Constitutional Law Commons^™

Drinking From The Fire Hose: How Massive Self-Surveillance From The Internet Of Things Is Changing The Face Of Privacy, Steven I. Friedland

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

A First Amendment Deference Approach For Reforming Anti-Bullying Laws, Emily Suski

Faculty Publications

This Article examines the anti-bullying laws and their response to the problem of bullying in light of both the nature of the problem itself, the interventions the laws call for, and the laws’ First Amendment implications. Bullying has many varied, negative consequences, some tragic, and is widespread. Yet, the anti-bullying laws disproportionately focus schools’ responses to bullying on school exclusion, meaning suspending, expelling or otherwise excluding students who bully from school. This is so even though social science literature has found school exclusion ineffective and sometimes counterproductive as a method for addressing bullying. What is more, because much of bullying …

Four Unconstitutional Constitutions And Their Democratic Foundations, Richard Albert

Cornell International Law Journal

The present fascination with the global phenomenon of an unconstitutional constitutional amendment has left open the question whether a constitution can be unconstitutional. To declare an entire constitution unconstitutional seems different in both kind and degree from invalidating a single amendment for violating the architectural core of a constitution, itself undoubtedly an extraordinary action. In this Article, I illustrate and evaluate four different conceptions of an unconstitutional constitution. Each conception draws from a different constitution currently in force around the world, specifically the Constitutions of Canada, Mexico, South Africa and the United States. Despite their unconstitutionality in different senses of …

Linnaean Taxonomy And Globalized Law, Ronald J. Krotoszynski Jr.

Michigan Law Review

Review of The Court and the World: American Law and the New Global Realities by Stephen Breyer.

Immigration Exceptionalism, David S. Rubenstein, Pratheepan Gulasekaram

Northwestern University Law Review

The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence is littered with special immigration doctrines that depart from mainstream constitutional norms. This Article reconciles these doctrines of “immigration exceptionalism” across constitutional dimensions. Historically, courts and commentators have considered whether immigration warrants exceptional treatment as pertains to rights, federalism, or separation of powers—as if developments in each doctrinal setting can be siloed. This Article rejects that approach, beginning with its underlying premise. Using contemporary examples, we demonstrate how the Court’s immigration doctrines dynamically interact with each other, and with politics, in ways that affect the whole system. This intervention provides a far more accurate rendering of …

Erisa Preemption After Gobeille V. Liberty Mutual: Completing The Retrenchment Of Shaw, Edward A. Zelinsky

Articles

Gobeille v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. is the U.S. Supreme Court’s most recent preemption decision under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). In Gobeille, the Court completed the process of reconciling the restrained approach to ERISA preemption announced in New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Insurance Co. with the Court’s literal and expansive approach adopted earlier in Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. Gobeille consummated this reconciliation by confirming the sub silentio retrenchment of Shaw and its “plain language” approach in favor of Traveler’s broader construction of ERISA preemption. …

“Illegal” Migration Is Speech, Daniel I. Morales

Indiana Law Journal

Noncitizens must comply with immigration laws just because citizens say so. The citizenry takes for granted its monopoly on immigration control, but the legitimacy of this arrangement has been called into question by cutting-edge political theorists. One prominent theorist argues, for example, that basic democratic principles require that noncitizens living outside the United States have a say in the formation of immigration law since they must obey it. This Article provides a legal response to these political theory developments, assimilating them, along with the facts on the ground, into an account of “illegal” migration as First Amendment speech.

If noncitizens’ …

Rethinking The Fourth Amendment In The Age Of Supercomputers, Artificial Intelligence, And Robots, Melanie Reid

West Virginia Law Review

In an era of diminishing privacy, the Internet of Things ("loT") has become a consensual and inadvertent tool that undermines privacy protection. The loT, really systems of networks connected to each other by the Internet or other radio-type device, creates consensual mass self-surveillance in such domains as fitness and the Fitbit, health care and heart monitors, "smart" houses and cars, and even "smart" cities. The multiple networks also have created a degree of interconnectivity that has opened up a fire hose of information for companies and governments alike, as well as making it virtually insuperable to live "off the grid" …

