Constitutional Law Commons^™

Book Review: After Apprendi And Erlinger, The Jury - Not The Judge - Determines Whether Or Not The Defendant Is A Habitual Traffic Offender, Harvey Gee

ConLawNOW

This book review discusses Justice Abandoned: How the Supreme Court Ignored the Constitution and Enabled Mass Incarceration by Rachel Barkow. The review concludes that the book persuasively argues that from the 1960s through the 1980s, the Supreme Court repeatedly departed from constitutional text, history, and precedent in expanding the government’s power to arrest, prosecute, and detain. And contends that these trends both curtailed individual liberty and worsened racial inequality. The review then builds on Barkow’s important scholarship to extend her conversation to cover criminal litigation in general jurisdiction state courts—where people are compelled to go when they are cited or …

The Supreme Court And The Constitution, Tom Rozinski

Open Touro Created

2026

The Supreme Court and the Constitution is a casebook for undergraduate students who want to earn about the Constitutional structure of the US government. Since the Supreme Court is responsible for interpreting the Constitution, the book begins with a history of the Court before examining the processes and methods it uses to decide cases. There is also a unit on the development of judicial review and the limitations on the scope of the Court’s actions. One major unit examines the powers of the president in both foreign and domestic affairs, and includes a section on presidential immunities. Another major …

The Holy Trinity: Religion Clauses And Education Funding On The Roberts Court, Philip T.K. Daniel, Jeffrey C. Sun

ConLawNOW

The Supreme Court’s trinity of education subsidy cases have created an emergent pattern in education funding cases that extend much further than just emphasizing rules of neutrality and accommodation. These also potentially harm minoritized perspectives and identities by moving far beyond historic doctrinal groundings of separation of church and state. In three key cases all authored by Chief Justice Roberts, Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer (2017),  Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (2020), and Carson v. Makin (2022), the Court in this “Holy Trinity” of decisions moved from a theory of benevolent neutrality to policy abdication, relinquishing …

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

Faculty Scholarship

“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: “In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.”

This Article …

The Supreme Court Under Threat: Early Lessons In Judicial Self-Protection, Curtis A. Bradley, Neil S. Siegel

Faculty Scholarship

This Essay explores how the U.S. Supreme Court, despite being vulnerable to defiance of its decisions and political retaliation, has developed tools of judicial self-protection to preserve its institutional authority and thus its capacity to sustain the Constitution and the rule of law. Arguing that the Court performs not only a legal role that requires interpretation of the law but also a political one that demands institutional preservation, the Essay examines how the Court has historically navigated political threats by using a range of tools—including avoidance, delay, narrow rulings, strategic dicta, and rhetorical appeals. The Essay focuses on three nineteenth-century …

Some Realism About Constitutional Remedies, Thomas P. Schmidt, Gillian E. Metzger

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court has wavered between two approaches to questions of executive power, which are often labeled institutional formalism and realism. Formalism treats an institution like the presidency as a “black box” to which the Constitution assigns certain powers. In Trump v. Hawaii,  for example, the Supreme Court upheld President Trump’s infamous travel ban by focusing not on the “particular President” and his past call for a “complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,” but rather on “the authority of the Presidency itself.” That is the language of institutional formalism.

Realism, on the other hand, peers into the “black …

The Supreme Court, Regime Politics, And Federalism: From The New Deal To The Trump Era, J. Mitchell Pickerill, Lilly A. Pickerill

Northern Illinois University Law Review

In the 1990s, the conservative majority on the Rehnquist Court championed state sovereignty and autonomy in a series of cases some commentators dubbed a “federalism revolution.” The Supreme Court crafted constitutional doctrines under the Commerce Clause, Tenth and Eleventh Amendments, and Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment that limited federal powers while protecting or bolstering state powers. The Court’s doctrines in those cases diverged from its approach to constitutional federalism since the New Deal in the 1930s, but it tracked with the conservative Republican political agenda promoting a “new federalism” going back to Presidents Nixon and Reagan. However, as the …

A Thumb On The Scales: How The Court Creates Presumptions To Change The Law, John Leubsdorf

Northern Illinois University Law Review

In four major recent decisions, the Supreme Court deployed the same technique: it created a presumption in favor of the result it preferred and then concluded that the losing party could not rebut that presumption. This invocation of presumptions enabled the majority to reach the result it preferred, while maintaining the appearance of balance and leaving open the possibility of different rulings in future cases. The asserted grounds for erecting the Court’s presumptions-notably history and governmental structure-likewise combined the appearance of objectivity with the reality of choice. Judicial presumptions are not new, but the current Court deploys them on a …

Public Opinion And State Abortion Policy, Gender, Age, And Ideology: Agreement With Dobbs Vs. Jackson Women’S Health Organization (2022), Jack Mcroberts

Bates College Undergraduate Law Review

No abstract provided.

Humphrey's Eulogy: A Functionalist View Of Trump V. Slaughter And The Role Of The Ftc, Alex Zhang

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Trump v. Slaughter presents the Supreme Court with a foundational question about the administrative state: whether the for-cause removal protections afforded to Federal Trade Commission Commissioners under the FTC Act are consistent with Article II's vesting of executive power in the President, and, if not, whether Humphrey's Executor v. United States should be overruled.

