Constitutional Law Commons^™

The Supreme Court's Constitutional "Bright Line": Preempting Authority Of 47 Of 50 States, Steven Ferrey

Suffolk University Law School Faculty Works

The Supreme Court unanimously stripped 47 of the 50 states of their authority to regulate key commerce. In Hughes v. Talen Energy Marketing, the Court withdrew from state authority the power over law applicable to, and now controlling, what is identified as the second most important invention in history.

The transcendent constitutional question is whether this unanimous Supreme Court decision expands constitutional “field preemption” to permanently withhold from 47 states this power, or only employs “conflict preemption” to preempt this one single challenged state regulation. This article examines and esolves that the Court chose “field preemption” to permanently crimp and …

Rethinking The Dormant Commerce Clause?: Climate Change And Food Security, Michael Barsa

Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy

No abstract provided.

To Speak Or Not To Speak, That Is Your Liberty: Janus V. Afscme, David Forte

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

Some Supreme Court precedents go through extensive death spasms before being interred. Lochner v. New York, Plessy v. Ferguson, and Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce come to mind. Others like Chisholm v. Georgia and Minersville School District v. Gobitis incurred a swift and summary execution. Still others, overtaken by subsequent cases, remain wraith-like presences among the Court’s past acts: Beauharnais v. Illinois and Buck v. Bell, for example, remain “on the books.”

Artis V. District Of Columbia—What Did The Court Actually Say?, Doron M. Kalir

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

On January 22, 2018, the Supreme Court issued Artis v. District of Columbia. A true "clash of the titans," this 5-4 decision featured colorful comments on both sides, claims of "absurdities," uncited use of Alice in Wonderland vocabulary ("curiouser," anyone?), and an especially harsh accusation by the dissent that "we’ve wandered so far from the idea of a federal government of limited and enumerated powers that we’ve begun to lose sight of what it looked like in the first place."

One might assume that the issue in question was a complex constitutional provision, or a dense, technical federal code …

Is There Any Silver Lining To Trinity Lutheran Church, Inc. V. Comer?, Caroline Mala Corbin

Articles

No abstract provided.

Buck V. Davis: Anti-Discriminatory Principles In Habeas Corpus Cases, Daniella Rubin

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

No abstract provided.

County Of Los Angeles V. Mendez: Defending The Constitutionality Of The "Provocation Rule", Layla Bishara

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

No abstract provided.

State V. Hill, Nazariy Gavrysh

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

Law Library Blog (January 2018): Legal Beagle's Blog Archive, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Law Library Newsletters/Blog

No abstract provided.

Foreword: Criminal Procedure In Winter, Daniel Epps

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

No abstract provided.

Obergefell Liberates Bathrooms, Ayana Osada

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

Substantive Due Process And The Politicization Of The Supreme Court, Eric Millman

CMC Senior Theses

Substantive due process is one of the most cherished and elusive doctrines in American constitutional jurisprudence. The understanding that the Constitution of the United States protects not only specifically enumerated rights, but also broad concepts such as “liberty,” “property,” and “privacy,” forms the foundation for some of the Supreme Court’s most impactful—and controversial—decisions.

This thesis explores the constitutional merits and politicizing history of natural rights jurisprudence from its application in Dred Scott v. Sandford to its recent evocation in Obergefell v. Hodges. Indeed, from slavery to same-same sex marriage, substantive due process has played a pivotal role in shaping …

Why Federal Courts Apply The Law Of Nations Even Though It Is Not The Supreme Law Of The Land, Anthony J. Bellia Jr., Bradford R. Clark

Journal Articles

We are grateful to the judges and scholars who participated in this Symposium examining our book, The Law of Nations and the United States Constitution. One of our goals in writing this book was to reinvigorate and advance the debate over the role of customary international law in U.S. courts. The papers in this Symposium advance this debate by deepening understandings of how the Constitution interacts with customary international law. Our goal in this Article is to address two questions raised by this Symposium that go to the heart of the status of the law of nations under the Constitution. …

Precedent And Constitutional Structure, Randy J. Kozel

Journal Articles

The Constitution does not talk about precedent, at least not explicitly, but several of its features suggest a place for deference to prior decisions. It isolates the judicial function and insulates federal courts from official and electoral control, promoting a vision of impersonality and continuity. It charges courts with applying a charter that is vague and ambiguous in important respects. And it was enacted at a time when prominent thinkers were already discussing the use of precedent to channel judicial discretion. Taken in combination, these features make deference to precedent a sound inference from the Constitution’s structure, text, and historical …

Bank Of America V. City Of Miami: Standing And Causation Under The Fair Housing Act, Alan M. White

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

No abstract provided.

Fairness Over Finality: Peña-Rodriguez V. Colorado And The Right To An Impartial Jury, Katherine Brosamle

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

No abstract provided.

