Constitutional Law Commons^™

Random If Not "Rare"? The Eighth Amendment Weaknesses Of Post-Miller Legislation, Kimberly Thomas

Articles

First, this Article surveys the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to analogize life without parole for juveniles to the death penalty for adults, and discusses the Eighth Amendment law regarding the parameters around death penalty statutory schemes. Second, this Article examines the state legislative response to Miller, and scrutinizes it with the Court's Eighth Amendment death penalty law-and the states' responses to this case law-in mind. This Article highlights the failure of juvenile homicide sentencing provisions to: 1) narrow offenses that are eligible for life without parole sentences; 2) further limit, once a guilty finding is made, the categories of …

The Gibbons Fallacy, Richard A. Primus

Articles

In Gibbons v. Ogden, Chief Justice John Marshall famously wrote that "the enumeration presupposes something not enumerated." Modern courts use that phrase to mean that the Constitutions enumeration of congressional powers indicates that those powers are, as a whole, less than a grant of general legislative authority. But Marshall wasn't saying that. He wasn't talking about the Constitution's overall enumeration of congressional powers at all. He was writing about a different enumeration - the enumeration of three classes of commerce within the Commerce Clause. And Marshall's analysis of the Commerce Clause in Gibbons does not imply that the enumerated …

Mccrory V. Harris: Constitutional Prohibitions On Racial Classifications And The Requirements Of The Voting Rights Act In Redistricting, Alex Dietz

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

In McCrory v. Harris, the Supreme Court is faced with yet another redistricting case: Are the first and twelfth Congressional Districts in North Carolina the result of impermissible racial gerrymandering? The parties' dispute centers around two questions: In what circumstances is race the predominant factor in a state legislature's redistricting plan? And in what circumstances is the use of race as a predominant factor in redistricting plans an impermissible racial gerrymander? This Commentary will provide a summary and analysis of the arguments presented for the Court's review, and argue that both North Carolina Congressional Districts should be struck down …

Why You Should Doubt Reports That The First Amendment Would Protect Gen. Flynn From Prosecution Under The Logan Act, Timothy Zick

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Do Foreign Nationals Really Have Constitutional Rights?, John M. Greabe

Law Faculty Scholarship

[Excerpt] "Last month, President Trump issued an executive order that has become known as the "travel ban." Among other things, the ban sought to temporarily exclude from the United States foreign nationals from seven predominantly Muslim countries.

Almost immediately, a number of plaintiffs sued and succeeded in obtaining "stays" preventing the ban from going into effect until the cases can be tried. Courts granted these stays because they found that the ban was likely to violate, among other things, anti-discrimination principles embedded within the First and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

February 26, 2017: What’S The Worst Thing President Trump Is Doing?, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “What’s the Worst Thing President Trump is Doing?“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

February 22, 2017: Harry Jaffa, No Trump Supporter, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “Harry Jaffa, No Trump Supporter“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

Moore V. Texas: Balancing Medical Advancements With Judicial Stability, Emily Taft

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

In Moore v. Texas, the Supreme Court will consider whether the Eighth Amendment requires States to adhere to a particular organization’s most recent clinical definition of intellectual disability in determining whether a person is exempt from the death penalty under Atkins v. Virginia and Hall v. Florida. Generally, the Supreme Court has carved away at the death penalty with each new case it takes. This commentary argues that the Supreme Court should not continue that trend in this case and should find for Texas because the state’s intellectual disability determination is consistent with the Eighth Amendment under Atkins …

Flight Risk Or Danger To The Community? Rodriguez And The Protection Of Civil Liberties In The U.S. Immigration System, Charlie Kazemzadeh

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Upon arrival to the United States, foreign nationals are required to prove beyond a doubt that they comply with the various requirements for admission into the country. For those who fail to meet this standard, there are only two options: accept immediate removal to their country of origin, or fight removal. For many who contest their deportation, their fate is civil incarceration until their case is adjudicated, which can take several years. The case of Jennings v. Rodriguez addresses the constitutionality of prolonged civil incarceration without the access of mandatory, periodic bond hearings for these individuals.

February 18, 2017: What The Rule Of Law Looks Like, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “What the Rule of Law Looks Like“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

Political Ripples Ahead For Supreme Court Confirmation, Michael S. Ariens

Faculty Articles

No abstract provided.

Newsroom: Slate: Goldstein On Travel Ban 02-17-2017, Jared A. Goldstein

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Breaking The Cycle: Countering Voter Initiatives And The Underrepresentation Of Racial Minorities In The Political Process

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy

This Article examines issues of inequality in education, minority representation, and access to the political process. The Article considers constitutional protections and other legal mechanisms available to racial minorities to nullify or circumnavigate majoritarian voter initiatives that seek to override federal constitutional guarantees and United States Supreme Court holdings on the validity of the use of race in university admissions decisions. Voter initiatives have been used to undermine the socio-economic and political interests of vulnerable communities. In the education realm, affirmative action opponents are increasingly adopting this instrument to defeat race-conscious admissions policies. This Article focuses on several seminal cases …

Enlightened Originalism, Ian Farrell

Sturm College of Law: Faculty Scholarship

This Article proposes a novel, unique theory of constitutional interpretation, namely “enlightened originalism.” According to enlightened originalism, when contemporary constitutional actors give meaning to the terms of the Constitution, they should use the meaning those terms had when the relevant provisions were originally adopted. But we do not find the original meaning of terms such as “equal protection,” “due process,” and “cruel and unusual punishment” by seeking the meaning intended by the relevant framers or ratifiers; nor by looking to any original public meaning. These terms incorporate moral concepts, the meaning of which is objective and independent of the views …

Textualism And Originalism In Constitutional Interpretation, John M. Greabe

Law Faculty Scholarship

[Excerpt] "In a 2016 lecture at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law, Judge Neil Gorsuch warmly praised former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's approach to constitutional interpretation. Because President Trump has nominated him to serve on the Supreme Court, it is important to understand the approach Judge Gorsuch favors."

