Constitutional Law Commons^™

2nd Annual Women In Law Leadership Lecture: A Fireside Chat With Debra Katz, Esq. 03-03-2021, Roger Williams University School Of Law

School of Law Conferences, Lectures & Events

No abstract provided.

Self-Determination In American Discourse: The Supreme Court’S Historical Indoctrination Of Free Speech And Expression, Jarred Williams

Honors Program: Senior Projects (Public)

Within the American criminal legal system, it is a well-established practice to presume the innocence of those charged with criminal offenses unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Such a judicial framework-like approach, called a legal maxim, is utilized in order to ensure that the law is applied and interpreted in ways that legislative bodies originally intended.

The central aim of this piece in relation to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution is to investigate whether the Supreme Court of the United States has utilized a specific legal maxim within cases that dispute government speech or expression regulation. …

The Democracy Principle In State Constitutions, Jessica Bulman-Pozen, Miriam Seifter

Michigan Law Review

In recent years, antidemocratic behavior has rippled across the nation. Lame-duck state legislatures have stripped popularly elected governors of their powers; extreme partisan gerrymanders have warped representative institutions; state officials have nullified popularly adopted initiatives. The federal Constitution offers few resources to address these problems, and ballot-box solutions cannot work when antidemocratic actions undermine elections themselves. Commentators increasingly decry the rule of the many by the few.

This Article argues that a vital response has been neglected. State constitutions embody a deep commitment to democracy. Unlike the federal Constitution, they were drafted—and have been repeatedly rewritten and amended— to empower …

Delegation At The Founding, Julian Davis Mortenson, Nicholas Bagley

Articles

This article refutes the claim that the Constitution was originally understood to contain a nondelegation doctrine. The founding generation didn’t share anything remotely approaching a belief that the constitutional settlement imposed restrictions on the delegation of legislative power---let alone by empowering the judiciary to police legalized limits. To the contrary, the overwhelming majority of Founders didn’t see anything wrong with delegations as a matter of legal theory. The formal account just wasn’t that complicated: Any particular use of coercive rulemaking authority could readily be characterized as the exercise of either executive or legislative power, and was thus formally valid regardless …

Cruel And Unusual: Closing The Door On Juvenile De Facto Life Sentences, Thomas Garrity

Catholic University Law Review

There currently exists a split amongst the Federal Circuit Courts that stands ripe for review. The Supreme Court laid down clear precedent in its landmark decisions of Roper v. Simmons, Graham v. Florida, and Miller v. Alabama that capital punishment and life without parole are cruel and unusual as applied to juvenile non-homicidal offenders categorically and as applied to juvenile homicidal offenders without consideration of youth as a mitigating factor. There, however, was a door left open by these cases that allowed for judges to side-step the Court’s mandate. Using excessively long term-of-years sentences—longer than the most hopeful of estimates …

When Is Police Interrogation Really Police Interrogation? A Look At The Application Of The Miranda Mandate, Paul Marcus

Catholic University Law Review

Decades after the Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona, questions abound as to what constitutes interrogation when a suspect is in custody. What appeared a concise, uniform rule has, in practice, left the Fifth Amendment waters muddied. This article addresses a potential disconnect between law enforcement and the courts by analyzing examples of issues arising from Miranda’s application in an array of case law. Ultimately, it attempts to clarify an ambiguity by offering a standard for what conduct classifies as an interrogation.

Constitutional Right Of The Individual In The Environment Between The Differences In Jurisprudence (Fiqh) And The Judiciary Orientations: First Section, Amira Badr

UAEU Law Journal

The individual and the environment are considered as an integrated unit that we cannot imagine the existence of one without the existence of the other, so the international community became more aware that the protection of the environment is necessary for its survival, that made both states and international organizations contribute efforts in order to develop their legislations to protect the environment from all forms of degradation, pollution and to ensure life in sound and stable environment; through development and concluding international agreements dealing with this issues.

