Constitutional Law Commons^™

Damage Control? A Comment On Professor Neuman’S Reading Of Reno V. Aadc, David Cole

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

This comment responds to an article by Professor Gerald Neuman on the Supreme Court's recent decision in Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (AADC). The Court in AADC rejected a selective prosecution claim by immigrants targeted for deportation based on First Amendment-protected activities, finding that Congress had stripped the federal courts of jurisdiction over such claims, and that in any event the Constitution does not recognize a selective prosecution objection to a deportation proceeding. Professor Neuman argues that the decision should not be read as implying that aliens have less First Amendment protection than citizens, and that the decision can …

Article Iii And The Adequate And Independent State Grounds Doctrine , Cynthia L. Fountaine

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Transcript: Must Congress End The Disenfranchisement Of The District Of Columbia? A Constitutional Debate , American University Law Review

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

From Enemies Of The Crown To Regional Telephone Companies: Bills Of Attainder Reappraised, Michael L. Landsman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Much Sound, Not Too Much Fury: The Supreme Court's Criminal Law Decisions During The 1997 Term, William E. Hellerstein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Discrimination Cases In The Supreme Court's 1997 Term, Eileen Kaufman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Nea V. Finley: A Decision In Search Of A Rationale, Lackland H. Bloom Jr.

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

Debate has raged over whether Congress can constitutionally restrict, or at least influence, the ability of the National Endowment for the Arts (“NEA”) to award grants to artists and institutions for the creation or display of art work that a significant segment of the public would consider highly offensive. In the October 1997 Term, the Supreme Court, by an 8-1 margin in NEA v. Finley, upheld section 954(d), a 1991 congressional amendment to the NEA Act that requires the Chairperson of the NEA to ensure that, in establishing regulations and procedures for assessing artistic excellence and artistic merit, “general standards …

Supreme Court Section 1983 Developments: October 1998 Term, Martin A. Schwartz

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court Section 1983 Developments, Martin A. Schwartz

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Mr. Justice Holmes's Constitutionally Crooked Path Part Ii: The State Sovereignty Jurisdictional Stopgap , Mitchell B. Weiss

Cleveland State Law Review

This article analyzes the last turn in Justice Holmes's constitutionally crooked path, largely by penetrating to the very core of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Alden v. Maine. Part I therefore traces the Court's waffling attitude towards the division of regulatory power between the state and federal governments. Then, against this backdrop, Part II takes the jurisdictional turn by analyzing the Court's most recent attempt to resuscitate the Tenth Amendment's check on Congress's Commerce Power. To sharpen the focus, much of this article will focus on the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal statute that always seems to sit …

To Heal Another Or To Protect Oneself?: Hiv Under The Ada In Light Of Bragdon V. Abbott, Leah Guidry

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Establishment Clause And Government Religious Displays: The Court That Stole Christmas, Jennifer H. Greenhalgh

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Breard, Printz, And The Treaty Power, Carlos Manuel Vázquez

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

This article considers whether the anti-commandeering principle of New York v. United States and Printz v. United States applies to exercises of the Treaty Power. It illustrates the problem with an analysis of the treaty provision involved in Breard v. Greene, 118 S. Ct. 1352 (1998), which requires state officials to notify certain aliens they arrest that they have a right to consult with their consul. Whether exercises of the treaty power are subject to the commandeering prohibition depends on the resolution of two ambiguities in the Supreme Court's anti-commandeering doctrine. The first concerns the distinction between commandeering and …

Cleaning Up The Legal Debris Left In The Wake Of Whitewater, Susan Low Bloch

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

We have learned a lot in the twenty-five years since Watergate. During the scandal itself, we confirmed that the President is not above the law. We learned that executive privilege is constitutionally protected, but that it is not absolute. And, we learned that a need exists for an independent counsel, but that we don't necessarily need a statute to establish such an office.

Watergate and the Nixon era spawned several so-called "reforms": the establishment of the independent counsel statute, presidential immunity from civil damage suits for official action, and public ownership of the President's official papers. It is interesting and …

City Of Boerne V. Flores Wrecks Rfra: Searching For Nuggets Among The Rubble, John Gatliff

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

Agency, Equality, And Antidiscrimination Law , Tracy E. Higgins, Laura A. Rosenbury

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court increasingly has interpreted the Equal Protection Clause as a mandate for the state to treat citizens as if they were equal-as a limitation on the state's ability to draw distinctions on the basis of characteristics such as race and, to a lesser extent, gender. In the context of race, the Court has struck down not only race-specific policies designed to harm the historically oppressed, but race conscious policies designed to foster racial equality. Although in theory the Court has left open the possibility that benign uses of race may be constitutional under some set of facts, in …

Overcoming Overbreadth: Facial Challenges And The Valid Rule Requirement , Marc E. Isserles

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Federalist Or Friends Of Adams: The Marshall Court And Party Politics, Mark A. Graber

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Whose Federalism, S. Elizabeth Malloy

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

This Article examines briefly the Seminole Tribe and City of Boerne decisions. Part II then focuses on the ADA and the reasons why Congress made it applicable to government conduct as well as private conduct. Finally, Part III examines the argument, based on the new federalism, that the ADA should not apply to state entities. It does not appear that the Court's new federalism has had a liberty-enhancing effect for some of the most vulnerable persons in our society. The Court's revitalized federalism jurisprudence has led to questions about the continuing validity of many of our civil rights statutes as …

Commerce Clause, First Department: R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company V. City Of New York Department Of Finance

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Establishment Of Religion, Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department: Robbins V. Bright

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Free Speech, Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department: Urbach V. Farrell

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Right To Counsel, Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department: People V. Gabriel

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Right To Jury Trial, Supreme Court, Dutchess County: People V. Mcintosh

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Right To A Speedy Trial, Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department: People V. Coplin

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Political Association, Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department: Kalkstein V. Dinapoli

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Search And Seizure, Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department: People V. Lafontaine

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Search And Seizure, Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department: People V. Smith

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Search And Seizure, Supreme Court, Bronx County: People V. Johnson

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Search And Seizure, Supreme Court, Queens County: People V. Brewer

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.