Constitutional Law Commons^™

Taking A Step Back: Have We Already Seen Judicial Takings?, Anna Sargent

American University Law Review

In Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Justice Scalia’s plurality opinion held that the Takings Clause is not addressed to a single government actor, but rather applies to all government actions, including those effected by the judicial branch. Consequently, regardless of which branch affects the taking, just compensation is required. Despite promulgating the existence of judicial takings, the Court then went on to say that no established property right was “taken” for Fifth Amendment purposes. Without an application or a clear-cut delineation, Justice Scalia’s promulgation of judicial takings was rendered as merely advisory to …

The Meaning And Ambiguity Of Section Three Of The Fourteenth Amendment, Kurt T. Lash

Law Faculty Publications

The Fourteenth Amendment established the constitutional conditions for the readmission of those states which had attempted to secede from the Union during the American Civil War. Section Three of that amendment, when enforced under the powers granted by Section Five, prevented the leaders of the recent rebellion from returning to Congress, holding any state level office, or receiving any appointment by Democrat President Andrew Johnson, absent congressional permission. Its focus, in other words, was on rebellious disruption of state level decisionmaking and the potentially disruptive appointments by President Johnson. Whether Section Three accomplishes anything more remains unclear as a matter …

Becoming The "Bill Of Rights": The First Ten Amendments From Founding To Reconstruction, Kurt T. Lash

Law Faculty Publications

The first ten amendments to the federal Constitution have no formal title. It is only by cultural tradition that Americans refer to these provisions as our national “Bill of Rights.” Until recently, most scholars assumed that this tradition could be traced back to the moment of ratification. Over the last decade or so, however, a number of scholars have challenged this assumption. These “Bill of Rights revisionists” claim that Americans did not commonly refer to the first ten amendments as “the bill of rights” until the twentieth century. Prior to that, most Americans either did not believe they had a …

American Star Chamber: Online Misinformation, Government Intervention, And The Intellectual Matrix Of The First Amendment, Emily E. Burton

Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology

Just as monarchs and clerical authorities struggled to respond to seditious and heretical writings enabled by the invention of the printing press, twenty-first century governments are experiencing a similar information revolution as a result of the digital age and a rising tide of what the United States has labeled online misinformation. Like the printing press, the Internet has enabled the spread of information at an exponentially lower cost and an exponentially higher speed as it extends the ability to publish thoughts and opinions to an increasingly diverse array of individuals. Although this was largely celebrated during the first two decades …

The Cycle Of Delegitimization: Lessons From Dred Scott On The Relationship Between The Supreme Court And The Nation, Jonathon J. Booth

Publications

This Article examines how Chief Justice Taney’s opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford sparked a cycle of delegitimization that parallels contemporary debates about the Supreme Court’s legitimacy crisis. Part I explicates how one family’s fight for freedom in Missouri reached the Supreme Court, the resulting radical decision, and the nation’s reaction to show the initial stages of this cycle.

Part II examines the impact of Dred Scott on politics and law during the James Buchanan administration (1857–1861). During this period, the federal government, Southern states, and some Western territories swiftly implemented the decision, for example by expelling free Black residents. …

A Wolf In Sheep’S Attire: How Consent Enfeebles Our Fourth Amendment, Stephen E. Henderson, Guha Krishnamurthi

Faculty Articles

The Fourth Amendment is a mirage. On paper—in the rules studied by law students, analyzed by scholars, and proclaimed by jurists—its limitations are many and, oftentimes, significant. Yet the experience of large numbers of Americans is entirely to the contrary, thanks to the rights-annihilating, under-theorized exception of “consent.” Under its guise, law enforcement officers routinely conduct what would otherwise be constitutionally-restrained searches and seizures, and they do so without meaningful explanation or assent. Fortunately, change—whether legislative or (ideally) constitutional—could be straightforward. Thanks to other sufficient triggers, consent could be replaced by a narrow, rights-protective doctrine under which law enforcement could …

Students For Fair Admissions Sends Us Bakke To The Drawing Board For Race- Conscious Affirmative Action In Higher Education, Monica Teixeira De Sousa

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Police Prosecutors In Rhode Island: The Wisdom Of Separate Lanes, Andrew P. Dunphy

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

State V. Delossantos, 289 A.3d 1163 (R.I. 2023)., Jack Smeloff

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Origin Stories: The Three Godmothers Of Title Ix, Susan Ware

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Something To Wine About: Why Rhode Island’S Restrictions For Out-Of-State Wine Retailers Are Unconstitutional, Sara Jane Pruell

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Sun, Surf, And Suppression: Unconstitutional Voting Restrictions In Rhode Island Beach Enclaves, David Marks

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Public Accommodations Laws, Free Speech Challenges, And Limiting Principles In The Wake Of 303 Creative, Michael L. Smith

