Constitutional Law Commons^™

Abandoning Press Freedom, Ronnell Andersen Jones, Sonja R. West

Scholarly Works

Among elected officials and the broader public, attitudes toward the press are deeply polarized along ideological lines. Polling shows that most liberals favor the press, while conservatives view it more negatively— a partisan divide that has widened significantly over the past decade. Conventional wisdom suggests that the same ideological split is also at work at the Supreme Court, with liberal Justices championing the work of the press while their conservative colleagues express more skepticism. This perception is reinforced by historical examples of liberal Justices advancing press rights alongside broader democracy-engagement and social-justice issues. Recent calls from some conservative Justices to …

Gienapp's Big Book: Conceptual Rupture, Modernism, And The End Of Originalism, Logan E. Sawyer Iii

Scholarly Works

For decades, we have lived in an age of partisan jurisprudence, in which nearly every Republican has embraced originalism, and nearly every Democrat has rejected it. One can mark the start of that era in multiple places, but one good choice is November 11th, 1977. That day, in the pages of National Review, William F. Buckley previewed Government by Judiciary, Raoul Berger’s originalist critique of the Warren Court’s rights revolution. The review, entitled “Berger’s Big Book,” was highly complimentary. Berger’s rebuke of Warren Court activism was, Buckley thought, “devastating.” And he was not alone. Following the publication of Government by …

Adequate Representation In Group Litigation, Elizabeth Chamblee Burch

Scholarly Works

This article examines the inherent tension between the legal system's desire for "global peace" (finality) and the constitutional requirement for adequate representation in collective lawsuits. While Rule 23 class actions provide structural safeguards—such as judicial oversight of counsel and settlement, and opt-out rights—alternative mechanisms like multidistrict litigation (MDL) and parens patriae suits often lack these protections . Using the In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation as a primary case study, the article illustrates how informal, "backroom" leadership selection in MDLs empowers a small circle of elite "repeat players" at the expense of marginalized groups, such as Native American tribes and …

Presidential Immunity: Before And After Trump, Thomas P. Schmidt

Vanderbilt Law Review

'All the officers of government," the Supreme Court said long ago, "from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law, and are bound to obey it." Despite that ringing and categorical language, however, the Court has held that the President-the "highest" and most powerful of all government officers-is "immune" from judicial oversight in several respects. Indeed, when the Court held last Term that former presidents are presumptively immune from criminal prosecution for officials acts, the dissenters warned: '`n every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law."

This Article unpacks the various presidential …

From Myers To Slaughter: A Brief Theory Of The Constitutionalization Of Secondary Sources, Dana Neacsu, Paul D. Callister

Faculty Works

For more than two centuries, American constitutional adjudication has relied upon secondary sources. Yet constitutional theory has almost entirely ignored them. Originalism debates constitutional text. Living constitutionalism debates constitutional evolution. Theories of precedent debate judicial authority. None asks a more fundamental question: What role do secondary sources play in constitutional adjudication? This Article argues that the answer has fundamentally changed in the last 100 of years. Chief Justice William Howard Taft's opinion in Myers v. United States (1926) marked a constitutional revolution by transforming secondary authorities from explanatory materials into evidence of constitutional continuity. Exactly one century later, Chief Justice …

Applying History As Law: The Role Of Historical Facts In Implementing Constitutional Doctrine, Joseph Blocher, Brandon L. Garrett

Faculty Scholarship

The U.S. Supreme Court has long relied on historical evidence in constitutional cases, but recent years have seen a major change in how it does so: not only to interpret the meaning of constitutional text, but to establish doctrinal tests that call for historical evidence to be used in the application of those tests going forward. Broadly speaking, originalism has moved from the realm of legal interpretation to that of law declaration and then to law application. This transformation in the legal significance of history raises important questions for originalism as a practice of constitutional adjudication, not simply a theory …

Disconsents, Daryl J. Levinson, David E. Pozen

Faculty Scholarship

Consent is an indispensable standard and organizing principle in any liberal legal order that prizes self-directed autonomy, self-identified preferences, and collective agreement. Yet consent’s capacity to advance those values has become increasingly uncertain in a society beset by power imbalances, information asymmetries, and multiple forms of polarization. In this Article, we document how the rise of neoliberalism has led to greater reliance on consent throughout U.S. law, while at the same time leading to greater doubts about its moral efficacy and empirical feasibility. Connecting and generalizing pathologies of consent-based regulation that have been identified within myriad domains, the Article identifies …

The Unitary Theorists' Appointments Clause Problems, Jed Handelsman Shugerman

Faculty Scholarship

The unitary executive theorists’ recent retreat to the Appointments Clause as a basis for unconditional presidential removal power is contradicted by the text and by overwhelming originalist evidence.