With the existence of the individual rights in healthy environment appears in relevant …

Rethinking The Reasonable Response: Safeguarding The Promise Of Kingsley For Conditions Of Confinement, Hanna Rutkowski

Michigan Law Review

Nearly five million individuals are admitted to America’s jails each year, and at any given time, two-thirds of those held in jail have not been convicted of a crime. Under current Supreme Court doctrine, these pretrial detainees are functionally protected by the same standard as convicted prisoners, despite the fact that they are formally protected by different constitutional amendments. A 2015 decision, Kingsley v. Hendrickson, declared that a different standard would apply to pretrial detainees and convicted prisoners in the context of use of force: consistent with the Constitution’s mandate that they not be punished at all, pretrial detainees …

Anti-Modalities, David E. Pozen, Adam M. Samaha

Michigan Law Review

Constitutional argument runs on the rails of “modalities.” These are the accepted categories of reasoning used to make claims about the content of supreme law. Some of the modalities, such as ethical and prudential arguments, seem strikingly open ended at first sight. Their contours come into clearer view, however, when we attend to the kinds of claims that are not made by constitutional interpreters—the analytical and rhetorical moves that are familiar in debates over public policy and political morality but are considered out of bounds in debates over constitutional meaning. In this Article, we seek to identify the “anti-modalities” of …

Can President Trump Be Impeached As Mr. Trump? Exploring The Temporal Dimension Of Impeachments, Harold J. Krent

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

Impeachment As A ‘Madisonian Device’ Reconsidered, Amanda Hollis-Brusky

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Senate, The Trump Impeachment Trial And Constitutional Morality, Joel K. Goldstein

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

Like “Nobody Has Ever Seen Before”: Precedent And Privilege In The Trump Era, Heidi Kitrosser

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Misguided On-Off Theory Of Congressional Authority, Steven D. Schwinn

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Review Of Federal Tax Legislation, Reuven S. Avi-Yonah, Yoseph M. Edrey

Law & Economics Working Papers

What does the Constitution mean when it says that “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States” (US Const. Article I, Section 8, Clause 1)? The definition of “tax” for constitutional purposes has become important in light of the Supreme Court’s 2012 decision in NFIB v. Sebelius, in which Chief Justice Roberts for the Court upheld the constitutionality of the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act under the taxing power. This has led to commentators questioning …

The Future Of Materialist Constitutionalism, Robert L. Tsai

Faculty Scholarship

This is a review essay of Camila Vergara, Systemic Corruption (Princeton 2020). In this lively and important book, Vergara argues that corruption should be given a structural definition, one that connects corruption with inequality and is plebeian rather than elitist. After surveying the work of thinkers from Machiavelli to Arendt, she proposes a set of solutions grounded in the civic republican tradition.
/="/">
/="/">I press several points in my essay. First, Vergara's linkage of corruption with inequality is promising, but introduces tension between a general problem (domination of the many by the few) and a more specific problem (the …

Clashing Canons And The Contract Clause, T. Leigh Anenson, Jennifer K. Gershberg

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Article is the first in-depth examination of substantive canons that judges use to interpret public pension legislation under the Contract Clause of the U.S. Constitution and state constitutions. The resolution of constitutional controversies concerning pension reform will have a profound influence on government employment. The assessment begins with a general discussion of these interpretive techniques before turning to their operation in public pension litigation. It concentrates on three clashing canons: the remedial (purpose) canon, the “no contract” canon (otherwise known as the unmistakability doctrine), and the constitutional avoidance canon. For these three canons routinely employed in pension law, there …

Congressional Surveillance, Aaron R. Copper

American University Law Review

In recent years, Congress has increasingly used electronic surveillance in high profile investigations. Reactions to what this Article calls “congressional surveillance” indicate a deep unease among both legal scholars and the broader public about the nature of Congress’s surveillance authority and its normative implications. Despite our ongoing preoccupation with government surveillance, congressional surveillance remains largely unexplored. There is virtually no discussion of how congressional surveillance is treated under key statutory and Fourth Amendment constraints; no consideration of the process or political limits of congressional surveillance; and little scrutiny of congressional surveillance as a tool within the separation of powers.

This …

Jacobson 2.0: Police Power In The Time Of Covid-19, James R. Steiner-Dillon

Akron Law Faculty Publications

The COVID-19 pandemic has become a legal, as well as a public health, crisis. In response to the pandemic, state and municipal governments have imposed unprecedented constraints on Americans’ daily activities. These restrictions provoked a wave of constitutional challenges that have revealed the antiquated doctrinal foundations of states’ police power in the area of public health. It has been over a century since the Supreme Court, in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, articulated a broadly deferential approach to constitutional review of state orders issued in response to a public health emergency. The constitutional order has changed since Jacobson was decided; many provisions …

Revenge Of The Sixth: The Constitutional Reckoning Of Pandemic Justice, Brandon Marc Draper

Marquette Law Review

The Sixth Amendment’s criminal jury right is integral to the United States

criminal justice system. While this right is also implicated by the Due Process

Clause, Equal Protection Clause, and several federal and state statutes,

criminal jury trial rates have been declining for decades, down from

approximately 20% to 2% between 1988 to 2018. This dramatic drop in the

rate of criminal jury trials is an effective measure of the decreased access to

fair and constitutional criminal jury trials.