Keeping Gideon’S Promise: Using Equal Protection To Address The Denial Of Counsel In Misdemeanor Cases, Brandon Buskey, Lauren S. Lucas

Fordham Law Review

The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees criminal defendants the right to counsel, and the U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that right is applicable to all defendants in felony cases, even those unable to afford a lawyer. Yet, for defendants facing misdemeanor charges, only those defendants whose convictions result in incarceration are entitled to the assistance of counsel. The number of misdemeanor prosecutions has increased dramatically in recent years, as have the volume and severity of collateral consequences attached to such convictions; yet, the Court’s right to counsel jurisprudence in this area has remained stagnant. Critics of the …

Keeping Gideon'S Promise: Using Equal Protection To Address The Denial Of Counsel In Misdemeanor Cases, Brandon Buskey, Lauren Sudeall Lucas

Faculty Publications By Year

The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees criminal defendants the right to counsel, and the U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that right is applicable to all defendants in felony cases, even those unable to afford a lawyer. Yet, for defendants facing misdemeanor charges, only those defendants whose convictions result in incarceration are entitled to the assistance of counsel.

The number of misdemeanor prosecutions has increased dramatically in recent years, as have the volume and severity of collateral consequences attached to such convictions; yet, the Court’s right to counsel jurisprudence in this area has remained stagnant. Critics of the …

Post-Racialism And The End Of Strict Scrutiny, David Schraub

Indiana Law Journal

In recent years, a growing social consensus has emerged around the aspiration of a “post-racial” America: one where race is no longer a fault line for social strife or, perhaps, a morally significant trait whatsoever. This ambition, however, lies in tension with the most basic constitutional principle governing our treatment of race in the public sphere: that of “strict scrutiny.” Post-racialism seeks to diminish the salience of race to near negligibility. The strict scrutiny of racial classifications, by contrast, significantly enhances the salience of race by treating it differently from virtually every other personal attribute or characteristic—including hair or eye …

Eliminating Circuit-Split Disparities In Federal Sentencing Under The Post-Booker Guidelines, Elliot Edwards

Indiana Law Journal

This Note will explore the rarely discussed consequences that result when courts of appeals freely interpret the Sentencing Guidelines. This Note will not address appellate review of sentences in general, nor will it discuss disparities caused by trial courts. Instead, the discussion below will address a very specific situation, namely when a court of appeals vacates a sentence because, in its estimation, the trial court misapplied the Guidelines. Part I will relate the history of the recent sentencing re-form movement in America, noting particularly which bodies have the authority to decide sentencing policy. Part II will then analyze the interpretive …

The Supreme Court’S Countermajoritarianism? What Impact Does Public Opinion Have On The Supreme Court Decisions?, Evan Tompkins

Political Science Theses and Capstones

Although normative questions about the role of the Supreme Court as a countermajoritarian institution have been commonly debated in political science research, an updated empirical question on Mishler and Sheehan’s (1993), study on public opinion and its impact on the Court must be asked. It has been 25 years since the publication of their study and numerous high profile cases such as Bush v. Gore, Citizens United v. FEC, and Obergefell v. Hodges have brought nationwide attention to the Supreme Court and how it interacts with public opinion. Results from empirical measurements of the Supreme Court’s decisions and what impact …

Are All Charter Rights And Freedoms Really Non-Absolute?, Brian Bird

Dalhousie Law Journal

This article challenges the conventional legal wisdom that no right or freedom in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is absolute. Section 1 of the Charter is the most commonly cited source of this wisdom, but this provision merely sets out the standard that the state must meet to justify a limit on a Charter right or freedom. Section 1 does not provide advance confirmation that limits satisfying this standard exist for all Charter rights and freedoms. This interpretation, if correct, does not automatically render any of the rights or freedoms in the Charter absolute. Indeed, the standard in …

R. V Comeau And Section 121 Of The Constitution Act, 1867: Freeing The Beer And Fortifying The Economic Union, Malcolm Lavoie

Dalhousie Law Journal

A recent decision from the New Brunswick Provincial Court may have significant implications for Canada's constitutional structure. R. v. Comeau held that s. 121 of the Constitution Act, 1867, the constitution's internal free trade provision, prohibits both interprovincial tariffs as well as non-tariff trade barriers. In doing so, the court departed from a line of precedents holding that s. 121 prohibits only the erection of outright tariffs or duties on interprovincial trade. Ultimately the court held that s. 134(b) of New Brunswick's Liquor Control Act, which effectively prohibits the possession of all but small quantities of liquor purchased out of …