In March 2025, President Trump removed two FTC Commissioners without satisfying the statutory standard of inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office. The dismissed Commissioners sued, and the District Court for the District of Columbia granted summary judgment in their favor, holding that Humphrey's Executor …

Brief Of The American Immigration Lawyers Association And Immigration Law Scholars As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondents, Lindsay Nash

Amicus Briefs

Amicus curiae brief submitted by the American Immigration Lawyers Association and immigration law scholars in support of the respondents in Mullin v. Doe and Trump v. Miot before the Supreme Court of the United States. The brief argues that the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) statute strictly limits the Executive Branch's authority to terminate TPS designations and requires continuation of protection unless the statutory conditions justifying designation no longer exist. The amici further contend that TPS serves a critical humanitarian function by protecting individuals from removal, detention, and loss of work authorization while conditions in designated countries remain unsafe.

Agenda Control And Precedent, Thomas P. Schmidt

Faculty Scholarship

The U.S. Supreme Court now has vast control over its agenda: It has the power to pick and choose not only what cases it will hear through writs of certiorari, but also what specific legal questions within those cases it will consider. As a result, the Court never revisits a precedent unless it has made a prior, discretionary choice to put the viability of a precedent on its agenda. For that reason, the Court’s powers of agenda control play a significant and underappreciated role in maintaining the continuity of the legal order. Indeed, it is no surprise that the formal …

The Evolution Of The Supreme Court's Second Amendment Jurisprudence, Kermit V. Lipez

Maine Law Review

We live in the shadow of an epidemic of gun violence. We dread the next report of an inevitable mass shooting. We no longer feel secure in public places. We fear for the safety of our children and our grandchildren at their schools. We shake our heads in disbelief at the empty ritual of "thoughts and prayers" for victims and their families. As one commentator put it, we suffer from the "[u]nbearable [m]onotony of [g]rief." Why must we live like this? Why are there no solutions? In conversations posing these questions, there are often references to the Supreme Court's Second …

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.

Between Seminole Rock And A Hard(Er) Place: A New(Er) Approach To Agency Deference, Kevin O. Leske

Catholic University Law Review

In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the United States Supreme Court in 2024 overruled Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., ending the Chevron doctrine’s reign as the applicable rule for courts to use in reviewing agency interpretations of their authorizing statute. Although Chevron’s demise was no great surprise, the Court’s decision leaves myriad questions that may take decades to answer. The most pressing question is: what is now the precise standard that courts must apply to determine statutory meaning in these cases? But there is a related question that is equally important to our ever-changing …

Communicative Legitimacy: The Supreme Court's Hidden Cultural Binaries In The U.S. Civil Sphere, Steven Arrigg Koh

Faculty Scholarship

How does the U.S. Supreme Court establish its legitimacy? Over the last two hundred years in U.S. society, the Court has interpreted the U.S. Constitution on watershed issues such as slavery, segregation, and marriage equality. And yet the Constitution is just 7,591 words. A puzzle thus emerges: how does the Court intelligibly interpret this short text for U.S. society? This article develops a new theoretical and empirical cultural sociological account of such Supreme Court decision-making, which it calls “communicative legitimacy.” According to this theory, which draws on Jeffrey Alexander’s civil sphere theory, the Court consistently and inevitably draws on a …

Book Review: We're All Traditionalists Now (Most Of The Time), Richard H. Fallon, Jr., The Changing Constitution: Constitutional Law In The Trump-Era Supreme Court, Michael Gentithes

ConLawNOW

This review highlights the scope and importance of Richard Fallon’s book, The Changing Constitution: Constitutional Law in the Trump-Era Supreme Court. Fallon, a giant of constitutional work, provides a comprehensive, accessible, and vitally important catalogue of the Court’s methodological changes in his posthumously published book. The book argues that while textualism and originalism “have achieved unparalleled prominence,” the Court is also “not consistently originalist” and often relies on a version of traditionalism, similar to but importantly distinct from originalism, that marks an important and undertheorized change. And in yet other areas, the Court eschews either originalism or traditionalism for …

Let Them Hear It: Peaceful Protests Near The Homes Of Supreme Court Justices, Srikanth Reddy

Lewis & Clark Law Review

All of us—not just attorneys and politicians—need to be more critical and skeptical of the Supreme Court. Criticism by ordinary people is good and appropriate, even if it hurts the Justices’ feelings. That includes public protests. When a case matters enough to them, members of the public can and should criticize the Court and its Justices, including by peacefully gathering and protesting near a Justice’s home, or when a Justice appears out in the world.

