Constitutional Law Commons^™

In Re D.T., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 23 (May 25, 2017), Karson Bright

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Nevada Supreme Court held that the juvenile court properly certified a juvenile as an adult because the seriousness of his offense and his prior adjudications outweighed the subjective factors in Seven Minors. Additionally, the Court held that a court’s certification of cognitively impaired juveniles for adult proceedings does not offend the Eighth Amendment.

Workin’ 9:00–5:00 For Nine Months: Assessing Pregnancy Discrimination Laws In Georgia, Kaitlyn Pettet

Georgia State University Law Review

As demonstrated in this Note, there is still a considerable way to go before women are no longer forced to choose between pregnancy and keeping their career. Allegations of pregnancy discrimination in the workplace are also on the rise.

In 1997, 4,000 plaintiffs filed complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). By 2011, that number rose to 5,800. The EEOC won significant damages in pregnancy discrimination cases, demonstrating a greater tendency towards discrimination in the workplace. Additionally, this rise in claims and awards caught the attention of the nation’s media, placing new emphasis on the treatment of pregnant women …

An Empirical Assessment Of Georgia’S Beyond A Reasonable Doubt Standard To Determine Intellectual Disability In Capital Cases, Lauren Sudeall Lucas

Georgia State University Law Review

In Atkins v. Virginia, the Supreme Court held that execution of people with intellectual disabilities violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. In doing so, the Court explicitly left to the states the question of which procedures would be used to identify such defendants as exempt from the death penalty. More than a decade before Atkins, Georgia was the first state to bar execution of people with intellectual disability. Yet, of the states that continue to impose the death penalty as a punishment for capital murder, Georgia is the only state that requires capital defendants …

Injustice Under Law: Perpetuating And Criminalizing Poverty Through The Courts, Judge Lisa Foster

Georgia State University Law Review

Money matters in the justice system. If you can afford to purchase your freedom pretrial, if you can afford to immediately pay fines and fees for minor traffic offenses and municipal code violations, if you can afford to hire an attorney, your experience of the justice system both procedurally and substantively will be qualitatively different than the experience of someone who is poor. More disturbingly, through a variety of policies and practices—some of them blatantly unconstitutional—our courts are perpetuating and criminalizing poverty. And when we talk about poverty in the United States, we are still talking about race, ethnicity, and …

A Promise Unfulfilled: Challenges To Georgia’S Death Penalty Statute Post-Furman, William Cody Newsome

Georgia State University Law Review

In Furman v. Georgia, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with Furman’s counsel. Three Justices agreed that Georgia law, as applied, was arbitrary and potentially discriminatory. Moreover, one Justice challenged the value of the death penalty and doubted it served any of the alleged purposes for which it was employed.

Although many challenges subsequent to Furman have been raised and arguably resolved by the Court, the underlying challenges raised by Furman appear to remain prevalent with the Court. Justice Breyer recently echoed the concurring opinions of Furman in his dissenting opinion from Glossip v. Gross, when he stated: “In …

Rwu First Amendment Blog: Andrew Horwitz's Blog: First Amendment Protects The Right To Give And To Receive 05-23-2017, Andrew Horwitz

Law School Blogs

No abstract provided.

May 22, 2017: Putnam Versus Scalia, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “Putnam versus Scalia“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

The Trump Presidency And The Press, John M. Greabe

Law Faculty Scholarship

[Excerpt] "It is not difficult to understand why presidents frequently voice frustration with the press. Imagine being subjected to critical analysis 24/7 by reporters, bloggers and pundits who often lack complete and accurate information but face competitive pressure to publish quickly."

Hate Speech, Harry Tepker

Other Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

May 16, 2017: When All The Churches Are Gone, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “When All the Churches are Gone“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

The Government Speech Doctrine In Walker’S Wake: Early Rifts And Reverberations On Free Speech, Viewpoint Discrimination, And Offensive Expression, Clay Calvert

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article examines the immediate effects on free expression of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling in Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc. involving the government speech doctrine. In Walker, a sharply—and largely partisanly—divided Court upheld, in the face of a First Amendment challenge, Texas’s decision denying a private organization’s application for a specialty license plate featuring Confederate battle flag imagery. This Article initially reviews the government speech doctrine and Walker. It then analyzes Walker’s impact on cases that, like it, involve specialty license plate programs. Next, this Article explores lower court efforts stretching …

Hiding In Plain View: A Path Around Sovereign Immunity For State Government Employees, William J. Rich

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

“Time Enough” For Scrutiny: The Second Amendment, Mental Health, And The Case For Intermediate Scrutiny, Benjamin A. Ellis

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Combating Thieves Of Valor: The Stolen Valor Act Of 2013 Is Constitutional Yet Unenforced, Mary E. Johnston

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Excessively Unconstitutional: Civil Asset Forfeiture And The Excessive Fines Clause In Virginia, Rachel Jones

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Semantic Vagueness And Extrajudicial Constitutional Decisionmaking, Anthony O'Rourke

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article integrates two scholarly conversations to shed light on the divergent ways in which courts and legislatures implement constitutional texts. First, there is a vast literature examining the different ways in which courts and extrajudicial institutions, including legislatures, implement the Constitution’s textually vague expressions. Second, in recent years legal philosophers have begun to use philosophy of language to elucidate the relationship between vague legal texts and the content of laws. There is little scholarship, however, that uses philosophy of language to analyze the divergent ways in which legislatures and courts implement vague constitutional provisions. This Article argues that many …

