Constitutional Law Commons^™

Betschart V. Oregon: A Seven-Day Standard For Maine, Henry Gates

Maine Law Review

Maine lacks a clear standard for ensuring the right to counsel for indigent defendants. The State’s public defense system is struggling to meet Maine’s constitutional mandate: To provide indigent defense services in rural areas and across the state. An aging bar with few new attorneys working in rural areas—where there are often higher relative prosecution rates and a corresponding increased need for legal services—is contributing to the problem. This has resulted in a legal system that negatively impacts rural communities and indigent defendants to the point that one court concluded the state is violating the Sixth Amendment. Following the Ninth …

The Other Right To Counsel: The Civil Guarantee In State Constitutions, Dmitry Bam

Maine Law Review

When most people speak of the right to counsel, they speak in the singular. After the Supreme Court’s seminal decision in Gideon v. Wainwright, the right to counsel in criminal prosecutions has become one of our most cherished fundamental rights. It is a right ingrained in our culture. Even children can recite the mantra that the accused have the right to a lawyer, and if they can’t afford a lawyer, one will be provided to them free of charge. It is no surprise, then, that our constitutional focus is trained on the criminal defendant’s right to counsel. After all, there …

Beyond Skrmetti: A Constitutional Case For Gender-Affirming Care, Mateo-Luis A. Planas, Evan Gerstmann

Honors Thesis

In 2025, roughly 2.1 million adults in America identify as transgender, making up around 1% of the country’s total population. Despite this, the transgender identity has become a focus of political debates and made its way onto the U.S. Supreme Court’s docket in U.S. v. Skrmetti. The issue is not whether transgender people exist, but rather, how they ought to exist legally: if and when one can access medical care to pursue a gender transition. While many American doctors agree that these treatments are life-saving, since 2021, a slew of legislation has limited access for adults 18-21 (AMA, 2021). This …

Brief Of Amici Curiae Immigration Law Professors In Support Of Respondent, Peter L. Markowitz, Lindsay Nash

Amicus Briefs

Amicus curiae brief submitted by immigration law professors in support of the respondent in Bondi v. Lau before the Supreme Court of the United States. The brief argues that lawful permanent residents returning from travel abroad may not be treated as seeking admission unless they satisfy the statutory criteria set forth in the Immigration and Nationality Act. It further contends that ambiguities in deportation statutes should be resolved in favor of noncitizens under the longstanding immigration rule of lenity.

Brief For Amici Curiae Immigration Law Scholars In Support Of Petitioners-Appellees' Petition For Rehearing En Banc, Lindsay Nash

Amicus Briefs

Amicus curiae brief submitted by immigration law scholars, including Cardozo School of Law Professor Lindsay Nash, in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi and Covarrubias v. Vergara before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The brief supports rehearing en banc and argues that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) does not authorize mandatory, no-bond detention of noncitizens apprehended within the interior of the United States. Drawing on statutory text, legislative history, and the historical development of immigration detention, the amici contend that such detention authority has historically been limited to individuals seeking admission at the border.

Weaponized Bureaucracy At The Criminal Immigration Divide, Dorien Ediger-Seto

Washington Law Review

Despite deportation being entrenched as a civil consequence rather than a punishment over 100 years ago, today’s immigration enforcement and deportation scheme relies heavily on state-level criminal arrests, convictions, and data sharing systems. And immigration-based crimes have accounted for between twenty-five and fifty percent of all federal criminal charges over the past decade. But the fact that the systems are bureaucratically and doctrinally separate from each other has practical impacts that go beyond these formalized intersections. Not only do federal law enforcement actors often have dual mandates to investigate and prosecute federal crimes alongside related civil removal cases, but criminal …

Facing State-Created Danger In Facial Recognition Technology, Esha Jain

Washington Law Review

When the police wrongfully arrest someone, that person faces distinct harms. Various scholarship, news articles, and studies document that AI-powered facial recognition technology (FRT) disproportionately misidentifies individuals from marginalized racial groups when used irresponsibly. Many of those sources indicate that police reliance on FRT without adequate vetting results in wrongful arrests. Yet law enforcement continues to misuse FRT.

