Constitutional Law Commons^™

Overrides: The Super-Study, Victoria Nourse

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Overrides should be of interest to a far larger group of scholars than statutory interpretation enthusiasts. We have, in overrides, open inter branch encounters between Congress and the Courts far more typically found in the shadows of everyday Washington politics. Interestingly, Christiansen and Eskridge posit the court-congress relationship as more triadic than dyadic given the role played by agencies. One of their more interesting conclusions is that agencie are the big winners in the override game: agencies were present in seventy percent of the override cases and the agency view prevailed with Congress and against the Supreme Court in three-quarters …

Universities As Constitutional Law Makers (And Other Hidden Actors In Our Constitutional Orders), Adam J. Macleod

Faculty Articles

In the stories told by opinion makers and many law professors, American constitutional law is concerned with two things-individual rights and the powers of government-and it is settled by the Court, which was established by Article III of our national Constitution. In those now-familiar tales, the United States Supreme Court creates constitutional law when heroic individuals assert their fundamental rights against an overreaching state and when Congress, state legislatures, and executive agencies are called upon to justify their expert enactments to an overreaching judiciary. To settle these constitutional disputes the Court looks either to the text of the written Constitution …

The Purpose Of The Fourth Amendment And Crafting Rules To Implement That Purpose, Thomas K. Clancy

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Supreme Court Chipping Away At Title Vii: Strengthening It Or Killing It?, Henry L. Chambers, Jr.

Law Faculty Publications

Whether the Court's chipping away at Title VII is an attempt to make Title VII into a 21st century diamond, or an attempt to make it a 21st century pile of diamond dust, or merely an attempt to interpret Title VII consistent with its text is a matter of opinion. This Article explores how the Court is interpreting and reinterpreting Title VII and necessarily considers whether the Court's reinterpretation will likely reinvigorate or damage Title VII' s broad goal of workplace equality. This Article tentatively considers what may be next for Title VII. Part I briefly discusses Title VII's scope. …

Bond V. United States: Concurring In The Judgment, Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Bond v. United States presented the deep constitutional question of whether a treaty can increase the legislative power of Congress. Unfortunately, a majority of the Court managed to sidestep the constitutional issue by dodgy statutory interpretation. But the other three Justices—Scalia, Thomas, and Alito—all wrote important concurrences in the judgment, grappling with the constitutional issues presented. In particular, Justice Scalia’s opinion (joined by Justice Thomas), is a masterpiece, eloquently demonstrating that Missouri v. Holland is wrong and should be overruled: a treaty cannot increase the legislative power of Congress.

(Anti)Canonizing Courts, Jamal Greene

Faculty Scholarship

Within U.S. constitutional culture, courts stand curiously apart from the society in which they sit. Among the many purposes this process of alienation serves is to “neutralize” the cognitive dissonance produced by Americans’ current self-conception and the role our forebears’ social and political culture played in producing historic injustice. The legal culture establishes such dissonance in part by structuring American constitutional argument around anticanonical cases: most especially “Dred Scott v. Sandford,” “Plessy v. Ferguson,” and “Lochner v. New York.” The widely held view that these decisions were “wrong the day they were decided” emphasizes the role of independent courts in …

The Supreme Court As A Constitutional Court, Jamal Greene

Faculty Scholarship

Political institutions are always works in progress. Their practical duties and aims as instruments of governance may not always match their constitutional blueprints or historical roles. Political offices might not always have the power to do what their constituent officers either need or want to do. A polity's assessment of whether the desired power is a need or a want may indeed mark a boundary between law and politics in the domain of institutional structure. The law gives, or is interpreted to give, political organs the tools they need to function effectively. They must fight for the rest.

November 8, 2013: Legislative Prayer, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

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

October 26, 2013: In God We Trust In The Public Schools, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “In God We Trust in the Public Schools“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

Pledge, Promise, Or Commit: New York's Tenuous Limitations On Judicial Campaign Speech, Noah Hertz-Bunzl

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Are There Still Collateral Consequences In New York After Padilla?, John H. Wilson

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

July 11, 2013: Should We Discard The Constitution?, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “Should We Discard the Constitution?“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

July 2, 2013: Is Opposition To Gay Marriage Irrational?, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “Is Opposition to Gay Marriage Irrational?“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

Functioning Just Fine: The Unappreciated Value Of The Supreme Court Confirmation Process, Lori A. Ringhand, Paul M. Collins Jr.

Scholarly Works

Scholars, politicians, and legal commentators from across the ideological spectrum seem to agree that the U.S. Supreme Court confirmation process is broken and needs to be fixed. Reform proposals vary, but share a common assumption that if we do not do something the legitimacy of the Court will be at risk.

