Constitutional Law Commons^™

Public Use On The Loose: Clarifying The Takings Clause’S Public Use Requirement, Megan Hoefs

Pepperdine Law Review

The Fifth Amendment permits the taking of private property for “public use,” but modern courts refuse to question legislative determinations of that use. Although the Supreme Court has implicitly reserved a prohibition on takings done under a “mere pretext of public purpose,” lower courts are unsure of how to identify or evaluate such pretext. This Comment argues that the Public Use Clause requires a showing of good faith to be constitutionally sufficient. By reframing public use around good faith, this Comment offers a modest but necessary clarification that preserves the structure of existing doctrine while restoring the Clause’s function as …

The Takings Clause And The Environment, Timothy M. Harris

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

Congress and state legislatures have been slow to address growing cries for increased environmental protections. Climate change and the attendant sea-level rise, wetland protections, cleanup of hazardous substances, and protections for species listed under the Endangered Species Act often require extensive regulation of private lands to be effective. The political will to implement environmentally conscious regulations varies with election cycles and social mores, but there is a legal—constitutional—impediment that overrides these political winds. The Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause frequently creates an insurmountable budgetary obstacle to broad land use restrictions that may otherwise be implemented to protect the environment.

Government …

Public Schools: Immigration & Customs Enforcement’S Unconstitutional And Inhumane Hunting Ground, Ma Camille Briones

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Excavating Miranda, Samuel J. Levine

Scholarly Works

Sixty years after it was decided, Miranda v. Arizona remains one of the most significant and renowned cases—as well as, arguably, one of the most controversial cases—in the history of the United States. Chief Justice Earl Warren’s majority opinion, establishing the eponymous Miranda warnings for custodial interrogation of criminal suspects, has prompted voluminous and continuing commentary, among both critics and supporters. This Article is part of an ongoing project exploring a particular aspect of Chief Justice Warren’s majority opinion: a footnote referencing Jewish legal sources, documenting an important passage at the start of a pivotal section of the opinion.

Building …

Eroding Protections: The Decline Of Miranda Rights And Its Impact On Due Process In Contemporary America, Autumn G. Pelfrey

Honors Undergraduate Theses

This thesis examines whether the protections established in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), remain robust within contemporary criminal justice practice or have been weakened through doctrinal and practical developments. Miranda warnings were originally designed to mitigate the risk that coercive custodial interrogation would produce compelled or unreliable self-incrimination. Since 1966, however, both judicial interpretation and evolving law-enforcement practices have created a growing gap between Miranda’s formal legal promise and its practical operation in real-world interrogations.

The study evaluates the erosion of Miranda’s protective force through three primary mechanisms. First, doctrinal developments have narrowed Miranda’s scope by redefining …

The Illusory Privilege Against Self-Incrimination, Kelsey Rohr

Arkansas Law Review

This Note addresses the insufficiency of the current system in protecting criminal defendants’ privilege against self-incrimination. Part II will outline the background legal principles of the issue, including the privilege against self-incrimination, the presumption of innocence, and the no-impeachment rule. This part will also address the Supreme Court’s sole judicial exception to the no-impeachment rule as laid out in Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado. Part III will address the statistical significance of juror bias against criminal defendants who invoke the privilege, highlight the widespread nature of the bias, and argue that the procedural safeguards currently in place are insufficient to protect.

Forfeiture Takings, Police Power, And Necessity Destruction, Shelley Ross Saxer

University of Miami Law Review

Civil forfeiture laws allow law enforcement to seize property when there is probable cause it has been used or possessed in violation of legal rules, often before an owner has a chance to contest the government’s seizure in court. In the criminal context, forfeiture is typically an in personam action that requires a criminal conviction and is part of a defendant’s sentence. In the civil context, however, forfeiture is an in rem proceeding brought against the property derived from or used to commit an offense––not against the person who committed the offense. As such, a civil forfeiture may not require …

Brief Of Amici Curiae 775 Law Professors In Support Of Plaintiff's Motion For Summary Judgment And Declaratory And Permanent Injunctive Relief, Wilfred U. Codrington Iii, Haiyun Damon-Feng, Rebecca Ingber, Rachel Landy, Jacob Noti-Victor, Alexander A. Reinert, Anthony J. Sebok

Amicus Briefs

Amicus curiae brief submitted by 775 law professors in support of Susman Godfrey LLP's motion for summary judgment and request for declaratory and permanent injunctive relief in Susman Godfrey LLP v. Executive Office of the President. The brief argues that Executive Order 14263 unlawfully targets a law firm based on its clients, advocacy, and litigation activities, in violation of the First Amendment, Fifth Amendment, and Sixth Amendment. The amici contend that the order constitutes impermissible viewpoint discrimination, interferes with the right to counsel, and threatens the independence of the legal profession and the rule of law.

