Constitutional Law Commons^™

Trading Places: The Intersection Of Lgbtq Rights And Zionist Rights Under Federal Civil Rights, Marc A. Greendorfer

Touro Law Review

While antidiscrimination laws have a long history at both the federal and state levels, the scope of coverage for these laws has evolved based on nuanced interpretations of terms that previously had established, static meanings. Many antidiscrimination laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of generic categorizations such as sex, religion or ethnicity but such terms are undergoing a rapid change in the way society understands and uses them. For example, sex, which historically has referred to biological gender at birth, now encompasses gender as well as sexual orientation. This article focuses on a recent Supreme Court decision relating to the …

Unboxing The Box: A Deep Dive Into Solitary Confinement And When It May Violate The First And Eighth Amendments, Madison Scarfaro

Touro Law Review

Solitary confinement has been a practice used for those who are incarcerated in our criminal justice system for hundreds of years. Our nation, as well as our society have evolved and continue to evolve over the course of hundreds of years. However, the use of solitary confinement has not. Even with all of the research and literature surrounding the monstrosities that come about from solitary confinement, it is still used in most of our jails and prisons to this day. The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel …

America’S Turning Point: Religious & Free Speech Rights Transcend The Authority Public School Districts Think They Possess, Robert L. Coleman

Touro Law Review

What is the first thing that comes to mind when thinking about the First Amendment? I would argue that most people either say “Religion” or “Free Speech.” Arguably two of the most important and humane values inherent in a functioning democratic society are safeguarded by the First Amendment. But are they? Imagine this situation. You and your spouse have a child and send him to the local public school. One day, he comes home and says that his fourth grade teacher instructed the class that each student must refer to classmates by the pronouns of that student’s choice. Your child …

Dobbs V. Brown, Benjamin H. Barton

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization1is the most important and impactful Supreme Court decision since at least Roe v. Wade, and potentially since Brown v. Board of Education. Past survey data show that most Americans can only name two Supreme Court opinions: Roe and Brown. Dobbs will surely join that list. This Article compares the history, drafting, and opinions of Dobbs and Brown to show what a missed opportunity Dobbs represents. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the opinion, it should be clear that Dobbs was one of those unique times (like that of Brown) where the Court …

Minor V. Happersett, Dobbs V. Jackson Women's Health Organization, And The Supreme Court's Refusal To Reconstruct America, Henry L. Chambers, Jr.

Law Faculty Publications

One hundred and fifty years ago, in the wake of the ratification of the Reconstruction Amendments, the United States Supreme Court decided Minor v. Happersett. In Minor, the Court ruled Missouri could continue to deny women the right to vote based on their sex. The decision was simply reasoned. In the absence of clear constitutional text requiring Missouri to provide the right to vote to women or proof that the right to vote was a right of citizenship, Missouri had no obligation to allow women to vote. Some states had banned women citizens from voting since the country’s founding. Missouri …

The Administrative State's Second Face, Emily R. Chertoff, Jessica Bulman-Pozen

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

We often assume that there is one administrative state, with one body of administrative law that governs it. In fact, the administrative state has two distinct faces: one turned toward regulation and benefits distribution, and one turned toward physical force and surveillance. The two faces are growing further apart under the Roberts Court, which has hemmed in the first face with decisions like Loper Bright while showing solicitude for national security and law enforcement agencies.

This Article delineates the two faces of the administrative state. It provides a descriptive account of the second face and the distinctive administrative law that …

Sabbath Accommodations As A Civil Right: History, Title Vii, And The Path To Groff V. Dejoy, Isaac May

FIU Law Review

In Groff v. DeJoy, which concerned a Christian Sabbath observer, Jewish groups were vindicated by the Court’s overturning Hardison v. Transworld Airlines and strengthening Title VII’s protections for religion, particularly around employees’ Sabbath observance. This article positions Groff within the history of Jewish efforts to secure employment protections for Sabbath worship. Efforts to secure Sabbath accommodations were an outgrowth and expansion of early twentieth-century efforts to ensure Jews were protected by public accommodation laws and a product of attempts by litigators such as Leo Pfeffer to end mandatory Sunday closing laws in the mid-twentieth century. Sabbath accommodations became a critical …

How Does The Modern Supreme Court Treat The Idea Of Retribution In The Context Of Capital Punishment?, Paige Forsberg

Honors Undergraduate Theses

This thesis explores the modern U.S. Supreme Court's treatment of retribution in the context of capital punishment, analyzing how justices have framed and justified the death penalty as a form of justice. Through the examination of key Supreme Court rulings and legal arguments, this study evaluates the evolving role of retribution in the Court’s decisions on death penalty cases, highlighting how judicial reasoning has shifted over time in response to legal, philosophical, and societal developments.

