Constitutional Law Commons^™

Trump Should Pass On Project 2025'S Disparate Impact Plan, Susan D. Carle

Popular Media

Although President-elect Donald Trump disavowed reliance on, or even knowledge of, the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 agenda, his appointments and policy announcements have substantially tracked Project 2025 so far, suggesting that his administration will look to Project 2025 when choosing its goals.

First In Time Since Time Immemorial: Tribal Instream Rights Undercut Water Taking Claims, Paul Stanton Kibel, L. Victoria Wang

American Indian Law Journal

Courts have held that American Indian tribal fishery rights can give rise to tribal instream flow rights. They have also held that the curtailment of rights of diversion to protect fisheries under the Federal Endangered Species Act may give rise to potential takings claims under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. In its 2019 decision in Baley v. United States the federal circuit court of appeals held that minimum instream flows under the ESA were needed to fulfill American Indian tribal fishery rights, and these rights carried a priority date of “time immemorial” that was senior to any …

The Navajo Nation And The Colorado River: Their Current Statuses And The Tribe's Path Forward, Colton Gregg

American Indian Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Untenability Of Justice Clarence Thomas's Indian Law Jurisprudence: Confronting The Indian Commerce Clause To Address The Problem Of Historical Change In Federal Indian Law, Skylar Logan Wiseman

American Indian Law Journal

By viewing the Indian Commerce Clause as conferring only a modest grant of federal power over Indian affairs—a power limited solely to trade in the economic sense of the word—Justice Clarence Thomas has subjected the Court’s Indian law jurisprudence to a wide-ranging originalist critique that, if successful, would invalidate nearly all of federal Indian law. Justice Thomas’s efforts to locate plenary power within the metes and bounds of the Indian Commerce Clause are here revealed for what they really are: attempts at tenability and coherence in a field of law which simultaneously bolsters tribal sovereignty while restricting it in ways …

The Compact Clause And Cyberwar, Josie Laing

Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts

This article seeks to bring attention to the potential modern utility of Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3: the Compact Clause. This section of the Constitution has historically been archived. However, given cyberspace’s ever-growing prominence, the Compact Clause should be reconsidered as cyber warfare presents a novel opportunity for states to exercise their sovereign rights.

Section 10 restricts states’ powers to engage with foreign entities. Without the consent of Congress, states cannot enter into agreements with foreign powers or engage in war. These restrictions on states were necessary when the Constitution was drafted. To navigate foreign affairs nimbly, the United …

Carano V. Disney: The First Amendment Right Of Expressive Association As A Defense To Firing Employees For Their Political Speech, Joel Timmer

Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts

Following a series of controversial social media posts by actress Gina Carano, a cast member of the Disney+ Star Wars series, The Mandalorian, Disney terminated her employment on the show and announced that Carano would not appear in any future Star Wars projects. According to Disney, Carano was terminated because the views expressed in her posts did not align with the company’s values. Carano filed suit against Disney, claiming Disney violated California state labor laws that generally prohibit employers from sanctioning employees for their political activities. In response, Disney claims that the First Amendment right of expressive association provides …

To Save Democracy From Juristocracy: J.B. Thayer And Congressional Power After The Civil War, Samuel Moyn, Rephael G. Stern

Faculty Scholarship

As many Americans once again worry that their democracy is hostage to judicial power, this Article is an archival reconstruction of how famed Harvard law professor James Bradley Thayer set out on a mission to stave off the syndrome before it stuck—though he failed in the end.

The Article shows how Thayer (1831–1902) arrived at his epoch-making theory of judicial deference to safeguard Congress’s power after the democratic revolutions of the Civil War and Reconstruction. Indeed, he hoped to see America transformed in the direction of British legislative supremacy, in which Parliament—and not the courts—reigned supreme. Scandalized by growing ventures …

Transforming Constitutional Doctrine Through Mandatory Appeals From Three-Judge District Courts: The Warren And Burger Courts And Their Contemporary Lessons, Michael E. Solimine

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

Judicial interpretations of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment underwent significant change, both expanding and retrenching in various ways, in Supreme Court doctrine during the Warren and Burger Courts. An underappreciated influence on the change is the method by which those cases reached the Court’s docket. A significant number of the cases reached the Court’s docket not by discretionary grants of writs of certiorari, as occurred in most other cases, but by mandatory appeals directly from three-judge district courts. This article makes several contributions regarding the important changes in these doctrines during the Warren Court …

Foreword: 2024 Ira C. Rothgerber Jr. Conference: Artificial Intelligence And The Constitution, Suzette Malveaux

Scholarly Articles

For the first time, the Byron R. White Center for the Study of American Constitutional Law and the Silicon Flatirons Center for Law, Technology, and Entrepreneurship came together to hold a joint conference on Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the Constitution. We decided to merge our annual conferences to explore one of the most important and consequential intersections of our time: AI and the Constitution—topics we study and deeply care about. During this time of rapid and profound technological transformation, it is even more imperative that we come out of our academic silos and work together.

