Constitutional Law Commons^™

Beyond Edmunds: The State Constitutional Legacy Of Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille, Bruce Ledewitz

Ledewitz Papers

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

Prudential Standing Doctrine Abolished Or Waiting For A Comeback?: Lexmark International, Inc. V. Static Control Components, Inc., Bradford Mank

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

In the Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., Justice Scalia writing for a unanimous Court partially achieved his goal of abolishing the prudential standing doctrine. First, the Court concluded that the zone of interests test concerns whether Congress has authorized a particular plaintiff to sue and is not a prudential standing question despite several Court decisions classifying it as such. However, there is a continuing controversy in the D.C. Circuit about applying the test to suits by competitors, especially in environmental cases. The better approach is to allow competitor standing in at least …

Does United States V. Windsor (The Doma Case) Open The Door To Congressional Standing Rights?, Bradford Mank

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

In rare cases, a President refuses to defend a statute he believes is unconstitutional. The law is unclear whether Congress or either House of Congress has Article III standing to defend a statute that the President refuses to defend. In United States v. Windsor, the Supreme Court in 2013 addressed the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The Obama Administration took the middle position of not defending DOMA, but still enforcing it despite its view that the statute was unconstitutional to assist federal courts in reviewing the constitutionality of the statute. It was unclear whether an appeal was …

Retaliation And The Reasonable Person, Sandra F. Sperino

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

When a worker complains about discrimination, federal law is supposed to protect that worker from later retaliation. Recent scholarly attention focuses on how courts limit retaliation claims by narrowly framing the causation inquiry. A larger threat to retaliation law is developing in the lower courts. Courts are declaring a wide swath of conduct as insufficiently serious to constitute retaliation.

Many courts hold that it is legal for an employer to threaten to fire a worker, to place the worker on administrative leave, or to negatively evaluate the worker because she complained about discriminatory conduct. Even if the worker has evidence …

The Civil Rights Approach To Campus Sexual Violence, Nancy Chi Cantalupo

Law Faculty Research Publications

No abstract provided.

Due Process And The Failure Of The Criminal Court, Steven Zeidman

Publications and Research

No abstract provided.

Standing In The Wake Of Statutes, Mark Seidenfeld, Allie Akre

Scholarly Publications

In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, the Supreme Court held that when Congress creates a legal interest to see that the law is followed, the deprivation of that interest, without more, is insufficient to allow a plaintiff to meet Article III’s standing requirements. Lujan created significant uncertainty about Congress’s ability to influence judicial standing inquiries by creating statutory rights, especially in light of Justice Kennedy’s concurrence and the majority’s footnote seven. This Article argues that Kennedy’s concurrence and footnote seven are best explained by recognizing that Congress is institutionally superior to courts in evaluating the gravity of likely harms …

Does The Public Care How The Supreme Court Reasons? Empirical Evidence From A National Experiment And Normative Concerns In The Case Of Same-Sex Marriage, Courtney Megan Cahill, Geoffrey Christopher Rapp

Scholarly Publications

Can the Supreme Court influence the public’s reception of decisions vindicating rights in high-salience contexts, like samesex marriage, by reasoning in one way over another? Will the people’s disagreement with those decisions—and, by extension, societal backlash against them—be dampened if the Court deploys universalizing liberty rationales rather than essentializing equality rationales? Finally, even if Supreme Court reasoning does resonate with the people as a descriptive matter, should the Court minimize anxiety-producing characteristics in decisions vindicating civil rights—such as homosexuality in the marriage-equality context—simply in order to assuage the people?

This Article combines constitutional theory and empirical legal analysis to ask …

Identity Contests: Litigation And The Meaning Of Social-Movement Causes, Mary Ziegler

Scholarly Publications

What do we mean by a right to life? Should—or does—such a right cover only antiabortion claims? Or should the term apply more broadly—to debates about class and welfare, about the death penalty, or even about human rights? In the abortion wars, litigation strategy has helped to dictate the answers to these questions. Historians and legal scholars have studied the tensions between lawyers and the lay actors they represent, chronicling how lawyers modify and even limit the social changes activists demand. By putting the attorney-client relationship center stage, scholars have sometimes obscured an equally important story about how litigation strategy—as …

The Intratextual Independent "Legislature" And The Elections Clause, Michael T. Morley

Scholarly Publications

Many states have delegated substantial authority to regulate federal elections to entities other than their institutional legislatures, such as independent redistricting commissions empowered to determine the boundaries of congressional districts. Article I’s Elections Clause and Article II’s Presidential Electors Clause, however, confer authority to regulate federal elections specifically upon State “legislatures,” rather than granting it to States as a whole. An intratextual analysis of the Constitution reveals that the term “legislature” is best understood as referring solely to the entity within each state comprised of representatives that has the general authority to pass laws. Thus, state constitutional provisions or laws …

Cutting Cops Too Much Slack, Wayne A. Logan

Scholarly Publications

Police officers can make mistakes, which, for better or worse, the U.S. Supreme Court has often seen fit to forgive. Police, for instance, can make mistakes of fact when assessing whether circumstances justify the seizure of an individual or search of a residence; they can even be mistaken about the identity of those they arrest. This essay examines yet another, arguably more significant context where police mistakes are forgiven: when they seize a person based on their misunderstanding of what a law prohibits.