Retribution, long considered one of the primary justifications for capital punishment, is examined through a nuanced lens in this study. While historically viewed as a …

The Sword, The Purse, And The Pen: The Constitutional Conundrum Of Impoundment, William N. Chance

CMC Senior Theses

This Thesis explores the constitutional conundrum of executive impoundment, the practice by which the President of the United States withholds or delays the expenditure of funds appropriated by Congress. Although impoundment has deep historical roots dating back to the Constitution’s Framers, its modern use raises profound questions regarding our separation of powers. This Thesis establishes a functional framework that distinguishes between “routine” impoundments, which promote administrative efficiency, and “policy” impoundments, which may undermine congressional intent. Furthermore, after tracing the development of impoundment from the early Republic through the Nixon Administration and the passage of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, …

Popular Originalism, Thomas G. Donnelly

Law Faculty Publications

Scholars are obsessed with the Roberts Court’s recent turn to history and tradition. But another source of authority has also emerged as an important feature of the Roberts Court’s approach to constitutional cases. In previous work, I have referred to this source of authority as popular meaning. While original meaning identifies the best reading of the Constitution’s text at the time of its ratification, popular meaning draws on sources of authority outside the courts to capture the constitutional views of the American people today. In this Article, I demonstrate how interpreters might draw on the Constitution’s popular meaning to help …

A Crust Of Bread: Religious Resistance And The Fourteenth Amendment, Kurt T. Lash, Stephanie Hall Barclay

Law Faculty Publications

In Employment Division v. Smith, the U.S. Supreme Court denied heightened constitutional protection to religiously motivated exercise burdened by neutral and generally applicable laws. The history presented in this Article suggests that the Smith approach conflicts with the original understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment. Out of the crucible of religious abolitionist resistance to the Fugitive Slave Act emerged a substantive theory of constitutional religious freedom: American citizens should have the right to obey the Biblical command to care for the needy and provide the hungry a "crust of bread," even if doing so was contrary to neutral and generally …

The Beleaguered Sovereign: Judicial Restraints On Public Enforcement, Luke P. Norris, Helen Hershkoff

Law Faculty Publications

Looking back at the federal courts over the last generation, commentators will likely focus on their role in undermining the functioning of the regulatory state. Well-acknowledged in this story are Supreme Court decisions that have constrained administrative agencies under the newly minted “major questions” doctrine, as well as the Court’s blockbuster decision overruling the longstanding Chevron doctrine. The Court also has made it increasingly difficult for individuals—often workers and consumers, people of color, women, and those who live from paycheck to paycheck—to seek federal judicial redress for regulatory violations as private enforcers. And the Court has questioned whether certain private …

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

Akron Law Faculty Publications

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 …

Limitation For Liberty: A Commentary On Federalism And The Tenth Amendment, Riley Banker

Senior Honors Theses

The concept of Federalism is essential to the very survival of the United States. However, recent decisions by the Supreme Court have illustrated attempts by the federal government to expand its authority and undermine the balance of power created by Federalism. This thesis will explore the concept of Federalism to demonstrate how it can best be protected. First, this thesis will address the origins of Federalism. Second, it will show how the principles of Federalism are manifested within the founding documents of the United States. Finally, this thesis will analyze current events including Supreme Court cases to demonstrate a concerning …

Not-So-Special Solicitude, Katherine Mims Crocker

Faculty Scholarship

In a high-profile case last term about state standing to sue in federal court, Justice Gorsuch deemed it “hard not to wonder why” the majority said “nothing about ‘special solicitude.’” The silence was indeed surprising, for in a landmark decision several years earlier, the Supreme Court had declared that states were “entitled to special solicitude”—presumably meaning some sort of preferential treatment—“in [the] standing analysis.” And since then, commentators had depicted the concept as permitting opportunistic states to wage ideological crusades in courts across the country, especially through administrative-law attacks on federal-government defendants.