The partnership was destined. The …

Injunctive Restraint, Cassandra Burke Robertson

Faculty Publications

Preliminary injunctions against government action have evolved from extraordinary remedies into routine instruments of political contestation, with both Republican and Democratic administrations finding their initiatives halted by nationwide judicial orders. These injunctions serve vital functions in our constitutional system—preventing irreparable harm to fundamental rights and providing necessary checks on executive power in an era of congressional gridlock. Yet their increasing use has generated legitimate institutional concerns, particularly when a single district judge, often selected through strategic forum shopping, can unilaterally suspend national policies of significant importance. This Article examines this tension between the necessary role of nationwide injunctions in protecting …

The Eighth Amendment’S Paper Tiger: Pain, Executions, And The Cruel And Unusual Punishment Clause, Alexandra L. Klein

Scholarly Articles

The Eighth Amendment prohibits “cruel and unusual punishments.” This prohibition applies to the way states carry out executions: states may impose capital punishment but may not do so in a way that is unconstitutionally cruel. Over a trilogy of cases that began with Baze v. Rees in 2008, the Court developed a test for analyzing whether a state’s proposed method of execution violated the Eighth Amendment. Under Baze/Glossip/Bucklew, a person challenging a state’s method of execution must show that the method of execution poses a severe risk of “superadded” pain and suffering that can be alleviated by a readily …

Pushing Boundaries, Paula A. Monopoli

Faculty Scholarship

This essay was originally published in Balkinization as part of an online symposium and it is reprinted with permission. The essay engages with Julie Suk's book, After Misogyny: How the Law Fails Women and What to Do About It. It suggests that feminist legal scholars have been considering their intellectual options in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. In After Misogyny, Professor Suk offers a conceptual path forward in a post-Dobbs world. Suk’s trenchant analysis of the failure of law to render substantive gender equality and her …

Policing As General Warrants, Warren Buff, Brandon Hasbrouck

Scholarly Articles

The drafters of the Bill of Rights and its proponents envisioned a document constitutionalizing protections against some of the worst abuses they had experienced under English rule. Prominent businessmen—many of them engaged in smuggling— found their homes ransacked in search of contraband on flimsy evidence and without any reason given for the disruption of their business and consequent enrichment of government agents. The Fourth Amendment addressed the use of general warrants and writs of assistance to allow government agents to conduct broad searches with limited scrutiny. In the early years of the Constitution, this had little practical effect, because public …

Religious Exemptions To Anti-Discrimination Law: Children's Rights In The Constitutional Calculus, Tanya Washington, Catherine Smith, Robin Walker Sterling

Scholarly Articles

Increasingly, religious actors in the public sphere--whether in the provision of goods and services (Masterpiece Cakeshop) or in government contracting (Fulton)--are simply invoking a person's sexual orientation as inconsistent with their religious tenets to benefit from a legal doctrine that shields them from the requirement that they offer an underlying rationale for LGBTQ discrimination. Over the past decade, we have filed amicus briefs in United States Supreme Court cases advancing children's constitutional rights, including briefs providing a check on these religious-based arguments when they adversely impact children's rights in the familial and child regulation contexts and …

Masthead

UC Law Constitutional Quarterly

No abstract provided.