Rethinking Article I, Section 9: State Protections Against Self-Incrimination In The Wake Of Gr 37, Zachary L. Hentzel

Washington Law Review

When adopted by Washington courts in 2018, General Rule 37 marked a significant advance in the fight against racial discrimination. Modifying the third step of Batson v. Kentucky, GR 37 requires that peremptory challenges must be denied if an “objective observer” could view race or ethnicity as a factor in the strike. Applying the objective observer standard to contexts beyond jury selection—such as evaluation of jury verdicts, seizures of persons, and prosecutorial misconduct—has led to major statewide victories toward establishing a more equitable justice system. However, courts have not granted all requests to extend the objective observer standard to …

Dead Infants And Taking The Fifth, Tracey Maclin

UF Law Faculty Publications

This Essay offers tribute to Professor Colb's teachings and insights expressed in her writings on the Court's Miranda and Self-Incrimination Clause rulings. Since the start of the twenty-first century, Professor Colb wrote many blogs on the Court's Miranda doctrine. Miranda v. Arizona famously held that persons under arrest must be warned of their right to silence and to have counsel's advice before being subject to interrogation. Generally speaking, Professor Colb was critical of the Court's results and reasoning—for good reason.

As someone who supports a broad interpretation of the Fifth Amendment, I offer a counterview of Professor Colb's conception of …

State V. Brown, 314 A.3d 576 (R.I. 2024), Sarah Egan

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Comstock Act’S Equal Protection Problem, Danny Y. Li

Michigan Law Review Online

Following its victory in Dobbs, the antiabortion movement has set its sights on a national abortion ban. Affiliates of the second Trump Admin- istration—including the vice president-elect—have endorsed the re- newed enforcement of the 1873 Comstock Act as one avenue for implementing such a ban. This Essay argues that contemporary enforce- ment of the Comstock Act as a national abortion ban would be unconsti- tutional. The Act violates the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee because it was enacted with the discriminatory purpose of in- hibiting illicit sex to promote women’s sexual purity. Only contemporary reenactment of the law without constitutionally …

Document Subpoenas And The Moral Dilemma At The Heart Of The Privilege Against Self Incrimination, John W. Nields Jr.

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

This Article will show that document subpoenas will nearly always compel “testimony.” This is so because the subpoena recipient is legally required to disclose to the party issuing the subpoena each and every document she has that is called for by the subpoena; and because, as Wigmore points out, the party issuing the subpoena will get the incriminating documents it seeks only if the subpoena recipient responds truthfully, disclosing every such incriminating document she has. And this means that the subpoena is compelling “testimony.”

That is the core teaching of the Hubbell decision in which the Court cites …

A Distinct System For Presidential Succession On Inauguration Day: Getting The Most Out Of Section 3 Of The Twentieth Amendment, Brian C. Kalt

Cardozo Law Review

The current presidential-succession statute uses the same line of succession for every conceivable situation. But there are many different types of potential succession scenarios. Succession need not—and should not—be governed by a one-size-fits-all approach.

Before the Twentieth Amendment was ratified in 1933, the Constitution authorized Congress to provide only for double vacancies during the term, when there already is a President and Vice President. Recognizing this gap, Section 3 of the Twentieth Amendment empowered Congress to cover inauguration-day double vacancies: at the outset of a term, when nobody is available to become President or Vice President in the first place. …

Takings, Original Meaning, And Applying Property Law Principles To Fix Penn Central, John M. Groen

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Witch-Hunt For Spies - A Critique Of The China Initiative And National Security’S Outsized Influence In Equal Protection Analysis, Winni Zhang

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

The U.S. Government has increased its focus on Chinese espionage in the last decade in a randomized and unpredictable way. Primarily targeting Chinese scientists and academics, the “China Initiative” has resulted in widespread targeting of individuals based on their race, ethnicity, and national origin. The program was formally terminated and said to now be a part of a broader approach to nation-state threats. However, the outcomes and effect of the economic espionage charges in the last 15 years has greatly skewed towards prosecuting Chinese individuals irrespective of the name of the program. While protections typically exist in the law to …