But what if “special solicitude” is not so …

Second Amendment: Incompatible Methodologies And The Bruen And Heller Opinions' Underlying Misalignment, Henry H. Robinson

Touro Law Review

In its 2022 Bruen opinion, the Supreme Court characterized the Heller opinion as having applied a “methodological approach” for interpretation of the Second Amendment. However, Bruen’s description and summary partially omitted, and was materially misaligned with, Heller’s actual reasoning. In Heller’s first step of constitutional interpretation, which addressed the first clause of the sentence comprising the Second Amendment, the opinion had selectively not applied the methodological approach described in Bruen; Heller’s first step had applied a different, incompatible methodological approach. Bruen’s description was aligned only with the second step of Heller’s constitutional reasoning, which had addressed the sentence’s second clause. …

The Problem With Direct Collateral Review, Jaden M. Lessnick

Pepperdine Law Review

Federal habeas review of state convictions is sharply circumscribed for a reason: Granting the writ of habeas corpus disrupts the federalism and finality interests that lie at the heart of state sovereignty over criminal law. Both the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) and the Supreme Court’s equitable bars to relief reflect the structural dangers inherent in collateral review of state convictions. Given the increasing unavailability of federal habeas relief, state prisoners have turned to another vehicle for collateral federal review, one that bypasses AEDPA’s demanding standard: direct review of state post-conviction proceedings. And regrettably, the Court has entertained …

Book Review: John Paul Stevens, The Making Of A Justice: Reflections On My First 94 Years, New York, Little, Brown And Co., 2019, Pp. 549, $35.00 (Hardback), Stephen Wermiel

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

The autobiography of Justice John Paul Stevens, published just a few months before he died, is an enticing travelogue for Supreme Court nerds. Other travelers may want to pick a different landscape.

Major Questions, Common Sense?, Kevin Tobia, Daniel E. Walters, Brian Slocum

Faculty Scholarship

The Major Questions Doctrine (“MQD”) is the newest textualist interpretive canon, and it has driven consequential Supreme Court decisions concerning vaccine mandates, environmental regulation, and student loan relief. But the new MQD is a canon in search of legitimization. Critics allege that the MQD displaces the Court’s conventional textual analysis with judicial policymaking. Textualists have now responded that the MQD is a linguistic canon, consistent with textualism. Justice Barrett recently argued in Biden v. Nebraska that the MQD is grounded in ordinary people’s understanding of language and law, and scholarship contends that the MQD reflects ordinary people’s understanding of textual …

Confrontation, The Legacy Of Crawford, And Important Unanswered Questions, Paul F. Rothstein, Ronald J. Coleman

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The right to confront has a long history. In the United States, the Confrontation Clause provides: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right… to be confronted with the witnesses against him[.]” One of the most troublesome areas of Confrontation Clause jurisprudence has been the Clause’s application to “hearsay statements offered against a criminal defendant pursuant to a hearsay exception or exemption[.]” The Supreme Court’s confrontation analysis in this situation once hinged on the statement’s reliability, with the traditional hearsay rule and its exceptions and exemptions as a guide. But in Crawford v. Washington, the Court considered …

An Analysis Of A Changing Supreme Court Viewed Through Students For Fair Admissions V. President And Fellows Of Harvard College, Reed Fagg

Finance Undergraduate Honors Theses

An analysis of the Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Admissions v. the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill to better understand the changes in the Supreme Court. Breaking down of the argument and a study of societal impacts.

Constitutional Rights And Remedial Consistency, Katherine Mims Crocker

Faculty Scholarship

When the Supreme Court declined definitively to block Texas’s S.B. 8, which effectively eliminated pre-enforcement federal remedies for what was then a plainly unconstitutional restriction on abortion rights, a prominent criticism was that the majority would have never tolerated the similar treatment of preferred legal protections—like gun rights. This refrain reemerged when California enacted a copycat regime for firearms regulation. This theme sounds in the deep-rooted idea that judge-made law should adhere to generality and neutrality values requiring doctrines to derive justification from controlling a meaningful class of cases ascertained by objective legal criteria.

This Article is about consistency, and …

The Anti-Innovation Supreme Court: Major Questions, Delegation, Chevron And More, Jack M. Beermann

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court of the United States has generally been a very aggressive enforcer of legal limitations on governmental power. In various periods in its history, the Court has gone far beyond enforcing clearly expressed and easily ascertainable constitutional and statutory provisions and has suppressed innovation by the other branches that do not necessarily transgress widely held social norms. Novel assertions of legislative power, novel interpretations of federal statutes, statutes that are in tension with well-established common law rules and state laws adopted by only a few states are suspect simply because they are novel or rub up against tradition. …

Anti-Press Bias: A Response To Andersen Jones And West's Presuming Trustworthiness, Erin C. Carroll

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Professors RonNell Andersen Jones and Sonja R. West’s Presuming Trustworthiness is a deeply depressing read. That is what makes it so good. The article is a clear-eyed, data-driven approach to assessing just how endangered the legal status of the free press is. Given the universality of the agreement that a free press is central to democracy, Andersen Jones and West’s message is vital. Presuming Trustworthiness should raise alarms.

