Constitutional Law Commons^™

Quitting Cold Turkey?: Federal Preemption Doctrine And State Bans On Fda-Approved Drugs, Thomas A. Costello

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The Hard Truth About The Penile Plethysmograph: Gender Disparity And The Untenable Standard In The Fourth Circuit, Lindsay Blumberg

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

The Constitution And The Language Of The Law, John O. Mcginnis, Michael B. Rappaport

William & Mary Law Review

A long-standing debate exists over whether the Constitution is written in ordinary or legal language. Yet no article has offered a framework for determining the nature of the Constitution’s language, let alone systematically canvassed the evidence.

This Article fills the gap. First, it shows that a distinctive legal language exists. This language in the Constitution includes terms, like “Letters of Marque and Reprisal,” that are unambiguously technical, and terms, like “good behavior,” that are ambiguous in that they have both an ordinary and legal meaning but are better interpreted according to the latter. It also includes legal interpretive rules such …

Being Seen Like A State: How Americans (And Britons) Built The Constitutional Infrastructure Of A Developing Nation, Daniel J. Hulsebosch

William & Mary Law Review

This Article develops the argument that the Federal Constitution of 1787 was conceptualized, drafted, and put into operation not only for American citizens but also for foreign audiences. In a world without supranational governing institutions, a constitution—at least, the Federal Constitution—might serve to promote peaceable international relations based on reciprocal trade and open credit. That at least was the Enlightenment-inflected hope.

Did it work? If early Americans engaged in constitution-making in large part to demonstrate their capacity for self-government, selfdiscipline, and commercial openness to foreign audiences, did anyone notice? Or was it all, regardless of diplomatic purposes and consistent with …

March 14, 2018: Conor Lamb’S Apparent Win, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “ Conor Lamb’s Apparent Win“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

Carpenter V. United States: How Many Cell Phone Location Points Constitute A Search Under The Fourth Amendment?, Douglas Harris

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

In Carpenter v. United States, the Supreme Court will decide whether the government’s acquisition of a suspect’s cell site location information (“CSLI”) during an ongoing criminal investigation is a “search” under the Fourth Amendment, and thus requires a showing of probable cause to obtain a warrant. This opinion will have future consequences for Americans and their privacy interests as cell sites continue to be built and CSLI records increasingly contain more private information about cell phone users. This commentary argues that that the necessity of owning and using cell phones renders past tests obsolete. With wavering, subjective expectations of …

Remedies Symposium: Reexamining Bivens After Ziglar V. Abbasi, Bernard W. Bell

ConLawNOW

In Ziglar v. Abbasi, the U.S. Supreme Court revisited Bivens doctrine, suggesting that courts recognize constitutional tort actions only in cases closely analogous to one of the cases comprising the 1970s/1980s era Bivens trilogy, namely Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, Davis v. Passman, and Carlson v. Green. In doing so the Court set forth several factors that might make a case distinguishable from those 1970s/1980s cases. This essay argues that the key to Ziglar v. Abbasi is not the analogical exercise the Court imposed, but the Court’s concern that Bivens actions could become a mechanism for …

Remedies Symposium: On Critical Junctures, Intercurrence, And Dynamic Political Orders, Paul Baumgardner

ConLawNOW

Relying on contemporary historical-institutionalist literature concerning processes of American political development, this article argues that the nebulous status of religious rights in the United States is largely a recent phenomenon—the result of one coalition (centered around rights protections for the LGBTQ community) growing and making important strides at the same time that a separate "religious rights” coalition attempts to push beyond a disorienting critical juncture. How long this state of intercurrence will persist, and how it will be resolved, are unresolved questions.

Remedies Symposium: Remedies And The Government's Constitutionally Harmful Speech, Helen Norton

ConLawNOW

Although governments have engaged in expression from their inception, only recently have we begun to consider the ways in which the government’s speech sometimes threatens our constitutional rights. In my contribution to this symposium, I seek to show that although the search for constitutional remedies for the government’s harmful expression is challenging, it is far from futile. This search is also increasingly important at a time when the government’s expressive powers continue to grow—along with its willingness to use these powers for disturbing purposes and with troubling consequences.