Willfully Forgetting Miranda's True Nature: Vega V. Tekoh Severs The Warnings Requirement From The Constitution, George M. Dery Iii

Marquette Law Review

This Article analyzes Vega v. Tekoh, in which the Supreme Court ruled that

a violation of Miranda was not a violation of the Fifth Amendment privilege

against self-incrimination. This Article examines the original language of the

Miranda opinion, the statements and intentions of the members of the Miranda

Court, and subsequent precedent to determine Miranda’s true nature. Further,

this Article examines the reasoning of Vega and the dangers created by its

pronouncements, especially in light of the Court’s earlier characterization of

Miranda as a constitutional rule in Dickerson v. United States. This Article

asserts that the Justices who …

Amazon, Spacex And Other Companies Are Arguing The Government Agency That Has Protected Labor Rights Since 1935 Is Actually Unconstitutional, Kate Andrias

Faculty Scholarship

Amazon, SpaceX, Starbucks and Trader Joe’s have all responded to allegations that they have violated labor laws with the same bold argument. The National Labor Relations Board, they assert in several ongoing legal proceedings, is unconstitutional.

SpaceX, for example, says that the NLRB is engaging in “an unlawful attempt … to subject Space X to an administrative proceeding whose structure violates Article II, the Fifth Amendment, and the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.”

If these companies prevail, the entire process for holding union elections and for prosecuting employers who break labor laws – in place since …

The Second Founding And Self-Incrimination, William M. Carter Jr.

Northwestern University Law Review

The privilege against self-incrimination is one of the most fundamental constitutional rights. Protection against coerced or involuntary self-incrimination safeguards individual dignity and autonomy, preserves the nature of our adversary system of justice, helps to deter abusive police practices, and enhances the likelihood that confessions will be truthful and reliable. Rooted in the common law, the privilege against self-incrimination is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment’s Self-Incrimination and Due Process Clauses. Although the Supreme Court’s self-incrimination cases have examined the privilege’s historical roots in British and early American common law, the Court’s jurisprudence has overlooked an important source of historical evidence: the …

The Living Constitution: Why The Supreme Court Must Part Ways With Exclusionary Eminent Domain, Aaron Mackay

Indiana Law Journal

The Fifth Amendment’s “public use” requirement for takings is no longer a requirement at all. Instead, the meaning of “public use” has been expanded far beyond its original intent and public understanding. The broadening of the “public use” requirement reached its breaking point in Kelo. Since Kelo, state legislatures have responded by restricting eminent domain use to remove “blighted” areas. In effect, contemporary eminent domain reduces the availability of affordable housing, which has exacerbated the affordable housing crisis. This Note explores a constitutionally permissible re-working of the eminent domain doctrine to encourage the provision of affordable housing. Interpreting the “public …

The Unconstitutional Conditions Vacuum In Criminal Procedure, Kay L. Levine, Jonathan R. Nash, Robert A. Schapiro

Faculty Articles

For more than a century, the Supreme Court has applied the unconstitutional conditions doctrine in many contexts, scrutinizing government efforts to condition the tradeoff of rights for benefits with regard to speech, funding, and takings, among others. The Court has declined, however, to invoke the doctrine in the area of criminal procedure, where people accused of crime are often asked to—and often do—surrender their constitutional rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments in return for some benefit. Despite its insistence that the unconstitutional conditions doctrine applies broadly across the Bill of Rights, the Court’s jurisprudence demonstrates that the doctrine …

Vega V. Tekoh And The Erosion Of Miranda: A Reframing Of Miranda As A Procedural Due Process Requirement, Tess A. Chaffee

University of Cincinnati Law Review

No abstract provided.