Equitable Estoppel & Workers' Compensation Immunity: Why Litigants And The Courts Are Getting Ahead Of Themselves, Neil A. Ambekar

Florida A & M University Law Review

Every U.S. jurisdiction has created a separate body of law to address workplace injuries - the workers’ compensation scheme. These no-fault systems provide employees injured on the job lost wages and medical benefits. It also immunizes employers from negligence claims arising out of most workplace accidents. This article discusses a growing phenomenon in Florida’s workers’ compensation scheme, the use of estoppel to negate employer immunity. This article lays out the various theories of estoppel—primarily judicial and equitable—that may be asserted in the context of on-thejob injury litigation. This article goes on to explain why Florida courts should refrain from application …

Executive Action On Immigration: Constitutional Or Direct Conflict?, Todd Curtin

Florida A & M University Law Review

On November 20, 2014, the White House released a press statement notifying viewers that President Obama would do everything within his executive powers to solve the problems surrounding the immigration system. The White House made it clear that the President would be acting with legal authority in taking these steps. This paper addresses whether or not the Obama Administration did, in fact, act with legal authority by initiating the following steps using his executive authority: “cracking down on illegal immigration at the border; deporting felons, not families; and accountability through criminal background checks and taxes.” President Obama, acting through Secretary …

The Long-Term Implications Of Gonzaga V. Doe, Bradford Mank

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

State and local governments are often responsible for disbursing federal medical, educational, and welfare benefits. What happens when they deny or revoke them unfairly? Some recipients have used 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as a way to enforce the underlying statutes. The Supreme Court decision in Gonzaga University v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (2002), made this more difficult. In doing so, the Court adopted stringent rules for the use of § 1983 to enforce any federal laws, including the nation’s civil rights laws.

Extralegal Supreme Court Policy Making, Joelle A. Moreno

Faculty Publications

The Colbert Report aired its final episode on December 18, 2014. Nine years earlier, on the first episode, Stephen Colbert coined the word “truthiness.” Truthiness satirized contemporary disinterest in empirical information in a country increasingly "divided between those who think with their head and those who know with their heart.” Truthiness was not just the Merriam-Webster word of the year. Over the past decade, it has been the unspoken mantra of reporters who give equal time to climate science denialists, faith healers, and vaccine refusers. When Justices of the Supreme Court decide questions of scientific or empirical fact — such …

Opposing Viewpoints: The Sixth Amendment And Child Witnesses, Sarah Kroll

Children's Legal Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Constraining Constitutional Change, David Landau, Rosalind Dixon

Scholarly Publications

No abstract provided.

Using Historic Preservation Laws To Halt The Destruction Of Porch Culture In The Lower Ninth Ward Of New Orleans, Jamila Jefferson-Jones

Law Faculty Research Publications

No abstract provided.

Domestic Violence And The Confrontation Clause: The Case For A Prompt Post-Arrest Confrontation Hearing, Robert M. Hardaway

Sturm College of Law: Faculty Scholarship

Part I and Part II of this article discuss the consequences of Crawford v. Washington for domestic violence victims and detail the problem of domestic violence in America, including the current prosecution strategies and challenges in domestic violence cases. Part III reviews the evolution of confrontation law jurisprudence. Part IV sets forth a proposed Crawford-compliant procedure that also protects domestic violence victims. Part V addresses anticipated objections to the prompt-post arrest confrontation hearing.

Children's Rights In The Midst Of Marriage Equality: Amicus Brief In Obergefell V. Hodges By Scholars Of The Constitutional Rights Of Children, Tanya Washington, Susannah Pollvogt, Catherine Smith, Lauren Fontana

Scholarly Articles

Many scholars have called for the acknowledgement and treatment of children's rights as constitutionally protected and enforceable, and Supreme Court precedent establishes that the government may not punish children for matters beyond children's control. Same-sex marriage bans and non-recognition laws, which are collectively referred to as marriage bans, impose prohibited punishment on children for being born into, or parented by, same-sex families. States argue that marriage is the optimal familial environment for children, yet marriage bans categorically exclude an entire class of children -- children in same-sex families -- from the legal, economic, and social benefits of marriage. In response …

Effectively Regulating E-Cigarettes And Their Advertising—And The First Amendment, Eric N. Lindblom

O'Neill Institute Papers

If tobacco smoking did not exist in the United States, there would be no reason, from a public health perspective, to allow addictive, nicotine-containing e-cigarettes to be marketed and sold. Because e-cigarette use, by itself, is neither beneficial nor benign to users and nonusers, the only public health justification for allowing e-cigarettes in the existing U.S. market would be if doing so would not sustain or increase existing smoking levels but would help smokers quit completely or provide addicted smokers a less harmful way to obtain the nicotine they crave. Yet e-cigarettes are now pervasive in the U.S. market, being …