More specifically, in certain circumstances, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, or damages can …

Whren V. United States: An Abrupt End To The Debate Over Pretextual Stops, Brian J. O'Donnell

Maine Law Review

In Whren v. United States, the United States Supreme Court held that a traffic stop is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment if a police officer has probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred, even if the stop is a pretext for the investigation of a more serious offense. The Court affirmed the convictions of Michael A. Whren and James L. Brown, who had been arrested on federal drug charges after Washington, D.C., police stopped Brown for minor traffic infractions. The Court's unanimous opinion, delivered by Justice Scalia, brought an end to a long-running debate over the proper …

A Comparison Of Constitutionalism In France And The United States, Martin A. Rogoff

Maine Law Review

In the American legal system, the Constitution is the fundamental legal document. All law, and in fact any exercise of public power in any form, is evaluated for validity by constitutional standards. The Constitution deals with such crucially important matters as the structure and operation of government and the fundamental rights of the governed. The Constitution is also the most important symbol of American national life and the perceived repository of the most cherished values of the American people. In France, in marked contrast, a comprehensive code of private law, the Code civil, has for a long time occupied a …

Remedies Symposium: Remedial Discretion In Constitutional Adjudication: A Codicil, John M. Greabe

ConLawNOW

This symposium paper elaborates on two questions raised by the author’s prior work, Remedial Discretion in Constitutional Adjudication. That paper disagreed with calls for a revival of non-retroactive judicial rulings to facilitate more constitutional innovation and argued that the Supreme Court’s practice of developing doctrines that withhold remedies for constitutional violations—e.g., qualified immunity, exceptions to the exclusionary rule, and harmless-error rules— is both sufficient to facilitate constitutional innovation and preferable to reviving non-retroactivity. Of necessity, the paper also developed a theory of when courts may withhold remedies for constitutional violations and when they may not: courts may withhold remedies responsive …

A Matter Of Interpretation: Federal Courts And The Law, Charles R. Priest

Maine Law Review

Justice Scalia's engaging essay, “Common-Law Courts in a Civil-Law System: The Role of United States Federal Courts in Interpreting the Constitution and Laws,” and the four comments it provokes, should provide lawyers, judges, and other lawmakers with an interesting evening. Instead of presenting a theoretical view of the role of the federal courts in interpretation, Justice Scalia sketches out a case for “textualism.” “Textualism” is one of several currently contending methods of interpreting statutes and the United States Constitution, and is currently popular among federal judges who see their role as restricting government's powers to those expressly stated in the …

A Call For Consistency: State V. Caouette Is No Longer Viable In Light Of Colorado V. Connelly And State V. Eastman, Donald W. Macomber

Maine Law Review

This Article challenges the Law Court's expansive interpretation in State v. Caouette of the scope of the privilege against self-incrimination embodied in Article I, section 6 of the Maine Constitution in the context of reviewing claims of the involuntariness of a confession. The court's declaration that a reliable confession must be suppressed on state constitutional grounds based solely on a suspect's internal factors, and in the absence of any police overreaching in obtaining the confession, contradicted two centuries of constitutional jurisprudence requiring some form of government action to implicate the protections of the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of …

Commerce Clause Challenges Spawned By United States V. Lopez Are Doing Violence To The Violence Against Women Act (Vawa): A Survey Of Cases And The Ongoing Debate Over How The Vawa Will Fare In The Wake Of Lopez, Lisanne Newell Leasure