Of Malls And Campuses: The Regulation Of University Campuses And Section 2(B) Of The Charter, Sarah E. Hamill

Dalhousie Law Journal

There have been a number of recent cases from across Canada about whether the Charter applies to public universities. Courts in Alberta have suggested that the Charter will apply to public universities while courts in British Columbia and Ontario have refused to apply the Charter to such cases. In this article I focus on the cases that also involve a claim to use university space, that is, those cases where there is an argument that by failing to allow an event on campus the university has violated the free expression guarantee in the Charter. If the Charter does apply and …

The Wealth In Waste: America's Ability To Enter The Waste To Energy Market By Embracing European Landfill Diversion, Waste Framework, And Renewable Energy Laws And Waste To Energy Initiatives, Emilio Lamanna

Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law

The note argues that the United States should adopt European Union (EU) strategies for waste management, particularly landfill diversion and waste-to-energy (WtE) technologies, to address its significant environmental and economic challenges. The EU's success in reducing landfill use and increasing renewable energy production through directives and portfolio standards serves as a model for the U.S. The author proposes that the U.S. implement a Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Portfolio Standard and a national Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (RPS) to promote WtE and reduce reliance on landfills.

Indian Country Complexities And The Ambiguous State Of Marijuana Policy In The United States, Lauren Adornetto

Buffalo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Entrenching The Minority: The Constitutional Court In Thailand's Political Conflict, Khemthong Tonsakulrungruang

Washington International Law Journal

Since 2006, Thailand has witnessed an unprecedented surge of judicial activism from the Constitutional Court to scrutinize elected politicians in the name of the rule of law. Democracy, argued Constitutional Court judges, could only be consolidated if the rule of law was maintained. But examination of several high-profile constitutional cases suggested that the Constitutional Court was actually working on behalf of the powerful elite minority to obstruct the democratic process under the pretext of protecting the rule of law. This antagonistic position brewed resentment and violence which jeopardized the Constitutional Court’s legitimacy as a neutral political arbiter. The 2014 coup …

Voting, Spending, And The Right To Participate, Robert Yablon

Northwestern University Law Review

While the law governing the electoral process has changed dramatically in the past decade, one thing has stayed the same: Courts and commentators continue to view voting in elections and spending on elections through distinct constitutional lenses. On the spending side, First Amendment principles guide judicial analysis, and recent decisions have been strongly deregulatory. On the voting side, courts rely on a makeshift equal protection-oriented framework, and they have tended to be more accepting of regulation. Key voting and spending precedents seldom cite each other. Similarly, election law scholars typically address voting and spending in isolation.

This Article challenges the …

Is The Chinese Exclusion Case Still Good Law? (The President Is Trying To Find Out), Michael Kagan

Nevada Law Journal Forum

In this Essay, I want to make the argument that the validity of the Chinese Exclusion Case is the central question in the challenges to President Trump’s travel bans. The facts are closely analogous. Moreover, the Chinese Exclusion Case is the seminal, canonical decision establishing vast federal power over immigration control. Resolving the present challenges to the Trump Executive Orders requires us to determine, once and for all, if that 1889 decision was rightly decided. But if that case cannot survive given what we know of constitutional law in the twenty first century, we must be precise about what exactly …

A Meaningful Opportunity For Release: Resentencing Hearings For Juvenile Offenders Sentenced To Life Without Parole Following Aiken V. Byars, Robert M. Dudek

South Carolina Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Annoying Constitution: Implications For The Allocation Of Interpretive Authority, Frederick Schauer

William & Mary Law Review

Constitutional constraints often restrict unwise or immoral official policies and actions, but also often invalidate laws and other official acts that are sound as a matter of both morality and policy. These second-order side constraints—or trumps—on even official acts that are sound as a matter of first-order policy reflect deeper or longerterm values, and they are central to understanding the very idea of constitutionalism. Moreover, once we see the Constitution as restricting not only the unsound and the unwise but also the sound and the wise, we can understand why expecting those whose sound ideas and policies are nevertheless unconstitutional …