The Reasonability Of California Groundwater Policies In Light Of The Drought, Lindsey Pace

UC Law Constitutional Quarterly

California is America's largest agricultural farming state. Agriculture in the Central Valley is a multimillion dollar industry. California is the fifth largest supplier of food in the world. The productivity of the agricultural sector of the Central Valley is one reason why California could overtake Brazil this year as the world's seventh largest economy. The agricultural sector produces over $30 billion-dollars' worth of America's supply of almonds, milk, cattle, grapes, strawberries, walnuts, lettuce, hay, tomatoes, and more. Additionally the state produces over 400 commodities and nearly half of all US-grown fruits, vegetables, and nuts. California's robust agriculture sector is the …

Shoot First, Ask Later: Constitutional Rights At The Border After Boumediene, Brittany Davidson

American University Law Review

Adopting Boumediene's functional approach in analyzing extraterritorial application of the United States Constitution at the U.S.-Mexico border will promote uniformity and provide guidance to courts and officials. Currently, courts are applying Verdugo-Urquidez's sufficient connections test, and different variations thereof permitting courts to arbitrarily decide who is entitled to constitutional protection in the absence of uniform precedent. Adopting Boumediene as the guiding test will not automatically trigger constitutional protection, instead, constitutional protection will only be granted if extending protection to an alien at the U.S.-Mexico border is justified based on the three-prong test.

Confronting The Overcriminalization Of America, 48 J. Marshall L. Rev. 757 (2015), Timothy P. O'Neill

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Deboer V. Snyder: A Case Study In Litigation And Social Reform, Wyatt Fore

Michigan Journal of Gender & Law

On April 28, 2015, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments for four cases from the Sixth Circuit addressing the constitutionality of state bans on same-sex marriage. This Note examines DeBoer v. Snyder, the Michigan marriage case, with the goal of providing litigators and scholars the proper context for our current historical moment in which (1) the legal status of LGBT people; and (2) the conventional wisdom about the role of impact litigation in social reform movements are rapidly evolving.

The Supreme Digital Divide, Mary Graw Leary

Scholarly Articles

Society has long struggled with the meaning of privacy in a modern world. This struggle is not new. With the advent of modern technology and information sharing, however, the challenges have become more complex. Socially, Americans seek to both protect their private lives, and also to utilize technology to connect with the world. Commercially, industries seek to obtain information from individuals, often without their consent, and sell it to the highest bidder. As technology has advanced, the ability of other individuals, institutions, and governments to encroach upon this privacy has strengthened. Nowhere is this tension between individual privacy rights and …

Rights, Privileges, And The Future Of Marriage Law, Adam J. Macleod

Scholarly Articles

On the eve of its final triumph, has the cause of marriage equality fallen short? This article discusses persistent differences in the incidents that attach to same-sex marriages versus man-woman marriages. It examines these in light of the distinction between fundamental rights and concessions of privilege in marriage law, and in common law constitutionalism generally. That examination suggests that the norms of natural marriage are likely to reassert themselves in positive law, notwithstanding the U.S. Supreme Court's recent marriage jurisprudence. Finally, the article suggests that lawmakers would do well to consider how additional concessions of privilege can best serve the …

Substantive Due Process As A Two-Way Street: How The Court Can Reconcile Same-Sex Marriage And Religious Liberty, Mark L. Rienzi

Scholarly Articles

Last month, the potential conflict between same-sex marriage and religious liberty prompted death threats, arson threats, and the temporary closure of a small-town pizzeria in Indiana. The restaurant’s owner had admitted to a reporter that she could not cater a hypothetical same-sex wedding because of her religious beliefs (even though she otherwise serves gay customers in her restaurant). Threatened with violence over her unpopular religious belief, the owner was forced to close the restaurant, uncertain if she could ever reopen.

Leading up to oral argument in the same-sex marriage cases, it was reasonable to wonder whether the Indiana episode was …

Constitutional Contraction: Religion And The Roberts Court, Marc O. Degirolami

Scholarly Articles

This Article argues that the most salient feature to emerge in the first decade of the Roberts Court's law and religion jurisprudence is the contraction of the constitutional law of religious freedom. It illustrates that contraction in three ways.

First, contraction of judicial review. Only once has the Roberts Court exercised the power of judicial review to strike down federal, state, or local legislation, policies, or practices on the ground that they violate the Free Exercise or Establishment Clauses. In this constitutional context the Court has been nearly uniformly deferential to government laws and policies. That distinguishes it from its …

Between Two Palm Trees: Reading The Constitution In Paradise, Derek A. Webb

Scholarly Articles

For as long as we have had a Constitution, we have been debating how to interpret it. With the conclusion of the Supreme Court's recent 2013 term and its handful of closely divided, hotly contested cases, we can rest safe in the assumption that, despite the notable uptick in unanimous decisions issued by the Court, the figurative "end of history" in constitutional interpretation, in which the major partisans in our annual Constitutional skirmishes lay down their arms and settle upon one particular interpretive lens through which to read the Constitution, is nowhere in sight. If Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, …