It is a surprising argument for a power of presidential removal, because the text of the Appointments Clause plainly requires both the President and Senate to appoint. The noncommon sense reading, that the president alone appoints, and thus the president can remove, was not in any of the Trump Administration’s briefs, but it was in a single amicus brief, and it was picked up in oral argument and the mainstream media.

This …

The Missing Constitutional Law Of Executive Conditions, Nicole Huberfeld, Matthew B. Lawrence

Faculty Scholarship

This Article contributes to development of the constitutional law of executive conditions. Courts are wrestling with the constitutionality of federal efforts to encourage what the federal government cannot mandate—speech on particular subjects, participation in cooperative federalism programs, and so on—but have failed to appreciate an important distinction. Binding statutory conditions articulated by Congress or an executive branch delegee (statutory conditions) and non-binding executive conditions articulated by executive branch actors engaged in regulation by deal (executive conditions) are different in constitutionally salient ways that can and should inform the development of workable doctrine. Yet courts, advocates, and scholars have only begun …

Five Lessons From Ken Kersch’S Conservatives And The Constitution For The Present Moment, James E. Fleming, Linda C. Mcclain

Faculty Scholarship

Timothy Snyder’s On Tyranny, a New York Times bestseller, has the subtitle, “Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century.” Ken Kersch’s Conservatives and the Constitution: Imagining Constitutional Restoration in the Heyday of American Liberalism (2019) provides at least twenty lessons from the second half of the Twentieth Century about the development of conservative constitutional thought and activism. Although conservatism has changed in many ways since the 1954-1980 period on which Kersch’s book focuses, these lessons are relevant for understanding the present political moment, filled with concerns that the U.S., during the second Trump Administration, is lurching toward tyranny, authoritarianism, and …

Justifying The Fourth Amendment, Daniel Epps

Vanderbilt Law Review

Why does the Fourth Amendment belong in the Constitution? This question is not whether society should impose some legal restraints on government searches and seizures. Rather, why should such protections reside in our national charter, superior to other forms of law and insulated from change via ordinary majoritarian political processes? Despite major disputes about the Fourth Amendment's content, Fourth Amendment theorists rarely ask this question. Almost all agree that the Fourth Amendment's constitutional protections are critically important-even if no one can agree exactly what those protections are.
This Article seeks a justification for the Fourth Amendment-the reason why search-and-seizure protections …

Self-Determination Through Children's Rights: Resisting The Paradoxical Pretext Of Parents' Rights Legislation, Jeremiah Chin

Washington Law Review

Washington state law balances the interests of parents and the state in education, healthcare, and the general wellbeing of children. Despite the fact that children are at the center of emerging controversies, children’s rights are rarely discussed in state legislation debating the obligations and relationships between the state of Washington and parents. In education, for example, RCW 28A.605.005 finds “[p]arents are the primary stakeholders in their children’s upbringing.” While this may be true relative to the state, it overlooks the fact that children are the primary actors, agents, and rights bearers in their own personhood. This Article therefore considers ongoing …

The Value Of Jury Rights, Philip A. Hamburger

Faculty Scholarship

The right to a civil jury trial is often dismissed as an inefficient anachronism ill suited to the complexities of modern litigation, and these efficiency concerns have long overshadowed any serious defense of the Seventh Amendment. This Article argues that such skepticism profoundly misunderstands the constitutional function and enduring value of civil jury rights. The Article observes that the Seventh Amendment’s jury right was adopted with the understanding that it would come with some inefficiencies and that contemporary concerns about its inefficiencies tend to be overstated. Ultimately, the Article finds that civil juries are essential for structural reasons such as …

Presidential Removal As Article I, Not Article Ii, Gary Lawson, Jed Handelsman Shugerman

Faculty Scholarship

As a matter of original public meaning, Article I’s Necessary and Proper clause is the starting point for both Congress’s power to create offices and the limits on that power.

