Constitutional Law Commons^™

Banning Abortions Based On A Prenatal Diagnosis Of Down Syndrome: The Future Of Abortion Regulation, Alexandra Russo

Touro Law Review

Since the infamous Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade, the United States has remained divided, each side unyielding to the other regarding the legal and moral issues surrounding abortion. The issues surrounding abortion have become progressively more politicized, thus threatening a woman’s right to a safe and healthy termination of her pregnancy. Restrictions on a woman’s ability to terminate a child with a genetic disorder, such as Down syndrome, highlight this concern. State restrictions on abortion that prohibit abortions based on a diagnosis of Down syndrome seek to prevent the stigmatization of the Down syndrome community. Regulations, such as …

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.

The Power To “Try” “Cases Of Impeachment”: Some Reflections On The Finality, Transparency And Integrity Of Senate Adjudications Of Presidential Impeachments (Including That Of Donald J. Trump), Vikram D. Amar, Jason Mazzone

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

Witness For The Self: Miranda V. Arizona’S Political Theology, Graham James Mcaleer

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rock And Hard Place Arguments, Jareb Gleckel, Grace Brosofsky

Seattle University Law Review

This Article explores what we coin “rock and hard place” (RHP) arguments in the law, and it aims to motivate mission-driven plaintiffs to seek out such arguments in their cases. The RHP argument structure helps plaintiffs win cases even when the court views that outcome as unfavorable.

We begin by dissecting RHP dilemmas that have long existed in the American legal system. As Part I reveals, prosecutors and law enforcement officials have often taken advantage of RHP dilemmas and used them as a tool to persuade criminal defendants to forfeit their constitutional rights, confess, or give up the chance to …

Abridging The Fifth Amendment: Compelled Decryption, Passwords, & Biometrics, Raila Cinda Brejt

Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal

Technological developments change the way we perform tasks by creating more efficient solutions to old problems and giving rise to opportunities not previously possible. Advances in communications technology have made the world feel smaller and more accessible. These changes also affect the methodology of both criminal activity and the investigative procedures of law enforcement. Our fundamental rights are challenged as judges and state actors try to strike the perfect balance between longstanding values and contemporary problems. This Note considers the Fifth Amendment challenges that arise when law enforcement attempts to obtain evidence from a criminal defendant’s encrypted device. This Note …

Charles Reich: Due Process In The Eye Of The Receiver, Harold Hongju Koh

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

School “Safety” Measures Jump Constitutional Guardrails, Maryam Ahranjani

Seattle University Law Review

In the wake of George Floyd’s murder and efforts to achieve racial justice through systemic reform, this Article argues that widespread “security” measures in public schools, including embedded law enforcement officers, jump constitutional guardrails. These measures must be rethought in light of their negative impact on all children and in favor of more effective—and constitutionally compliant—alternatives to promote school safety. The Black Lives Matter, #DefundthePolice, #abolishthepolice, and #DefundSchoolPolice movements shine a timely and bright spotlight on how the prisonization of public schools leads to the mistreatment of children, particularly children with disabilities, boys, Black and brown children, and low-income children. …

“Public Use” Or Public Abuse? A New Test For Public Use In Light Of Kelo, Taylor Haines

Seattle University Law Review

The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment has long been controversial. It allows the government to take private property for the purpose of “public use.” But what does public use mean? The definition is one of judicial interpretation. It has evolved from the original meaning intended by the drafters of the Constitution. Now, the meaning is extremely broad. This Note argues that both the original and contemporary meaning of public use are problematic. It explores the issues with both definitions and suggests a new test, solidified in legislation instead of judicial interpretation.

Cryptography, Passwords, Privacy, And The Fifth Amendment, Gary C. Kessler, Ann M. Phillips

Journal of Digital Forensics, Security and Law

Military-grade cryptography has been widely available at no cost for personal and commercial use since the early 1990s. Since the introduction of Pretty Good Privacy (PGP), more and more people encrypt files and devices, and we are now at the point where our smartphones are encrypted by default. While this ostensibly provides users with a high degree of privacy, compelling a user to provide a password has been interpreted by some courts as a violation of our Fifth Amendment protections, becoming an often insurmountable hurdle to law enforcement lawfully executing a search warrant. This paper will explore some of the …

Pretrial And Error: The Use Of Statements Inadmissible At Trial In Preliminary Proceedings, Erin Hughes

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

This Note argues that a “criminal case,” as provided by the Fifth Amendment, begins with the initiation of adversarial judicial criminal proceedings, whether that commencement occurs through a formal charge, a preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment. A broad understanding of the Fifth Amendment’s scope aligns with the Second, Seventh, Ninth and Tenth Circuits’ analysis. In particular, this Note endorses the in-depth analysis provided by the Tenth Circuit in its determination that a “criminal case” under the Fifth Amendment includes preliminary proceedings. This Note further offers an analysis of past Supreme Court precedent as well as policy rationales that support …