This Article presents an alternative view, arguing that the confirmation process is in fact functioning just fine. The way we confirm Supreme Court nominees today is not perfect, but nor is it all that bad. If there is a crisis facing the high Court today, it lies not in …

June 29, 2013: The Other Side Of The Us Supreme Court Decisions, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “The Other Side of the US Supreme Court Decisions“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

Lower Court Compliance With Supreme Court Remands, Elise Borochoff

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

When Congress Practices Medicine: How Congressional Legislation Of Medical Judgment May Infringe A Fundamental Right, Shannon L. Pedersen

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Striking A Balance: The Speech Or Debate Clause’S Testimonial Privilege And Policing Government Corruption, Jay Rothrock

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Is The Antidiscrimination Project Being Ended?, Michael J. Zimmer

Indiana Journal of Law and Social Equality

No abstract provided.

The New Textualism, Progressive Constitutionalism, And Abortion Rights: A Reply To Jeffrey Rosen, Neil S. Siegel

Faculty Scholarship

In this Essay, I offer a few thoughts in response to Jeffrey Rosen's contribution to this symposium on Jack Balkin's "Living Originalism". I will first focus on what he writes about the "new textualism." I will then reply to what he intimates about the continuing validity of Roe v. Wade. In short, I will argue that Rosen offers progressives little reason to accept the new textualism or to reject Roe in the name of legal fidelity.

If the abortion right is ultra vires because a lack of decisive warrant in text, structure, and history trumps mediating equality principles and legal …

Legal Affairs: Dreyfus, Guantánamo, And The Foundation Of The Rule Of Law, David Cole

Touro Law Review

Analogous to the Dreyfus affair, America's reaction to the events of September 11, 2001, subverted the rule of law to impose penalties on those it viewed as a threat. There are lessons to be learned from both the Dreyfus affair and America's reaction to September 11, 2001.

Decision Theory And Babbitt V. Sweet Home: Skepticism About Norms, Discretion, And The Virtues Of Purposivism, Victoria Nourse

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In this writing, the author applies a “decision theory” of statutory interpretation, elaborated recently in the Yale Law Journal, to Professor William Eskridge’s illustrative case, Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon. In the course of this application, she takes issue with the conventional wisdom that purposivism, as a method of statutory interpretation, is inevitably a more virtuous model of statutory interpretation. First, the author questions whether we have a clear enough jurisprudential picture both of judicial discretion and legal as opposed to political normativity. Second, she argues that, under decision theory, Sweet Home is …

May 16, 2013: Was Schempp Such A Triumph?, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “Was Schempp Such a Triumph?“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

The Tipping Point On The Scales Of Civil Justice, Dennis A. Kaufman

Touro Law Review

The right to counsel in civil cases-metaphorically known as Civil Gideon-has gained traction in segments of the legal community, but advances have thus far been legislative, and while significant, adoption has been slow, less than cohesive or thematic and inconsistent across the country. Patchwork recognition and implementation by legislatures forms a fragile and uneven safety net. The availability of counsel is far from comprehensive. The preferred path to a comprehensive right to counsel in civil matters goes through the United States Supreme Court, but the Court refused to recognize a due process constitutional right to counsel in a civil matter …

Gideon Meets Goldberg: The Case For A Qualified Right To Counsel In Welfare Hearings, Stephen Loffredo, Don Friedman

Touro Law Review

In Goldberg v. Kelly, the Supreme Court held that welfare recipients have a right under the Due Process Clause to notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard before the state may terminate assistance. However, the Court stopped short of holding due process requires states to appoint counsel to represent claimants at these constitutionally mandated hearings. As a result, in the vast majority of administrative hearings involving welfare benefits, claimants- desperately poor, and often with little formal education- must appear pro se while trained advocates represent the government. Drawing on the theory of underenforced constitutional norms, first articulated by Dean …

The Oath: The Obama White House And The Supreme Court By Jeffrey Toobin (Book Review), John Paul Jones

Law Faculty Publications

For anyone with an interest in the politics of courts, Jeffrey Toobin’s The Oath is a good read. Laypersons might see it as a busman’s holiday for lawyers working in American appellate courts, but NAACA members surely appreciate more than most how unique a judicial institution is the Supreme Court of the United States. Thus, there is much to which those working backstage in other venues can relate, but much more offering them frissons of the unusual.

Equality Arguments For Abortion Rights, Neil S. Siegel, Reva B. Siegel

Faculty Scholarship

Roe v. Wade grounds constitutional protections for women’s decision wheth­er to end a pregnancy in the Due Process Clauses. But in the four decades since Roe, the U.S. Supreme Court has come to recognize the abortion right as an equality right as well as a liberty right. In this Essay, we describe some distinctive features of equality arguments for abortion rights. We then show how, over time, the Court and individual Justices have begun to employ equal­ity arguments in analyzing the constitutionality of abortion restrictions. These arguments first appear inside of substantive due process case law, and then as claims …

Flying Solo Without A License: The Right Of Pro Se Defendants To Crash And Burn - People V. Smith, Tiffany Frigenti

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

February 12, 2013: The Absurdity Of Corporate Religious Freedom, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “The Absurdity of Corporate Religious Freedom“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

Student Rights Up In Smoke: The Supreme Court's Clouded Judgment In Morse V. Frederick, Jeremy Jorgensen

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.