We believe that many legal scholars have demonstrated that, as a matter of original public meaning, the term “executive power” did not imply a presidential removal power, and Article II did not imply an indefeasible (unconditional) presidential removal power. By contrast, Article I’s Necessary and Proper Clause is a basis for limiting congressional power that is more historically grounded in original public meaning and in early practice. Tenure protections and …

Reckoning With Antisemitism In History And Tradition, Nathaniel Shaw Hay, Isaac Barnes May

Pepperdine Law Review

“History and tradition” has become a watchword of modern constitutional interpretation, shaping Supreme Court jurisprudence and framing ongoing debates over the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. Yet this interpretive framework remains under-theorized in one critical respect: how should it grapple with the prejudices embedded in the very traditions it invokes? This Article examines that question through the lens of anti-Jewish discrimination in Anglo-American law, using this history as a case study to examine both the perils and promise of relying on history as a source of constitutional authority. For centuries, the common law excluded Jews from full civic participation in …

Child-Taking Justice And The Federal Indian Boarding School Initiative, Diane Marie Amann

Scholarly Works

The focus of this article is the 2022–2024 Federal Indian Boarding School Initiative undertaken the U.S. Executive Branch. The article chronicles this three-year process, which included sessions with survivors and their descendants, and which resulted in a two-volume report, in an apology by President Joe Biden, and in designation of a national memorial at one of the most notorious school sites. This article examines the initiative as an example of “child-taking justice”; that is, as a process of what is called “transitional justice”, done in an effort to redress the takings of children from their community, followed by efforts to …

The Constitutional Fight Over The Nlra And The Nlrb: A 90 Year Reprise, Kate Andrias

Faculty Scholarship

This article traces renewed constitutional challenges to the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), placing them in historical and doctrinal context. Contemporary attacks — advanced by major corporations and the Trump Administration — revive the constitutional conflicts of the 1930s. Drawing on arguments rooted in the unitary executive theory, as well as Article III and the Seventh Amendment, the current challenges threaten not only the NLRB’s independence but the broader administrative state and the system of labor rights it sustains. At stake is more than institutional design: the dispute reflects a deeper contest over …

Skrmetti Beyond Scrutiny, Kate Redburn

Faculty Scholarship

In United States v. Skrmetti, the Supreme Court upheld Tennessee Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), a state law that prohibits transgender minors from accessing gender-affirming care. For the first time, the Court considered a fundamental question in civil rights law: How does the Fourteenth Amendment regard transgender people? The Court gave little guidance. It did not sort out principles for deciding when anti-transgender discrimination classifies by sex, nor whether transgender people are a suspect class. Instead, the Court held that “[i]n the medical context, the mere use of sex-based language does not sweep a statute within the reach of …

Stare Decisis After The Rejection Of Lockstepping In State Constitutional Law: An Ohio Perspective, Jonathan L. Entin

ConLawNOW

State constitutions contain numerous rights-protecting provisions that are analogous to provisions of the United States Constitution. But lawyers and courts often ignored state constitutions. Even when courts interpreted state constitutions, they often followed an approach known as lockstepping: state constitutional rights were viewed as having the same meaning as analogous federal provisions, even when the state provisions had different wording and were adopted for different purposes at different times than their federal analogues. In recent decades, however, commentators and judges have claimed that state constitutions might afford greater protection to individual rights than the U.S. Constitution. The growth of the …

Take In Case Of Emergency: Reconciling Necessity Takings With The Original Meaning Of The Takings Clause, Tony Smith

Northwestern University Law Review

Does the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause permit the state to destroy property without compensation whenever it declares an emergency? The long-standing doctrine of necessity empowers the state to do exactly that.

Courts dating back to common law England have permitted governments to claim a privilege of necessity to avoid paying for private property they destroy in times of crisis. The privilege rests on the principle that the public good sometimes outweighs the harm the individual suffers. Today’s courts and academics stretch this principle to its limits, arguing necessity should be used as a vehicle for combating all manner of social …

Original Public Meaning And The Rule Of Recognition, Andrew Jensen Kerr

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Framer intent no longer possesses the same cachet it once held. But Framer influence still matters for public meaning originalism, particularly for communications like The Federalist Papers, in which Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison marketed the work of the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention to state ratifying conventions and the constituencies they represented. Contemporary originalists posit that what the Constitution meant to this public audience at the time of ratification is cemented in time forever (the fixation thesis). The starting point for my analysis is the prosaic observation that our Framers occasionally changed their minds about the meaning of …

Animus, Again, William D. Araiza

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In the first week of his second term, President Donald Trump issued multiple executive orders targeting immigrants and transgender people. Additional actions targeting these and other vulnerable groups have already followed. Others may come; more generally, such orders will likely remain a part of the President’s policy agenda and governing style. These actions call for analysis of the legal tools litigants can deploy to challenge them. That call is urgent, as a response not just to the orders already issued, but to others the Administration might promulgate in the future.