Soft Supremacy, Corinna Barrett Lain

William & Mary Law Review

The debate over judicial supremacy has raged for more than a decade now, yet the conception of what it is we are arguing about remains grossly oversimplified and formalistic. My aim in this symposium contribution is to push the conversation in a more realistic direction; I want those who claim that judicial supremacy is antidemocratic to take on the concept as it actually exists. The stark truth is that judicial supremacy has remarkably little of the strength and hard edges that dominate the discourse in judicial supremacy debates. It is porous, contingent—soft. And the upshot of soft supremacy is this: …

Judicial Supremacy And Taking Conflicting Rights Seriously, Rebecca L. Brown

William & Mary Law Review

The best arguments in favor of judicial supremacy rely on its essential role of protecting rights in a democracy. The doctrinal technique of strict scrutiny, developed to do the work of judicial supremacy, has been an important tool in our constitutional jurisprudence in the service of rights protection. When the Supreme Court reviews laws that themselves seek to enhance or preserve constitutional rights, however, strict scrutiny does not provide the right approach. Rather, the Court should consider very carefully the rights claims in favor of the statute as well as those launched by a challenger. In such cases of conflicting …

In Defense Of Judicial Supremacy, Erwin Chemerinsky

William & Mary Law Review

“Judicial supremacy” is the idea that the Supreme Court should be viewed as the authoritative interpreter of the Constitution and that we should deem its decisions as binding on the other branches and levels of government, until and unless constitutional amendment or subsequent decision overrules them. This is desirable because we want to have an authoritative interpreter of the Constitution and the Court is best suited to play this role. Under this view, doctrines which keep federal courts from enforcing constitutional provisions—such as denying standing for generalized grievances, the political question doctrine, and the state secrets doctrine—are misguided and should …

Much Ado About Nothing: Signing Statements, Vetoes, And Presidential Constitutional Interpretation, Keith E. Whittington

William & Mary Law Review

During the Bush presidency, presidential signing statements became briefly controversial. The controversy has faded, but the White House continues to issue statements when signing legislation. Those statements frequently point out constitutional difficulties in new statutes and sometimes warn that the executive branch will administer the statutes so as to avoid those constitutional difficulties. This Article argues that the criticisms of signing statements were mostly misguided. Signing statements as such present few problems and offer some benefits to the workings of the American political system. While there might be reason to object to the substantive constitutional positions adopted in any given …

It’S Time For An Intervention!: Resolving The Conflict Between Rule 24(A)(2) And Article Iii Standing, Gregory R. Manring

Fordham Law Review

This Note argues that federal courts should employ an approach that is more related to maintaining the benefits of Rule 24 without running afoul of Article III—a task the yes-or-no approach is ill equipped to handle. Ultimately, an approach that is based on employing a standing analysis only where the Case or Controversy Clause is implicated anew allows the greatest access to the intervention device without running the risk of entertaining nonjusticiable disputes.

Keeping Gideon’S Promise: Using Equal Protection To Address The Denial Of Counsel In Misdemeanor Cases, Brandon Buskey, Lauren S. Lucas

Fordham Law Review

The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees criminal defendants the right to counsel, and the U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that right is applicable to all defendants in felony cases, even those unable to afford a lawyer. Yet, for defendants facing misdemeanor charges, only those defendants whose convictions result in incarceration are entitled to the assistance of counsel. The number of misdemeanor prosecutions has increased dramatically in recent years, as have the volume and severity of collateral consequences attached to such convictions; yet, the Court’s right to counsel jurisprudence in this area has remained stagnant. Critics of the …

It’S Time For An Intervention!: Resolving The Conflict Between Rule 24(A)(2) And Article Iii Standing, Gregory R. Manring

Fordham Law Review

This Note argues that federal courts should employ an approach that is more related to maintaining the benefits of Rule 24 without running afoul of Article III—a task the yes-or-no approach is ill equipped to handle. Ultimately, an approach that is based on employing a standing analysis only where the Case or Controversy Clause is implicated anew allows the greatest access to the intervention device without running the risk of entertaining nonjusticiable disputes.