This Comment contends that the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 state-created danger doctrine offers a potential remedy for plaintiffs harmed by police reliance on FRT. To prevail under this doctrine, plaintiffs must prove affirmative conduct, deliberate indifference, and proximate causation. If successful, these …

Selective Service And The Separation Of Powers, Jeremy K. Kessler

Faculty Scholarship

The legal history of the U.S. military draft is a case study in creative statutory interpretation. Throughout the twentieth century, this interpretive creativity tended both to expand draft registrants’ substantive and procedural rights, and to recalibrate the roles played by Congress, the courts, and various executive branch factions in the governance of tens of millions of young men. Today’s Military Selective Service Act (“MSSA”) reads much like the law that governed the land when the country last went to war with conscripts during the 1950s and 1960s. But between U.S. entry into the Korean War and its withdrawal from Vietnam, …

Electoral Due Process, Michael S. Kang

Northwestern University Law Review

Hyperpartisanship has hit century-long highs in American politics and is emboldening state government attempts to undermine election outcomes by using control over state lawmaking structure to strip away authority, and sometimes outright unseat, partisan opponents after they win elected office. Even as traditional norms against such moves have eroded, the Supreme Court has taken a pro-partisanship turn in removing judicial checks against such moves under equal protection and constitutional structure. This Article proposes shifting from challenges under those doctrines to a new approach under electoral due process for confronting this new generation of antidemocracy. Federal due process law restricts the …

Brief For Amici Curiae Immigration Law Scholars In Support Of Petitioner-Appellee, Supporting Affirmance, Lindsay Nash

Amicus Briefs

Amicus curiae brief filed by immigration law scholars, including Cardozo School of Law Professor Lindsay Nash, in Herrera Avila v. Bondi. The brief examines the scope of mandatory immigration detention under the Immigration and Nationality Act and argues that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) applies to noncitizens seeking admission at the border rather than individuals apprehended within the interior of the United States.

Toys As Evidence, Randall K. Johnson

Faculty Works

This Essay asks and answers a single question, which was posed during a recent symposium at the National Museum of Toys & Miniatures. Could the study of revealed preferences, which is the idea that observed behaviors are the best indicator of one’s beliefs, improve our collective understanding about what constitutes unlawful discrimination in certain U.S. markets? A possible answer, which is informed by the Brown v. Board of Education decision, is the study of revealed preferences may improve our collective understanding for three reasons.

One reason is the study of revealed preferences provides a window into how some producers and …

What's My Age Again? The Curious Case Of Natalia Grace And The Constitutional Void In Re-Aging Law, Lauren Gay

Et Cetera

When a child’s legal age can be judicially reclassified without rigorous procedural safeguards, the foundations of American due process erode. This article explores the alarming constitutional vacuum exposed by the case of Natalia Grace, an adopted Ukrainian child whose age was legally reclassified from eight to twenty-two without procedural safeguards such as a hearing, legal counsel, or evidentiary testing. Unlike competency or parental rights proceedings, re-aging decisions lack uniform standards, judicial transparency, or appellate recourse. This article argues that re-aging implicates fundamental liberty interests and must be governed by heightened due process protections. Drawing on comparative models from guardianship and …

Queer And Present Danger: Reconceiving Arkansas’S Artificial Insemination Laws To Protect Lgbtq Families, Chacey Schoeppel Wilcox

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

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 …

Directing Unconstitutional Verdicts: When Judges Become Jurors On Self-Defense, Anjali Pathmanathan

Georgia Criminal Law Review

The right to self-defense is one of the oldest and most universal concepts in Anglo-American criminal law and criminal procedure. Under this defense, an accused person, who honestly believed that using force was necessary to protect themself from imminent danger, did nothing criminal even if another person was harmed as a result. To assert self-defense at trial, however, the accused must admit to intentionally committing the forceful acts alleged to explain how they only used such force to save themself from immediate harm. Once an accused has made such a grave admission, the jury must consider whether the force was …

Criminalization Of Immigration Through State Enforcement: Lessons From Texas’S Latest Efforts To Criminalize Immigration Through Senate Bill 4, A. Regenold Bright

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Equal Protection As A Measure Of Competing Interests In Welfare Litigation, John G. Richardson