Flagrant Fouls: The First Amendment, Legal Speech, And Attacks On Law Firms And The Rule Of Law, Raymond H. Brescia

Nevada Law Journal Forum

This Essay explores the Trump Administration’s unprecedented campaign targeting major U.S. law firms for retribution and examines such actions in light of the First Amendment’s relationship to these actions. Drawing on historical and doctrinal analyses, the Essay introduces and defends the concept of “legal speech” as a critical cluster of First Amendment protections encompassing the rights of lawyers to speak, associate, petition, and advocate on behalf of clients in an unfettered way and without government retaliation. Executive actions against Covington & Burling, Paul Weiss, Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Susman Godfrey purport to revoke security clearances, bar access …

Dobbs And The New Doctrine Of Stare Decisis, Russell A. Miller

Scholarly Articles

Alongside the historic and troubling annulment of the half-century-old Substantive Due Process right to abortion, Dobbs produced another significant outcome. To get its substantive constitutional law result, the Court’s majority also had to reconceive—and significantly weaken—the doctrine of stare decisis. This was necessary because, following Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, the constitutional right to abortion largely depended on respect for precedent as the basis for its survival. To overturn Roe, the Dobbs majority had to blast through the established practice of precedent and articulate a new doctrine of stare decisis. It seems that precedent was meant to …

Kennedy V. Louisiana And The Future Of The Eighth Amendment, Alexandra L. Klein

Scholarly Articles

In 2023, Florida passed a law permitting the imposition of the death penalty for the rape of a child under twelve. Tennessee enacted a similar law in 2024. These laws conflict with Kennedy v. Louisiana, a 2008 decision in which the Supreme Court held that imposing the death penalty for the rape of a child violated the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause because it was inconsistent with the evolving standards of decency. Legislators in Florida and Tennessee have expressed their hope that the Supreme Court will overrule Kennedy v. Louisiana. These laws, which resemble state attempts …

Navahine V. Hawai'i Dept. Of Transportation: The Keiki Will Lead Us, Catherine Smith

Scholarly Articles

The author analyzes the landmark case Navahine v. Hawaiʻi Department of Transportation, which culminated in the world’s first constitutional climate settlement. Catherine Smith, serving as an expert for the youth plaintiffs, situates the case within Hawaiʻi’s legal tradition of prioritizing children’s rights and intergenerational equity. She explores the evolution of children’s constitutional protections, contrasting Hawaiʻi’s progressive jurisprudence with the dominant adult-centric legal framework on the mainland. She critiques four recurring analytical missteps in U.S. courts that marginalize children’s interests and highlights Hawaiʻi’s public trust doctrine and cultural values, such as the Aloha Spirit, as models for addressing climate-related harms. …

Book Review The Making Of A Justice: Reflections On My First 94 Years By John Paul Stevens, Stephen Wermiel

Book Reviews

The autobiography of Justice John Paul Stevens, published just a few months before he died, is an enticing travelogue for Supreme Court nerds. Other travelers may want to pick a different landscape.

In The Making of a Justice: Reflections on My First 94 Years, Stevens who died in July 2019, at age 99, spent 130 pages on his life before he joined the Supreme Court and then 394 pages describing the decisions during his thirty-four year as a Justice. Stevens was an agile writer and did as good a job as anyone can of making the narrative accessible, but it …

Through A Glass Darkly: How Securities Disclosures Give A Distorted View Of The Economy, Gerald F. Davis

Seattle University Law Review

Our understanding of the American economy often relies on stylized facts derived from mandatory disclosures by listed corporations. Data vendors like Standard & Poor’s vacuum up 10Ks and proxy statements into databases, and scholars distill these into tentative maps. This may have been adequate for a postwar economy centered on asset-heavy manufacturers, but it is increasingly out of step with an information-based economy. Companies listed on the stock market are fewer in number and less representative than they were, light in tangible assets and people, and heavy on IP. Basic facts such as what industry they are in are increasingly …

Un-Fathering The Constitution, Lorianne Updike Toler

Connecticut Law Review

Constitutional law turns on Madison’s vision. This because Madison is universally acclaimed by the Supreme Court and legal academe as the Constitution’s father. However, Madison’s constitutional parentage sounds more in lore than logic.

A careful review of recent historiography, Madison’s own writings, and new analytics tools available on the Quill Project reveal Madison as much less important to the Constitution than previously thought. He did not bring about the Convention, did not write the Virginia Plan, and was not that influential at the Constitutional Convention. Immediately after the Convention, Madison considered himself and the Constitution a failure, and disclaimed any …

The Miserly Message Of Grants Pass, Meghan J. Ryan

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

The Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Grants Pass v. Johnson condoned states’ attempts to police homeless encampments. This was a significant blow to unhoused individuals and their allies. But the Court’s opinion also continued its march away from the longstanding evolving-standards-of-decency approach in Eighth Amendment cases. Grants Pass was something of an odd case in which to grant certiorari, but it served as an opportunity for the Court to send a quiet message that it would continue narrowing the Eighth Amendment’s scope. As in other recent cases, the Court applied a more historical approach than the one traditionally used in …

