Constitutional Law Commons^™

Self-Incrimination, Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department: People V. Hall

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Self-Incrimination, Supreme Court, Bronx County: Seabrook V. Johnson

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Self-Incrimination, Supreme Court, Suffolk County: People V. Shulman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Alien-Citizen Paradox And Other Consequences Of U.S. Colonialism, Ediberto Román

Faculty Publications

This Article examines the United States' 100-year-old failed promise. In addition to detailing the unequal citizenship status of the people of Puerto Rico, this Article examines the role that racial and ethnic-based prejudice has played in this issue. 34 Essentially, this Article seeks to compare the traditional legal and political rhetoric of American inclusiveness and the virtues of U.S. citizenship to the reality of colonialism and the impact white supremacy has had on U.S. colonial history. By addressing the subordinated status of "aliencitizens," this Article illustrates the incompatibility of equality under colonialism. As Congress addresses the question of Puerto Rico's …

Does New York's Death Penalty Statute Violate The New York Constitution?, Honorable Stewart F. Hancock Jr., Christopher Quinn, Richard Klein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The New Etiquette Of Federalism: New York, Printz And Yeskey, Matthew D. Adler, Seth F. Kreimer

Faculty Scholarship

In New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), the Court revived "state sovereignty" as a justiciable constitutional constraint on federal mandates, and struck down portions of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act on the grounds that the statute impermissibly "commandeered" state governments. Printz v. United States, 117 S.Ct. 2365 (1997), confirmed the anti-commandeering principle and relied upon it to invalidate elements of another federal statute, the Brady Act. This Article analyzes and criticizes the anti-commandeering jurisprudence, as it has emerged in New York, Printz, and a case decided by the Court last Term, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections …

New York Public School Financing Litigation (Symposium: New York State Constitutional Law: Trends And Developments), Leon D. Lazer

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

The Clean Air Act Amendments Of 1990 And An Unbridled Spending Power: Will They Survive On The Supreme Court's Road To Substantive Federalism, Mark A. Miller

Cleveland State Law Review

The question remains as to how far the Supreme Court will go in its refortification of the Tenth Amendment. This Note explores emerging federalism trends and evaluates the CAA in light of a stronger state sovereignty that is appearing on the constitutional horizon. Parts II and III examine the CAAA and the constitutional problems engendered by the Act. Part IV examines current Tenth Amendment and Spending Clause jurisprudence, and illustrates that the CAAA is a classic example of how Congress has been able to circumvent the Tenth Amendment with its Spending power. Part V presents a new view of federalism …

Contracts Clause, Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Department: B.O.C.E.S. For Sole Supervisory District Of Rockland County V. State Of New York

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Equal Protection, Supreme Court, New York County: Walter V. City Of New York Police Department

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Ex Post Facto Laws, Supreme Court, Dutchess County: Doe V. Division Of Probation And Correction Alternatives

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Free Speech, Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department: Macfarlane V. Village Of Scotia

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Right To Counsel, Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department: People V. Leslie

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

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

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Right To Counsel, Supreme Court, Queens County: People V. Bell

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Right To Jury Trial, Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department: Hynes V. Tomei Court

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Search And Seizure, Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department: People V. Hichez

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Self-Incrimination, Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department: Prudential Securities Incorporated V. Brigianos

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Self-Incrimination, Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department: In Re Gladys H.

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Separation Of Powers, Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department: Dorst V. Pataki

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Full Faith And Credit And The Equity Conflict, Polly J. Price

Faculty Articles

As this Article relates, the current problem with interstate en­forcement of injunctions and other equitable decrees is illustrated by the Court's confusion in Baker. The Court reached the correct result in the case before it, but the basic problems of "equity con­flict" remain unresolved. Both the Court's opinion and the two con­currences were unsatisfactory because the Court failed to address the key underlying issue of whether or to what extent courts may rely on state law to enjoin extraterritorial conduct. Had the Court focused on this issue, I argue, it could have based its decision upon a more appealing rationale. …

Affirmative Action Awash In Confusion: Backward-Looking-Future-Oriented Justifications For Race-Conscious Measures, Ann C. Mcginley