In response, I hope this essay can serve as a bullhorn. I want to amplify what Andersen Jones and West’s research and data bear out. Not only has the Supreme Court ceased …

Quit Using Acquittals: The Unconstitutionality And Immorality Of Acquitted-Conduct Sentencing, Brenna Nouray

Pepperdine Law Review

This Comment examines the phenomenon of acquitted-conduct sentencing—a practice that allows a sentencing judge to enhance a criminal defendant’s sentence due to conduct for which he has already been acquitted. Seventeen-year-old Dayonta McClinton is one of many criminal defendants who have unjustly suffered at the hands of this practice when he received a thirteen-year enhancement because of conduct for which he already received a verdict of not guilty from a jury. This Comment argues that acquitted-conduct sentencing is unconstitutional, as it violates both the reasonable doubt standard required under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the jury …

The Supreme Court, Article Iii, And Jurisdiction Stuffing, James E. Pfander

Pepperdine Law Review

Reflecting on the state of the federal judiciary in the aftermath of the Biden Commission report and subsequent controversies, this Article identifies problems with the current operation of both the Supreme Court and the lower courts that make up the Article III judicial pyramid. Many federal issues have been assigned to non-Article III tribunals, courts poorly structured to offer the independent legal assessment that such Founders as James Wilson prized as they structured the federal judiciary. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court devotes growing attention to a slice of highly salient public law questions, including those presented on the shadow docket, thereby …

The Misguided Use Of The Harvard/Unc Ruling To Thwart Law Firm And Other Private Employer Dei Efforts, Ronald A. Norwood

SLU Law Journal Online

This article explores the Harvard/UNC ruling and what, in the author’s view, is the misguided efforts by certain political and well-financed private actors to use that ruling to justify the eradication of private employers and law firm DEI efforts. It is the author’s firm belief that because the Supreme Court’s holding is limited to an analysis of the Constitution’s Equal Protection clause (limited to state actors) and Title VI (covering private actions receiving federal funding), that ruling should not be used by courts to quash DEI programs designed to level the employment playing field for minorities, women and other protected …

Administrative Law Judges And The Erosion Of The Administrative State: Why Jarkesy May Be The Straw That Breaks The Camel's Back, Nicholas D'Addio

Catholic University Law Review

The Trump-era unitary executive movement sought to expand presidential

power and shrink the influence of the administrative state through deregulation.

This movement ripples into the present moment, as Trump’s overhaul of the

federal judiciary installed a comprehensive system to delegitimize

administrative agency action— a system that is certain to endure. The

independence and role of administrative law judges (ALJs) has proven a key

target of the movement. Most recently, in the 2022 case of Jarkesy v. Securities

and Exchange Commission, the Fifth Circuit held that the dual-tiered for-cause

removal protections of SEC ALJs violated the Take Care Clause of Article …

Slaughtering Slaughter-House: An Assessment Of 14th Amendment Privileges Or Immunities Jurisprudence, Caleb Webb

Senior Honors Theses

In 1872, the Supreme Court decided the Slaughter-House Cases, which applied a narrow interpretation of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14^th Amendment that effectually eroded the clause from the Constitution. Following Slaughter-House, the Supreme Court compensated by utilizing elastic interpretations of the Due Process Clause in its substantive due process jurisprudence to cover the rights that would have otherwise been protected by the Privileges or Immunities Clause. In more recent years, the Court has heard arguments favoring alternative interpretations of the Privileges or Immunities Clause but has yet to evaluate them thoroughly. By applying the …

Willfully Forgetting Miranda's True Nature: Vega V. Tekoh Severs The Warnings Requirement From The Constitution, George M. Dery Iii

Marquette Law Review

This Article analyzes Vega v. Tekoh, in which the Supreme Court ruled that

a violation of Miranda was not a violation of the Fifth Amendment privilege

against self-incrimination. This Article examines the original language of the

Miranda opinion, the statements and intentions of the members of the Miranda

Court, and subsequent precedent to determine Miranda’s true nature. Further,

this Article examines the reasoning of Vega and the dangers created by its

pronouncements, especially in light of the Court’s earlier characterization of

Miranda as a constitutional rule in Dickerson v. United States. This Article

asserts that the Justices who …