Faculty Articles

In 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Act's prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation violated the First Amendment rights of Lorie Smith, a website designer who refused to make wedding websites for same-sex couples. This Article argues that the Court's ruling rested on a vision of state control over speech that was divorced from the law before it. Using this framing of the law to conjure up inapplicable hypothetical scenarios of state-mandated expression, the Court found in Smith's favor. And yet, in responding to the dissent's concerns that the …

Conceptual Schemes/Frameworks And Their Relation To Law: A New Argument For Separation Of Church And State, Vincent J. Samar

Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights & Social Justice

A central question that arises when interpreting the U.S. Constitution is which theory of interpretation is the best? In his recent book, "How to Interpret the Constitution," Cass Sunstein reviews various theories of constitutional interpretation currently in vogue and then offers what he believes would be the best approach going forward. In this Article, I want to take up a more basic question presupposed by the very idea of a theory of interpretation. That is, whether it is even possible to arrive at more than a provisional understanding of what would be the best interpretation in any given area of …

Death At The Door Of Relief: The Criminalization Of Humanitarian Work And Asylum, William Fox

Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights & Social Justice

The note argues that the criminalization of humanitarian aid to migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border violates international human rights law and exacerbates a growing refugee crisis. It contends that the U.S. government's "prevention through deterrence" policy funnels migrants into dangerous conditions, leading to increased deaths and human rights violations. The analysis calls for structural reforms, including expanded humanitarian parole, temporary protected status, and refugee resettlement programs, to align U.S. policy with its international obligations and mitigate the crisis.

Students For Fair Admissions Sends Us Bakke To The Drawing Board For Race- Conscious Affiffirmative Action In Higher Education, Monica Teixeira De Sousa

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Section 230'S Debts, Blake Reid

Publications

Much attention has been paid to the unknown First Amendment permissibility of the government regulating social media platforms' carriage practices. The Supreme Court's impending resolution of the NetChoice cases poses a high-stakes First Amendment question: "Can the government permissibly dictate what types of content platforms publish?"

But how did the First Amendment stakes in NetChoice get so high? This Article identifies a long-standing gap in the Supreme Court's First Amendment jurisprudence for platform regulation following its decision in Reno v. ACLU. This Article attributes that gap to the accumulation of both interpretive and legislative debts by Section 230 of the …

Domestic Supply (A Feminist Proposal), Jennifer S. Hendricks

Publications

No abstract provided.

Invisible Adjudication In State Supreme Courts, Adam B. Sopko

Publications

As the U.S. Supreme Court continues retrenching important constitutional rights, interest is shifting to state courts and constitutions to serve as a backstop. More and more, state supreme courts are at the center of some of our most important debates of law and policy, resolving questions concerning bodily autonomy, democracy, the environment, and more. The increased attention on state supreme courts highlights the complexity and nuance that attend these institutions and reveals our limited understanding of how they operate and influence society. This Article examines one such aspect of state supreme court practice: the shadow docket. While the U.S. Supreme …

Taking Aim At Shotspotter: Gunshot Surveillance, The Fourth Amendment, And An Argument For Sonic Security, Emily A. Fogg

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rethinking The Fundamentals: Applying The Evolving Standards Of Decency Test To The Court’S Evaluation Of Fundamental Rights, Nick Wolfram

Student Scholarship

In 1910, the Supreme Court recognized in Weems v. United States that a constitution “must be capable of wider application than the mischief which gave it birth.” This principle led to the creation of the Court’s two-pronged “evolving standards of decency,” test: (1) evidence of an objective indicia of a national consensus, and (2) the reviewing court’s own independent judgment. To this day the Court has yet to apply this test outside of the Eighth Amendment context. But can the “evolving standards of decency,” test identify and protect other fundamental rights? This Article explores how the Court could apply the …

"Exceedingly Unpersuasive” - Discrimination, Transgender Students, And School Bathrooms, Mark Dorosin

Journal Publications

This Article is organized chronologically, in an effort to more effectively reflect the nearly identical fact patterns, timelines, and intersecting opinions of these cases. Part I provides the factual background of both cases. Part II summarizes the substantial preliminary litigation in Grimm; Part III examines the district court ruling in Adams; Part IV analyzes the summary judgment ruling in Grimm. Part V covers Adams’ first appellate ruling; Part VI discusses the Fourth Circuit’s ruling in Grimm three weeks later, and Part VII considers the aftermath of that decision. Parts VIII and IX explore the second panel ruling in Adams and …

Interpreting Religious Doctrine: The Third Rail That Wags The Dog In Religion Clause Jurisprudence, Samuel J. Levine

