Constitutional Law Commons^™

50 Years Of Constitutional Judicial Review In The United Arab Emirates: Key Features, Nisrine Abiad

Proche-Orient, Études juridiques

On the 50th anniversary of the enshrinement of judicial review within the UAE Constitution, this paper explores its main features. The analysis of the constitutional provisions and the jurisprudence of the Federal Supreme Court reveals that constitutional judicial review in the UAE is intrinsically rooted in federalism as it is mainly designed as a tool preserving the adjudication of powers between federal and local authorities. It is nevertheless also destined by the Constitution for a wider purpose of constitutional justice endorsing the individuals and the courts as key players in its process.

Penanggulangan Masalah Preman Ditinjau Dari Sudut Politik Kriminil, M. Hamdan

Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan

Abstract

Constitutional Theory At A Catholic University, J. Joel Alicea

Catholic University Law Review

I argue that the study of constitutional theory is ideally suited to benefit from the intellectual climate of a Catholic university. To make that argument, I address three questions. First, in what ways does constitutional theory benefit from the intellectual disposition of a Catholic university? Second, what might be the potential drawbacks or risks involved in studying constitutional theory at a Catholic university? And finally, how can one gain the benefits of being a constitutional theorist at a Catholic university while avoiding any potential risks that attend that setting?

Aquinas, Wilson, And Continuity On Crime And Punishment, Brian M. Murray

Catholic University Law Review

This Article compares the legal thought of James Wilson, a leading jurisprudential figure during the American Founding, and Thomas Aquinas, perhaps the most well-known medieval philosopher, on crime and punishment. It argues their theories are closer than the historical gulf between them suggests would be the case. Both limit the definition of crime to morally culpable acts involving public harm. Each considers redressing the public disorder crime causes as the primary justification for punishment. While Wilson defers to the English common law to emphasize protecting certain natural rights and to prevent crime, Aquinas points to his understanding of natural law …

Reasonable, Legal, Voluntary? Grants Pass Decision Sparks Need For A Revised Fourth Amendment Search Analysis In The Context Of Homelessness, Hali R. Woods

Catholic University Law Review

On June 28, 2024 the Supreme Court decided City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson.  The case addressed whether the enforcement of city ordinances regulating camping on public property against individuals including respondents, unhoused individuals residing in the city of Grants Pass, constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.  The Court upheld enforcement of the ordinances and since then approximately 150 cities across the United States have passed similar ordinances or strengthened existing similar laws.  This comment evaluates how Grants Pass is an Eighth Amendment case with Fourth Amendment consequences which sparks a need for a revised …

The Freedom To Be Bound: Anti-Discrimination Theology And The Ministerial Exception, Brooke Girley

Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy

The ministerial exception is generally seen as safeguarding the autonomy of religious institutions in employment decisions, but does it also serve as a roadblock to religious freedom? The recent dismissal of the gender discrimination lawsuit by Rev. Dr. Eboni Marshall Turman against the historic Abyssinian Baptist Church calls into question whether the breadth of the exception promotes religious freedom in all contexts. This article argues that the ministerial exception, although designed to protect religious autonomy, may paradoxically undermine that very autonomy when applied to faith communities, like Abyssinian, that have voluntarily embraced anti-discrimination as part of their theology and praxis. …

Las Vegas Review-Journal, Inc V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., 142 Nev. Adv. Op. 31 (April 23, 2026), Randolph Anderson

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Prior restraints or gag orders may be imposed only if they are narrowly tailored and the least restrictive means available to prevent a clear and present danger.

Federalist Politics And The Elusive Original Meaning Of The Free Exercise Clause, Jack Thorlin

Catholic University Law Review

Originalism requires interpreting the Constitution by reference to a provision’s original public meaning. But there is very little evidence of original public meaning for some constitutional provisions, most notably the Free Exercise Clause. Originalists have splintered into several different methodological approaches toward the Clause. Justices Scalia and O’Connor staked out opposing originalist views on the Clause thirty years ago in Employment Division v. Smith and City of Boerne v. Flores. In the Roberts Court, some of the conservative justices have attempted to apply a simple textualist interpretation of the Clause, but those efforts have not attracted most of the …

Restrain, Seclude, Repeat: Seeking Solutions To End The Troubled Teen Industry’S Cycle Of Harm, Elizabeth James

Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy

Although there is a consensus that children receiving mental health treatment in youth residential programs should only be restrained and secluded in emergency situations, youth residential program staff routinely restrain and seclude children in non-emergency situations, causing significant physical and psychological harm to the child and, on occasion, leading to the child’s death. Current federal and state laws do not adequately regulate this practice, nor correct a business model that wrongly prioritizes profits over a child’s well-being, but private action through 42 U.S.C. § 1983 may provide a powerful remedy to victims of the troubled teen industry and the necessary …

The Double-Edged Rhetoric Of Parental Rights: Conflicts Between Freedom And Control In Cases Concerning Transgender Youth, Susan Etta Keller

Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy

This Article examines the rhetorical structures courts and advocates deploy in two distinct lines of cases adjudicating parental rights claims affecting transgender youth: cases challenging state bans on gender-affirming care, and cases challenging school policies supportive of transgender students. Although the legal basis for the parental rights claims in each set of cases is the same—substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment—the alignment of parental interests with those of their children diverges between the two sets. In the gender-affirming care cases, parents act in concert with their children’s expressed interests; in the school policy cases, parents seek to override …

My Right To Dominate You: The Populist Perversion Of Human Rights, James A. Gardner

Journal Articles

A constitutional “right” is a legal technology designed to protect the weak from the strong. In the twenty-first-century United States, however, constitutional rights have increasingly been interpreted and deployed, by both litigants and courts, to secure the ability of the strong to dominate the weak. It is quickly becoming standard practice among right-wing American populists to claim that the deployment of rights in ways that limit the ability of the strong to dominate those weaker than themselves is to make victims of the strong. Freedom, in the imagination of American populists, means the freedom to dominate disfavored others.

This paper …

Or Else: Statutes Without Sanctions And The Doctrine Of Meaningful Interpretation, Christian Davis

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

Mankind has been fashioning laws for millennia. And while the form and substance of laws vary widely across times and places, all laws are unified by a fundamental reality that transcends the particular legal and political institutions of the day. To put it simply: laws only work if someone is prepared to enforce them.

As arbiters of the American legal system, state and federal judges are aware that—in order for a law to have the conduct-influencing effect it was designed to have—it must be supported by some version of an “or else” clause, a punishment or penalty sufficient to dissuade …

The Great Depression And Canada's Major Originalist Decade, Preston Jordan Lim

Faculty Publications

Few periods of Canadian history have been as momentous or terrible as the Great Depression. The Dominion and provincial governments’ inability to combat financial and environmental catastrophe led many Canadians to openly question the appropriateness of their constitutional framework. As legal historians have since documented, many leading jurists of the time believed that a strong central government could, through the institution of national programs, contain the Great Depression; in the eyes of these 1930s jurists, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council—then Canada’s apex court—had sapped the federal government of its powers by misinterpreting the British North America Act, 1867 …

Who Will Hear My Case?: The Backdrop Of Hameed V. Canada And Its Impact On Canada’S Judicial Vacancy Crisis, Adrian T. Peraza

University of Miami Inter-American Law Review

In 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada issued a landmark ruling in R v. Jordan, requiring prosecutors to try their case within eighteen months in provincial courts and thirty months in the superior courts. Through its holding, the Court sought to protect a defendant’s right to be tried within a reasonable time, a privilege enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, at the time of the decision, the Canadian judicial system faced a vacancy crisis. A total of forty-three judicial vacancies existed in the federal courts, a figure that would later rise to eighty-six in August 2023. …

The Judicial Police Power, Alice Ristroph

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Species Of State Constitutional Lockstepping, Michael L. Smith

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Humphrey's Eulogy: A Functionalist View Of Trump V. Slaughter And The Role Of The Ftc, Alex Zhang

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Trump v. Slaughter presents the Supreme Court with a foundational question about the administrative state: whether the for-cause removal protections afforded to Federal Trade Commission Commissioners under the FTC Act are consistent with Article II's vesting of executive power in the President, and, if not, whether Humphrey's Executor v. United States should be overruled.

In March 2025, President Trump removed two FTC Commissioners without satisfying the statutory standard of inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office. The dismissed Commissioners sued, and the District Court for the District of Columbia granted summary judgment in their favor, holding that Humphrey's Executor …

Using Ai To Identify National Security Threats: A Holistic Examination Of The Legal Risks And Increased Need For Regulation, Skylar Mcvicar

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Artificial intelligence (AI) is integrating rapidly into daily practice, including in the national security sector. AI has the potential to improve bureaucratic efficiency, enhance military intelligence and threat assessment, and develop autonomous vehicles and weapons, making it a revolutionary tool in national security. Since AI implementation is a relatively recent phenomenon, there is currently limited governmental regulation in place to safeguard against potential violations of civil liberties and other legal risks. Given AI's capacity to infringe on certain civil liberties such as the Fourth Amendment right to privacy and the Fourteenth Amendment protection against discriminatory policies, establishing strong oversight measures …

Alaska Dep’T Of Fish And Game V. Federal Subsistence Bd., Mj Fiedler

Public Land & Resources Law Review

A subsistence hunt in Kake, Alaska, during the COVID-19

pandemic sparked a lawsuit from the State of Alaska Department of Fish

and Game challenging the authority of the Federal Subsistence Board to

open the hunt. This lawsuit is a recent addition to a long history of the

State of Alaska’s resistance to federal enforcement of the Alaska National

Interest Lands Conservation Act provision establishing priority for rural

subsistence users. The Ninth Circuit ultimately affirmed the Federal

Subsistence Board’s authority to open the subsistence hunt.

Addictive By Design: Can States Regulate Social Media Algorithms In The Face Of Free Speech Challenges?, Niamh Kathleen Keane

University of Miami Business Law Review

The foe we did not know, the stranger that stole the show. Social media once presented itself as a friendly way to connect with loved ones through shared pictures and catchy captions. Yet, it has since shown its true colors; intentionally addicting its users—for its own financial benefit—and showing no remorse doing so.