Beyond The Bosses' Constitution: The First Amendment And Class Entrenchment, Jedediah S. Purdy

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court’s “weaponized” First Amendment has been its strongest antiregulatory tool in recent decades, slashing campaign-finance regulation, public-sector union financing, and pharmaceutical regulation, and threatening a broader remit. Along with others, I have previously criticized these developments as a “new Lochnerism.” In this Essay, part of a Columbia Law Review Symposium, I press beyond these criticisms to diagnose the ideological outlook of these opinions and to propose an alternative. The leading decisions of the antiregulatory First Amendment often associate free speech with a vision of market efficiency; but, I argue, closer to their heart is antistatist fear of entrenchment …

Obama's Conversion On Same-Sex Marriage: The Social Foundations Of Individual Rights, Robert L. Tsai

Faculty Scholarship

This essay explores how presidents who wish to seize a leadership role over the development of rights must tend to the social foundations of those rights. Broad cultural changes alone do not guarantee success, nor do they dictate the substance of constitutional ideas. Rather, presidential aides must actively re-characterize the social conditions in which rights are made, disseminated, and enforced. An administration must articulate a strategically plausible theory of a particular right, ensure there is cultural and institutional support for that right, and work to minimize blowback. Executive branch officials must seek to transform and popularize legal concepts while working …

Equality, Sovereignty, And The Family In Morales-Santana, Kristin Collins

Faculty Scholarship

In Sessions v. Morales-Santana, ³ the Supreme Court encountered a body of citizenship law that has long relied on family membership in the construction of the nation’s borders and the composition of the polity.⁴ The particular statute at issue in the case regulates the transmission of citizenship from American parents to their foreign-born children at birth, a form of citizenship known today as derivative citizenship.⁵ When those children are born outside marriage, the derivative citizenship statute makes it more difficult for American fathers, as compared with American mothers, to transmit citizenship to their foreign-born children.⁶ Over …

Newsroom: Is Wall Between Church And State Crumbling? 10-10-2017, Diana Hassel

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Rwu First Amendment Blog: Diana Hassel's Blog: Is The Wall Between Church And State Crumbling? 10-07-2017, Diana Hassel

Law School Blogs

No abstract provided.

Justice Blackmun And Individual Rights, Diane P. Wood

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

Of the many contributions Justice Blackmun has made to American jurisprudence, surely his record in the area of individual rights stands out for its importance. Throughout his career on the Supreme Court, he has displayed concern for a wide variety of individual and civil rights. He has rendered decisions on matters ranging from the most personal interests in autonomy and freedom from interference from government in life’s private realms, to the increasingly complex problems posed by discrimination based upon race, sex, national origin, alienage, illegitimacy, sexual orientation, and other characteristics. As his views have become well known to the public, …

Sound Principles, Undesirable Outcomes: Justice Scalia's Paradoxical Eighth Amendment Jurisprudence, Mirko Bagaric, Sandeep Gopalan

Akron Law Review

Justice Scalia is renowned for his conservative stance on the Eighth Amendment and prisoners’ rights. Justice Scalia held that the Eighth Amendment incorporates no proportionality requirement of any nature regarding the type and duration of punishment which the state can inflict on criminal offenders. Justice Scalia has also been labelled as “one of the Justices least likely to support a prisoner’s legal claim” and as adopting, because of his originalist orientation, “a restrictive view of the existence of prisoners’ rights.” A closer examination of the seminal judgments in these areas and the jurisprudential nature of the principle of proportionality and …

Justice Scalia As Neither Friend Nor Foe To Criminal Defendants, Tung Yin

Akron Law Review

At first glance, Justice Scalia may appear to have been something of a “friend” to criminal defendants, as he authored a number of opinions ruling against law enforcement. However, his opinions reflect his fidelity to his constitutional vision of originalism rather than an intent to favor criminal defendants. Nevertheless, these cases are often offered as legitimate examples of how he did not have a purely results-oriented approach to deciding criminal procedure issues. Yet, a closer examination of Justice Scalia’s “defendant-favorable” opinions suggests that the results often have an air of unreality to them. In practice, there is no way for …

The Death Penalty And Justice Scalia's Lines, J. Richard Broughton

Akron Law Review

In Justice Scalia’s lone dissenting opinion in Morrison v. Olson, he lamented that, after the Court had upheld a law that he believed violated the separation of powers, “there are now no lines.” Lines were of critical importance to Justice Scalia – in law and in life – and informed much of his work on criminal law issues (Morrison, after all, was a case about the nature of federal prosecutorial authority). In the area of capital punishment, in particular, Justice Scalia saw clear lines that the Court should not cross. He believed that the Constitution contemplates the …

Justice Scalia's Eighth Amendment Jurisprudence: An Unabashed Foe Of Criminal Defendants, Michael Vitiello

Akron Law Review

Justice Scalia’s death has already produced a host of commentary on his career. Depending on the issue, Justice Scalia’s legacy is quite complicated. Justice Scalia’s commitment to originalism explains at least some of his pro-defendant positions. Some of his supporters point to such examples to support a claim that Justice Scalia was principled in his application of his jurisprudential philosophy. However, in one area, Justice Scalia was an unabashed foe of criminal defendants: his Eighth Amendment jurisprudential dealing with terms of imprisonment. There, based on his reading of the historical record, he argued that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel …

July 2, 2017: Trinity Lutheran Church Case Shows There Is No Originalism, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “Trinity Lutheran Church Case Shows There is no Originalism“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

Brief Of The National Association For Public Defense As Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioner, Byrd V. U.S. (U.S. June 12, 2017) (No. 16- 1371)., Janet Moore

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

More than two centuries after it was ratified, the Fourth Amendment continues to protect the “right of the people to be secure” from “unreasonable searches.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. Modern technological advances and social developments do not render our rights “any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought.” Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473, 2494–95 (2014). This Court plays an essential role in ensuring that the Fourth Amendment retains its vitality as an indispensable safeguard of liberty, even as Americans dramatically change the ways they organize their everyday affairs. This case calls for the Court to …

May 22, 2017: Putnam Versus Scalia, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “Putnam versus Scalia“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

Newsroom: Donald Trump Vs. Roger Williams 05-09-2017, David Logan

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.