Constitutional Law Commons^™

A Look At The Establishment Clause Through The Prism Of Religious Perspectives: Religious Majorities, Religious Minorities, And Nonbelievers, Samuel J. Levine

Scholarly Works

This article traces the Court’s Establishment Clause jurisprudence through several decades, examining a number of landmark cases through the prism of religious minority perspectives. In so doing, the Article aims to demonstrate the significance of religious perspectives in the development of both the doctrine and rhetoric of the Establishment Clause. The Article then turns to the current state of the Establishment Clause, expanding upon these themes through a close look at the 2004 and 2005 cases Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, Van Orden v. Perry, and McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky. The article concludes …

Affordable Care Act Litigation: The Supreme Court And The Future Of Health Care Reform, Lawrence O. Gostin, Kelli K. Garcia

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In Florida v. HHS, a lawsuit brought on behalf of 26 states challenging the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), the Supreme Court will determine the future direction of health care reform in the United States. During the unprecedented 5-1/2 hours of oral arguments, the Court will hear 4 issues: the individual purchase mandate, severability, the Medicaid expansion and the Anti-Injunction Act.

The states challenging the ACA maintain that the purchase mandate uniquely penalizes individuals for failing to purchase insurance. Uninsured individuals, however, rarely do nothing. Instead, they self-insure, rely on family, and cost-shift to …

Fisher V. Grutter, Girardeau A. Spann

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

There is no reason for the Supreme Court to have granted certiorari in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin. Unless, of course, the Court plans to overrule Grutter v. Bollinger—the case on which the Texas affirmative action plan at issue in Fisher was based. If that is its plan, the Court can invalidate the Texas program on some narrow ground that masks the magnitude of what it is doing. Or it can explicitly overrule Grutter—a case that no longer commands majority support on a Supreme Court whose politics of affirmative action has now been refashioned by …

Obligatory Health, Noa Ben-Asher

Faculty Publications

The Supreme Court will soon rule on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed in March 2010. Courts thus far are divided on the question whether Congress had authority under the Commerce Clause to impose the Act's "Individual Mandate" to purchase health insurance. At this moment, the public and legal debate can benefit from a clearer understanding of the underlying rights claims. This Article offers two principal contributions. First, the Article argues that, while the constitutional question technically turns on the interpretation of congressional power under the Commerce Clause, underlying these debates is a tension between …

Reading The Standing Tea Leaves In American Electric Power Co. V. Connecticut, Bradford C. Mank

University of Richmond Law Review

The U.S. Supreme Court by an equally divided vote offour to four affirmed the Second Circuit's decision finding standing and jurisdiction in the case in American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut. While not binding as precedent beyond the Second Circuit,the case offers clues to how the Court is likely to rule in future standing cases. This article discusses the likely identities of the four Justices on each side of the standing issue in the case, as well as how Justice Sotomayor might have voted if she had not recused herself. Furthermore, the article examines how the decision expand- ed on …

Making Popular Constitutionalism Work, Thomas G. Donnelly

Law Faculty Publications

Popular constitutionalism defies easy definition. Its leading theorists fail to offer a common reading of constitutional history, a common methodology, or even a common set of remedies. Given these diverse approaches, it is little wonder that one recurring complaint among popular constitutionalism's critics is that the theory itself is incoherent. This criticism is overstated. Even as there are various strands of popular constitutionalism, its leading theorists do share one key attribute, a populist sensibility-a common belief that the American people (and their elected representatives) should play an ongoing role in shaping contemporary constitutional meaning. The question remains how best to …

The Federal Judicial Vacancy Crisis: Origins And Solutions, Ryan Shaffer

CMC Senior Theses

This paper examines the causes of the rise in vacancies on the federal courts in recent decades. Under President Barack Obama, the number of vacancies on the federal courts has sharply jumped. This is due to firm opposition by Senate Republicans, who have used the various procedural tools of that body to make it difficult for nominees to get confirmation. This antagonism is the result of a shift in how the parties view the courts and their role in the American political process. The Warren Court's expansion of substantive due process rights increased the Court's powers to the chagrin of …

The Monster In The Courtroom, Sonja R. West

Scholarly Works

It is well known that Supreme Court Justices are not fans of cameras — specifically, video cameras. Despite continued pressure from the press, Congress, and the public to allow cameras into oral arguments, the Justices have steadfastly refused.