Breaking Kayfabe, Thomas B. Bennett

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

The membership of the Supreme Court affects how it decides cases. This maxim is well accepted among the public. But it is exceedingly rare for Supreme Court opinions to acknowledge this fact, even when it provides the best explanation for the Court’s behavior. And in the unusual instance in which Supreme Court opinions do refer to changes in the Court’s membership, it is jarring. This Article explores two questions that flow from these uncontroversial facts. First, why does it happen so rarely? Second, why does it happen at all?

To answer these questions, the Article looks to an unusual source: …

The Tenth Anniversary Of Marriage Equality: How Traditional Marriage Law Led To Constitutional Protection For Same-Sex Marriage, Joanna L. Grossman

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

This essay explores how the history of interstate marriage recognition law was central to the Supreme Court’s recognition of constitutional protection for the right of same-sex couples to marry. Prior to the 1990s, there were essentially no laws on same-sex marriage in the United States. That changed in the 1990s, when the Hawaii Supreme Court issued a ruling in Baehr v. Lewin that made authorization of same-sex marriage seem inevitable in that state. The threat fueled the adoption first of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996 and then mini-DOMAs in most states. Those laws were broad and …

Rethinking Juror Impartiality, Anna Offit

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

Jury impartiality in the contemporary court often justifies the perpetuation

of exclusionary selection practices that make juries more—not less—biased.

This Article calls for a rethinking of this important but flawed concept. Constitutional

interpretations and conceptions of “impartiality” frame it as a transient

orientation toward particular evidence or parties. Yet, during voir dire, the prevailing

conception of jury impartiality is that it is an immutable character trait

that must be discovered—if not created—by professional legal actors. What voir

dire creates is not an impartial jury, but precisely the opposite: a venire shaped

by the strategic biases of lawyers.

This Article offers …

Constitutional Theory And The Problem Of Disagreement, J. Joel Alicea

Scholarly Articles

For decades, constitutional theory has been haunted by the problem of disagreement: the reality that we are deeply divided on fundamental questions of justice and the good society. Theorists have generally responded to the problem of disagreement in one of two ways. One approach minimizes the extent to which constitutional theories rely on controversial moral premises and instead grounds constitutional theories in widely endorsed social practices. The other generally discards any social practices that reflect disagreement with the controversial moral views that the theorist holds.

Neither approach is sound. Constitutional theory requires both controversial moral claims and attention to social …

The Natural Law Moment In Constitutional Theory, J. Joel Alicea

Scholarly Articles

Something new is happening in American constitutional theory. Never before have so many legal scholars sought to ground constitutional theory in the natural-law tradition. Indeed, we can truly say that we are living through a natural-law moment in constitutional theory, a period of unprecedented interest in natural law among constitutional theorists. This immediately calls to mind three questions. First: how, if at all, are the theorists of this moment different from prior theorists who sought to ground constitutional theory in natural law? Second: what explains the rise of natural law in American constitutional theory? Third: what are the implications for …

Originalism And Truth-Telling: A Reply To Stephen Sachs, J. Joel Alicea

Scholarly Articles

Sachs focuses on my claim that a theory of constitutional adjudication needs to make a moral argument that justifies telling judges why they ought to decide constitutional disputes in a particular way rather than in some other way. Why be an originalist, for example, rather than a common-law constitutionalist? In answering that question, a theory of constitutional adjudication cannot depend exclusively on a positivist, descriptive account of what the law is—even if Sachs correctly identifies originalism as the law— because knowing that originalism is the “law” (in a positivist sense of “law”) does not tell us why anyone ought to …

‘Cruel And Unusual’ In 1689, 1791, And 1868: Shifts In Incorporation, Gregory Velloze

UC Law Constitutional Quarterly

Recently, the Supreme Court has acknowledged the scholarly debate over whether to apply the historical understanding of the Bill of Rights as ratified in 1791 or as incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. This acknowledgment raises two important issues with regards to the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause. First, the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause was copied from the English Bill of Rights in 1689, generating a third, additional time period relevant to its historical understanding. Second, the more textualist framework of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause allows for more relatively bounded language and interpretation, which could remain …