Neither Safe, Nor Legal, Nor Rare: The D.C. Circuit’S Use Of The Doctrine Of Ratification To Shield Agency Action From Appointments Clause Challenges, Damien M. Schiff

Seattle University Law Review

Key to the constitutional design of the federal government is the separation of powers. An important support for that separation is the Appointments Clause, which governs how officers of the United States are installed in their positions. Although the separation of powers generally, and the Appointments Clause specifically, support democratically accountable government, they also protect individual citizens against abusive government power. But without a judicial remedy, such protection is ineffectual—a mere parchment barrier.

Such has become the fate of the Appointments Clause in the D.C. Circuit, thanks to that court’s adoption—and zealous employment—of the rule that agency action, otherwise unconstitutional …

The Dormant Monster: Florida’S Intrastate Marijuana Regulation And Its Susceptibility To Dormant Commerce Clause Challenge, Ivan Feris, Jr.

FIU Law Review

No abstract provided.

National Legal Paradigms For Public Health Emergency Responses, James G. Hodge Jr.

American University Law Review

The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed significant weaknesses of the U.S. federalist system in controlling major infectious disease threats. At the root of American failures to adequately respond is a battle over public health primacy in emergency preparedness and response. Which level of government—federal or state—should actually “call the shots” to quell national emergencies? Constitutional principles of cooperative federalism suggest both levels of government are responsible. Yet real-time applications of these principles, coupled with dubious national leadership, contributed to horrific public health outcomes across America. No one seeks a repeat performance of U.S. COVID-19 response efforts to forthcoming major health threats. …

When Thoughts And Prayers Are Not Enough: Why Age-Based Restrictions On Purchasing Firearms Pass Constitutional Muster, Madeline P. Fuller

American University Law Review

After the tragic shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School that took the lives of seventeen students and staff members and injured countless others, the community debated how this event could have been prevented. There were security failures on the part of the school and police—unlocked doors, passive deputies and a security guard, and a broken PA system—all of which may have lessened the casualties had they been operating properly. However, these security measures might not have been tested and found lacking if another preventative measure had already taken place: prohibiting the young shooter from legally purchasing a weapon.

Florida …

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Wise Legal Giant, Thomas A. Schweitzer

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Skepticism And Local Facts, Louis Michael Seidman

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Are written constitutions evil? In his new book, Constitutional Idolatry and Democracy, Brian Christoper Jones argues that they are. He claims that written constitutions fail to unite societies, degrade democratic engagement, and obstruct necessary constitutional maintenance. This review of his book argues that he is mostly right about the effects of the American Constitution, but that the effects of other constitutions will vary depending upon local facts.

Restoring Trust In The Judiciary: A Critical, High Priority Project For The Biden Administration, Richard C. Cahn

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

(Un)Masking The Truth - The Cruel And Unusual Punishment Of Prisoners Amidst The Covid-19 Pandemic, Ariel Berkowitz

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The People's Court: On The Intellectual Origins Of American Judicial Power, Ian C. Bartrum

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

This article enters into the modern debate between “consti- tutional departmentalists”—who contend that the executive and legislative branches share constitutional interpretive authority with the courts—and what are sometimes called “judicial supremacists.” After exploring the relevant history of political ideas, I join the modern minority of voices in the latter camp.

This is an intellectual history of two evolving political ideas—popular sovereignty and the separation of powers—which merged in the making of American judicial power, and I argue we can only understand the structural function of judicial review by bringing these ideas together into an integrated whole. Or, put another way, …

Property Rights: Fiercely Contested, Strongly Guarded, And Continually Defended. How The Supreme Court's Decision In Cedar Point Emphasized The Court's Devotion To Private Property Rights, Sarah Haddon

American University Law Review

In 1975, California’s Agricultural Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) enacted a regulation allowing union organizers to access agricultural employers’ private properties “for the purpose of meeting and talking with employees and soliciting their support” (the “access regulation”). The access regulation does not require the union organizers to obtain consent before entering employers’ properties; instead, union organizers must only file a “written notice of intention to take access.” The notice provides the union organizers access to an employer’s property for three hours a day up to 120 days each year during the hour before the workday, during lunch, and after the …