Maine Law Review

Presently legal attacks on welfare programs focus upon the basic theory of the program, its definitions of need and obligation, and dissatisfaction with aspects of daily administration. Because these attacks seek to invalidate state action and federal forums are usually sought, conventional constitutional arguments of due process and equal protection are adapted to the peculiar issues posed by welfare cases. These attacks in substance allege that the state has so failed to support a needy person that its actions are fundamentally unfair and unacceptable. Equal protection has been raised often in welfare cases and some courts have granted relief based …

Maine's Coastal Conveyance Of Oil Act: Jurisdictional Consideration, Maine Law Review

Maine Law Review

Maine's Coastal Conveyance of Oil Act is the most comprehensive oil discharge control law in the United States. Such broad regulatory legislation inevitably raises questions of constitutionality and, as expected, the oil industry has brought a challenge to the Maine statute. In American Oil Co. et al. v. Environmental Improvement Commission, a declaratory judgment action, the Maine act has been alleged to violate the commerce, due process, equal protection and admiralty clauses of the United States Constitution. Although each allegation of constitutional conflict raises substantial problems, the most troublesome attack is that based upon the admiralty clause. Here the basic …

Due Process And Supremacy As Foundations For The Adequacy Rule: The Remains Of Federalism After Wilbur V. Mullaney, Maine Law Review

Maine Law Review

Stillman E. Wilbur, Jr., was found guilty of murder by a jury in a Maine Superior Court and appealed, contending that the trial judge's instructions violated due process. In essence, the trial court instructed the jury that if it were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Wilbur had committed a voluntary and intentional killing, malice aforethought was presumed, and therefore, the defendant would be guilty of murder unless he established by a preponderance of the evidence that he had killed in the heat of passion upon sudden provocation, in which case the jury could find him guilty of manslaughter. The …

Whither Leviathan? The Seepage Of Constitutional Law Into Public-Private Arbitration In The United States, Peter B. Rutledge

Scholarly Works

The chapter analyses how constitutional law influences private-public arbitration in the United States. Its central thesis is that constitutional law exerts a powerful indirect influence on arbitration law. While the US Constitution does not directly regulate arbitration, its underlying norms—such as separation of powers, federalism, and individual rights—impact arbitration law indirectly. The chapter explores the ways in which these constitutional principles influence public-private arbitration through statutory interpretation, treaty design, and private protocols reflecting constitutional norms. This pattern of influence manifests itself in public arbitration (i.e. arbitration involving states or state-owned entities) just as it does in private arbitration. Highlighting how …

Let's Get Personal: Due Process And Personal Jurisdiction As A New Path Forward For Extraterritoriality, Samy Abdelsalam

Northwestern University Law Review

The Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization has put fundamental principles of federalism and state sovereignty under attack. Legislation and lawsuits in states nationwide aim to limit the rights of American citizens to travel freely between states in search of medical care. Further, these measures have extraterritorial reach, legally entangling the rights of private citizens in other states who provide medical care even while fully within their own state borders. Scholars have analyzed this development through various doctrinal lenses, including the Dormant Commerce Clause. But these frameworks fail to adequately protect those who are unfortunate enough …

Project 2025 And Due Process After Dobbs, Tracy Turner

ConLawNOW

Project 2025 supporters have been appointed to prominent federal offices in the second Trump Administration. This includes, most notably, the Office of Management and Budget, for a key strategy of implementing the Project’s goals is manipulation of federal funding. This Essay explores what this might mean for women’s rights and suggests a legal theory with which to challenge Project initiatives. Project 2025 repackages a platform that is fully anti-feminist. It is not a new platform. It is the same set of tools that has been used against feminism since the movement’s inception. It expansively seeks policy changes for abortion, contraception, …

Presumptions Against Criminal Defendants, Affirmative Defenses, And A Substantive Due Process Interpretation Of County Court Of Ulster V. Allen, John C. Sheldon

Maine Law Review

In County Court of Ulster County v. Allen, the Supreme Court stated: "inferences and presumptions are a staple of our adversary system of factfinding." Because Allen concerned the constitutionality of the use against criminal defendants of such deductive devices as statutory inferences and presumptions, it appeared that the decision would ultimately favor their unrestricted use in criminal cases by the prosecution. Further, that expectation was buttressed by the ruling in Patterson v. New York, in which the Court awarded constitutional sanction to state use of affirmative defenses against criminal defendants. These facts suggested that the Court would refrain from imposing …

Compromised Guilt: Systemic Denial Of The Right To A Unanimous Verdict In Arkansas, Bryan Altman

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

Currently, the State of Arkansas curiously stands alone in opposition to the rest of the nation when it comes to honoring the individual’s right to a unanimous verdict in a criminal trial. While never explicitly adopted by the Arkansas Supreme Court, Arkansas law has passively permitted two illegitimate practices to develop. First, prosecutors are permitted to submit evidence of multiple, separate acts to sustain a single criminal charge. Second, jurors are permitted to disregard factual disagreements and render patchwork verdicts, especially in the context of sex crime cases.

