Akron Law Faculty Publications

In NFIB v. Sebelius the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of all but one of the provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The opinion of Chief Justice Roberts is the controlling opinion in all respects. This is an editted summary of the Chief Justice's opinion.

Book Review, Barbara Babcock's Woman Lawyer: The Trials Of Clara Foltz, Tracy Thomas

Con Law Center Articles and Publications

No abstract provided.