Entranced, users set off on a digital journey, veering down paths they never imagined . . . Today, children as young as eight years old are exposed to extremely harmful content such as medically unsupported dieting techniques, substance abuse, and dangerous, life-threatening social media “trends,” all of …

Originalism Chokes: The 2024 Trump Cases, Lawrence Rosenthal

UC Law Constitutional Quarterly

By 2024, a majority of the Justices of the Supreme Court had expressed the view that to be legitimate, constitutional adjudication must be based on the original meaning of the Constitution’s text. Anything else, these Justices have argued, is illegitimate judicial policymaking. Yet, in what were likely the two most critical and high-profile cases decided in 2024, the Court, including its avowedly originalist Members, made no use of originalism. In the first case, the Court faced the question whether a State could bar President Trump from running for President under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. In the second, the …

Masthead

UC Law Constitutional Quarterly

No abstract provided.

Editor-In-Chief's Foreword, Marlene Coss

UC Law Constitutional Quarterly

No abstract provided.

Bruen, Levels Of Generality, And Our Historical Tradition Of The Regulatory “Why”, Kevin K. Wang

UC Law Constitutional Quarterly

To pass Second Amendment muster under New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, gun laws encompassed by the Amendment’s plain text must align with our nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. A challenged law comports with history and tradition when it is sufficiently analogous to historical regulations along two metrics: “how” and “why” the regulation burdens the right to keep and bear arms.

One glaring ambiguity leftover from Bruen is the level of generality at which courts, when analogizing between laws past and present, must frame a regulation’s “how” and “why”—an issue of major consequence. Characterizing the “how” …

The Body At The Mercy Of The State: Sama V. Hannigan And The Fragmented Right To Refuse Across State Lines, Mallory Yeates

UC Law Constitutional Quarterly

Courts have long recognized bodily autonomy as a core constitutional value. Yet, doctrine governing reproductive healthcare tells a different story. Sama v. Hannigan exposes the fragility of the right to refuse medical treatment, particularly for incarcerated patients whose claims must survive the demanding standard of qualified immunity. When physicians removed Carrie Rahat Sama’s ovary despite her explicit refusal, her constitutional claim failed because no precedent with sufficiently similar facts had previously condemned such conduct. This case reveals how the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity can foreclose redress for blatant violations of autonomy.

This Note argues that the viability of …

United States V. Skrmetti: On Realism, Reason, And Hope, Marc Spindelman

UC Law Constitutional Quarterly

No abstract provided.

Hester's Dubious Roots And Legacy: Open Fields Doctrine Under Scrutiny, Laura K. Donohue

Texas A&M Law Review

For over a century, open fields doctrine has shaped Fourth Amendment law, denying people the right to be secure on their own property. Its impact has steadily expanded, with the result that, by some estimates, the government can now engage in warrantless surveillance of some 96% of private land and buildings regardless of fences, postings, the distance from public roads or byways, or the use to which the property is put. An originalist approach throws the doctrine into disarray: at the time of the Founding, common law protected the curtilage, which extended to the fields, barns, storehouses, and other buildings …

The Unexplored Future Of State Copyrights And Patents In Ai-Generated Creations, Timothy J. Mcfarlin

Texas A&M Law Review

This is the first article to broadly explore the possibility of state copyrights and patents in AI-generated creations and what it could portend for the future of intellectual property law.

The U.S. Constitution delegates to Congress, via Article I, the power to pass laws “securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.” It reserves to the states or to the people, via the Tenth Amendment, certain unspecified powers not delegated to the federal government. These could include the power to recognize exclusive rights in “writings and discoveries” generated by artificially intelligent …

"The Silence Of The Farms": Suppressing Speech And Trampling Transparency To Shield Big Ag, Erin Okuno

Texas A&M Law Review

Do you really know where your last meal came from and whether it was safe to eat? Most people are not aware of the often appalling conditions at agricultural production facilities (aptly known as “factory farms”), including worker injuries and abuse, contaminated food, and environmental pollution, as well as the horrific ways in which the animals are kept, raised, and slaughtered. In the face of these concerning conditions and alarmingly frequent food recalls—including millions of pounds of contaminated meat—it would seem prudent to increase transparency at factory farms, but historically, they have operated behind a shield of secrecy due to …

Brief Of The American Immigration Lawyers Association And Immigration Law Scholars As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondents, Lindsay Nash

Amicus Briefs

Amicus curiae brief submitted by the American Immigration Lawyers Association and immigration law scholars in support of the respondents in Mullin v. Doe and Trump v. Miot before the Supreme Court of the United States. The brief argues that the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) statute strictly limits the Executive Branch's authority to terminate TPS designations and requires continuation of protection unless the statutory conditions justifying designation no longer exist. The amici further contend that TPS serves a critical humanitarian function by protecting individuals from removal, detention, and loss of work authorization while conditions in designated countries remain unsafe.