Campus Sexual Assault And Due Process, Ilana Frier

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

College women experience rape and sexual assault at alarmingly high rates. One highly publicized statistic, famously asserted by President Obama, states that one in five women experience sexual assault while attending college. In 2011, the U.S. Department of Education radically expanded its involvement in campus sexual misconduct adjudications, encouraging vigorous enforcement. Sustained regulatory and public pressure effectuated some positive change for victims. However, a proliferation of litigation also followed. Students found responsible of campus sexual assault, most of whom were males, increasingly began suing their schools alleging due process violations in their adjudications. In 2018, the Trump administration's Department of …

Unlimited Data Search Plan: Warrantless Border Search Of Mobile Device Data Likely Unconstitutional For Violating The Fundamental Right To Informational Privacy, Atanu Das

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

Part I of this Article discusses a case in which a United States citizen was subject to an unconstitutional warrantless border search of his mobile device data. Part II explains the history and current state of Supreme Court jurisprudence of the border search exception doctrine. Part III explains the way in which Supreme Court jurisprudence finds the right to informational privacy for mobile device data to be a fundamental right. Part IV discusses the reluctance of some legal commentators to find that a governmental intrusion on the right to informational privacy is subject to strict scrutiny. Part V finds …

Why Law Of Evidence Supports The Verdict That The President Is Guilty, Edward A. Purcell Jr.

Other Publications

This post originally appeared on https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/477186-why-law-of-evidence-supports-the-verdict-that-the-president-is-guilty

Knick V. Township Of Scott, Alizabeth A. Bronsdon

Public Land & Resources Law Review

The Supreme Court overruled a 34-year-old precedent and sparked a sharp dissent by holding that a landowner impacted by a local ordinance requiring public access to an unofficial cemetery on her property could bring a takings claim directly in federal court. The decision eliminated a Catch-22 state-litigation requirement that effectively barred local takings plaintiffs from federal court, but raised concerns about government land use and regulation, judicial federalism, and the role of stare decisis.

Gamble V. United States: A Commentary, Kayla Mullen

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Under the judicially created dual-sovereignty exception, a defendant may be prosecuted by state and federal governments for the same conduct, due to the fact that the state and federal government constitute two separate sovereignties. The doctrine is grounded in the idea that each sovereign derives its power from independent sources—the federal government from the Constitution and the states from their inherent police power, preserved to them by the Tenth Amendment—and thus, each sovereign may determine what constitutes an offense against its peace and dignity in an exercise of its own sovereignty. Under this exception, defendants, by a single act, may …

Custodial Compulsion, Kyron J. Huigens

Articles

In cases that fall under Miranda v Arizona, police interrogators not only give a suspect reasons to confess; they also suggest that the suspect ought to confess. In doing so, interrogators effectively invoke the Wigmorean duty of a citizen to produce any evidence he has in his possession, including his own confession. That is, they invoke the duty against which the Self Incrimination Clause stands, so that the clause is applicable to police interrogations, and is violated where it is not waived. This means that “a Miranda violation” is a violation of the Self Incrimination Clause in the field, just …

President Trump's Big Beautiful Wall: Discrimination, Eminent Domain, And The Public Use Requirement, Meghan K. Tierney

Chicago-Kent Law Review

At a press conference held in Trump Tower New York City on June 16, 2015, Donald Trump announced his candidacy for President of the United States by promising to expand the border wall along the Southern United States. President Trump has insisted that his only reasons behind completely separating the United States from Mexico are to curtail illegal immigration and curb drug cartel activity, but many argue that his statements indicate a much more sinister motive based in racial discrimination. The public use requirement of the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause allows the federal government to take private land for the …

Clarifying The Scope Of The Self-Incrimination Clause: City Of Hays V. Vogt, Samantha Ruben

Chicago-Kent Law Review

Three months after oral arguments, the Supreme Court dismissed the writ of certiorari in City of Hays v. Vogt as improvidently granted. The question in Vogt was whether the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is violated when incriminating statements are used at a probable cause hearing, as opposed to a criminal trial. As a result of the “DIG,” the Court left a circuit split unresolved surrounding the meaning of a “criminal case” within the Fifth Amendment’s Self-Incrimination Clause.

This note argues that the Supreme Court should not have dismissed Vogt and should have decided that the Fifth Amendment right against …

Reviving Escobedo, Janet Moore

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

This Symposium Essay reflects on the fifty years that have passed since the Chicago Eight trial by highlighting a new development in criminal procedure that has drawn little scholarly attention: Judges are reviving the right of stationhouse access to defense counsel along lines previously envisaged in Escobedo v. Illinois. The Essay also offers fresh historical and theoretical perspective on the need for stationhouse counsel. First, the Essay draws on a series of events occurring during and after the Chicago Eight trial to illustrate the interrelationship of violence and silence in criminal legal systems, the distinctive coerciveness of custodial interrogation for …

What Am I Really Saying When I Open My Smartphone: A Response To Prof. Kerr, Laurent Sacharoff

Sturm College of Law: Faculty Scholarship

In his forthcoming article in the Texas Law Review, Compelled Decryption and the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination, Orin S. Kerr addresses a common question confronting courts. If a court orders a suspect or defendant to enter her password to open a smartphone or other device as part of a law enforcement investigation, does that order violate the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination?