Takings In Disguise: The Inequity Of Public Nuisance Receiverships In America’S Rust Belt, Anna Kennedy

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

Since they were created in the 1980s in Cleveland, Ohio, public nuisance receiverships have spread across the American Rust Belt. This Note critically analyzes the legal implications of public nuisance receiverships, which involve the intrusion onto private property for public purposes. Despite claims that these actions align with exceptions to due process or public nuisance principles, a deeper examination reveals their fundamental nature as government takings of private property. This Note dissects the legal framework within the context of the Fifth Amendment, debunking the applicability of the public nuisance exception, establishing that receiverships constitute takings, and highlighting conflicts with Anti-Kelo …

Private Police Regulation And The Exclusionary Remedy: How Washington Can Eliminate The Public/Private Distinction, Jared Rothenberg

Washington Law Review

Private security forces such as campus police, security guards, loss prevention officers, and the like are not state actors covered by the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures nor the Fifth Amendment’s Miranda protections. As members of the umbrella category of “private police,” these private law enforcement agents often obtain evidence, detain individuals, and elicit confessions in a manner that government actors cannot, which can then be lawfully turned over to the government. Though the same statutory law governing private citizens (assault, false imprisonment, trespass, etc.) also regulates private police conduct, private police conduct is not bound by …

Theft Of The American Dream: New York City's Third-Party Transfer Program, Joseph Mottola

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

On September 5, 2018, Paul Saunders discovered a notice on the front door of his mother’s home: it stated that the property, a Brooklyn brownstone owned by the family for over forty years, now belonged to a company called Bridge Street. His mother, seventy-four-year-old retired nurse Marlene Saunders, had been notified several months earlier that her home, valued at two million dollars, was in danger of being foreclosed because she owed New York City (the “City”) $3,792 in unpaid water charges. Her son had already paid the water bill, but when he contacted the water department, he discovered that …

Note: Conflicting Common Law: Application Of The Self-Incrimination Clause As Applied To Smartphone Technology, Andrew Meena

ConLawNOW

This essay discusses the murkiness in the law regarding the application of the Self-Incrimination Clause as it relates to modern technology of smartphones. It evaluates the pros and cons of a judicial solution to the existing conflict against a legislative solution. Rather than through regulation or statutory reform, the focus will be on the need for a contemporary judicial interpretation of the Self-Incrimination Clause in furtherance of the common law tradition that spawned the first understandings of the Fifth Amendment. Ultimately, this examination will call upon the Supreme Court to craft a modern application of the Self-Incrimination Clause by holding …

The Power Of State Legislatures To Invalidate Private Deed Restrictions: Is It An Unconstitutional Taking?, Ken Stahl

Pepperdine Law Review

Over the past several years, state legislatures confronting a severe housing shortage have increasingly preempted local land use regulations that restrict housing supply in an effort to facilitate more housing production. But even where state legislatures have been successful, they now confront another problem: many of the preempted land use regulations are duplicated at the neighborhood or block level through private “covenants, conditions and restrictions” (CCRs) enforced by homeowners associations (HOAs). In response, California’s legislature has begun aggressively invalidating or “overriding” these CCRs. While many states have barred HOAs from prohibiting pets, clotheslines, signs, and flags, California has moved much …

Uncertainty Surrounding Takings Claimants’ Rights In Municipal Bankruptcies, Gillian Deery

Bankruptcy Research Library

(Excerpt)

Governments in the United States and its territories have the power to exercise eminent domain so long as they provide property owners with the constitutionally guaranteed “just compensation.” The Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause specifically prescribes this remedy for parties whose property has been subject to a government taking. “Just compensation” has proven to be an issue in the context of bankruptcy, as bankruptcy law inherently allows debtors to alter their obligations to their creditors.

In response to Puerto Rico’s financial crisis, Congress enacted the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (“PROMESA”), which created a modified version of …

An Appeal To Heaven—The Timeless Plea For Nollan/Dolan Extension To The Sphere Of Legislative Exactions, Sam Sturgis

MC Law Review

“. . . [W]henever the legislators endeavour to take away and destroy the property of the people . . . they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any farther obedience . . . .”1

In 1772, the colonists of Weare, New Hampshire, were given a choice: cede all white pine trees grown on their lands to the King of England or pay a hefty fine. It was an odious decree—one that struck at the very ideal of the American colonies. Imbued as they were with a sense of divine right to …

Eminent Domain And Unfettered Discretion: Lessons From A History Of U.S. Territorial Takings, Jill M. Fraley

Scholarly Articles

Eminent domain is a minimal constitutional protection for private property and one that is subject to far more discretion than previously recognized by scholars. This Article traces a novel legal history of land takings within the U.S. Territories, focusing on some of the most egregious and controversial incidents and problematic patterns originating within eminent domain law. Comparing this history to recent research that demonstrates how takings in the States have disproportionately impacted Black communities, this Article articulates three patterns of injustices in takings echoing between Black mainland communities and indigenous communities in the Territories: large-scale federally funded actions, local government …