Scholarly Works

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, decided Taxman v. Board of Education of the Township of Piscataway, in August 1996. Eight judges agreed that he Board of Education of Piscataway Township, New Jersey violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by using race, in accordance with its affirmative action policy, to break a tie between two teachers in the Business Department at Piscataway High School when determining which teacher to lay off. A strong dissent by Chief Judge Sloviter was joined by two other Court of Appeals judges. The majority decision is remarkable in its breadth, …

Rethinking The Supreme Court’S Hands-Off Approach To Questions Of Religious Practice And Belief, Samuel J. Levine

Scholarly Works

In recent years, the United States Supreme Court has shown an increasing unwillingness to engage in deciding matters that relate to the interpretation of religious practice and belief. While the Justices have articulated valid concerns concerning these cases, courts should not allow these concerns to deter them from making decisions vital to the effective adjudication of Free Exercise and Establishment Clause cases. In fact, it appears that as a result of the Court's increasing refusal to consider carefully the religious questions central to many cases, the Court often tends to group together religious claims and practices, regardless of the relative …

Section 1983 Litigation, Martin A. Schwartz, George C. Pratt

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Understanding Mahon In Historical Context, William Michael Treanor

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Despite its enormous influence on constitutional law, Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon is just such an opinion; the primary purpose of the author’s article Jam for Justice Holmes: Reassessing the Significance of Mahon is to clarify Holmes's intent by placing the opinion in historical context and in the context of Holmes's other opinions. While other scholars have also sought to place Mahon in context, his account differs in large part because of its recognition, as part of the background of Mahon, of a separate line of cases involving businesses affected with a public interest.

The author argues that at …

Search And Seizure, Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department: People V. King

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Deciding The Stop And Frisk Cases: A Look Inside The Supreme Court's Conference, John Q. Barrett

Faculty Publications

In our system of constitutional decision-making, the Supreme Court makes law as an institution in its formal written opinions. The Court and its individual members make their official legal marks in the printed pages of the United States Reports. In June 1968, in Terry v. Ohio and Sibron v. New York, the two decisions that approved the constitutionality under the Fourth Amendment of police stop and frisk practices, the Court filled many official pages with rich discussion. Over the ensuing thirty years, these Court and individual opinions have shaped the course of constitutional analysis in our courts and guided the …

Jam For Justice Holmes: Reassessing The Significance Of Mahon, William Michael Treanor

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

When courts and commentators discuss Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, they use the same word with remarkable regularity: famous. Mahon has achieved this fame in part because it was the occasion for conflict between judicial giants, and because the result seems ironic. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.--the great Lochner dissenter and a jurist generally considered a champion of judicial deference to legislatures in the sphere of economic decision-making--wrote the opinion striking down a Pennsylvania statute barring coal mining that could cause the surface to cave-in. Sharply dissenting from Holmes's opinion was his consistent ally on the Court, Justice Louis …

Breard And The Federal Power To Require Compliance With Icj Orders Of Provisional Measures, Carlos Manuel Vázquez

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Among the puzzling aspects of the Breard episode was the Clinton administration's claim that the decision whether or not to comply with the Order of the International Court of Justice requiring the postponement of Breard's execution lay exclusively in the hands of the Governor of Virginia. The ICJ's Order provided that"[t]he United States should take all measures at its disposal to ensure that Angel Francisco Breard is not executed pending the final decision in these proceedings." The Clinton administration argued that the Order was not binding, but it also took the position that, even if the order were binding, …

Night And Day: Coeur D’Alene, Breard, And The Unraveling Of The Prospective-Retrospective Distinction In Eleventh Amendment Doctrine, Carlos Manuel Vázquez

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Supreme Court's decision in Edelman v. Jordan has been read to establish a distinction between suits seeking prospective relief from a state official's violation of federal law (which are not barred by the Eleventh Amendment under Ex parte Young) and suits seeking retrospective relief from the state (which are barred by the Eleventh Amendment, even if the officer is the defendant). Commentators and the lower courts have long had difficulty understanding and applying the distinction. Until recently, the principal effect of the Edelman line of cases has been to bar suits seeking damages and similar monetary relief from …