Maine Law Review

On September 14, 1994, in response to and in recognition of the epidemic of violence against women in the United States, Congress enacted the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). The VAWA is a comprehensive statute designed to provide women greater protection from and recourse against violence and to impose accountability on abusers and those who commit crimes of violence based on gender animus. The VAWA, which contains seven parts, creates new federal crimes, strengthens penalties for existing federal sex crimes, and provides $1.6 billion over six years for education, research, treatment of domestic and sex crime victims, and the improvement …

Maine's "Act To Protect Traditional Marriage And Prohibit Same-Sex Marriages": Questions Of Constitutionality Under State And Federal Law, Jennifer B. Wriggins

Maine Law Review

In 1997, Maine's Legislature passed “An Act to Protect Traditional Marriage and Prohibit Same-Sex Marriages” (Act). The summary attached to the bill states that the bill “prohibits persons of the same sex from contracting marriage.” The bill was the verbatim text of an initiative petition. Civil marriage in Maine and other states is regulated by state statute, and marriage regulation is generally considered to be within the state's police power. However, the state's power to regulate marriage is subject to constitutional limitations. I maintain that “heightened scrutiny” should be applied to the Act because the Act creates a gender-based classification, …

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act: Legitimating Discrimination Against Pregnant Women In The Workforce, Judith G. Greenberg

Maine Law Review

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) has been effective in making the most egregious and obvious forms of pregnancy discrimination illegal. Unfortunately, the PDA has also acted as a shield behind which employers can hide as they discriminate against their pregnant employees. The result is that the PDA permits discrimination based on the very sort of stereotyping that it was expected to eradicate. There are two dominant stereotypes of pregnant women. Both are inconsistent with the image of a good worker. One stereotype connects pregnant women with the home. In one form or another it says, “Pregnant women are/should be preoccupied …

What If The Butchers In The Slaughter House Cases Had Won?: An Exercise In "Counterfactual" Doctrine, Jane L. Scarborough

Maine Law Review

In a recent Harvard Law Review commentary, two well-known constitutional scholars called into question not only what Supreme Court cases are “canonized” in casebooks, but whether the “Court-centeredness” of our scholarship and teaching about constitutional law has led to an impoverishment of the discourse on justice. The authors document how “[c]ases become important to teach and remember because they serve as the icons (and demons) of an invented constitutional tradition” --a tradition that “comes into being at a particular point in history, and then regards itself as always having been there.” There is no better example of such an icon …

March 4, 2018: Privatizing Government Policy, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “Privatizing Government Policy“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

Losing The Spirit Of Tinker V. Des Moines And The Urgent Need To Protect Student Speech, David L. Hudson, Jr.

Et Cetera

Although the United States Supreme Court has held that public school students maintain freedom of speech and expression in school, courts have continued to restrict these Constitutional rights for these students. The speech protective standard from Tinker has gone from being speech protective to a test that favors and is deferential to school officials embroiled in students’ free-speech controversies. We need to regain the attitude of gratitude for students and their rights.

This abstract was written after publication by 2023-2024 Et Cetera Editor-in-Chief Philip Shipman

March 2, 2018: To Cure American Politics, There Must Be A Reformation In Secularism, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “To Cure American Politics, There Must Be a Reformation in Secularism“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

Executive Orders As Lawful Limits On Agency Policymaking Discretion, Adam J. White

Notre Dame Law Review

After briefly retracing previous Presidents’ general uses of executive orders and debates over presidential power more generally, culminating with the late twentieth century executive orders on White House regulatory oversight, I review the case of Sherley v. Sebelius, in which the D.C. Circuit held that when an agency receives an executive order lawfully cabining or directing the its regulatory discretion, it is excused from its otherwise general duty to respond to rulemaking comments challenging its policy choice. Then, examining this general duty of agencies to respond to rulemaking comments, I consider whether the D.C. Circuit’s approach comports with the …

Populist Constitutions, David Landau

Scholarly Publications

This Essay draws on recent academic definitions of populism and recent examples of its use in order to show that there is an affinity between populism and widespread constitutional change. It argues that populists use constitutional change to carry out three functions: deconstructing the old institutional order, developing a substantive project rooted in a critique of that order, and consolidating power in the hands of populists. Thus, access to the tools of constitutional change may accentuate both the promise of populism as a corrective to stagnating liberal democracies and the threat that it poses to those constitutional orders. I also …