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 …

A History Of Vacatur, Benjamin B. Johnson

UF Law Faculty Publications

Vacatur, a seemingly routine appellate tool, has evolved into one of the Supreme Court’s most potent instruments for declaring law. This Article offers the first comprehensive historical account of vacatur, tracing its roots from English and early American practice through its twentieth-century transformations to its contemporary uses. Historically, courts used vacatur to manage dockets, correct procedural irregularities, or enforce reversals on the merits. Modern usage has departed markedly from these roots. The Court now frequently employs vacatur to declare binding legal rules without issuing judgments, effectively circumventing traditional limits on judicial power. Taking seriously the Court’s own insistence on history …

The Forgotten Income-Attribution Power, Alex Zhang

Faculty Articles

Economic inequality stands at record levels, and constitutional law haunts egalitarian reform. In 2024, the Supreme Court decided the latest contest. Moore v. United States rebuffed an attempt to sharply limit the federal taxing power, as a razor-thin majority upheld Congress’s attribution of foreign corporations’ income to domestic shareholders. But four Justices criticized the reasoning of the majority, faulting its use of a fabricated doctrine.

This Feature provides a systematic account of Congress’s income-attribution power. It excavates overlooked litigation materials and case law from the infancy of the current federal income tax. In the 1920s and 1930s, litigants attacked, on …

Popular Constitutionalism In A Populist Age, Thomas G. Donnelly

Law Faculty Publications

Popular constitutionalism burst onto the scene as a challenge to the constitutional authority of the Supreme Court. Decades later, popular constitutionalists remain susceptible to one of the earliest (and most potent) critiques of their project—the charge that they have done far too little to explain how their theory might work in practice. With the rise of modern populism, it’s also fair to ask whether popular constitutionalism is an approach that’s capable of meeting the challenges of the current constitutional moment. In this Article, I offer a new vision for popular constitutionalism—one that shows how the theory might work in practice, …

Interpreting Anti-Boycott Laws In The Shadow Of The First Amendment, Joseph A. Tomain

Articles by Maurer Faculty

Thirty-eight states have enacted “anti-BDS” laws. These laws require people or entities doing business with the state to certify that they do not participate in the Boycott Divestment Sanction movement against Israel. Typically, these laws define boycott as a “refusal to deal, terminating business, or other actions” that limit commercial relations with Israel or Israeli entities. It is highly contested in the courts and commentary whether these anti-boycott laws violate the First Amendment. Assuming arguendo that the “refusal to deal” and “terminating business” clauses do not implicate the First Amendment, that leaves the residual clause. At least one court and …

Reconstituting A Constitution, And A Republic: The Architecture Of Authoritarian Rule, J. Maria Glover

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

A constitution can be remade without tearing it down, or even changing a single word. It is done by law.

“The judicial power is vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as Congress may establish,” whose “province and duty” it is to “say what the law is.” U.S. Const. Art. III §1; Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 1 (Cranch) 137 (1803). It is not the power to remake the Constitution that grants it.

The Supreme Court is turning the inherited powers that hold power to law into instruments of its own aggrandizement. It is taking authority from …

Law’S Limits: Abortion And The Social Determinants Of Health, Maya Manian

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

After Dobbs: How the Supreme Court Ended Roe but Not Abortion (“After Dobbs”) is a prescient and timely response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade and upended nearly five decades of constitutional protection for abortion. In this meticulously structured oral history, law professor David S. Cohen and sociologist Carole Joffe center the voices of abortion providers, clinic administrators, funders, and advocates from across the country. After Dobbs, not only documents the extraordinary persistence of abortion supporters in the face of legal devastation but also bears witness to …

Foreword: The Constitution And Public Finance—Why Now And Why Ever?, Conor Clarke, Eric Kubo

Scholarship@WashULaw

This paper introduces the Washington University Law Review’s 2026 symposium issue on “Taxing, Spending, and the Constitution.” We situate the symposium’s ten papers within three interconnected developments in public finance law: the Supreme Court’s recent decision on the Sixteenth Amendment in Moore v. United States; the Trump Administration’s assertions of executive control over appropriated funds; and the use of emergency and trade statutes to justify sweeping tariff authority.

We also step back to ask why constitutional issues in public finance—long treated as a technical backwater—have become such a central site of doctrinal and political conflict. We offer several explanations beyond …

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 …

Species Of State Constitutional Lockstepping, Michael L. Smith

Faculty Articles

When interpreting state constitutional provisions, state courts frequently take a "lockstep" approach by adopting the United States Supreme Court's interpretation of analogous federal constitutional provisions. Critics often portray lockstep interpretation as misguided and have identified varieties of lockstepping, including unreflective, reflective, prospective, and methodological lockstep interpretation. This Article contributes to these discussions by identifying several additional forms of lockstep interpretation that have thus far gone undiscussed: lazy, mandatory, atextual, and sticky lockstepping.

Several of these variations highlight distinct failures of state courts to independently interpret state constitutions. This includes lazy lockstepping, where state courts tend to engage in repeated, thoughtless …

Spending Programs And The New Roberts Court, Nicole Huberfeld

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court is poised to place new limits on Congress’s spending power at the urging of states vying for regulatory dominance, particularly in health care and public health. This article is the first to highlight and catalog the throughlines of argumentation, which sparked after states successfully challenged the ACA but have grown into opposing more than Medicaid’s cooperative federalism. This means federal and state programs that heavily rely on federal spending power are at risk, so studying this pattern is imperative. The article begins with a descriptive account of increasing spending power challenges, which make use of converging factors …

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 …