One of those tools is equal protection animus. This Article …

The Jurisprudence Of Constitutional Entitlement, David Schraub

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Lawyers are accustomed to thinking of constitutional law as a familiar binary: Either a given governmental policy or practice is constitutional and therefore permitted, or unconstitutional and forbidden. But not all constitutional laws are created equal. A state practice which may be constitutional in concept (such as the death penalty) may, in some or many applications, violate specific constitutional rules and become impermissible. When a policy which has been affirmed to be constitutional in general repeatedly runs up against problems as-applied, a legal tension emerges: can the state implement the policy or not? This dilemma illuminates a third constitutional category: …

The Endorsement Test’S Early Years, 1983–1985: Notes From The O’Connor Files, Jay Wexler

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

One of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s signature contributions to U.S. constitutional law was the endorsement test, a subtle but critically important reformulation of the Court’s then prevailing approach to applying the Establishment Clause that focused on the message sent by government action supporting religion and the potentially harmful effects of that message on religious minorities and the political community. Now that the current Court has discarded the endorsement test, leaving the government freer than ever to support religion in a variety of ways, we should expect to see the harms that Justice O’Connor cared about become increasingly widespread and prevalent. …

Criminal Court's Disability, Zohra Ahmed

Faculty Scholarship

Do criminal courts meaningfully accommodate psychiatric disability? A review of competency proceedings across the United States suggests not. In competency to stand trial proceedings, criminal court actors offer a narrow vision of psychiatric disability that excludes many defendants. Ultimately, the institutional context of criminal court undermines even the meagre accommodations that the competency framework provides.

Competency proceedings are the constitutional accommodations available to disabled defendants if they can establish that they are unable to consult with their lawyers or if they do not have a rational or factual understanding of the proceedings against them. After a finding of incompetency, the …

Stand-In Standing, Matthew I. Hall

Scholarly Works

When the interests of a state, or of the federal government, are at issue in a lawsuit, those interests are typically represented by the Executive branch. But not always: The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that states, and the federal government, may delegate their claims to non-governmental litigants in some circumstances. But the Court has never defined the exact boundaries of when stand-in standing is permitted. And states have recently begun to exploit this doctrinal uncertainty, by enacting laws that are arguably, and in some cases flagrantly, unconstitutional, but outsourcing the enforcement of those laws to private individuals. The avowed …

Amicus In Trump V. Cook: The Fed, Offices As Property, And The Meaning Of “Cause”, Jed Handelsman Shugerman

Faculty Scholarship

The Federal Reserve Act states that “each member shall hold office for a term of fourteen years from the expiration of the term of his predecessor, unless sooner removed for cause by the President.” 12 U.S.C. § 242. Based on the historical record, when Congress creates an office with a fixed term of years and protects against removal without “cause,” Congress has both granted “a constitutionally protected property interest” under the Fifth Amendment (that cannot be taken away without “due process”) and extended a statutory entitlement to receive fair notice and a meaningful opportunity to respond before any removal may …

Bank Supervision And Article Ii, Kathryn Judge

Faculty Scholarship

The administrative state is again at a cross roads. The Supreme Court seems poised to continue its march toward trying to fit all of government neatly into one of the three constitutionally enumerated branches. An important front of this shift has been a flattening of the mechanisms through which officers of the United States may be held appropriately accountable for their actions. Waning are the days when Congress had the flexibility to create the institutions it believed were “necessary and proper” for carrying into execution important policy aims and to determine the appropriate mechanisms for accountability in conjunction with considering …

Personal Jurisdiction And The Fifth Amendment, Scott Dodson

ConLawNOW

The Supreme Court has avoided clarifying the relationship between federal-court personal jurisdiction, congressional statutes, and the Fifth Amendment. Until now, that is. In June 2025, the Court decided two important cases involving constraints on a federal court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction outside of Rule 4(k)(1)(A), which typically ties federal-court personal jurisdiction to state-court personal jurisdiction. This brief essay explains and analyzes those cases, situating them in the Court’s larger agenda for personal jurisdiction. It also discusses some open questions raised by the decisions and the role that personal jurisdiction in the United States may now play on the global stage.

The Reverse Onus At Bail For Intimate Partner Violence: An Unconstitutional And Ineffective Measure, Ella Peterson

Dalhousie Journal of Legal Studies

The recently adopted reverse onus at bail for repeat intimate partner violence is a piece of performative legislation that is ineffectual and may harm those it seeks to protect. Part I of this paper provides an overview of intimate partner violence in Canada in order to contextualize s. 515(6)(b.1) of the Criminal Code. Part II is a Charter assessment of the reverse onus provision at issue, focusing on sections 7 and 11(e). Part III concludes with a critique of the effectiveness of the reverse onus, which fails to address the root causes of intimate partner violence.