February 12, 2017: The Ninth Circuit Decision, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “The Ninth Circuit Decision“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

Gorsuch, Cfpb And Future Of The Administrative State, David J. Reiss

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

U.S. Supreme Court nominee Judge Neil Gorsuch would have an outsized influence on federal consumer protection enforcement if he is confirmed. In particular, if PHH v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is appealed to the Supreme Court, a Justice Gorsuch is likely to vote to strongly curtail the independence of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and limit its enforcement powers. More generally, he will be a skeptic of agency action, one who will support greater judicial review of agency actions.

Ag-Gag Laws, Lies, And The First Amendment, Justin Marceau

Distinguished Speaker Series

In this talk, Professor Marceau will discuss the intersection of free speech and lies in constitutional doctrine. “Ag-gag” laws criminalize actions that include secret filming by whistleblowers of animal abuses on factory farms. Using the proliferation of ag-gag laws as an example, Professor Marceau will identify and discuss investigative deceptions as a category of high-value lies that ought to receive rigorous free speech protection because of their instrumental value to securing and disseminating information essential to a well-functioning democracy. He will also identify, more generally, the types of limits that may be imposed on lying consistent with the First Amendment

A House Built On Shifting Sands: Standing Under The Fair Housing Act After Thompson V. North American Stainless, Eric Vanderhoef

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

For decades, the Supreme Court construed standing under the Fair Housing Act broadly; any party could bring suit as long as it met Constitutional Standing requirements. In January 2011, in Thompson v. North American Stainless, the Court restricted standing under Title VII—a statute with similar empowering language to the Fair Housing Act. The Court will address Fair Housing Act standing post-Thompson in Bank of America Corp. v. City of Miami. This commentary argues that standing under the Fair Housing Act should be restricted. Additionally, it argues that the allegations of the Plaintiff-Respondent, City of Miami, of widespread reductions in tax …

Unprecedented Infringement: Debunking The Constitutionality Of Dna Collection From Mere Arrestees In Light Of Maryland V. King, Christen Giannaros

Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development

No abstract provided.

Trending @ Rwu Law: Professor Niki Kuckes's Post: 'Disparaging' Trademarks Meet The First Amendment 02-07-2017, Niki Kuckes

Law School Blogs

No abstract provided.

February 6, 2017: When Did The Lying Start?, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “When Did the Lying Start?“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

What Constitutes "Custody" Under Miranda?: An Examination Of Maine's Test As Applied In State V. Kittredge, Elizabeth L. Tull

Maine Law Review

In recent years, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, has issued several opinions addressing whether a defendant’s statements are admissible when made to law enforcement in the absence of “Miranda warnings.” These cases have similar features: a defendant made a personally incriminating statement; raised an appeal arguing that Miranda warnings should have been, but were not, read to him or her; and the Court—in many cases—determined that the defendant was not technically in police custody, and thus there was no requirement to recite Miranda warnings to him or her. Miranda warnings are an important safeguard that …

State V. Lovejoy: Should Pre-Arrest, Pre-Miranda Silence Be Admissible During The State's Case-In-Chief As Substantive Evidence Of Guilt?, Mark A. Rucci

Maine Law Review

Article 1, section 6 of Maine Constitution reads in part that “[t]he accused shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself or herself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, property, or privileges . . . .” Further, the Law Court has held that “the State constitutional protection against self-incrimination is the equivalent of the Fifth Amendment." However, as with most provisions of the Constitution, the protection against self-incrimination is open to interpretation. While the Supreme Court has answered some questions surrounding the Fifth Amendment’s protections, it has left many decisions regarding its scope largely within the purview of the …

The Impact Of Justice Scalia's Replacement On Gender Equality Issues, Wilson R. Huhn

ConLawNOW

The last forty-six years may be accurately described as the era of the modern Republican Supreme Court. As a result of presidential elections, Republican presidents have nominated all ten of the Justices appointed to the United States Supreme Court between 1969 and 1991. Republicans have thus controlled the Court since 1970. During this period the right to gender equality was recognized and the right to marriage equality was realized. However, also during this period many Republican Justices staunchly opposed gender equality, and far more remains to be accomplished.

Since Justice Scalia’s death, the Supreme Court has been deadlocked on a …

The Free Exercise Clause: Fealty To God Or Caesar?, John O. Hayward

Journal of Catholic Legal Studies

No abstract provided.

May I Be Excused? Smith's Individualized Governmental Assessment Exception And The Hhs Mandate, Mary E. Mcmahon

Journal of Catholic Legal Studies

No abstract provided.

Obscenity Law: Après Stanley, Le Deluge?, Michael J. Gaynor

The Catholic Lawyer

No abstract provided.

Recent Abortion Litigation, Martin F. Mckernan, Jr.

The Catholic Lawyer

No abstract provided.

Shapiro, Et Al., V. Welt, Et Al., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 6 (February 2, 2017), Stephanie Glantz

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The court considered consolidated appeals and a cross-appeal from a district court order granting a motion to dismiss complaint based on anti-SLAPP statutes and the awarding of attorney fees and costs. The Court considered whether parts of Nevada’s anti-SLAPP statute, NRS 41.637, are unconstitutionally vague, whether statements made in relation to a conservatorship action constitute an issue of public interest under NRS 41.637(4), and whether those statements fall within the scope of the absolute litigation privilege. The Court found that no, NRS 41.637 is not unconstitutionally vague; adopted a California test for determining an issue of public interest–and remanded the …