To answer this question, Kerr appropriately looks by analogy to existing Fifth Amendment case law as applied to document subpoenas, the “act of production” doctrine, and its mysterious cousin, the “foregone conclusion” doctrine. From these materials, he gleans a …

"Your Device Is Disabled": How And Why Compulsion Of Biometrics To Unlock Devices Should Be Protected By The Fifth Amendment Privilege, Harrison Metz

Valparaiso University Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Asylum Makeover: Chevron Deference, The Self-Referral And Review Authority, Jessica Senat

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

When Big Brother Becomes “Big Father”: Examining The Continued Use Of Parens Patriae In State Juvenile Delinquency Proceedings, Emily R. Mowry

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

The U.S. Constitution grants American citizens numerous Due Process rights; but, historically, the Supreme Court declined to extend these Due Process rights to children. Initially, common-law courts treated child offenders over the age of seven in the same manner as adult criminals. At the start of the 20th century, though, juvenile reformers assisted in creating unique juvenile courts that used the parens patriae doctrine and viewed children as delinquent youths in need of judicial parental guidance rather than punishment. Later, starting in 1967, the Supreme Court released multiple opinions extending certain constitutional Due Process rights to children in juvenile delinquency …

Judges Do It Better: Why Judges Can (And Should) Decide Life Or Death, Andrew R. Ford

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

Following its decision in Furman v. Georgia, the Supreme Court of the United States has attempted to standardize procedures that states use to subject offenders to the ultimate penalty. In practice, this attempt at standardization has divided capital sentencing into two distinct parts: the death eligibility decision and the death selection decision. The eligibility decision addresses whether the sentencer may impose the death penalty, while the selection decision determines who among that limited subset of eligible offenders is sentenced to death. In Ring v. Arizona, the Court held for the first time that the Sixth Amendment right to …

Constitutional Confessions: In Favor Of A "Loewy Plus' Approach, Tracy Hresko Pearl

Faculty Articles

Professor Arnold Loewy famously argues that, given the failings of Fifth Amendment jurisprudence, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel should attach at interrogation rather than at the onset of adversarial proceedings. His proposal is wise and should be adopted. However, given the failure of the Court's ruling in Miranda v. Arizona to reduce psychological coercion during custodial interrogations, several additional reforms are needed. Namely, it should be significantly more difficult for suspects to waive their right to counsel during interrogation, all custodial interrogations should be recorded, and particularly coercive interrogation techniques – like lying about evidence – should be banned.

The Global Person: Pig-Human Embryos, Personhood, And Precision Medicine, Yvonne Cripps

Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies

Chimeras, in the form of pig-human embryos engineered by CRISPR-Cas9 and other biotechnologies, have been created as potential sources of organs for transplantation. Against that background, and in an era of "precision medicine," this Article examines the concept of the global genetically modified person and asks whether humanness and personhood are being eroded, or finding new boundaries in intellectual property and constitutional law.

A Product Of Childhood: Accounting For Age In The Miranda Analysis, Ariana Rodriguez

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

One of the most polarizing areas of constitutional criminal procedure is that relating to police interrogations and confessions. While the Fifth Amendment guarantees a number of protections from self-incrimination and the inherently coercive nature of criminal investigation, these Constitutional promises are more likely to go unfulfilled when the accused is a child. This Article thoroughly examines the current law’s use of the “totality of the circumstances” test in deciding whether a valid Miranda waiver occurred or whether a juvenile has been taken into custody and, more importantly, explores why this current test remains an inadequate solution for protecting children’s Miranda …

Taking The Fifth: How The Tenth Circuit Determined The Right Against Self-Incrimination Is "More Than A Trial Right" In Vogt V. City Of Hays, Daniel J. De Cecco

Pepperdine Law Review

In Vogt v. City of Hays, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled that the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is more than a trial right and applies to the use of compelled statements in probable cause hearings as well as in criminal trials. While the Self-Incrimination Clause states that the right applies “in a criminal case,” there is a circuit split regarding the definition of a “criminal case.” The Tenth Circuit joined the Second, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits in finding that the right against self-incrimination applies to more than a trial, relying on the common …

Unlocking The Fifth Amendment: Passwords And Encrypted Devices, Laurent Sacharoff

Sturm College of Law: Faculty Scholarship

Each year, law enforcement seizes thousands of electronic devices — smartphones, laptops, and notebooks — that it cannot open without the suspect’s password. Without this password, the information on the device sits completely scrambled behind a wall of encryption. Sometimes agents will be able to obtain the information by hacking, discovering copies of data on the cloud, or obtaining the password voluntarily from the suspects themselves. But when they cannot, may the government compel suspects to disclose or enter their password?

This Article considers the Fifth Amendment protection against compelled disclosures of passwords — a question that has split and …