Damned Lies & Criminal Sentencing Using Evidence-Based Tools, John Lightbourne

Duke Law & Technology Review

The boom of big data and predictive analytics has revolutionized business. eHarmony matches customers based on shared likes and expectations for romance, and Target uses similar methods to strategically push its products on shoppers. Courts and Departments of Corrections have also sought to employ similar tools. However, the use of data analytics in sentencing raises a host of constitutional concerns. In State v. Loomis, the Wisconsin Supreme Court was faced with whether the use of an actuarial risk assessment tool based on a proprietary formula violates a defendant’s right to due process where the defendant could not review how the …

May 9, 2017: What Can Democracy Do?, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “What Can Democracy Do?“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

Proportionality Skepticism In A Red State, Lauren Sudeall Lucas

Faculty Publications By Year

Commentary on Carol S. Steiker & Jordan M. Steiker, Courting Death: The Supreme Court and Capital Punishment (2016).

Newsroom: Donald Trump Vs. Roger Williams 05-09-2017, David Logan

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

A Comparative Approach To Counter-Terrorism Legislation And Legal Policy, Paul David Hill Jr

Senior Honors Theses

Since the 9/11 attacks, American legislation and legal policy in regards to classifying and processing captured terrorists has fallen short of being fully effective and lawful. Trial and error by the Bush and Obama administrations has uncovered two key lessons: (1) captured terrorists are not typical prisoners of war and thus their detainment must involve more legal scrutiny than the latter; and (2) captured terrorists are not ordinary criminals and thus the civilian criminal court system, due to constitutional constraints, is not capable of adequately trying every count of terrorism. Other nations, including France and Israel, approach this problem with …

Rwu First Amendment Blog: David A. Logan's Blog: Donald Trump Vs. Roger Williams 05-08-2017, David A. Logan

Law School Blogs

No abstract provided.

Can President Trump 'Open Up' The Libel Laws?, John M. Greabe

Law Faculty Scholarship

[Excerpt] "Libel and slander are branches of the law of defamation. Defamation law authorizes remedies for reputational harm caused by some false statements of fact. A libel is a defamatory statement that is printed or written; a slander is a defamatory statement that is spoken.

During the 2016 presidential campaign, candidate Donald Trump suggested that, if elected, he would "open up our libel laws" to facilitate lawsuits by public officials against news organizations."

Stewart V. State, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 20 (May 4, 2017), Margarita Elias

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Before his interrogation, Tommy Laquade Stewart (“Stewart”) was given LVMPD’s Miranda warning pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona.[1] Stewart then agreed to speak with detectives without an attorney. He was subsequently charged and convicted of kidnapping and robbery. On appeal, Stewart argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions and that the Miranda warning was legally insufficient. The Court disagreed and affirmed the district court’s judgment of conviction.

[1] 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

May 3, 2017: What Threat From Ai, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “What Threat from AI“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

Hichilema And Another V Lungu And Another (2016/Cc/0031) [2016] Zmcc 4 (5 September 2016), Minority Judgement, Dunia P. Zongwe

SAIPAR Case Review

On September 5th 2016, there was tension in the packed Constitutional Court. Three out of five Constitutional Court judges (i.e., Anne Mwewa-Sitali, Mugeni Mulenga and Palan Mulonda) dismissed the election petition of Presidential candidate Hakainde Hichilema and his running mate Geoffrey Mwamba, on the grounds that the time for hearing the petition had lapsed. The President of the Court Justice Hildah Chibomba, and Justice Margaret Munalula dissented.

Dividing the Court was the interpretation and effect of Articles 101(5) and 103(2) of the Constitution of Zambia. Articles 101 (5) and 103 (2) provide that the Constitutional Court must hear a Presidential …

Hate Speech On Social Media, Amos N. Guiora, Elizabeth Park

Utah Law Faculty Scholarship

This essay expounds on Raphael Cohen-Almagor’s recent book, Confronting the Internet’s Dark Side, Moral and Social Responsibility on the Free Highway, and advocates placing narrow limitations on hate speech posted to social media websites. The Internet is a limitless platform for information and data sharing. It is, in addition, however, a low-cost, high-speed dissemination mechanism that facilitates the spreading of hate speech including violent and virtual threats. Indictment and prosecution for social media posts that transgress from opinion to inciteful hate speech are appropriate in limited circumstances. This article uses various real-world examples to explore when limitations on Internet-based hate …

Interpreting The Constitution’S Elegant Specificities, Steven Semeraro

Buffalo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Katuka And Law Association Of Zambia Vs Inonge Wina And Others (2016/Cc/0010/2016/Cc/0011) [2016] Zmcc 1, Tinenenji Banda

SAIPAR Case Review

The discrete legal issue to be decided by the Court was whether the continued stay in office by the Vice President, Cabinet Ministers, Provisional Ministers and Deputy Ministers – after the dissolution of Parliament on 11th May, 2016, and after the enactment of the Constitution of Zambia Amendment Act No. 2 of 2016, was ultra vires the constitution and therefore unconstitutional. If unconstitutional, a follow up issue was whether the salaries, allowances, and emoluments drawn by the above officials during their unlawful stay in office should be repaid. The case was filed as three separate causes, but by consent of …

Hichilema And Another V Lungu And Another (2016/Cc/0031) [2016] Zmcc 4 (5 September 2016), Majority Judgment, Muna Ndulo

SAIPAR Case Review

No abstract provided.