Arkansas practice and custom currently does not protect against a conviction based …

The American Oligarchy, Match Dawson

Faculty Articles

What was designed as a constitutional republic, bound by self-rule and democratic accountability, has become an oligarchy camouflaged by the illusion of public sovereignty. The corporate architects of this new world order did not seize power through conquest or force: they legislated, litigated, and purchased it into existence. Oligarchic rule is more than a simple political crisis. It is a democratic one. Just as prior generations have been called upon to preserve the republic against threats to liberty, we now face our own defining challenge and must decide whether to accept a government auctioned to the highest bidder or reclaim …

The Sovereign Acre, Match Dawson

Faculty Articles

What if the next constitutional crisis is not declared from a presidential podium but tyranny forged into a deed? Not a contested election. Not a rogue legislature. Not even a runaway court. This time, it is quieter—with a deed signed and title passed, a new sovereign is crowned in private ink. Across the country, billionaire land grabs are redrawing the map of municipal governance itself. As wealthy elites and corporate oligarchs carve out private enclaves—from the privatized contract city of Sandy Springs, Georgia, to the unsettling governance of The Woodlands, Texas—we bear witness to public sovereignty giving way to oligarchic …

“Forced Worship Stinks In God’S Nostrils”: The Inquisition, Sepharad, And The American Experiment, Isaac Amon

Touro Law Review

In December 1791, the Bill of Rights, comprising the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution, enshrined fundamental protections for individual freedoms, with the First Amendment guaranteeing liberty of conscience. This milestone, however, was the culmination of centuries of struggle. The arrival of Iberian Jews, including conversos, in North America played a pivotal role in shaping the course of American history. The Founders referenced the Inquisition in their letters and debates, particularly in discussions on legal protections for criminal suspects and the broader issue of religious liberty. Founding assurances of religious freedom to Jews and Christians stand in stark contrast …

In Re Daniel C.: Reunification Efforts And The Termination Of Parental Rights, James W. Claus

Maine Law Review

In In re Daniel C., the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, affirmed an order terminating a father's parental rights pursuant to title 22, section 4055 of the Maine Revised Statutes. The issue on appeal concerned the effect of a failure by the Department of Human Services (DHS) to make efforts toward family reunification. The appellant, Daniel C.'s father, Everett Co., argued that the DHS failed to make adequate reunification efforts as required by title 22, section 4041 of the Maine Revised Statutes and that this failure precluded the termination of his parental rights. The Law Court …

Contempt: The Original Judicial Cheat Code, Ryan L. Scott

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

The judicial contempt power challenges the fundamental rights enshrined in America’s Constitution. Imagine spending eight years in federal prison with no right to a jury trial or a court appointed attorney. Your only reprieve is the discretion of the judge who is imprisoning you. Meaningful appeals and even habeas corpus actions are generally not available remedies. Instead, what was originally justified as an inherent power of the court, necessary to maintain order and decorum, is increasingly used for trivial offenses or to incarcerate individuals for far longer than their possible crimes would otherwise warrant.

Despite widespread instances of abuse of …

Amicus Brief Of Legal Scholars Lee Kovarsky Et Al. In Support Of Petitioner, Ira P. Robbins

Amicus Briefs & Court Filings

QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether a second-in-time habeas claim filed while an appeal from the judgment on an initial habeas claim is still pending counts as a second or successive habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE: Amici curiae are law professors and legal scholars who study federal post-conviction law and civil procedure. Amici curiae have no personal interest in the outcome of this case. They all share an interest in seeing habeas law applied in a way that ensures the just and timely adjudication of claims while preserving the traditional and intended operation of the Federal Rules …