Tiered Constitutional Design, David Landau, Rosalind Dixon

Scholarly Publications

Scholarship has posited two models of constitutionalism. One is short, abstract, and rigid, like the United States Constitution. The other is lengthy, detailed, and flexible, like the constitutions found in many U.S. states and in many other countries around the world. This Article argues that there is a descriptively common and normatively attractive third model: tiered constitutional design. A tiered design aims to combine the virtues of rigidity and flexibility by creating different rules of constitutional amendment for different parts of the constitution. Most provisions are made fairly easy to change, but certain articles or principles are given higher levels …

March 1, 2018: Want To Make America Great? Pay Your Bills, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “Want to Make America Great? Pay Your Bills“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

The Rights Of Marriage: Obergefell, Din, And The Future Of Constitutional Family Law, Kerry Abrams

Cornell Law Review

In the summer of 2015 the United States Supreme Court handed down two groundbreaking constitutional family law decisions. One decision became famous overnight Obergefell v. Hodges declared that same-sex couples have the constitutional right to marry. The other, Kerry v. Din, went largely overlooked. That later case concerned not the right to marry but the rights of marriage. In particular, it asked whether a person has a constitutional liberty interest in living with his or her spouse. This case is suddenly of paramount importance: executive orders targeting particular groups of immigrants implicate directly this right to family reunification.

This Article …

Accountability For Nonenforcement, Urska Velikonja

Notre Dame Law Review

Changes in enforcement can move in more than one direction: enforcement can increase significantly as the Securities and Exchange Commission saw in the aftermath of the accounting scandals or the Madoff Ponzi scheme, and decrease precipitously, as evidenced at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under Acting Director Mick Mulvaney. There is no reason in constitutional or administrative law to treat changes in enforcement policy differently depending on whether enforcement increases or decreases. Policy choices raise similar questions about reviewability and accountability, regardless of whether they increase or decrease enforcement. They also raise symmetrical questions about fair notice and due process …

Originalism, Cass R. Sunstein

Notre Dame Law Review

Originalism might be defended on two very different grounds. The first is that it is in some sense mandatory—for example, that it follows from the very idea of interpretation, from having a written Constitution, or from the only legitimate justifications for judicial review. The second is that originalism is best on broadly consequentialist grounds. While the first kind of defense is not convincing, the second cannot be ruled off limits. In an imaginable world, it is right; in our world, it is usually not. But in the context of impeachment, originalism is indeed best, because there are no sufficiently helpful …

Qui Tam Litigation Against Government Officials: Constitutional Implications Of A Neglected History, Randy Beck

Notre Dame Law Review

The Supreme Court concluded twenty-five years ago, in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, that uninjured private plaintiffs may not litigate “generalized grievances” about the legality of executive branch conduct. According to the Lujan Court, Congress lacked power to authorize suit by a plaintiff who could not establish some “particularized” injury from the challenged conduct. The Court believed litigation to require executive branch legal compliance, brought by an uninjured private party, is not a “case” or “controversy” within the Article III judicial power and impermissibly reassigns the President’s Article II responsibility to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” …

The Canon Of Rational Basis Review, Katie R. Eyer

Notre Dame Law Review

The modern constitutional law canon fundamentally misdescribes rational basis review. Through a series of errors—of omission, simplification, and recharacterization—we have largely erased a robust history of the use of rational basis review by social movements to generate constitutional change. Instead, the story the canon tells is one of dismal prospects for challengers of government action—in which rational basis review is an empty, almost meaningless form of review.

This Article suggests that far from the weak and ineffectual mechanism that most contemporary accounts suggest, rational basis review has, in the modern era, served as one of the primary equal protection entry …