Scholarly Works

This Article is part of a broader project exploring and assessing the United States Supreme Court’s hands-off approach to interpreting religious doctrine. The mixed metaphor that constitutes the title of this Article incorporates various aspects of the project’s interrelated themes and claims. First, as a descriptive matter, the Supreme Court has repeatedly and increasingly refused to adjudicate issues that require the interpretation, evaluation, and resolution of substantive areas of religious practice and belief. Thus, like the third rail of train tracks, interpreting religious doctrine is deemed off-limits and better left untouched. Indeed, the Court’s justifications for the hands-off approach rely …

The Modern Border: The Government Can Search . . . Anything?, Abigail Nusbaum

FIU Law Review

The evolution of modern technology has introduced new obstacles in interpreting the Fourth Amendment’s application to searches of peoples’ effects. Specifically, the longstanding exception to the Fourth Amendment permitting searches at the international border in the absence of probable cause does not so neatly apply to forensic searches of cell phones. Consequently, a circuit split has emerged on two aspects of the issue: the scope of the border exception and the requisite level of suspicion within that exception. The Supreme Court should find that forensic cell phone searches at the international border implicate Fourth Amendment privacy interests, requiring the border …

Volo Foundation Lecture: Science, Free Speech, And Public Choice, Bret Stephens

FIU Law Review

In an era where science, free speech, and public choice clash, the historical unity between these pillars, as envisioned by America's founding fathers, is obscured. Examining Thomas Jefferson's reverence for Bacon, Locke, and Newton, reveals a past where reason and freedom intertwined. However, contemporary challenges, epitomized by the pandemic response, illustrate a divergence. Amidst censorship and expert dominance, the vital role of public scrutiny emerges. Acknowledging the fallibility of experts and embracing free speech as essential for reasoned discourse becomes imperative. To restore the balance, humility from scientific institutions, a renewed appreciation for free speech, and public courage are necessary …

Constructing Confrontation: Between Constitutional And Evidence Theory, Michael S. Pardo

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The United States Supreme Court’s decision in Crawford v. Washington was significant as a matter of both constitutional and evidence law. From a constitutional perspective, the opinion was significant because of its “original public meaning” approach to interpreting the text of the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause. From an evidentiary perspective, the opinion was significant in recognizing a doctrinal rule that potentially excludes evidence in criminal trials that would otherwise be admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence as well as State evidence laws. This Essay explores Crawford and the subsequent Confrontation Clause cases from these distinct perspectives—illuminated by constitutional and …

The Lawlessness Of Sackett V. Epa, William W. Buzbee

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

When the Supreme Court speaks on a disputed statutory interpretation question, its words and edicts undoubtedly are the final judicial word, binding lower courts and the executive branch. Its majority opinions are the law. But the Court’s opinions can nonetheless be assessed for how well they hew to fundamental elements of respect for the rule of law. In particular, law-respecting versus law-neglecting or lawless judicial work by the Court can be assessed in the statutory interpretation, regulatory, and separation of power realms against the following key criteria, which in turn are based on some basic rule of law tenets: analysis …

State Sovereign Immunity And The New Purposivism, Anthony J. Bellia Jr., Bradford R. Clark

Journal Articles

Since the Constitution was first proposed, courts and commentators have debated the extent to which it alienated the States’ preexisting sovereign immunity from suit by individuals. During the ratification period, these debates focused on the language of the citizen-state diversity provisions of Article III. After the Supreme Court read these provisions to abrogate state sovereign immunity in Chisholm v. Georgia, Congress and the States adopted the Eleventh Amendment to prohibit this construction. The Court subsequently ruled that States enjoy sovereign immunity independent of the Eleventh Amendment, which neither conferred nor diminished it. In the late twentieth-century, Congress began enacting statutes …

Is Jacobson V. Massachusetts Viable After A Century Of Dormancy? A Review In The Face Of Covid-19, Sawan Talwar

Touro Law Review

The COVID-19 pandemic has stretched us into the vast unknowns, emotionally, logically, politically, and legally. Relying on their police power, governments inched into the darkness of the powers’ fullest extent, leaving many to wonder whether the exercise of this power was constitutional. This Article examines the extent of the police power that both the federal and state governments have, and how Jacobson v. Massachusetts1 was the “silver bullet” for governments across the United States. Further, this Article provides an overview of police power, and the status of COVID-19 mandates. This Article additionally examines quarantine case law and provides an analysis …

Subjectively Speaking, The Applicable Standard For Deficient Medical Treatment Of Pretrial Detainees Should Be One Of Objective Reasonableness, Benjamin R. Black

Touro Law Review

There is no uniformity amongst the circuits when it comes to pretrial detainees claims for inadequate medical care. The circuits are currently grappling with this problem, applying two separate tests to pretrial detainees’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims depending on the jurisdiction in which the incident arose. The test that should be applied across all circuits is one of objective reasonableness. However, some circuits do not see it that way, applying the deliberate indifference standard, also known as the subjective standard test. The circuits applying the subjective standard are relying on case law that does not properly analyze the rights …