The policy arguments for allowing cameras in the courtroom focus on cameras as a means to increased transparency of judicial work. Yet these arguments tend to gloss over a significant point about the Court — it is not secretive. The Court allows several avenues of access to its oral arguments including the presence of the public and the press in the audience, …

Advisory Adjudication, Girardeau A. Spann

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Supreme Court decision in Camreta v. Greene is revealing. The Court first issues an opinion authorizing appeals by prevailing parties in qualified immunity cases, even though doing so entails the issuance of an advisory opinion that is not necessary to resolution of the dispute between the parties. And the Court then declines to reach the merits of the underlying constitutional claim in the case, because doing so would entail the issuance of an advisory opinion that was not necessary to the resolution of the dispute between the parties. The Court's decision, therefore, has the paradoxical effect of both honoring …

Territory, Wilderness, Property, And Reservation: Land And Religion In Native American Supreme Court Cases, Kathleen Sands

American Indian Law Review

In two trilogies of Supreme Court Decisions, both involving Native Americans, land is a key metaphor, figuring variously as property, territory, wilderness, and reservation. The first trilogy, written by Chief Justice John Marshall, comprises Johnson v. M'Intosh (1823), Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831), and Worcester v. Georgia (1832). The second trilogy concerns Native American claims for religious freedom under the First Amendment and includes Bowen v. Roy (1986), Lyng v. Northwest Cemetery Protective Association (1988), and Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith (1990). The Marshal cases attempted to legitimate the transformation of land from wilderness to territory and property, and …

On Avoiding Avoidance, Agenda Control, And Related Matters, Henry Paul Monaghan

Faculty Scholarship

Legal scholars have long posited that, heuristically at least, two basic adjudicatory models – the dispute resolution model and the law declaration model – compete for the Court's affection along a wide spectrum of issues. The former focuses upon judicial resolution of actual disputes between litigants. Historically, that model has been underpinned by a premise, reflected in a wide range of doctrines, that significant barriers rightly exist to judicial review of the constitutionality of governmental conduct. By contrast, the law declaration model focuses on the Court itself not the litigants. Emphasizing the judicial authority to say what the law is, …

The First Amendment’S Borders: The Place Of Holder V. Humanitarian Law Project In First Amendment Doctrine, David Cole

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, the Supreme Court’s first decision pitting First Amendment rights against national security interests since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Court appears to have radically departed from some of the First Amendment’s most basic principles, including the maxims that speech may not be penalized because of its viewpoint, that even speech advocating crime deserves protection until it constitutes incitement, and that political association is constitutionally protected absent specific intent to further a group’s illegal ends. These principles lie at the core of our political and democratic freedoms, yet Humanitarian Law Project …

Upside-Down Judicial Review, Corinna Barrett Lain

Law Faculty Publications

The countermajoritarian difficulty assumes that the democratically elected branches are majoritarian and the unelected Supreme Court is not. But sometimes the opposite is true. Sometimes it is the elected branches that are out of sync with majority will and the Supreme Court that bridges the gap, turning the conventional understanding of the Court's role on its head. Instead of a countermajoritarian Court checking the majoritarian branches, we see a majoritarian Court checking the not-so-majoritarian branches, enforcing prevailing norms when the representative branches do not. What emerges is a distinctly majoritarian, upside-down understanding of judicial review. This Article illustrates, explains, and …

Religious Neutrality In The Early Republic, Jud Campbell

Law Faculty Publications

Governmental neutrality is the heart of the modern Free Exercise Clause. Mindful of this core principle, which prevents the government from treating individuals differently because of their religious convictions, the Supreme Court held in Employment Division v. Smith that a neutral law can be constitutionally applied despite any incidental burdens it might impose on an individual’s exercise of religion. Conscientious objectors such as Quakers, for instance, do not have a constitutional right to be exempt from a military draft. Thus, neutrality now forms both the core and the outer limit of constitutionally guaranteed religious freedom. Judged according to founding-era views, …

To Tax, To Spend, To Regulate, Gillian E. Metzger

Faculty Scholarship

Two very different visions of the national government underpin the ongoing battle over the Affordable Care Act (ACA). President Obama and supporters of the ACA believe in the power of government to protect individuals through regulation and collective action. By contrast, the ACA's Republican and Tea Party opponents see expanded government as a fundamental threat to individual liberty and view the requirement that individuals purchase minimum health insurance (the so-called "individual mandate") as the conscription of the healthy to subsidize the sick. This conflict over the federal government's proper role is, of course, not new; it has played out repeatedly …

Whatever, Girardeau A. Spann

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The author cannot say that she disagrees with any of the analytical observations made by her co-contributors to this roundtable discussion of Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin. They all agree that the Supreme Court plans to use the case as an occasion to do something noteworthy to the constitutionality of affirmative action. And they all agree that the Court’s actions are likely to provide more comfort to opponents than to proponents of racial diversity. Their views diverge only with respect to doctrinal details about what the Court could or should do. But in translating the racial tensions …

The Future Interpretation Of The Constitution, Wilson Huhn

Akron Law Faculty Publications

On November 6, 2012, Barack Obama was reelected President of the United States. What effect will this have on the future interpretation of the Constitution? This article identifies 19 areas of constitutional law that would likely change if one more liberal justice is appointed to the Supreme Court.

Hollow Hopes And Exaggerated Fears: The Canon/Anticanon In Context, Mark A. Graber

Faculty Scholarship

Students of American constitutionalism should add constitutional decisions made by elected officials to the constitutional canon and the constitutional anticanon. Neither the canonical nor the anticanonical constitutional decisions by the Supreme Court have produced the wonderful results or horrible evils sometimes attributed to them. In many cases, elected officials made contemporaneous constitutional decisions that had as much influence as the celebrated or condemned judicial rulings. More often than not, judicial rulings matter more as a result of changing the political dynamics than by directly changing public policy. Law students and others interested in constitutional change, for these reasons, need to …

Separation Of Powers And The Middle Way, Jack M. Beermann

Shorter Faculty Works

Composer Arnold Schoenberg famously once quipped that “the middle way is the one that surely does not lead to Rome.” The idea behind this thought, I gather, is that intellectual compromise does not lead to the truth. John Manning’s recently published article, Separation of Powers as Ordinary Interpretation, 124 Harv. L. Rev. 1940 (2011), proves Schoenberg’s principle wrong, at least with regard to separation of powers. In this article, Manning, the Bruce Bromley Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, persuasively demonstrates that neither extreme in current debates about separation of powers is correct, and that a true understanding …

November 2, 2011: The Establishment Clause In Shambles, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “The Establishment Clause in Shambles“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

Supreme Court Criminal Law Jurisprudence: Fair Trials, Cruel Punishment, And Ethical Lawyering - October 2009 Term, Richard Klein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Three Vital Issues: Incorporation Of The Second Amendment, Federal Government Power, And Separation Of Powers - October 2009 Term, Michael C. Dorf, Erwin Chemerinsky

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

First Amendment Freedom Of Speech And Religion - October 2009 Term, Burt Neuborne, Michael C. Dorf

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

October 9, 2011: Why Does There Need To Be A Ministerial Exception?, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “Why Does There Need to be a Ministerial Exception?“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

Lochner V. New York (1905) And Kennedy V. Louisiana (2008): Judicial Reliance On Adversary Argument, Douglas E. Abrams

Faculty Publications

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist called Lochner v. New York (1905) “one of the most ill-starred decisions that [the Supreme Court ever rendered.” The Justices’ deliberations preceding the 5-4 decision demonstrate the courts’ reliance on advocacy in the adversary system of civil and criminal justice. The stark imbalance between the state’s “incredibly sketchy” brief and Joseph Lochner’s sterling submission may have determined Lochner’s outcome, and thus may have changed the course of constitutional history, by leading two Justices to join the majority on the central question of whether New York’s maximum-hours law for bakery workers was a reasonable public health …

Infinite Hope And Finite Disappointment: The Story Of The First Interpreters Of The Fourteenth Amendment, Elizabeth Reilly

University of Akron Press Publications

Infinite Hope and Finite Disappointment details the aspirations and promises of the 14th Amendment in the historical, legal, and sociological context within which it was framed. Part of the Reconstruction Amendments collectively known as "The Second Founding," the 14th Amendment fundamentally altered the 1787 Constitution to protect individual rights and altered the balance of power between the national government and the states. The book also shows how initial Supreme Court interpretations of the Amendment's reach hindered its applicability. Finally, the contributors investigate the current impact of the 14th Amendment.

Contents Infinite Hope: The Framers as First Interpreters The Antebellum Political …

July 2, 2011: What Did I Learn From The Huffington Post Piece?, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “What Did I Learn From the Huffington Post Piece?“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

June 26, 2011: The Political Irresponsibility Of Douglas Laycock, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “The Political Irresponsibility of Douglas Laycock“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

June 15, 2011: Weird Second Circuit Decision, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “ Weird Second Circuit Decision“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

May 8, 2011: Torture Works, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

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